Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heavylift C-17?  
User currently offlineCrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14919 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????

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14939 times:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601103&sid=aLruD6.HPifA&refer=news

Looks to be true to me!

Global Heavylift Holdings LLC of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Civilian C-17's a cometh! All shall rejoice in the land!

From what I've just read, they say they want 60 used aircraft to give the USAF the ability to upgrade its inventory, or 30 new aircraft. WOW!

They even said they might take over the line if Boeing would stop production.

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:10:28]

User currently offlineCrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14911 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!!!!!

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:40:19]

User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14920 times:

Here's a more in depth article from last month http://www.freshnews.com/news/defens...-west/article_29732.html?Aerospace

User currently offlineEgmcman From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14939 times:

Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter):
Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.???

No they ceased trading in 2002 IIRC.


User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14923 times:

Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter):
Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.???

That airline doesn't exist anymore. In April 2001 it changed its name to HC Airlines/ Prime.

End Of Heavylift Cargo

The new Heavylift Airlines is based Down Under.

http://heavyliftcargo.com/

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:21:23]

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5163 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14809 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.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14767 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. .


User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14671 times:

Boeing Announces C-17 Line May End in mid-2009; Stops Procurement of Long-lead Parts

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070302a_nr.html

This Boeing article from March 2nd says nothing about any new or big customers for the C-17. But it could still be in the works.


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14668 times:

I hope this all works out...really want to see a civilian version of the C-17.

User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14648 times:

So cool. I've been waiting for someone to jump on this.





Mark


User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14621 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.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14601 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.


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14563 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.


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 14508 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?  Big grin

Makes me wonder........


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 14345 times:

Cool!

Would love to see VarigLog flying a couple of those hehe



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3195 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14311 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.

User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14312 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?

User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 14248 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?


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14223 times:

Isnt the C17 more like one of these rather than the AN124?? Or is it a lot bigger (been a while since Ive seen an IL76...)
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Normando Carvalho Jr.




Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineKBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14065 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.

Kris



Proud to be an A&P!!!
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14012 times:

They'd be great for short field landings.



User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13986 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.

User currently offlineGoodbye From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 913 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13708 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 22):
They'd be great for short field landings.

Even managed to get the Compressor Stall!


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5163 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 13697 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images Awthompson : Well, at least the UK Royal Air Force acquired four C-17's. How many others are operating outside the USA/Canada?
51 Post contains links and images StealthZ : One but soon to be four operated by the Royal Australian Air Force View Large View MediumPhoto © Montague Smith-WorldWide Aviation Photos Cheers
52 L-188 : Dammt that was quick, did the RAAF just take some USAF slots for their planes.
53 Post contains links 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains links and images LifelinerOne : Boeing says commercial freighter market not suffucient to sustain C-17 Globemaster line... according to this article, http://www.flightglobal.com/arti
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's Up With COA 111 On JAN 16 & 17? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 21:21:57 by Hush-Kit
MSP Runway Rebuilding Means Landings On 17! posted Tue Jan 16 2007 18:54:32 by WA707atMSP
Pinnacle's 17 New Jets posted Fri Jan 12 2007 01:30:24 by Flyf15
Women In Aviation Conf, MCO Feb 14-17 posted Thu Jan 11 2007 21:17:52 by AirportGal
US Air Landing On 17/35s At MCO posted Fri Dec 22 2006 20:29:26 by ROA757
AA293 Diverts Back To DEL 12/17 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 06:36:31 by AA787823
Emergency Landing @ MDW (12/17) posted Sun Dec 17 2006 06:21:02 by 777fan
A380 Problems Solved, 17% Better Than 747-8. posted Sat Nov 25 2006 21:10:35 by Thorben
Strange Sphere Over Gate 17 At O'Hare? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 23:36:07 by Okelleynyc
Anyone Flying In Or Out Of DTW Nov 17-24th posted Fri Nov 3 2006 05:39:58 by SpeedBird203