keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:27 pm

New wing : better performance, more fuel / range, GENX engines, maybe center gear..

Atlantic crossing with a good load but without an additional tanker, extra capacity.

Drew up this sketch a few weeks ago:



Maybe a better idea then C-17B? I don't see many other C-5 replacement alternatives on the horizon..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:49 pm

Oh, I dunno, maybe about 50% bigger too? There are just some loads where the C-5 size is required, and the C-17 can't cut it. True, the C-17 can take up most of the loads for the C-5, but there will always be a need for a C-5, so virtually a 1 on 1 replacement will be a must.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:23 pm

Will the CH-47 and or the new USMC CH-53K fit on a C-17C, do they fit on a C-17A ?. If this happens do the 2 C-5C's go to AMARC or given to NASA since that was their sole purpose was to carry oversized rocket components.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:40 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
Will the CH-47 and or the new USMC CH-53K fit on a C-17C, do they fit on a C-17A ?.



Don't know about the CH53.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:59 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Don't know about the CH53.

Almost seems better just to put them on a gator carrier and fly them off. Once you get to the AOR it probably takes about 8 hours plus just to hang the the swash plates and blades plus the first FCF before they are ready for combat, I think on the C-5 they also have to pull the swash plate and rotor transmission.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:54 pm

I still don't understand why say, a 748F wouldn't be the ideal C-5 replacement.

Of course a couple things won't fit in a 748F. But a hell of a lot can. In battle, payload-range is (should be) very important. The most modern design will win on that.

Is it just marketing that says a C-5 is tougher than a 744F? Or little-used landing specs or what?
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:22 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 5):
I still don't understand why say, a 748F wouldn't be the ideal C-5 replacement.

One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:30 pm



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 6):
One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.

For those needs the USAF can use the C-17. Also Boeing developed the Boeing Onboard Loading Device (BOLD) for the 747. It may need some updating but it could accomplish much of what the USAF needs when they operate from an airfield without a loader.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:37 pm

When you can get 748Fs cheaper than other options, the question becomes why not. I agree having your own custom C-5M designed for your fleet is gangsta and conveys a lot of seriousness. But the 748 ... also a pretty serious jet... and, it was classically designed for that purpose.


But if your equipment / tanks are designed for the C-5 then I guess it's the only game in town. It gives the impression however that for serious deployments, it constantly needs tanker top-ups. And of course, that costs uber money (and new tankers!!)

Can and does the C-5 cover respectable leg distances? Or are we talking 3 refuelings on a long journey..
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:51 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 7):
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 6):
One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.

For those needs the USAF can use the C-17. Also Boeing developed the Boeing Onboard Loading Device (BOLD) for the 747. It may need some updating but it could accomplish much of what the USAF needs when they operate from an airfield without a loader.



 Wink
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:11 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):


 

Isn't this basically what the C5 does anyways? The nose gear "kneels" to let in the cargo, seems like they could do it with a slghtly modified 748
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:32 pm



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 10):
Isn't this basically what the C5 does anyways? The nose gear "kneels" to let in the cargo, seems like they could do it with a slghtly modified 748

Clever pix of a kneeling 748. The extra length might make it a doable thing. 2 problems though, the cargo floor in the nose of the 747F is narrower than the main deck and the overhead height is less than the area aft of the cockpit.. This will leave a lot of volume unused where outsized and oversized cargo is concerned
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
texl1649
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:24 am

1. The C-5 already beat the 747, about 40 years ago. That it wasn't derived into a commercial success won't cause the AF to give up on the plane after all this time. They're basically still low hour frames, and no amount of logic can kill a well lobbied modernization program that can stretch 20 years to finally implement.

2. I've been killed for saying this, but what doesn't fit in the competitors is basically one thing, for all intents and purposes; an M-1 tank. Today, as opposed to 20, 30, or 40 years ago, we have M-1's pre-positioned in nearly all major theaters. Alternatively, even the next Hmmwv is going to be resistant to shaped charges. The V-22 will self-deploy.

