Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130  
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12304 times:

I just saw these charts from DEW Line blog at flight global.


It shows that C-17 cost 1/3 to operate compared to C-5 and almost on par with C-130.

These numbers are just stunning, showing how efficient the C-17 to operate compared to other aircrafts. It's operating cost only about 20% higher than the C-130J while having 2 times the lift capability and faster speed.

One day there will be 100% polymer plane
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4240 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12042 times:

I am both a C-5 and C-17 fan, ( more so C-5 fan) but I believe the C-17 is the best over all cargo lifter the USAF has.

User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4225 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12009 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
It's operating cost only about 20% higher than the C-130J while having 2 times the lift capability and faster speed.

I find that a little hard to believe.

[Edited 2011-09-08 06:26:51]

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5896 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 2):
I find that a little hard to believe.

I think those figures and the associated graphs are a little simplistic, not taking into account the different missions etc.

C-17 tend to fly longer missions than C-130 so some of the costs, ground crew, infrastructure etc are similar but the C-17 in some ways uses less of those.
C-130 may use X ground crew, Y facilities /mission, Z fuel/hr
C-17 may use ?xX ground crew, ?xY facilities/mission. ?xZ fuel/hr

Depending on the ratios in the above criteria it is plausible that given the longer mission profiles of the C-17 that the statisticians would get those results.

Not agreeing they reflect the real world, just seeing it like an accountant.

The Guam B2 crash putting up the hourly cost of running the fleet, it didn't really, just a beancounters view of the world.
Sure one has to take these things into account but the loss of one frame did not suddenly almost double the cost of a strike mision.

If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 10808 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11864 times:

According to the "AIR MOBILITY PLANNING FACTORS" AFPAM 10-1403 the C-17 burns about 4 times more fuel per hours than the C-130.

I find the graphs very hard to believe unless they have been normalised by some factor not listed in the "Dew line".

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7137 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11714 times:

These numbers are cost per flight hour.

One way to very easily almost double the hourly cost is to cut the flight hours in half.

If we saw the average annual number of flight hours per type, then we would be less confused.

These are military planes, not commercial planes designed and made to earn money. In the perfect world they would sit in a hangar all day while the crews would party in the officers' club. The "operating costs" would be ten bucks for a monthly vacuum cleaning of the cockpit. With zero flight hours that would make the hourly cost infinite.

With the wars going on these days especially the C-17 is flying many hours. That reduces the hourly cost. End those wars, and the C-17 hourly cost will skyrocket.

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 08:58:23 by Revelation
Info On C-130s With Eight Blade Props? posted Wed Dec 22 2010 19:14:52 by 747400sp
Mystery Former TWA Operating Out Of Nellis AFB? posted Sat Sep 12 2009 14:06:34 by PWM2TXLHopper
Operating Costs Of The Shorts Belfast posted Thu Oct 4 2007 04:32:07 by PMN1
The Cost Of Air Refueling posted Mon Feb 26 2007 00:17:29 by KC135TopBoom
True Cost Of Modern Jet Fighters posted Fri Jul 14 2006 16:23:07 by QB001
Help With A C-130 Serial... posted Thu Apr 8 2004 07:05:51 by Maiznblu_757
F-22'S With In 200 Miles Of Iran! posted Fri Apr 27 2012 20:47:14 by Thumper
Safety Of Handcuffed Pax On Extradition Flights? posted Tue Apr 10 2012 16:45:18 by BuyantUkhaa
9 Year Old Chance Of A Lifetime With U2 posted Tue Mar 6 2012 13:20:10 by skysurfer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format