Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Civil C-17 Globemaster?  
User currently offlineStarship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13
Posted (16 years 2 months 6 days ago) and read 2213 times:

I was watching some video footage on the C-17 yesterday and truly believe this is an awesome aircraft. If it is the F-15 of transport aircraft, then surely there must be some civil potential to be had out of it. They claim it has broken 22 World records, but only two were mentioned; shortest take off roll for a loaded transporter @ 417m and shortest landing @ 413m. Does anyone know what the other 20 World records were that were broken?

I was amazed that you can deploy air brakes and all four thrust reversers whilst in flight and get 20 000ft on the descent and then slam it down on a gravel runway and once you've slowed to a stop you can then turn it around in its own length!

If I remember correctly, its internal height is 13ft 6in. Does that leave potential for a double deck?

The captain's office is bang up to date with glass cockpit and hud and every other conceivable piece of equipment any pilot could wish for.

What do you think? Maybe a civil C-17 is the elusive Boeing 787 everybody has been guessing about!


Behind every "no" is a "yes"
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (16 years 2 months 6 days ago) and read 2133 times:

Back when MDC was still around, they offered the MD-17. Don't know the status of it.

I remember hearing of a flight where they took off with a full load on a 1400ft grass strip, flew 500mi, then landed on a 1400ft grass strip. Very amazing!

By size, it is about equalivant to the DC-10.

User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3237 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (16 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Two MD-17s were built, as cargo aircraft. However there were no customers, and they were converted to military C-17s.

User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (16 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

There is very little demand for aircraft to carry oversize cargo.

Why have an airplane capable of flying into 1400 foot strips when all the flying would be into strips with field legnths of 7000 feet or more.

Just for some info. The 747 can haul more weight than a C5 Galaxy. The Galaxy offers more capacity.

I'm not sure of the cargo weight capacity of the C17 but I bet it's alot less than a 747. And for the same price I would take a 747.

The C17 has amazing capabilities, but they would never be utilized in the capacity of a civilian freighter.

The Russian supper transports are available for a small price. The Russians can't afford to fly them anymore. For the occasional oversize load they're the answer.

User currently offlineDLMD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (16 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

The C-17's civilian counterpart was called the MD-17 and was the same aircraft with a few differences - like the engines. I can't remember what was different but they were different.... (mind going...)

The reason the MD-17 was scrapped is because, as correctly mentioned, the AN-124 is as good in terms of capabilities of a civilian freighter.

The main customer for the MD-17 was targeted as Lufthansa Cargo, but they didn't pull thru, altho they did stay with MDC - they bought the MD-11F instead - a civilian aircraft with the biggest cargo capacity in the world. (greater than the 747.)

User currently offlineMish1234 From Canada, joined Jun 1999, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (16 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

I`m pretty sure that the C-17 wont go civil.
It cost like twice or 3 times as much as it does for a reg. civil airliner. (well mabye I dunno) But Im pretty sure that every military aircraft is darn expresive.
Now dont forget the fuel cost for the airline..
Dont forget the cargo.. dont forget the seats ...
dont forget that the wing spang cant be larger than a Boeing 747-400 that goes for Airbus 3XX to u know.
But I would fly on one if it did go CIVIL (C-17)
ANyways good topic

User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (16 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2091 times:

I would check your sources on the cargo capacity of the MD-11. The 747 outclasses the MD-11 in cargo tonnage and volume capacity. Check the Boeing web site.

The 747 has a capacity of approx. 270,000 pounds.

I 'm not sure of the MD-11 but I can assure you it doesn't come close.

User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3237 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (16 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

I'm not certain of numbers either but I'm pretty sure that the 747F can hold more cargo than the MD-11F. One of the reasons the MD-11F was popular was becuase some carriers felt the 747F was too big.

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...
Why No Row 17 On Lufthansa posted Wed Nov 13 2002 12:01:39 by James768
Why No AC YYZ-IAD posted Mon Mar 3 2008 20:24:28 by ZBBYLW
Why No More Premium Economy? And Why So Difficult? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 11:03:51 by EUROBUS
Why No Cooperation SQ - SK? posted Fri Feb 22 2008 08:40:44 by LongHaul67
Why No Orders From Airbus posted Thu Feb 21 2008 16:28:18 by Victor009
Ryanair: Why No 739ER? posted Wed Feb 20 2008 04:39:24 by LY777
SAN-ORF: Why No Nonstop Service? posted Fri Feb 15 2008 18:51:07 by SANFan
Pre 911 Why No U.S Domestic Security Checks? posted Tue Feb 12 2008 17:06:08 by Baexecutive
Why No 330-500 0r -600? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 16:24:48 by Hugo
Why No UAE Airlines Pax Flights Ex-AMS? posted Fri Feb 1 2008 04:48:38 by Orlando666