Conclusion; The C-17 is a great idea, unless Boeing sees a way to finagle the flying wing into service around 2025-2030. It's basically their call.
 
CX747
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:55 am

The C-17C or a larger C-17 has been broached by Boeing to the Air Force several times. The USAF has turned them down though. What the USAF has done is purchase extended range C-17s. This has given the originally short legged design an increased range.

For the most part the USAF is happy with the transports that they have. The C-5 transports outsized cargo while the C-17s pick up other items. They transport items to the theater and C-130s take it from there. To some extent the C-17 pulls double duty. They not only provide inter-theater lift but intra-theater lift.

Recent articles have also stated that Lockheed is looking to widen the C-130 to meet the future needs of the Army. If that program goes forward (Big and long winded if) the USAF would seem to have its transport fleet in order for many years to come.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:00 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
If this happens do the 2 C-5C's go to AMARC or given to NASA since that was their sole purpose was to carry oversized rocket components

The C-5C's were also used to transport the NAVYs DSRVS but both have been removed from active service with Mystic being held in mothball reserve till the NAVYs SRDRS has full capabilty around 2012, they can be transported by standard USAF airlift.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

[quote=CX747,reply=13]The C-17C or a larger C-17 has been broached by Boeing to the Air Force several times. The USAF has turned them down though. What the USAF has done is purchase extended range C-17s. This has given the originally short legged design an increased range.[/quote

How do you identify the extended range C-17As? By block number? I don't know of any series of the C-17 except the A series. And the mention of a C-17C in this thread is the first I've seen of an actual stretch proposal ... though I believe it has a lot of merit.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:06 pm

By Block number. First off the "ER" upgrade only added changed the range from 2400nm to 2800nm.
There was a time you could tell the A from the A-ER by looking at the body fairing before the main gear, The fairing on the right side was longer than the other side as the fairing encases the APU. On the A-ER both the fairings are the longer length. AFAIK most if not all of the A's have been retrofitted with the longer fairing.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joey Collura



[Edited 2008-10-11 16:29:19]
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:07 pm



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 16):
First off the "ER" upgrade only added changed the range from 2400nm to 2800nm.

Will the rest of the fleet get upgraded to the "ER" configuration?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:59 am



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 12):
1. The C-5 already beat the 747, about 40 years ago

no it did not. The C5 and 747 never competed for the C5's role.

Now as far as civilian side they never really competed either. Most on the fact the C5 makes a terrible airliner and terrible civilian cargo plane.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:15 am

I could see putting in a fuselage plug in or two. A new wing however would be very expensive. In case you havn't herad we are having a bit of a cash flow problem right now.  Wink
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:17 pm

I don't think the USAF needs any C-5 replacement anytime soon. They're spending tons of money on a C-5 modernization program, dubbed the C-5M Super Galaxy. All new avionics, beefed up airframe for longer lifetime, and most importantly, better-more efficient engines. I like the idea of a C-17 'stretch', but I can't see it happening.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070226-F-9126Z-249.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060610-F-0000K-004.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/jan_07/cockpits/images/cockpits/c5m_full.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...07/cockpits/cockpit-views/c5m.html
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:57 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
no it did not. The C5 and 747 never competed for the C5's role.

I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter. Unfortunately Lockheed proposed the C-5 which won not only for its largeness, but also for its on the ground drive through capability.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:13 am



Quoting Gsosbee:
I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter. Unfortunately Lockheed proposed the C-5 which won not only for its largeness, but also for its on the ground drive through capability.

Nope, Boeing's entry into the contest was not the 747, BUT, the 747 which was developed afterwards did pick-up some design elements from their C-5 entry.

