Boeing BC-17
 

Anyone hear about these news articles:
March 3rd 2007 Boeing puts out a press release stating once again that the C-17 plant will close if no new orders are placed, putting the jobs of x thousand people at risk etc....
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...eingc1703.html
The same day, a company called "Global Heavylift Holdings LLC" (not related to the old "Heavylift" company) throws a monkey wrench in Boeing's ploy when it claims it wants to purchase either 30 new Boeing BC-17s or 60 used C-17s to start an oversize carrier. It says it has a 10.8 billion dollar letter of intent from Oppenheimer & Co.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLruD6.HPifA
On March 8th 2007 Boeing specifies that such commercial orders are not enough and that it still needs military orders to survive
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...obemaster.html
On March 9th 2007 Global Heavylift Holdings releases another press release to clarify the position of Oppenheimer & Co.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4543348&EDATE=
I read part of the CAMAA report here based on a 2000 study.
Is it realistic for a commercial cargo carrier to make money based on operating commercial BC-17 freighters? They way I understand the CAMAA paper, in 1999, it was determined that to make money, the BC-17s would need to be chartered at 16,000$ a block hour and would not need to cost no more than 125 million dollars. How can they compete against AN-124s, which are larger, carry twice the load and which were all purchased under 50 million dollars? Would it not make more sense to invest in a JAR-25 certified AN-124-150 which would certainly cost less to produce and certify than Boeing C-17s?

If you think it would actually be possible to reopen the 124 line, which many doubt, and produce the aircraft in a realistic timeframe.

I was involved in a fairly intense discussion over this a few years back with some other people in the business, when Boeing first floated the jet as a civil lifter.

Firstly, it's got excellent short field characteristics. That doesn't always sit with excellent economics. It's got four 757-type engines hanging off the wings and a fairly small cargo volume if you compare it to another four engined hauler like the 747 or An-124. It would be useful in one particular industry, hauling heavy gear around for the oil business, but what else would it relate to?

It could also make money in the engine ferry field, where at the moment a mix of Antonovs and other kit haul them around at short notice.

That's the main issue, block hour cost. It's designed for versatility and not economy. Is there enough fringe business in freight to justify the high capital cost and high running cost of a fleet of 30 or more?

Just a bit of humour
Here is a sneak preview of what we might be missing
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rez.man...kes/BA-C17.jpg
Hope its not too close to [OT]
On a more serious note some links on renewed AN124 production
http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-181233.html
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-costs.htm
Be lucky
David

I think the beauty of the 747 (which as we all know was military in intent) is its versatility in hauling oversize and package freight.

The Antonov & the C-17 are dedicated to oversize freight. Yes, you could palletise the smaller freight but all GHA's are set up for LD-containers or Q6/Q7 type loads. Again, I'm sure they should be able to carry the latter, but at the figures quoted above, the 747 will always be king.

Edit:
It'll be a sad day when they replace those valves in the avionics bay!!!:eek:

The C17 costs more than a 747 and carries just over half the freight. It will only be economic on a few specialist routes. And while the AN 124 can compete, it just won't happen.

As an aside, I often wonder why Lockheed didn't do a study into offering the C-5 as a commercial freighter. Volume wise it would be a better proposition than the C-17, although still inferior to the 747 which utilises its interior space more effectively with the dual decks.

The Antonovs have shown some need for a low-floor heavylifter outside the old Soviet market, and there hasn't really been anything except the Hercules in recent years. The greater internal volume of a C-5 together with its high payload might have supported a small fleet in the civil sector, if re-engined to the CF6 commercial versions.

Whitehatter:
With my C-5 experience, I agree it would have been useful for outsize civilian cargo. BUT.....reengining absolute necessity. With TF-39s, it could not, then or now, meet FAR 25 performance requirements. While more fuel efficient than the C-5ski, it not great with the present engines-about 22,000 lb/hour average. Its roll-on, roll-off capabilities are second to none, but at the cost of very complicated and maintenance intensive hydraulic and landing gear system. The C-5 usable volume for really outsized stuff is probably better than the 747 because it has only one floor, just a poor pallet mover, 36 positions vs. 48 (I believe, 436L)

There was an operator at KPSM, proposing a C-17 outsize and regular cargo operation. I attended a briefing and it was obvious none of them had clue of what they were talking. I asked about their proposed crew schedule and FAA 30/7 and he didn't know about the reg. They were going after Postal cargo (postal contracts :ugh: :ugh: :hmm: ) to fill in when no outsize cargo was about. The C-17 could not carry enough mail to pay for the APU fuel. With four engines, the cargo capacity doesn't justify the fuel burn. It really doesn't have that great outsize cargo ability.
Lastly, good as it is, the C-17 is too specialized for military use and carries too much non-payload equipment to be a civil plane. Who needs paradrop, quick change med evac, etc. all of which is pretty much designed in
GF

C17 v AN 124
 

The C17 does not have an overhead crane that can carry 20t in and out the a/c

Thanks for that

So again in the realm of speculation, now that the airframer and USAF are actively working on the C-5M program, would there be any mileage in pulling out mothballed examples as civilian lifters?

