crownvic
Posts: 1762
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:05 am

According to Bloomberg worldwide news this morning, their news crawler at the bottome of the TV screen said and I quote "Giant global company Heavylift has placed an order with Boeing for an undisclosed amount of C-17s".... Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.??? If so, than this is an all time first for civil aviation history!! Can anyone verify????
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:07 am

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601103&sid=aLruD6.HPifA&refer=news

Looks to be true to me!

Global Heavylift Holdings LLC of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Civilian C-17's a cometh! All shall rejoice in the land!

From what I've just read, they say they want 60 used aircraft to give the USAF the ability to upgrade its inventory, or 30 new aircraft. WOW!

They even said they might take over the line if Boeing would stop production.

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:10:28]
 
crownvic
Posts: 1762
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:12 am

Yes I saw it on their website as well...Incredible if this appears to be true, this has to be a civil aviation first.....I cant wait for Gemini Jets to do this in a 1:400 scale model!!!!!

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:40:19]
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 am

 
egmcman
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:17 am

Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter):
Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.???

No they ceased trading in 2002 IIRC.
 
Magyarorszag
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Crownvic (Thread starter):
Is this the same Heavylift that I am thinking of based in the U.K.???

That airline doesn't exist anymore. In April 2001 it changed its name to HC Airlines/ Prime.

End Of Heavylift Cargo

The new Heavylift Airlines is based Down Under.

http://heavyliftcargo.com/

[Edited 2007-03-04 00:21:23]
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:12 am

Good luck to these guys, but it sounds extremely speculative to me.

World Airways had seriously considered buying some C-17s when the Generals at AMC wanted them to do so to keep the line open, and had obviously done market studies to see if the global demand would justify the incredible capital expense of these airplanes as compared to a typical freighter in civilian use. Conclusion...nope. World has an extraordinarily good freight charter sales department, and if they couldn't see how to make the market work -- as a profitable 50+-year-old carrier rather than a bunch of basically-non-airline-folks -- I have some real doubts about whether these Global guys could make it work. Moreover...30 new aircraft???? What???? That's a substantial multiple of the cargo fleets of any of Northwest, Lufthansa, Gemini, World, Atlas, Polar, Evergreen, Kalitta, Southern, etc.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:26 am

I have a couple of questions:

1. Who is going to pay for the flight tests that will be required to obtain civilian certification?

2. Where does Heavy Lift plan on getting these used C-17's? The USAF was more and Congress choose not to fund them, so I don't think there will be any C-17's showing up on the used market anytime soon. .
 
wingnut767
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:50 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:00 am

Boeing Announces C-17 Line May End in mid-2009; Stops Procurement of Long-lead Parts

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070302a_nr.html

This Boeing article from March 2nd says nothing about any new or big customers for the C-17. But it could still be in the works.
Yakum purkan min shmaya
 
ksupilot
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:27 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:01 am

I hope this all works out...really want to see a civilian version of the C-17.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:08 am

So cool. I've been waiting for someone to jump on this.





Mark
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Where does Heavy Lift plan on getting these used C-17's? The USAF was more and Congress choose not to fund them, so I don't think there will be any C-17's showing up on the used market anytime soon.

IIRC, a previous plan like this used the proceeds from selling the used aircraft to procure the new aircraft.
War Eagle!
 
ksupilot
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:27 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:21 am

I was thinking about the BC-17X when I first heard about this.

Finally a US Civilian cargo plane that looks like it means business. The Russians have been playing circles around us for years with the Antonovs.

On another note...I'm seeing a possible Y3 design there...base it off of the C-17 and then produce a civilian cargo / passenger version, along with a military cargo version. Picture a larger BC-17X with composites and super-efficient engines. But until then, the BC-17X will do.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:37 am

I liked this name better...


I think the idea of this airplane, in limited quantities, could be great for some of the package haulers due to its short field performance. Instead of having to fly into the large international airports, it could go into much smaller reliever fields... with cheaper fees, closer to the population center, etc.
 
ksupilot
Posts: 635
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:27 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:09 am

I think all the puzzle pieces are coming together now! UPS cancels its A380 order...suddenly there is a heavy cargo version of the C-17 possibly available from Boeing. Pure coincidence?  Big grin

Makes me wonder........
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:57 pm

Cool!