Quote:
All three industry designs incorporated high-wing configurations with four large turbofan engines in underwing nacelles and front and rear doors with ramps for flow-through loading and unloading. The Boeing and Douglas designs had conventional tail configurations, whereas the Lockheed design incorporated a T-tail configuration. The C-5 design submitted by Boeing was found to have superior aerodynamic cruise performance in the transonic wind-tunnel tests performed at Langley. Boeing's experience with the C-5 competition coupled with Boeing management's vision of the market-ability of jumbo civil transports (and interest from Pan American Airlines) led to the development of the Boeing 747, which enabled Boeing to dominate the world market with a new product line. Although the 747 was a completely new aircraft design (low wing, passenger-carrying civil aircraft), the general configuration influence of the earlier C-5 candidate is in evidence.

[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5-history.htm]GlobalSecurity.org C-5 Galaxy History[/url

[Edited 2008-10-14 19:16:34]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13997
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:20 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 21):
I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter.

No, it was not.

From Stich's profile, here's what Boeing's entry looked like:



Not exactly a 747, eh?

Note the high wing, etc.

According to Joe Sutter, the only major idea they took from the CX-HLS competition was the high-bypass engine, and even that engine was different than the one used on the CX-HLS entry.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:17 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):

Exactly the evolution of the 747. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:19 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 24):
Exactly the evolution of the 747. Thanks for the confirmation.

But not the 747.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13997
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:43 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 21):
The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter.

Not correct.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 24):
Exactly the evolution of the 747.

You might be able to say the cargo plane had some influence on 747, but I don't know any authoratative source that would say the 747 evolved from the cargo plane. I don't see any family similarity in the cargo plane above. Do you?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:34 pm

The flight station pic above is of an AMP modded plane, not RERP (M model). It has the original throttles, they are replaced with new whiz bang TBW jobs on the M.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:09 am

They aren't going to replace the C-5 anytime soon. They are AMP modifying all the A models, and RERP modifiying all the B models and two C-models (as well as keeping 9024, the A model that has been RERPed already for testing purposes). They'll keep the A models around until they are beyond economic repair (even though many say they aren't economic to even keep in service).

I'm curious to where the next 25 C-17s are going. I know the next one in line (07-7179) is going to Travis...but from there? McChord? March? Ramstein?

Quoting Sinlock (Reply 14):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
If this happens do the 2 C-5C's go to AMARC or given to NASA since that was their sole purpose was to carry oversized rocket components

The C-5C's were also used to transport the NAVYs DSRVS but both have been removed from active service with Mystic being held in mothball reserve till the NAVYs SRDRS has full capabilty around 2012, they can be transported by standard USAF airlift.

Both C-5Cs are used as the othe C-5s. They mainly fly local training missions at Travis, but they fly regular missions as well. Both C-5Cs are AMP modified, and will be re-engined through RERP.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 27):
The flight station pic above is of an AMP modded plane, not RERP (M model). It has the original throttles, they are replaced with new whiz bang TBW jobs on the M.

John is correct, the RERP cockpit also has a new flap/slat and spoiler handle. The FE panel is also changed around significantly on the RERP mod.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:50 am



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 28):
(even though many say they aren't economic to even keep in service).

Exactamundo, they need to keep a watchful eye on their alternatives. It still seems to me the USAF could keep a fleet of say 30 748F pretty darn busy. Unlike the C-5, the 748 will be designed to run flat out 18 hours per day, year after year. Maybe that doesn't matter a whit for strategic infrequent ops (although the range might).

But for your everyday schlepping, the 748F is how the civilian world will be getting it done. The comparison will be starting them in the face. If you are hauling ammo... or packages... or whatever, a C-74 might have some use, or at least, it would be very shiny and nice looking.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:47 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
a C-74 might have some use

Here is a C-74 for you.  Wink

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:39 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 24):
Exactly the evolution of the 747. Thanks for the confirmation.

No, the B-747 evolved from the B-367-80, to the KC-135 (B-717-100), to the B-707/B-720, to the B-727, and finally to the B-737. The B-747 did not evolve from the CX-HLS program. The interest from PA, TW, and others was for a 350-375 seat airplane with Trans-Atlantic range. That is what the B-747-100 did, bearly.