I appreciate that the pivot-and-fold undercarriage is going to be a maintenance hog, but there have been plenty of hogs flying around lifting freight for years now.

As for the BC-17X, someone I mentioned this to the other night snorted and replied that basically it was "one 757 worth of cargo capacity for two 757s worth of fuel burn". I really do find it odd that a venture capital outfit would issue a LOI on such a large project with so many fundamental flaws which are readily apparent to anyone who ever lifted a nose in anger ;)

Quote "I really do find it odd that a venture capital outfit would issue a LOI on such a large project with so many fundamental flaws which are readily apparent to anyone who ever lifted a nose in anger"
I wonder is there a hidden agenda here, will they operate high time ex military C-17s as civil and clear the budget for new military purchases? I can only see one source for used airframes in this.
Be lucky
David

The C-17 compared to classic freighters
 

I once compared the C-17 to an MD-11F freighter. The MD-11 costs less to acquire, has 100 cubic meters more cabin volume, carries 92 tons (vs. 77), has better range, flies faster, burns about the same amount of fuel but costs less to operate. So there really is no reason at all to operate a BC-17 in any job that can be done by a MD-11F.
What advantage does the BC-17 have? It has a ramp, has larger doors, can carry some outsize cargo, uses less runway.
So why not an AN-124? It has almost double the cabin volume as a BC-17 (1160 vs. 592 cu m), bigger floor area (233 sq m vs. 147), has larger doors at both ends, has better range, costs 2 to 3 times less to acquire and probably less to operate, mostly thanks to the much lower acquisition cost.
So the only advantages the C-17 has over the AN-124 is better fuel burn (8 tons an hour vs. about 13) and better runway performance.
So when will a BC-17 be used rather than an AN-124? When a load than can fit into a BC-17 needs to go to a runway where the AN-124 cannot. UK based Air Foyle has indicated to me that they have already operated AN-124s (at reduced weight) into 1800 meter runways. So BC-17s would be needed to fly oversize loads that can fit into it into runways under 1800 meters? That a pretty small market.
What some entrepreneurs seem to count on to assume a larger share of the oversize market is "western" certification. Foreign owned AN-124s are only allowed in many countries because there just is no domestic alternative. Once a BC-17 gains civil certification in those countries, they will shut out the foreign AN-124s when they can, but will also increase the price of the charter. AN-124s presently rent for about 20,000$ US an hour. How much will BC-17s rent for? They have about a 4000$ fuel burn advantage, but how cheap can you rent a 250 million dollar aircraft that only flies 1000 or 2000 hours a year? 40,000$ an hour? More? Less? Any ideas? Such a business plan assumes that the AN-124 will never resume production and will never attain JAR-25 and FAR-25 certification, allowing western companies to buy and operate it alongside BC-17s.
Anyone willing to invest 10 or 20 billion dollars on that assumption?
I would think it less risky to invest in the resumption of a JAR-25 certified AN-124.

First, I'm retired and do NOT have any inside information--legal disclaimer. But, speculating, with the C-5M program going ahead and, open press, the A-models won't be re-engined, I suspect the answer, for a civilian freighter option, would be to purchase the required number of "A"s from the Pentagon and piggyback on the Lockheed-Marrieta line. There shouldn't be major differences between the two models, the engineering has been done (two "A"s will be re-engined under the developmental contract) and it should be just the variable cost of production AND the FAA certification costs. That could be expensive, I don't know how far Lockheed got with certifcation back in the '60s, but it would all be out of date, anyway. The C-141 was cert'd, but nobody needs another IL-76.

For what its worth, the C-5 and the AN-124 have similar cargo space, but the C-5 has roller bed provisions, better flooring, pressurized cargo space (fully accessible in-flight) and better loading capability. I have never seen a load that couldn't be loaded in under 8 hours with proper preparation. Even loads that required multiple re-configs and removal of some aircraft equipment to make them fit.

GF

Funny you should mention the Illy 76...the new re-engined subtype has been doing oil charter work in the USA of late. This meets current noise regs, so would that also cut into any proposed work the BC-17 would be bidding for?

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/g...x?ItemID=16499

The PS-90A engines make it Stage Four compliant.