Would love to see VarigLog flying a couple of those hehe
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
hawaiian717
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:12 pm

I remember a few years ago when McDonnell Douglas (maybe it was Boeing by then, I'm not sure) was offering the MD-17 as a civilian version, and I believe a couple were built to this spec. There wasn't much interest in it, as it seemed that the An-124 was filling the needs of the market that the MD-17 was aimed at. The two MD-17s were converted to C-17 spec and delivered to the US military.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:13 pm

One of the things that makes the C-17 work so effectively in the Military is that the plane takes off with max weight, but minimum fuel from shorter air fields. Gets airborne and then gets fuel in-air. How would that work with the civilian version?
 
LimaNiner
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:00 pm

I'd be surprised if they can gainfully employ even 30 of these things...

Don't freight operators have to keep their machines going pretty much constantly to stay "in the black" cashflow-wise? The niche market that a BC-17X would go into is probably pretty small -- how much diamond mining and oil drilling equipment is airlifted into the middle of nowhere on a daily basis?
 
YVRLTN
Posts: 2268
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:49 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:15 pm

Isnt the C17 more like one of these rather than the AN124?? Or is it a lot bigger (been a while since Ive seen an IL76...)
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Normando Carvalho Jr.

Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
 
kbfispotter
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:49 pm

Quoting Magyarorszag (Reply 5):
The new Heavylift Airlines is based Down Under.

Read the article again... it says it is a new company, Global Heavylift, based in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Kris
Proud to be an A&P!!!
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:56 pm

They'd be great for short field landings.

Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:00 pm

I hope they keep to it military standers, it would be nice to see a US built civilan jet that is powered by four PW 2040.
 
User avatar
Goodbye
Posts: 854
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 1:41 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 22):
They'd be great for short field landings.

Even managed to get the Compressor Stall!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:48 pm

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 18):
Don't freight operators have to keep their machines going pretty much constantly to stay "in the black" cashflow-wise?

Not when using low-capital-cost aircraft. There's a presumption of some downtime. But with the $200mm capital cost of a C-17, uh....yeah....it'd have to be flying constantly. And there's the problem.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:48 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 21):

Wow, that just never ceases to be impressive.  Smile

Awesome news!
Looks like Boeing will be keeping the C-17 line open a little longer.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
N867BX
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:19 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:48 pm

Sounds like a great idea. Where do I invest? On second thought I think I'll just flush my money down the toilet.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:43 pm

The commercial C-17 was first proposed by MDC back when they were first developing the program. I am not a 100% on the details but I belive UPS and FedEx were interested in the idea, but the Air Force didn't want their front line transport to also be a civil transport. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this plan.
Pilots are idots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:22 pm

Could make sense if Heavylift would part-time operate BC-17s for the DoD as a civil contractor and would use whatever excess capacity is left for commercial flights. Fleet sustainment would likely be contracted to Boeing and pooled with the DoD fleet, anyway. I doubt a stand-alone commercial operation would suffice as a business case.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:36 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
I have a couple of questions:

1. Who is going to pay for the flight tests that will be required to obtain civilian certification?

2. Where does Heavy Lift plan on getting these used C-17's? The USAF was more and Congress choose not to fund them, so I don't think there will be any C-17's showing up on the used market anytime soon. .

IIRC, the USAF C-17A already is certified by the FAA. The USAF started doing this with aircraft that COULD have a cilivian application when they bought the KC-10A.

The only "used" C-17As that could be available are the non ER versions of the USAF C-17A. I doubt the RAF, RAAF, or CAF would be interested in selling theirs, as they got the C-17A-ER.

The problem with a used C-17 is it has a receiver air refueling receptical. I really doubt the USAF would be interested in providing air refueling for cilivian aircraft (liability issues). So, perhaps the hybird deal the RAF has for commerical air refueling services from A-330TTs might work.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 28):
Could make sense if Heavylift would part-time operate BC-17s for the DoD as a civil contractor and would use whatever excess capacity is left for commercial flights. Fleet sustainment would likely be contracted to Boeing and pooled with the DoD fleet, anyway. I doubt a stand-alone commercial operation would suffice as a business case.

In addition to mostly providing heavy airlift service to the DOD, and occasionally to cilivian companies, it looks like Global Heavylift might also be looking at supporting the Boeing B-787 program and Airbus A-350/380 programs with additional outsized cargo capability when the A-300-600 Baluga and B-747-400LCF are over taxed, thus the BC-17 will have additional work.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:49 pm

Could be real

The IL-76 would be the main competitor here. There are current programs to refit PS-90 engines to existing airframes in order to comply with Stage 3 or 4 noise regs, noncompliance being an issue that has seen the aircraft banned in many countries already. The pool of convertable aircraft is shrinking, and there are severe issues with producing new airframes (like the problems the Chinese airforce is having getting new IL-78 tankers built).