Boeing did not consider a freighter version (as then they had the B-707-320C/F in production) of the B-747 until Flying Tigers wanted one. The initial offer to FT was the B-747-200C, but later they built the B-747-200F, with the nose cargo door.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
It still seems to me the USAF could keep a fleet of say 30 748F pretty darn busy.

Yes, they could. Most of the C-5As have already, or are scheduled, to go to AMARC. I believe after these C-5As retire, there will be only one C-5A squadron, with the WVANG. The Westover USAFR squadron and NYANG Stewart are going to C-5Bs.
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:25 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Yes, they could. Most of the C-5As have already, or are scheduled, to go to AMARC. I believe after these C-5As retire, there will be only one C-5A squadron, with the WVANG. The Westover USAFR squadron and NYANG Stewart are going to C-5Bs.

Where did you see that? If the C-5As are going out to pasture, somebody should tell the AMP mod people to quite wasting our money and AMPing the A's. The official line is that all the A models will get AMP, I personally doubt that, but A models are being AMPed as I type. You are also saying Dover and Travis give up C-5s? Westover has mostly B models now, the other 36 left belong to the 2 associate wings @Dover& Travis, so to give more to the reserve component, the active duty gives them all up? That would be big news.
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 18, 2008 10:10 pm



Quoting JohnM (Reply 32):
I personally doubt that, but A models are being AMPed as I type.

Some are beyond repair.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/2390996279_c6bd9fbb9c_o.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
Boeing did not consider a freighter version (as then they had the B-707-320C/F in production) of the B-747 until Flying Tigers wanted one. The initial offer to FT was the B-747-200C, but later they built the B-747-200F, with the nose cargo door.

The 747 was always meant to be a freighter once Boeing settled on the design. They felt that supersonic jets were going to take over the pax role very soon, so they designed the 747 to be a freighter so they wouldn't become obsolete so soon after entry into service. Boeing created the hump and moved the cockpit up there to allow for a nose door capable of handling 8' x 8' x 40' intermodal containers.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:42 am



Quoting JohnM (Reply 32):
Where did you see that? If the C-5As are going out to pasture, somebody should tell the AMP mod people to quite wasting our money and AMPing the A's.

The USAF is mostly through the process of retiring 50 C-5As. Another 10-15 C-5As may be added to the list. If that happens, that will only leave 10-20 C-5As and 49 C-5B/Cs. The C-5As will go to one squadron in the WVANG, and the C-5Bs will go to 4 squadrons, at Dover(Active/Assoc.), Travis (Active/Assoc.), Stewart (NYANG), and Westover (USAFR). The two C-5Cs will stay at Travis. Eventually, all C-5Bs will become C-5Ms, the C-5Cs will become C-5Ns, and the remaining C-5As will probibly not change MDS.

It may be a good idea for the USAF to buy about 4 squadrons (48-60) B-747-8Fs to suppliment the military heavy lift role. They could place 3 squadrons on the west coast, at March (CAANG), Travis (Active/Assoc.), and McCord (Active/Assoc.), and one on the east coast at Charlston (either the SCANG or Active/Assoc.). They could also base a few at Altus for the training wing, like the KC-135 and C-17.

Buying B-747-8Fs and militarizing them would be cheaper than developing a new C-17C.

Quoting Ha763 (Reply 34):
The 747 was always meant to be a freighter once Boeing settled on the design. They felt that supersonic jets were going to take over the pax role very soon, so they designed the 747 to be a freighter so they wouldn't become obsolete so soon after entry into service. Boeing created the hump and moved the cockpit up there to allow for a nose door capable of handling 8' x 8' x 40' intermodal containers.

Even though Boeing got into the SST business, with the B-2707, I doubt they originally thought of the B-747 as a freighter. The full freighter didn't come out for 7, or so years, and was the 5th version introduced, after the B-747-100, B-747-200, B-747-200B, B-747-200C, and then came the B-747-200F. The hump was designed as a lounge or additional seating as set up by the airlines. The cockpit had to be placed high on the fuselage because of the overall lenght and approch glide paths, needed to be higher to give a "normal look" to the approach. That is also why airports, that supported the B-747, and other wide bodies, neede to install three box VASIs. Narrow body airplanes would site on the first two boxes, and wide body airplanes would use the second and third boxes.

