Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Rossiya747
Topic Author
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:45 pm

Bad question,
Why was the An-124 used for military and commercial use while the C5 was only used for military and could the C5 be used for commercial use?
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:27 pm

In a word: money

Circa 1990, Russia's economy was a dumpster fire and aircraft could be acquired on the cheap. They kind of still are, hence why you can still fly to a Russian Air Base drop a few grand and fly to 70,000 feet in a Mig-29 even today. The AN-124 is perfectly capable of outsize cargo, had very low acquisition costs, and shall we say the company is very good at keeping things moving... So its costs are relatively low. There was a commercial design of the C-5 called the L-500, but low commercial interest due to aircraft and fuel costs doomed the aircraft. I'm sure the C-5's stellar reputation for reliability also factors in there, too.

Random fun fact, the USAF (well, Transcom and AMC) actually does charter their aircraft too. That's how the C-17 hauled Keiko the whale to Iceland in the late 90s, and they also brought a dozen cheetahs from Namibia to the Cincinnati zoo ~ 2001.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:15 pm

There’s some very specific rules on the government chartering out military planes. They cannot compete with civilian carriers. There has to be a governmental purpose. In the two cases cited, foreign policy tie. Civilian goods that are actually government furnished equipment in transit for assembly is another example. Civil emergencies like hurricanes is another.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:35 pm

Didn't they move the fancy long reach trucks that pump cement great distances from the US to Japan after the Fukushima reactor was damaged in the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 via C-5 aircraft?

I seem to remember that those were the only aircraft other than the AN-225 with the vertical clearance necessary.

Could be wrong about that.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
cpd
Posts: 6378
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 22, 2020 1:28 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Didn't they move the fancy long reach trucks that pump cement great distances from the US to Japan after the Fukushima reactor was damaged in the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 via C-5 aircraft?

I seem to remember that those were the only aircraft other than the AN-225 with the vertical clearance necessary.

Could be wrong about that.



That would be a fairly special exception. I'm sure the L-500 would be a useful thing to have commercially, but the market is small for those kinds of planes and the AN-124 operators have that all covered very adequately. They also do those kinds of oversize cargo transportation pretty well.
 
tu204
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:03 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Didn't they move the fancy long reach trucks that pump cement great distances from the US to Japan after the Fukushima reactor was damaged in the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 via C-5 aircraft?

I seem to remember that those were the only aircraft other than the AN-225 with the vertical clearance necessary.

Could be wrong about that.


Could be wrong, but isn't the vertical clearance on the An-225 the same as An-124?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:04 pm

I moved the Vimy bomber replica from KSUU to EGUN. National Geographic and NAS, had sponsored the move, certainly very unusual along with the national aerobatic team to RMS. Funny part on moving the Vimy, it was approved but as “space available”. There wasn’t any available as it turned out when loaded, oops. Hand slaps all around. Builders of US DOD equipment usually get approved especially if oversized. Trailers for moving MkV boats for example.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2167
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:46 pm

tu204 wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
Didn't they move the fancy long reach trucks that pump cement great distances from the US to Japan after the Fukushima reactor was damaged in the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 via C-5 aircraft?

I seem to remember that those were the only aircraft other than the AN-225 with the vertical clearance necessary.

Could be wrong about that.


Could be wrong, but isn't the vertical clearance on the An-225 the same as An-124?


I believe so. The An-225 has fuselage plugs before and after of the wing, wing root extensions, the additional 2 engines and the H tail but I believe the core was the regular An-124 and since the 225's mission was to haul the Buran outside, on top, I can't imagine that they would bother redesigning the interior dimension. Also, committed to memory from my time in high school 30 years ago devouring all things aircraft, the C-5 cargo hold interior dimensions is 19' wide, 13' tall, 121' long inside of the C-5 which is 247' long, 222' wingspan and 65' tall. Not sure what the An-124 cargo hold is (used to have it memorized) but it was similar to the C-5.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:19 am

Okay, found some pictures. Looks like I was wrong. Several of the boom pumps were sent from several place. Some went by AN-124. The aircraft loading ramp was too steep, so an longer ramp was built.

Image

Image

Never found the original thread which I though was on this site.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:05 am

144’ long in the cargo floor.
 
tu204
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:01 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Okay, found some pictures. Looks like I was wrong. Several of the boom pumps were sent from several place. Some went by AN-124. The aircraft loading ramp was too steep, so an longer ramp was built.

Image

Image

Never found the original thread which I though was on this site.


I've actually seen quite a few photos/videos where they had to build a ramp in front of the aircraft's ramp due to the angle and not being able to simply "drive on".

