Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C-5 Had A Second Production Run; Why Not C-17?  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

Eighty-one C-5As were produced from 1968-1973. After that, the line was shuttered. Reagan re-opened the line in 1985 to produce 50 C-5Bs and 2 C-5Cs.

Why is this considered such a big deal in the case of the C-17, if the line were shuttered?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe Boeing owns the factory in Long Beach. The moment the last C-17 rolls out the door, the bulldozers will be standing by so that they can clear the land and sell it. In contrast, the Lockheed plant in Marietta is government owned, so it was still there when the C-5 line reopened (it had been busy building C-130s and stretching C-141s). Additionally, the government had paid Lockheed to store the tooling for the C-5. I doubt if the US government will pay to have the C-17 tooling stored.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Yes, Boeing does own the LB plant, it is not a USAF plant. Boeing can do what ever they want to with it after the C-17A production ends. But, I believe they have to store the C-17 tooling until it is released by the USAF. IIRC, the old GD still had the F/FB-111 tooling stored at the Fort Worth plant (before they were bought out by Lockheed Martin) until it was released for scrapping in the late 1990s.

Additionally, Boeing had to keep the C/KC-135 tooling until after the B-707/E-3/E-6 production line closed in the early 1990s.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
50 C-5Bs and 2 C-5Cs

Mind you that the 2 C-5Cs were two of the A models, 68-0213 and 8216. They were actually modified outside the production line.


User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

I dont think you will see the C17 production ending anytime soon. To my knowledge...I dont think there are any other aircraft matching its performance / or competing with its mission. I wouldn't throw the C130 or A400 in its category seeing as how the C-17 is made to withstand a great amount of weight.... and can land in the same distance as a C-130 / A400 so, one does have a greater advantage.... but then again the C-130 does things the C-17 cannot do... so its like an eye for an eye Smile

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
Mind you that the 2 C-5Cs were two of the A models, 68-0213 and 8216. They were actually modified outside the production line.

The two C models had the floor cut out of the aft compartment so that there was more headroom in the cargo bay for taller cargo.

If I remember correctly after touring one at the EDF airshow 4 or 5 years ago, one was converted after a fire on-board.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSeefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

There were suppose to be a run of C5's produced all in the same run..budget cuts, economy, new presidents change all orders for all aircraft.

The wing support problem was a major factor to hold off on the first run of C5'As - the C5B's (from the 80's) If I remember right started when Carter was still in. Carter and Reagan both saw first hand how important to move goods and people in troubled country's and saw the need for more haulers like the C5's.

The tooling was there to go ahead and make more C5B's and the funding went out for I think the C17 program which some of the group might correct me that McDonnell Douglas (which Boeing bought and closed) has a major part in the design of the hauler.

Boeing's engine's made a huge difference in the C17,,really quite compared to what was out there and it could handle a large load.

The C5's are owned only by the Air force, that was deal back in the 60's and has not changed.

NASA did want to use a few C5's to haul the shuttle -but- NASA could NOT own the birds and therefore went for 747's which they own.

The 2 C5C's are still owned by the Air Force - some pulling by some high ranking officials are the reason that they were changed over to help haul cargo containers for NASA.


The way you vote has a outcome as to what Aircraft is made or not made.

Please vote and Vote responsibly.....

jus had to add that


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic C-5 Had A Second Production Run; Why Not C-17?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


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!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Why Not Airbus For US Tanker Requirement: Answered posted Thu Jan 20 2005 22:24:16 by DL021
Why Not A KC310? posted Sun Jan 16 2005 22:42:29 by BuyantUkhaa
F-16 V F-4 Production Run posted Mon Jun 21 2004 14:53:32 by Cheshire
Why Not Keep The F-14 As A Full Time Bomber? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 06:20:01 by CX747
Why Not Keep The F-14? posted Mon May 20 2002 21:42:55 by CX747
Why US Not Offer Iran Retired F-14 And Spares? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 20:34:42 by AirRyan
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format