It was after the design of the B-747-200F started, that engineers realized they could add the nose door, and it became a selling point for the airplane.
 
studedave
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:21 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:36 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
I doubt they originally thought of the B-747 as a freighter. The full freighter didn't come out for 7, or so years, and was the 5th version introduced, after the B-747-100, B-747-200, B-747-200B, B-747-200C, and then came the B-747-200F. The hump was designed as a lounge or additional seating as set up by the airlines.

No disrespect, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I have read somewhere (in more then one place) that the hump was/is there due to freight hauling. It might not have been the first version of the jet that benefited from it, but it was in the plan from near the beginning for that very reason...

One source I have here is a book titled "Boeing- Plane Maker to the World"
I'm looking for the other book- specifically about the 747.
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:16 am



Quoting StudeDave (Reply 36):
I'm looking for the other book- specifically about the 747.

Check out chapter 11 of Clive Irvings book "Wide-body". Juan Trippe was convinced cargo would be as important in the future as pax were. Consequently Pan Ams Engineering dept argued successfully for nose loading of the freighter version. This was all occured before Pan Am signed up for their first 747s.....

The other feature Pan Am wanted but didn't get was a full length double deck. Boeing didn't think they could make the emergency evacuation work - and in fact when Boeing showed Trippe the mockup of the double decker nobody from Pan Am, except one pilot, cared to try the slides....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:27 am



Quoting StudeDave (Reply 36):
I'm looking for the other book- specifically about the 747.

Another book that discusses Pan Ams involvement and desire for a nose loading 747 freighter is Robert Serlings "Legend & Legacy" specifically chap. 17.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:18 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The USAF is mostly through the process of retiring 50 C-5As. Another 10-15 C-5As may be added to the list. If that happens, that will only leave 10-20 C-5As and 49 C-5B/Cs. The C-5As will go to one squadron in the WVANG, and the C-5Bs will go to 4 squadrons, at Dover(Active/Assoc.), Travis (Active/Assoc.), Stewart (NYANG), and Westover (USAFR). The two C-5Cs will stay at Travis. Eventually, all C-5Bs will become C-5Ms, the C-5Cs will become C-5Ns, and the remaining C-5As will probibly not change MDS

Where on earth did you get this info? They aren't retiring any other C-5As! The USAF retired the 66 and 67 models and 70-0450 and 70-0458. They tore down 69-0004 for structural analysis. Where is this "List of 50 C-5As" that are being retired? Even if this was somehow a fact, which I seriously doubt, cause I would of heard about it, Lackland would keep C-5s since they are the FTU, and Memphis and WPAFB would keep the things after spending hundreds of millions in upgrades to their bases to handle the C-5. In additon, as John mentioned, they wouldn't be upgrading the A models with AMP if they were just going to throw them out! So again, I ask, where did you get this info?

Quoting JohnM (Reply 32):
has mostly B models now, the other 36 left belong to the 2 associate wings @Dover& Travis, so to give more to the reserve component, the active duty gives them all up? That would be big news.

Westover has ALL B models, and only 4 aren't AMP modified, or in AMP (4060, 6019, 7037 and 7041-not AMPed). I agree with you though, That would be HUGE news! Its just a matter of being factual or not.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:42 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 39):
In additon, as John mentioned, they wouldn't be upgrading the A models with AMP if they were just going to throw them out

USAF did exactly that with the C-141Cs, upgraded with a phaseout plan already in place.. Otherwise I concur with your comment - 'Boom has gotten into some bad info....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:31 pm

I agree, the plan right now is not to retire - the A's get the AMP only. However, everything will be up for discussion with the new administration whoever it is.

The issue with the A's is that the entire lot either needs to be upgraded or retired. The reason to keep them is that without them lift capability is severely impacted by any measure or political opinion. One rumor (repeat rumor) going around the puzzle palace is a scenario that entails a simultaneous award with NG getting the KC-30 based tanker and Boeing getting a 74 based tanker award with the 74's being used chiefly in the cargo mode thereby allowing the A's to be retired.
 