Was anything similar done with the C-5?
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:13 pm

Yes, various shoring and ramp fixes were done for some loads. Most -9 loads, standard ones in the load manual, -9) were designed with just floor protection by sheets of plywood. Lumber yards in some case. Loads like the MkV SOCOM boat, the Virginia-class items were on purpose-built trailers with elevating fifth wheels, steeering axles, etc to facilitate loading. A MkV was a drive-on in 90 minutes.

That vehicle would have needed the same ramp for C-5 loading due to ramp crest and break over angles.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:51 pm

A load might have a vertical clearance need of say 14 ft for example.

But a long load going over a steep ramp might have a vertical clearance of six or eight inches higher as the load base tilts. I've seen this happen with RV's trying to go under a low clearance bridge.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:05 pm

Cool topic. But I'd have to say that I'd expect exactly zero commercial orders for a C-5. It's way too expensive and unreliable for the value. Only the USAF could throw money down a hole that big. ;)

The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

The An-124 hits a sweet spot (for a market that isn't terribly big) because it's not overly specialized for military use, thereby reducing its operating costs, while also being operated by companies that can operate on the cheap. But I'm afraid that when the An-124 fleets are retired, nobody is going to step up to the plate to design a replacement. But hopefully I'm wrong.

A heavy lifter that has made a commercial impact (again, not a terribly big one) is the civilian version of the C-130. However, it's taken LM an awfully long time to get around to certifying the civilian J version since the J version entered military production, which kind of indicates the limited market for these machines.

However, I would say off the cuff that the most commercially successful heavy lifter of this type has been the Il-76. Very utilitarian and in the hands of companies that can make the costs pencil out.

 
bhill
Posts: 1804
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:44 pm

Nom nom nom....burrp...that truck was yummy....whots fer desert?
Carpe Pices
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:03 pm

Rossiya747 wrote:
Bad question,
Why was the An-124 used for military and commercial use while the C5 was only used for military and could the C5 be used for commercial use?


In this world wide crisis? It would be the perfect time and opportunity for the USA and Russia to put aside their rhetoric and fly freight to wherever the world needs it? From wherever it's being produced and from whomever is producing it. The Russian's have the AN124 and smaller freighters and the USA has the C-5B and smaller freighters including civilian freighters. Place them in 2 commands and span the world with Airlines who have and fly freighters pitching in to fill any gaps. This crisis could actually brong the world together instead of a bunch of DIMWITS waving Sabre's at each other all the time. the C5 would only lack the loading and unloading gear but it could be unloaded with the large commercial loaders used be Airlines. At United we have on occasion used Russian AN-124's airplanes to move engines for 777-200's on occasion. and we loaded the engines ourselves, /so worldwide? It can be done, and in good style as well.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:25 pm

smithbs wrote:
Cool topic. But I'd have to say that I'd expect exactly zero commercial orders for a C-5. It's way too expensive and unreliable for the value. Only the USAF could throw money down a hole that big. ;)

The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

The An-124 hits a sweet spot (for a market that isn't terribly big) because it's not overly specialized for military use, thereby reducing its operating costs, while also being operated by companies that can operate on the cheap. But I'm afraid that when the An-124 fleets are retired, nobody is going to step up to the plate to design a replacement. But hopefully I'm wrong.
And would you care to produce Prog
A heavy lifter that has made a commercial impact (again, not a terribly big one) is the civilian version of the C-130. However, it's taken LM an awfully long time to get around to certifying the civilian J version since the J version entered military production, which kind of indicates the limited market for these machines.

However, I would say off the cuff that the most commercially successful heavy lifter of this type has been the Il-76. Very utilitarian and in the hands of companies that can make the costs pencil out.


So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!
Since the C130J was slow to civilian Certification in your opinion? Is that your Definite opinion? or a definite Fact?
The C130 has been sold around the world and is a true "front line" freighter aircraft In any operation!
What airplane would you even present that has done MORE than the C130? If your prejudice is getting the way of your reason?
Then why don't you just explain it to us? Because I don't think you can. But? for the sake of argument? I'm open to learn.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:33 pm

Rossiya747 wrote:
Bad question,
Why was the An-124 used for military and commercial use while the C5 was only used for military and could the C5 be used for commercial use?

the C5B could definitely be used for civilian use were the USAF to need the money or the motivation TO use it in commercial service. With the CF6-80 mod the env=gines are easily interchangeable with any civilian model and maintained in any capable civilian shop r by and airline, The hardest thing? locating a Hangar in civilian use where you might jack that sucker. I only know of few. So any major check would be a daunting task were the Landing gear to require swinging.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 8:51 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
Cool topic. But I'd have to say that I'd expect exactly zero commercial orders for a C-5. It's way too expensive and unreliable for the value. Only the USAF could throw money down a hole that big. ;)

The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

The An-124 hits a sweet spot (for a market that isn't terribly big) because it's not overly specialized for military use, thereby reducing its operating costs, while also being operated by companies that can operate on the cheap. But I'm afraid that when the An-124 fleets are retired, nobody is going to step up to the plate to design a replacement. But hopefully I'm wrong.
And would you care to produce Prog
A heavy lifter that has made a commercial impact (again, not a terribly big one) is the civilian version of the C-130. However, it's taken LM an awfully long time to get around to certifying the civilian J version since the J version entered military production, which kind of indicates the limited market for these machines.