Yes but there is a difference between being ICAO Stage III or IV compliant, which gives US (for example) access to foreign operators that operate that type, and being FAR-25 certified which would allow US companies to buy and operate the type. A US company will be able to rent a Russian operated IL-76 to do a domestic flight in the US, or an international flight between the US and a third country (other than Russia) only if the person requesting the charter can show that there is no US aircraft capable of doing the flight. Once there is, as when/if US based BC-17 operators ever start operations, they will be able to shut out foreign companies such as Volga Dnepr (and charge what they want). So what Ilyushin and Antonov really need to do is Certify their aircraft according to JAR-25, FAR-25 and CAR-525, something they have never attempted so far. Air Foyle put a lot a money around 1999 to look into the certification of the AN-124 for a RAF contract, but the UK had opted to lease C-17s instead, regarless of the savings that the AN-124 option provided them with. DASA in Germany had looked into certifying the AN-70 to Luftwaffe norms but Germany had opted for the Airbus A400M instead, even though it was the longest and most expensive of both options. These are government and military decisions which are not based on money. The day such projects are looked at by COMMERCIAL operators whose goal will be making money, I'm not certain that the Ilyushins and Antonovs will loose to Boeing and Airbus again

That is looking at it from one angle, but buying is only half the story.

For an operator to have 30 or more BC-17s flying around, they will have to be doing more of their work outside the USA. Those aircraft can't be completely used up flying around America to the oil fields, so at least some will need to be dropped into the Gulf or Africa doing non-US charter work.

If there are other operators, like Volga-Dneipr, operating internationally with fleets of reworked Illys then that dilutes the already restricted amount of work available to a civil heavylifter. The technical side of the BC-17 and acquisition is one thing, finding work for them is another. There may not be anything like enough work for a US-registered and expensive fleet of Boeings.

What I'm trying to get at is that this proposed investment may have some serious holes in the numbers because there isn't the predictability which could be used to ensure that the borrowed money gets underwritten by cast iron guarantees of work.

Whitehatter, the freight family concept did exist at Lockheed and it had plans to offer the -130, -141 and C-5 all as commercial freighters, However, like the C-17, no one could afford them but the military.

The -130 did make it into commercial ranks and even Delta Air Lines out of ATL tried for a few years to use the C-130. At the same time, oddly enough, they were also operating Curtiss C-46 freighters.

No one bought any of the -141 and as others have noted, there were plenty of commercial airframes that could be converted to heavy haulers which were faster, cheaper and carried more. The DC-8 is a prime example of this and many suggest that the only reason McDoug stopped building the -8 was to add a bit of push to the DC-10 program.

I read somewhere that C-141s and C-5s are Chapter II aircraft and would need to be re-enginned or hush kitted to meet today's civilian requirements.

You can't really put the C-141 into the same bracket as the Diesel 8 though, the Lockheed would give that low floor and odd size ability that the Douglas would lack. It's that odd/outsize work that would be the same justification for the BC-17. When the C-141 was being built, there wasn't the same profile of work which exists today (AOG large turbofans for one).

However it does point to the lack of speciality work generally which put an airframer off offering it.

Maybe the proposed buyers have some cast iron contracts in the bag to fund the fleet. Who knows. Something got a capital firm to make a LOI deal on financing it. Could Boeing be offering shipping contracts as part of the purchase deal?

There are going to be a lot of Trents shipped to Seattle in the future...and GENx units flown the opposite way to Tolouse. Add in oil industry work and other odd size freight and I suppose it could be made to balance.

Mere idle speculation naturally...

What about lucrative contracts leasing to the military ? or charter work with the military, if world conflicts continue, that is where the money will be.

I looked at the C-141 FAA certification here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...$FILE/a2so.pdf
It is limited to 79 passengers over land because of emmergency exit requirement and only under FAR-91 and with max 9 occupants over water.
Otherwise its is a cargo only aircraft with a max of 9 occupants.
Any military contracts with that would involve cargo only, never troops. I think other civilian ramped aircraft such as the Lockheed C-130, IL-76, An-124, AN-12 etc have similar restrictions with regards to passengers, unless there is some sort of waiver I am not aware of that allows them to carry passengers for the military only.

Great thread. I'm a C-17 driver and always wanted the C-17 to be FAA type rated. It is an incredible machine that can do some amazing things but those capabilities are not necessarily commercially viable (air refueling, IMC formation airdrop, aircraft armor and defensive systems). Remember this aircraft was designed as a millitary machine for "direct-delivery" of oversized and outsized cargo from stateside bases directly to the front lines.
I agree that there seems to be a very small niche of civilian airlift work that the C-17 would be profitable in doing but I know that it would do it very well.

Well, there's a business opportunity Qpilot. Get yerself a military charter contract using the C-17. Australia just bought 4 to increase the uplift capacity for our second hand, reconditioned Abrams from Honest Georges military surplus stocks (Seasprites on special, this week only!) but prior to that we used USAF or Antonovs (especially in E. Timor).

There's bound to be other countries that don't want to buy them, but could use them every so often...NATO countries for example.

Just a thought...

Well one thing I've been wondering is, with all this argy-bargy about the KC-135 replacement competition, why not just forget about both 767 and A330 tankers and develop a KC-17?