JohnM
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The USAF is mostly through the process of retiring 50 C-5As. Another 10-15 C-5As may be added to the list. If that happens, that will only leave 10-20 C-5As and 49 C-5B/Cs. The C-5As will go to one squadron in the WVANG, and the C-5Bs will go to 4 squadrons, at Dover(Active/Assoc.), Travis (Active/Assoc.), Stewart (NYANG), and Westover (USAFR). The two C-5Cs will stay at Travis. Eventually, all C-5Bs will become C-5Ms, the C-5Cs will become C-5Ns, and the remaining C-5As will probibly not change MDS.

I think TopBoom you need to check your source and math. If Dover, Travis, Westover, and Stewart all have B models, thats lots more than 49 planes (that's all the B's there are). The rumor is out there that Westover and Stewart might be C-17 bases in the future, but that's another story. Where are you getting your info? If 50 C-5A's are mostly through the process of retiring, maybe somebody should tell those guys to stop flying them, and drop them by the desert. As of 2 days ago, they were out there doing their thing as normal.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:01 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 41):
One rumor (repeat rumor) going around the puzzle palace is a scenario that entails a simultaneous award with NG getting the KC-30 based tanker and Boeing getting a 74 based tanker award with the 74's being used chiefly in the cargo mode thereby allowing the A's to be retired.

I like that rumor. It has a nice balanced feel to it.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:46 am



Quoting JohnM (Reply 42):
The rumor is out there that Westover and Stewart might be C-17 bases in the future, but that's another story

Westover wants to keep the C-5s, which is why they wanted the B models so bad. Stewart on the other hand did hint at the idea at getting C-17s IF their A models get scrapped.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 41):
I agree, the plan right now is not to retire - the A's get the AMP only. However, everything will be up for discussion with the new administration whoever it is.

The issue with the A's is that the entire lot either needs to be upgraded or retired. The reason to keep them is that without them lift capability is severely impacted by any measure or political opinion. One rumor (repeat rumor) going around the puzzle palace is a scenario that entails a simultaneous award with NG getting the KC-30 based tanker and Boeing getting a 74 based tanker award with the 74's being used chiefly in the cargo mode thereby allowing the A's to be retired.

I agree that this will all be up for discussion 6 months to a year from now when whoever is in office. The problem with the A models is that they are having structural issues with the aircraft. The repairs are taking 6 to 8 months to fix for each of the three major issues. The number one issue is the crown skin, as the skin is cracking and corroding structural supports under the skin. Its been a major issue with upgrading 69-0024 to a C-5M. There is a picture posted on here of 9024, and you can see in that photo a part of the crown skin that was replaced. Cost is obviously an issue in fixing these problems, but the biggest issue is the downtime each plane would be in getting these repairs done. After the problems with 9024, the USAF said screw going through that for As. We'll get 24 up and running, and do the two C models done and call it a done deal. Surely the B models will have a problem pop up sometime down the road.

I suggested a year ago that they retire all but 20 of the A models, that way they have spares around in case another 4059 occurred. Mothballing a handfull instead of tearing them down like they did to the first 14 retired, would keep some spares around as well.

Rumors aside, the C-5 isn't going anywhere, and they aren't looking to replace it. I'm sure the 748 rumors will fly for years and nothing will happen because there isn't a need for them. If the C-5, C-17, KC-10 can't carry it, they get civillian airlines like Atlas Air, Evergreen, Polar Air Cargo and Kallitta to pick up the workload. Every now and then an AN-124 is thrown into the mix. Yippie Kai Yay.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:24 am

The plan I read for the C-5A's is that when the RERP program is complete (2010) then the USAF can go back and ask Congress to allow them to retire some of the C-5A's. Until then Congress said no more retirements. Some in the USAF want more C-17's to replace the C-5A's but the official plan was (and still is) to have the KC-X fill that gap.

