Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 6 Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13904 times:
According to Bloomberg worldwide news this morning, their news crawler at the bottome of the TV screen said and I quote "Giant global company Heavylift has placed an order with Boeing for an undisclosed amount of C-17s".... Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.??? If so, than this is an all time first for civil aviation history!! Can anyone verify????
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13924 times:
Crownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13896 times:
Yes I saw it on their website as well...Incredible if this appears to be true, this has to be a civil aviation first.....I cant wait for Gemini Jets to do this in a 1:400 scale model!!!!!
BladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13905 times:
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4553 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13794 times:
Good luck to these guys, but it sounds extremely speculative to me.
World Airways had seriously considered buying some C-17s when the Generals at AMC wanted them to do so to keep the line open, and had obviously done market studies to see if the global demand would justify the incredible capital expense of these airplanes as compared to a typical freighter in civilian use. Conclusion...nope. World has an extraordinarily good freight charter sales department, and if they couldn't see how to make the market work -- as a profitable 50+-year-old carrier rather than a bunch of basically-non-airline-folks -- I have some real doubts about whether these Global guys could make it work. Moreover...30 new aircraft???? What???? That's a substantial multiple of the cargo fleets of any of Northwest, Lufthansa, Gemini, World, Atlas, Polar, Evergreen, Kalitta, Southern, etc.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13752 times:
I have a couple of questions:
1. Who is going to pay for the flight tests that will be required to obtain civilian certification?
2. Where does Heavy Lift plan on getting these used C-17's? The USAF was more and Congress choose not to fund them, so I don't think there will be any C-17's showing up on the used market anytime soon. .
KSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13653 times:
I hope this all works out...really want to see a civilian version of the C-17.
Da man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13606 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Where does Heavy Lift plan on getting these used C-17's? The USAF was more and Congress choose not to fund them, so I don't think there will be any C-17's showing up on the used market anytime soon.
IIRC, a previous plan like this used the proceeds from selling the used aircraft to procure the new aircraft.
KSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13586 times:
I was thinking about the BC-17X when I first heard about this.
Finally a US Civilian cargo plane that looks like it means business. The Russians have been playing circles around us for years with the Antonovs.
On another note...I'm seeing a possible Y3 design there...base it off of the C-17 and then produce a civilian cargo / passenger version, along with a military cargo version. Picture a larger BC-17X with composites and super-efficient engines. But until then, the BC-17X will do.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13548 times:
I liked this name better...
I think the idea of this airplane, in limited quantities, could be great for some of the package haulers due to its short field performance. Instead of having to fly into the large international airports, it could go into much smaller reliever fields... with cheaper fees, closer to the population center, etc.
KSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13493 times:
I think all the puzzle pieces are coming together now! UPS cancels its A380 order...suddenly there is a heavy cargo version of the C-17 possibly available from Boeing. Pure coincidence?
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13296 times:
I remember a few years ago when McDonnell Douglas (maybe it was Boeing by then, I'm not sure) was offering the MD-17 as a civilian version, and I believe a couple were built to this spec. There wasn't much interest in it, as it seemed that the An-124 was filling the needs of the market that the MD-17 was aimed at. The two MD-17s were converted to C-17 spec and delivered to the US military.
TVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2200 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13297 times:
One of the things that makes the C-17 work so effectively in the Military is that the plane takes off with max weight, but minimum fuel from shorter air fields. Gets airborne and then gets fuel in-air. How would that work with the civilian version?
LimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13233 times:
I'd be surprised if they can gainfully employ even 30 of these things...
Don't freight operators have to keep their machines going pretty much constantly to stay "in the black" cashflow-wise? The niche market that a BC-17X would go into is probably pretty small -- how much diamond mining and oil drilling equipment is airlifted into the middle of nowhere on a daily basis?
KBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13050 times:
Quoting Magyarorszag (Reply 5): The new Heavylift Airlines is based Down Under.
Read the article again... it says it is a new company, Global Heavylift, based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12971 times:
I hope they keep to it military standers, it would be nice to see a US built civilan jet that is powered by four PW 2040.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4553 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 12682 times:
Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 18): Don't freight operators have to keep their machines going pretty much constantly to stay "in the black" cashflow-wise?
Not when using low-capital-cost aircraft. There's a presumption of some downtime. But with the $200mm capital cost of a C-17, uh....yeah....it'd have to be flying constantly. And there's the problem.
25 MCIGuy: Wow, that just never ceases to be impressive. Awesome news! Looks like Boeing will be keeping the C-17 line open a little longer.
