747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8349 times:
In the mid 70's the USAF was looking for a jet replacement for the C-130. Both Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas flew their prototype, Boeing had the YC-14 and Mcdonnell Douglas YC-15. The YC-14 and YC-15 out performed the USAF expectation. So why the USAF drop the project.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8321 times:
Because the C-130 could do everything the YC-14 and YC-15 clould do, and do it for a lot less money.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8306 times:
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2): Good point. The money wasn't totally wasted though, a lot of the YC15 development work went into the C17
A lot? The C-17 looks like a super-sized, swept-wing YC-15.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8062 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2):
Good point. The money wasn't totally wasted though, a lot of the YC15 development work went into the C17
A lot? The C-17 looks like a super-sized, swept-wing YC-15.
And even before the C17 got built we were all proud that the YC15 whupped the Boeing offering.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7805 times:
The Boeing YC-14 was technologily musch more advanced. The 2 CF-6 engines were mounted on the wing leading edge, thrust was blown over both the upper and lower wing surface, producing an enormaos amount of lift. The YC-14 clearly out performed the 4 engine MD YC-15. It could lift a lot more weight than either the C-130 or YC-15.
But, later in life, the YC-15 test airplane was used to flight test the (then newly designed) CFM-56-B2 engine.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 7775 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): The Boeing YC-14 was technologily musch more advanced. The 2 CF-6 engines were mounted on the wing leading edge, thrust was blown over both the upper and lower wing surface, producing an enormaos amount of lift. The YC-14 clearly out performed the 4 engine MD YC-15. It could lift a lot more weight than either the C-130 or YC-15.
Yes, and then the Soviets wound up using the Coanda effect for the An-72 design.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7710 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 1): Because the C-130 could do everything the YC-14 and YC-15 clould do, and do it for a lot less money.
That and the fact the USAF realized they truly needed a bigger plane than the YC-14/YC-15, so as not to repeat the experience with the C-141 Starlifter. The result is the C-17A Globemaster III.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 49 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6970 times:
Quoting Zwaving (Reply 10): What was the experience factor with the starlifter?
IIRC, it was too small for it's weight carrying capacity.
If that doesn't seem to make sense, it often filled the available volume before reaching max weight. This led to the C-141B which were C-141A with plugs inserted in the fuselage fore and aft of the wings adding a total of 23ft 4in to the length.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6966 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 11): IIRC, it was too small for it's weight carrying capacity.
If that doesn't seem to make sense, it often filled the available volume before reaching max weight. This led to the C-141B which were C-141A with plugs inserted in the fuselage fore and aft of the wings adding a total of 23ft 4in to the length.
I think that it's a very rare thing to max out a freighter weight wise prior to filling the volume. What they really wanted was a wider airplane to make more stuff fit inside.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6963 times:
The C-141B mod also added air refueling capability that the C-141A did not have.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6963 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12): I think that it's a very rare thing to max out a freighter weight wise prior to filling the volume.
Not rare at all, much cargo is not that dense.
Much military cargo comprises things like helicopters, wheeled vehicles etc these will max out volume long before weight is an issue.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 12): What they really wanted was a wider airplane to make more stuff fit inside.
Absolutely agree, but what you want you can't always have.. had to wait for the C-17 to get the width.
Adding width to the C-141 was not an option so a stretch was the compromise they had to live with.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): The C-141B mod also added air refueling capability that the C-141A did not have.
Sorry KC135... should have mentioned that!
Cheers
[Edited 2007-07-21 15:00:19]
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6880 times:
Neither the YC-14 or YC-15 programs were canceled. To be canceled you first need to be awarded a contract to develop a production aircraft.
Both the YC-14 and YC-15 were technology development prototype aircraft built to test advanced heavy lift concepts. The size of these aircrafts was based on the minimum size (least $$$) required to be scaleable to larger aircraft, not as a C-130 replacement.
Each aircraft had their own merits. Although the lift performance of the YC-14 was impressive, the associated complexity in the engine, wing and moving surfaces was judged by the USAF as unacceptable.
AirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6872 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): The C-141B mod also added air refueling capability
To chime in a 4th time, it also had major wing root mods, IIRC, didn't it have problems with cracks?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29349 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6858 times:
Quoting Zwaving (Reply 10): What was the experience factor with the starlifter?
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 11): If that doesn't seem to make sense, it often filled the available volume before reaching max weight. This led to the C-141B which were C-141A with plugs inserted in the fuselage fore and aft of the wings adding a total of 23ft 4in to the length.
A little history here, the C-141 was built to replace the C-133. Both of which had one mission in life when they where developed. To carry a minuteman missle in it's shipping container. That is why they where able to keep the C-130 sized floor dimensions.
But as noted it was quickly realized that a lot of their capacity was wasted when they wheren't carrying a heavy ICBM and it's shippng cradle so that is why they decided to stretch the aircraft and take advantage of the whole lift capability of the aircraft.
Quoting CTR (Reply 16): Both the YC-14 and YC-15 were technology development prototype aircraft built to test advanced heavy lift concepts. The size of these aircrafts was based on the minimum size (least $$$) required to be scaleable to larger aircraft, not as a C-130 replacement.
That was my understanding, it was a test program not a program leading to a production run.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6811 times:
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6767 times:
As I recall the YC-15 was the precursor to the C-17... MDC won the competition over Boeing.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6527 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 11): If that doesn't seem to make sense, it often filled the available volume before reaching max weight. This led to the C-141B which were C-141A with plugs inserted in the fuselage fore and aft of the wings adding a total of 23ft 4in to the length.
That was the problem, being just a stretched C-130 really. It was that...then the C-5. No middle ground like the C-17 is now.
I did like the old 141 though....miss those old Lockheeds.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (5 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 6328 times:
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 21): As I recall the YC-15 was the precursor to the C-17... MDC won the competition over Boeing.
Sort of. Changing requirements favored an outgrowth of the YC-15 over the YC-14, but the YC-14 was the better aircraft in meeting the original requirements.
The Air Force belatedly decided it wanted a much larger airlifter than the C-130-sized STOL prototypes it got in the YC-14 and YC-15. Boeing's YC-14 ran rings around the YC-15 in most areas: STOL in particular (and the YC-14 needed only half the runway of a C-130 for the same payload, so it isn't true C-130 could do everything YC-14 could.) Remember YC-14 and YC-15 were developed in a STOL tactical airlift competition to succeed C-130, not a competition to succeed C-141 (which C-17 eventually won.)
But when the Air Force decided it wanted a new strategic airlifter and not a tactical airlifter (probably as headaches with the hangar queen C-5 grew), the STOL capability wasn't as important, and the YC-15 was more easily scaled up to what the Air Force now wanted. So YC-14 ended up as an impressive curiosity and YC-15 led to C-17.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11357 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 21 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