Rep. Murtha recently said the F-22 & C-17 will unlikely be getting any more orders and that the KC-X needs to be a dual buy with NG/EADS going first because they are ready.

I am aware of suggestions being made to the highest levels of our government that a dual-buy of the KC-30 and 747's would be best. Maybe that is why those rumours are going around. (Reply 41)



October Air Force Magazine article....

"By law, the Air Force can't retire any C-5As until RERP operational test and evaluation is finished". (good article on state of airlift from October issue of Air Force Magazine )

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...08/October%202008/1008airlift.aspx


Rep. Murtha on Dual Buy....

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/150135.asp

Rep. Murtha on F-22 & C-17 cuts...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ha+Predicts+Defense+Budget+Squeeze
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:26 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 45):
The plan I read for the C-5A's is that when the RERP program is complete (2010) then the USAF can go back and ask Congress to allow them to retire some of the C-5A's. Until then Congress said no more retirements. Some in the USAF want more C-17's to replace the C-5A's but the official plan was (and still is) to have the KC-X fill that gap.

There are a few additional things the USAF is considering here. The economy, and the effect the C-5A, with a current mission capable rate around 50%-55%, with AMP will have. AMP does not promise any more than a 10% mission capable rate. FY 2010 is only 11 months away, and the new Congress will be at a loss for cash. Retiring these C-5As will save money. Just as re-engining the C-5B/C, and possibly the KC-135E (and cancelling the KC-X program), these programs will be relitively cheap. I doubt Congress will buy any more C-17s after the 15 scheduled in FY 2009. Congress could also kill two programs with one hit, if they decide to do that. Cancel all remaining AMP C-5As, and retire that fleet, retire the KC-135E fleet, cancel the KC-X program, and simply buy up to 165 KC-747-8F, which can supplement the C-5Ms and C-17A-ERs.

As hfar as the AMP C-5As being retired, the USAF has retired fleets before after major upgrade programs. The F/FB-111s after AMP, the B-52D after Spin-Jeans, and a rewing, and a host of others.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 45):
October Air Force Magazine article....

"By law, the Air Force can't retire any C-5As until RERP operational test and evaluation is finished". (good article on state of airlift from October issue of Air Force Magazine )

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...08/October%202008/1008airlift.aspx


Rep. Murtha on Dual Buy....

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/150135.asp

Rep. Murtha on F-22 & C-17 cuts...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ueeze

Interesting reading. It looks like Murtha is trying to sit on 3 sides of a 2 sided fence.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7716
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:41 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
The economy, and the effect the C-5A, with a current mission capable rate around 50%-55%

That has got to be part of the cost calculation. New 747s have availability of >90% in the civilian world. The costs should be scaled accordingly. Fewer jets to accomplish the same mission / hours / tons freighted.

I don't see why they would do a 748 tanker however. Wouldn't that just be additional weight they would never use... just to capitalize Mr. Boeing's boom investments...
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:30 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 47):
I don't see why they would do a 748 tanker however. Wouldn't that just be additional weight they would never use... just to capitalize Mr. Boeing's boom investments...



A 748 based tanker would make a wonderful deployment tanker. IE pack a whole bunch of people in who need to go somewhere, and use the remaining wieght for refueling the heavy lift planes hauling the tanks/apc's to make their legs a bit longer.

Though a 744 length fuselage would likely be the choice of the USAF if offered since thats alot less strucural wieght.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?

Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:45 am

The USAF will never go for a 747XYZ because they cant jam tanks and other heavy equipment in it. The decks are not strong enough, the deck height is too low, and the fuselage is too high off the ground*. As a tanker, it is too big, the USAF already said the 777 would be too big, so I doubt they would change their tune for the 747. All a USAF 747 transport would be good for is hauling troops and palletized cargo, both of which can be contracted out to an airline just as they do now. How better to get airline like efficiency than to let an airline do the work.


* I know, kneel the plane, but that would be one heck of an incline.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cumulushumilis and 9 guests