Except for the flying boom, I would've thought it'd be pretty straight-forward to put tanks/bladders in the cargo space and plumb up the wings to do hose-&-drogue work.

Suddenly, you have a multi-role jet aircraft able to operate with great versatility and able to convert back at short notice to provide extra airlift capacity. Per-airframe cost also comes down as you're getting more off the same line. Also benefits from crewing, maint, stores & spares and in-theatre infrastructure aspects.

It seems to me that the 707 and C130 airframes provided similar multi-role benefits to the US military (eg. tanker, special transport, AWACS, JSTARS, TACAMO; transport, tanker, gunship). It seems strange to me that the same arguments don't stand with today's equipment.

So, from this story, the C-17 has between 170,000lbs to 240,000lbs. Against this you have the KC-30B MRTT with 111.000kgs.

The question, TD, is whether you want to shift some heavy outsized freight and a few personnel, or shift lower deck freight & a lot of personnel.

It would make sense: the Russians use the IL-76 airframe for many different roles: Strategic/Tactical airlifter (Il-76), Air to Air refueller (Il-78), Awacs (A-50), a waterbomber (Il-78P). They also have an ELINT version, A zero gravity trainer, A SAR version that can air drop a seagoing rescue boats, and several others. The aircraft even has four hard points under the wings, just in case....
The C-17 could propably do all of the above, the only point being, can they do it as cheaply and as effeciently as other aircraft. The brand new Il-76s that were sold to India a few years ago only cost about 35 million dollars and Russia, which owned its own oil companies, did not care if the beast burned 9 tons of fuel an hour......

Buster,

240,000 lb is about 109,000kg - so not much difference.

In this case, I'm more referring to shifting and transferring fuel, but having the ability to shift military cargoes of other types.

If the A330 tanker could do all the C-17 can do, off the same sort of strips, then that'd be just as good. I'm yet to see an A330 back itself off a stand.
I agree there is a need for a number of airliner-type airframes to rapidly move personnel and their immediate needs; however there are loads of airliners around which can be chartered at short notice for this purpose. The same can't be said for long-range transport direct into theatre, or in-flight refuelling capability.

What I have trouble understanding is the cost thing: the RAAF, f'rinstance, is spending a bucketload on each of a small number of C17s and A330 MRTTs. I would've thought it more effective to get a bigger number of multi-role C17s (if such were available) - thus giving you up to, say, double (if the total order was 8 frames) the brute airlift capacity plus the IFR capability, plus a small number of straight-off-the-civil-line (so cheaper) A330s (with fully contracted civil maint) for troop movement, etc.

Whilst QF or whoever will be able to handle deep maint for the MRTTs, how will they get on with gizmos like the boom? Meanwhile, you'll have a small number of dedicated RAAF engos doing C17 stuff and then probably sitting on their backsides in between U/Ss.

And the same can be said for the RAF and USAF (tho' clearly the latter there is a very big C17 operator so doesn't have the worry about a small, dedicated C17 maint group).

The advantage of both the Boeing offerings (767/777) and Airbus (A330) is the two engines. The outer wing can take pods clear of the jet wash. Anyone done any trials astern the C-17 wing?

Fitting a boom means a ramp swop each time, is that possible or cost effective? Ans what's the fatigue cost? We had C-130 ramps fitted for a HDU for Falkland Island support. The FI usage killed the airframes.

Since the C-17 would be only able to do either freight or AAR at once, with a long re-role turn round time. So I think the flexibility would tend to turn out to be spurious. And with the higher running costs and the expense of having to hire AT to take the troops when the C-17 was toting the fuel, I can't see there being any cost savings.

If there were, I'm sure Boeing would have pointed it out......

ORAC,

Good points well argued.

I guess I'd been taking a slightly cynical (but commercially sound) view with respect to Boeing, in that it's probably more profitable to them to punch another hundred or so airframes off a line which would have been fully amortised years ago.

I guess therein lies the beauty of the An-124. Brilliant freight uplift and it can tote about 80 fully packed troops upstairs.

I imagine it would have the same limitations, perhaps on a grander scale, to those that Orac pointed out.

But, TD, you're right about the mixed fleet. We often knocked AN & recently QF about fleet variety & how some airlines do so much better operating a single type (with qualifications of course). Perhaps if some smart operator developed a true multi role support aircraft, they'd make a fortune?

Would overwing engines on the C-17 mitigate the jet wash to acceptable limits? Just a thought....:confused:

Overwing Engines
 

Over wing Engines? Not a likely fix. The C-17 uses powered lift to fly approaches. The flaps redirect engine thrust downwards providing a good portion of the lift and allowing the aircraft to achieve lower approach speeds.

:ok: Thanks. Clearly & succinctly explained.:ok:

Coanda effect