BC-17X — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

BC-17X

Fluorine From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2004, 53 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

I remember Boeing has launched BC-17X a few years ago. Is Boeing continuing to develop it?

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/pd/bc17x/index.html

When will it have its first flight?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last

Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

No interest.

It's overpowered, too heavy and lacks range. The very limited market for this kind of aircraft is the preserve of the Antonovs. There just isn't enough commercial interest to justify spending the money to re-engineer and certify a civilian variant.

Fluorine From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2004, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

Boeing has made a big mistake on developing BC-17X.

Cha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 763 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Ummm...wasn't the BC-17X really developed by McDonnell Douglas? The Sonic Cruiser left the Boeing website when it was officially canned yet the BC-17X still remains. Has it been canned with website not shutdown or is it still something that will linger?

You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin

AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

the BC-17X was McDonnell Douglas's idea, originally named MD-17 and the concept was transferred over to Boeing when the takeover took place.

The MD-17/BC-17X or whatever you want to call it does actually exist, in the form of the C-17.

However there is not much hope of it being anything more than that.

PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.

NW7E7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 995 times:

Yeah the C-17 looks just like the BC-17X.

DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 968 times:

Boeing has made a big mistake on developing BC-17X.

Huh? It was a concepty... nothing more. Boeing never built a prototype or really invested in anything more than research and market studies....

Has it been canned with website not shutdown or is it still something that will linger?

No I think Boeing is still offering it. ASAIK, the BC-17X is just a C-17 minus the military hardware. Maybe it will end up being like the 737-600, so long as the popular type is being developed, the option for the less popular aircraft will exist.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/pd/bc17x/index.html

Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 941 times:

The BC-17X would be a reasonable product to offer the military export market too. It doesn't have any sensitive military technology or refuelling so could be offered to governments and air forces in preference to the full C-17 option.

Customers like the Saudis could be interested as they operate C-130 civil versions for the Royal Flight. There are even examples of Antonovs in the MEA Middle East Airlines (Lebanon)">ME being used on that job.

Both those applications aren't as critical when it comes to operating costs as civilian freight dogs are. Rather than compare the BC-17X with the An-124 a better comparison is the IL-76

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: