PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:39 pm

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

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html

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
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:45 am

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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:00 pm

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)
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:05 pm

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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:05 pm

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
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: C-17 Operating Cost 1/3 Of C-5 On Par With C-130

Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:08 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bennett123 and 4 guests