26 N867BX: Sounds like a great idea. Where do I invest? On second thought I think I'll just flush my money down the toilet.
27 NBGskygod: The commercial C-17 was first proposed by MDC back when they were first developing the program. I am not a 100% on the details but I belive UPS and Fe
28 Rheinbote: Could make sense if Heavylift would part-time operate BC-17s for the DoD as a civil contractor and would use whatever excess capacity is left for comm
29 KC135TopBoom: IIRC, the USAF C-17A already is certified by the FAA. The USAF started doing this with aircraft that COULD have a cilivian application when they boug
30 Spacepope: Could be real The IL-76 would be the main competitor here. There are current programs to refit PS-90 engines to existing airframes in order to comply
31 R2rho: On the other side of things, I heard that a group of European governments was planning on buying some C-17s for shared use for their airlift needs. Do
32 KC135TopBoom: The USAF already has this capability with the CRAF, although no commerical aircraft has the capaibilities of the C/BC-17, except for the very expensi
33 Rheinbote: These plans were met with opposition from the French and the Germans, who feel like the A400M could need some protection...
34 Spacepope: Ecactly my point. The US has no aircraft with C-17 capabilities in the CRAF fleet. The AN-124 isn't always available immediately either.
35 Dacman: Wow!! I haven't heard a word of this as of yet from my sources here in Long Beach, I will definately be doing some checking tomorrow (Monday) and get
36 JAAlbert: So how much need is there really for this type of lift platform? The C-17 is designed for tanks and very heavy, oversized equipment, not letters, post
37 AirRyan: The C-17 is really only feasible in the military environment when it's inefficient economics can be justifed for national defense. I don't know how m
38 474218: Could you please supply the Type Certification Data Sheet number for the C-17? I think you will find the only military transport to be FAA certified
39 AirRyan: Really, what does it matter - is it not simply a matter of semantics? I think the USAF has proved through actual time that the C-17 i safe to fly. Th
40 Da man: And that is only because Lockheed tried to sell a civilian version just like the C-130. IIRC, one was produced and ended up with NASA after no commer
41 R2rho: How typical! However I did hear that there were some countries who didn't follow the French/Germans and who were still supporting a C-17 buy.
42 Lemurs: I wonder if that purchase price is really correct? I would imagine for this kind of civilian role, a lot of military features would be deleted and cut
43 PlanenutzTB: IIRC, the tooling for the C-17 is owned by the USAF and not Boeing. If this is the case how can Boeing sell commercial planes from the tooling?
44 AsstChiefMark: I found this. Maybe it'll help. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_970828n.html
45 KC135TopBoom: The KC-10 also has a FAA Certificate, so it can use, and share parts with commerical DC-10s. Although this only applies to non-military equipment and
46 474218: The DC-10 was designed and certified as a commerical aircraft long before there was ever a KC-10 It says in the Boeing press release the FAA certific
47 TeamAmerica: Lockheed marketed a civilian C-141 as the L-200, but I don't think any were built as such. NASA's Starlifter may have been built under the corporate
48 Flyabunch: How much weight would be saved if you take out the military specific equipment such as refueling, electronics, etc? Then trade that for increased fuel
49 474218: The C-141 was put thought the complete FAA certification process and was issued a FAA Type Data Certification Sheet(A2SO). While the C-141 (Lockheed
50 Awthompson: Well, at least the UK Royal Air Force acquired four C-17's. How many others are operating outside the USA/Canada?
52 L-188: Dammt that was quick, did the RAAF just take some USAF slots for their planes.
53 ZANL188: Sorry, but incorrect on several counts. Lockheed did in fact build a civilian version of the C-141, but it was the L-300 not L-200. It was even used
54 Dtw9: The RAF actually has a 5th C-17 on order . Britain to Buy 4 Leased C-17s, Add a 5th Posted 08-Aug-2006 12:00 | Permanent Link Related stories: Americ
55 TeamAmerica: Hey, no need to say "sorry"...I'm always open to being proved wrong. Oddly enough, when I did a quick Google to check my memory, the first hit ( http
56 StealthZ: I believe they did. Indeed it was quick, likely one of the quickest major defence procurements in recent Aust. history. We normally try and reinvent
57 KC135TopBoom: Yes, the USAF has given C-17 production slots to the RAF, RAAF, and CF so they can all receive their aircraft earlier than usual. But, I doubt they wo
58 LifelinerOne: Boeing says commercial freighter market not suffucient to sustain C-17 Globemaster line... according to this article, http://www.flightglobal.com/arti
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1593 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2084 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 908 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
