C-17 restart
 

More teasing of a C-17 restart.

https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-encou...jthDkBBT05xjdA

Sometimes it becomes very difficult or cost ineffective to improve on such a proven design.

"if it ain't broke, dont' fix it"

Been through this before. All the jigs and productions facilities for the C-17 are gone, even the entire production site is gone. Many of the parts - such as even the engines - are out of production and no longer available.

With the redesign needed to introduce modern materials, and meet new requirements, restarting production could take longer and be more expensive than a new programme - though I am sure Boeing would love it.

Yes Orac. No the production site is not gone, drive by it twice a week to/from work. The building is still there, leased out to others. There are other locations that can host building and have the skilled labor available. The same challenges to build a NG C17 were likely present to build the classic model, and imagine the naysayers were present then as well.

Just watch and wait like the rest of us.

Surely the whole point (and benefit) would be not to do any re-design or introduce new materials...?
Its quite a sensible thing to consider, it would still be a huge time saving, even with creating a new production facility, new tooling, and putting new engines and kit back into production....compared to a new clean sheet design that would add a decade plus to getting to first flight off the line.

Please, can we Brits have some? Pretty please.

We can't afford any.......

How many times did MD say if you want to keep C-17 production open you need to buy more NOW? I saw the MD-11 tooling/fixtures piled up to be cut up for scrap. Don't know what happened to C-17 tooling as that was on a different site across the airport.

Pratt & Whitney ceased production of the F117-PW-100 engine, which powers the C-17 when the manufacturing line in Middletown, Connecticut, shut down after delivering the final unit in January 2016.

The current support programme for the engines runs till 2027, this will be renewed but, inevitably, costs will increase year by year and the number of spare engines will shrink.

Which is why, quoting from the article above, the C-17 proposed isn't the same as the current models, any more than the 747-8 is the same as the original 747.

Quote: ​​​​​​​Sort of like Trigger's broom......

If the need is big enough , anything is possible.

True, but if there is an urgent need the logical solution is to bring forward production of the NGAL.

https://simpleflying.com/us-air-forc...er-c-5-galaxy/

Probably wouldn't be any tougher a challenge for Boeing than making a 767-based tanker!

Hey Vzlet, you may not have realized, but that is funny!

The engineering development is not the biggest cost of putting a new aircraft into production - yes, it's expensive and important, but it's setting up production - supply chain, tooling, manufacturing facilities, etc. - that adds up to the big bucks. Plus, depending on how good the MacDac record keeping is, there is going to be a non-trivial amount of engineering development in just putting the original C-17 back into production.
Given that most if not all of the C-17 tooling is gone and would need to be re-created (as well as the supply chain) - and the simple fact that the engines and avionics are obsolete and out-of-production and would need to be completely redone - it would cost nearly as much to put the 1980's tech C-17 back into production as it would to simply do a clean sheet design using current technology, and the result would be a much better aircraft.
If the idea is to do a 2020 tech C-17, then do that, but don't simply put a 40+ year old design back into production.
The NGAL would be good too, but it would take much longer than a simpler C-17 style replacement, and cost mountains of cash more.

Yeah that went well.