Perhaps Heavylift is seeing an opportunity to provide lift to the USAF, all the while recieving CRAF money. New build BC-17 freighters would propbably lack a LOT of military spec equipment. Simplify the landing gear, delete the air refuelling stuff and military coms, you could easily knock a few tens of millions of dollars off. Coming in late in the production run, an extra 30 aircraft (which is like an increase of 15% in the run) might benefit from economies of scale too, dropping the unit price for heavy lift and any follow on orders from mil customers. I think now is a good time to do this program if anyone is thinking of it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
The problem with a used C-17 is it has a receiver air refueling receptical. I really doubt the USAF would be interested in providing air refueling for cilivian aircraft (liability issues). So, perhaps the hybird deal the RAF has for commerical air refueling services from A-330TTs might work.

Think of it as leasing opportunities. USAF needs an extra C-17 pronto... do they wait for congress to fund one, or do they just pony up some funds and have their "new" aircraft waiting on the ramp in 12 hours?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
r2rho
Posts: 2442
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:02 am

On the other side of things, I heard that a group of European governments was planning on buying some C-17s for shared use for their airlift needs. Does anyone know the status of this? It could keep the C-17 line open a bit longer, if they order in time before Boeing closes it indefinitely. Even with the upcoming A400M, Europe will still need large cargo aircraft like the C-17 or An124 for some missions.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:12 am

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 30):
Think of it as leasing opportunities. USAF needs an extra C-17 pronto... do they wait for congress to fund one, or do they just pony up some funds and have their "new" aircraft waiting on the ramp in 12 hours?

The USAF already has this capability with the CRAF, although no commerical aircraft has the capaibilities of the C/BC-17, except for the very expensive to operate An-124.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 31):
On the other side of things, I heard that a group of European governments was planning on buying some C-17s for shared use for their airlift needs. Does anyone know the status of this? It could keep the C-17 line open a bit longer, if they order in time before Boeing closes it indefinitely. Even with the upcoming A400M, Europe will still need large cargo aircraft like the C-17 or An124 for some missions.

Yes, these would be new build C-17s for NATO, under an arrangement similar to the NATO/OTAN E-3A AWACS aircraft. NATO may be looking for 4-18 airplanes. I think the Boeing announcement was really a shot across the bow for both the US and NATO to add pressure for the new orders.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:18 am

Quoting R2rho (Reply 31):
On the other side of things, I heard that a group of European governments was planning on buying some C-17s for shared use for their airlift needs.

These plans were met with opposition from the French and the Germans, who feel like the A400M could need some protection...
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:22 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
The USAF already has this capability with the CRAF, although no commerical aircraft has the capaibilities of the C/BC-17, except for the very expensive to operate An-124.

Ecactly my point. The US has no aircraft with C-17 capabilities in the CRAF fleet. The AN-124 isn't always available immediately either.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
dacman
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:25 am

Wow!! I haven't heard a word of this as of yet from my sources here in Long Beach, I will definately be doing some checking tomorrow (Monday) and get the lowdown.

It would be a lovely sight to see Heavylift, UPS, or World Airways BC-17s rolling off the line, not going to hold my breath at this point though............stay tuned.

Michael
Dacman
LAX/LGB Local
"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:33 am

So how much need is there really for this type of lift platform? The C-17 is designed for tanks and very heavy, oversized equipment, not letters, postage and courier type products.

I suppose it could be one of those "build-it-and-they-will-come" sort of products. Not much equipment is carried around this way at present because we don't have the jets in sufficient capacity to make it economically feasible. (I imagine the Russian Antov costs a small fortune to rent for a day or so). But, get 60 of these C-17s available on a regular basis and perhaps it lowers the costs to the point that it becomes competitive for our manufacturers of large equipment to begin shipping by air rather than rail or ship. Whaddya think?

Oh, is one of these things long enough to fit a fuselage inside??? (Thinking 737RS delivery vehicle here . . .)
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 17):
One of the things that makes the C-17 work so effectively in the Military is that the plane takes off with max weight, but minimum fuel from shorter air fields. Gets airborne and then gets fuel in-air. How would that work with the civilian version?

The C-17 is really only feasible in the military environment when it's inefficient economics can be justifed for national defense. I don't know how many pallets the C-17 can hold but something tells me that UPS or FedEX will be able to get more of them on their 777 or 747's, and the only use for C-17's would be in the oversized niche market which considering it's payload to range ratio, I just don't see a bright future for the C-17 in a non-military environment. "Methinks" the USAF is trying to get creative again (a la leased KC-767) and we all know what happened the last time they tried to pull one over on the taxpayers.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
IIRC, the USAF C-17A already is certified by the FAA. The USAF started doing this with aircraft that COULD have a cilivian application when they bought the KC-10A.

Could you please supply the Type Certification Data Sheet number for the C-17? I think you will find the only military transport to be FAA certified was the C-141.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
Could you please supply the Type Certification Data Sheet number for the C-17? I think you will find the only military transport to be FAA certified was the C-141.

Really, what does it matter - is it not simply a matter of semantics? I think the USAF has proved through actual time that the C-17 i safe to fly. This is like a story I heard recently about someone who got their multi-engine CFI but than has to go back and actually test for single-engine CFI, as if you can instruct multi but somehow don't know enough to do so on a single engine place - government bureaucratic semantics.
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:38 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
I think you will find the only military transport to be FAA certified was the C-141.

And that is only because Lockheed tried to sell a civilian version just like the C-130. IIRC, one was produced and ended up with NASA after no commercial orders came for the civilian version.
War Eagle!
 
r2rho
Posts: 2442
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:49 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 33):
These plans were met with opposition from the French and the Germans, who feel like the A400M could need some protection...

How typical! However I did hear that there were some countries who didn't follow the French/Germans and who were still supporting a C-17 buy.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:54 am

I wonder if that purchase price is really correct? I would imagine for this kind of civilian role, a lot of military features would be deleted and cut down on the cost significantly. Electronics, in-flight refueling system, etc. Kind of how the bare metal purchase price of a fighter jet is significantly lower than what the USAF pays, because most of the cost goes into the electronics suite...
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
PlanenutzTB
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:29 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:54 am

IIRC, the tooling for the C-17 is owned by the USAF and not Boeing. If this is the case how can Boeing sell commercial planes from the tooling?
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
Could you please supply the Type Certification Data Sheet number for the C-17?

I found this. Maybe it'll help.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_970828n.html
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 38):
I think you will find the only military transport to be FAA certified was the C-141.

The KC-10 also has a FAA Certificate, so it can use, and share parts with commerical DC-10s. Although this only applies to non-military equipment and engines.

Quoting PlanenutzTB (Reply 43):
IIRC, the tooling for the C-17 is owned by the USAF and not Boeing. If this is the case how can Boeing sell commercial planes from the tooling?

It can be rented from the government. The USAF owned the tooling for the KC-135, some of wich could be used in producing B-707s and B-720s, as well as the 41 sections of the B-707, B-720, B-727, and B-737 Classic and about the first 1000 NGs (those equipped with eye brow windows).

Lockheed could have rented the government owned tooling to produce cilivan C-141s and C-5s. They did rent the tooling of the C-130 to build the L-100s.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
The KC-10 also has a FAA Certificate, so it can use, and share parts with commerical DC-10s. Although this only applies to non-military equipment and engines.

The DC-10 was designed and certified as a commerical aircraft long before there was ever a KC-10

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 44):
found this. Maybe it'll help.

It says in the Boeing press release the FAA certification will be required for a civilian version on the C-17, which has never taken place.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Da man (Reply 40):
And that is only because Lockheed tried to sell a civilian version just like the C-130. IIRC, one was produced and ended up with NASA after no commercial orders came for the civilian version.

Lockheed marketed a civilian C-141 as the L-200, but I don't think any were built as such. NASA's Starlifter may have been built under the corporate L-200 designation, but it was actually a C-141A which was modified to their needs. I don't think Lockheed built a civilian L-200 demonstrator or anything like that.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
flyabunch
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:42 am

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:27 am

How much weight would be saved if you take out the military specific equipment such as refueling, electronics, etc?

Then trade that for increased fuel at take-off. Would it be enough to make the plane more more valid as a civilian heavy lift plane?

And, are gross weights, etc. figured the same way on military lift aircraft as civilian?

Mike
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Heavylift C-17?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:26 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 47):
Lockheed marketed a civilian C-141 as the L-200, but I don't think any were built as such.

The C-141 was put thought the complete FAA certification process and was issued a FAA Type Data Certification Sheet(A2SO). While the C-141 (Lockheed Model 300) was offered to the civilian market, its only order, to Slick Airways, was cancelled when Slick merged with Airlift International.