However, I would say off the cuff that the most commercially successful heavy lifter of this type has been the Il-76. Very utilitarian and in the hands of companies that can make the costs pencil out.


So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!
Since the C130J was slow to civilian Certification in your opinion? Is that your Definite opinion? or a definite Fact?
The C130 has been sold around the world and is a true "front line" freighter aircraft In any operation!
What airplane would you even present that has done MORE than the C130? If your prejudice is getting the way of your reason?
Then why don't you just explain it to us? Because I don't think you can. But? for the sake of argument? I'm open to learn.


Who operates a civilian freighter version of the C-17?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 9:21 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Rossiya747 wrote:
Bad question,
Why was the An-124 used for military and commercial use while the C5 was only used for military and could the C5 be used for commercial use?

the C5B could definitely be used for civilian use were the USAF to need the money or the motivation TO use it in commercial service. With the CF6-80 mod the env=gines are easily interchangeable with any civilian model and maintained in any capable civilian shop r by and airline, The hardest thing? locating a Hangar in civilian use where you might jack that sucker. I only know of few. So any major check would be a daunting task were the Landing gear to require swinging.


There’s some pretty tall legal hurdles for using military aircraft for purely civilian work. The Economy Act for one. Even FEMA charters AN-124s after the emergency declaration has been lifted post-disaster.

Also, despite the L-500 designation, there’s no civil certification of the C-5. Originally, it couldn’t meet FAR 25 (CAR 4B, perhaps) performance, not could it meet evacuation requirements.

The M-model is pretty big improvement in range, payload but still military/government work only. One issue would be it is designed around 463L pallets and not compatible with civil ULDs. Now, outsize cargo, that’s not a problem.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:31 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Who operates a civilian freighter version of the C-17?


No one.

Qatar has flown some (or one) of their Air Force C-17s painted in livery near identical to Qatar Airways. Both as part of the Amiri Flight, and on some disaster relief missions.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:57 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
Cool topic. But I'd have to say that I'd expect exactly zero commercial orders for a C-5. It's way too expensive and unreliable for the value. Only the USAF could throw money down a hole that big. ;)

The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

The An-124 hits a sweet spot (for a market that isn't terribly big) because it's not overly specialized for military use, thereby reducing its operating costs, while also being operated by companies that can operate on the cheap. But I'm afraid that when the An-124 fleets are retired, nobody is going to step up to the plate to design a replacement. But hopefully I'm wrong.
And would you care to produce Prog
A heavy lifter that has made a commercial impact (again, not a terribly big one) is the civilian version of the C-130. However, it's taken LM an awfully long time to get around to certifying the civilian J version since the J version entered military production, which kind of indicates the limited market for these machines.

However, I would say off the cuff that the most commercially successful heavy lifter of this type has been the Il-76. Very utilitarian and in the hands of companies that can make the costs pencil out.


So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!
Since the C130J was slow to civilian Certification in your opinion? Is that your Definite opinion? or a definite Fact?
The C130 has been sold around the world and is a true "front line" freighter aircraft In any operation!
What airplane would you even present that has done MORE than the C130? If your prejudice is getting the way of your reason?
Then why don't you just explain it to us? Because I don't think you can. But? for the sake of argument? I'm open to learn.


Wow. Well, you are open to learning, so let's take a look at the facts.

Regarding the C-17: no, the C-17 has never made a commercial sale, and seems to be well on track to never do so. Production is over, so the only way now would be some sort of military-to-commercial surplus sale, which seems doubtful because the end of production actually means their value has increased to the military operators - there are no replacements! The beautifully painted Qatar birds don't count, although I got to see one personally in Qatar - the best looking C-17s!

For the C-130, the military J version reached production in the late 1990s. The L-100J was just certified in Nov 2019 - so about a 20 year gap. Lockheed obviously felt it could take its sweet time with the L-100J. It also appears that the L-100 hasn't been produced from 1992 to just now (I can't tell if they've delivered a L-100J yet, but it appears they have some orders and are building now). The L-100 has had commercial success in the world of outsize civilian transport, but it remains a small and niche market (success being measured of the sale of a little over 100 aircraft). I wish Lockheed luck with it and hope they sell a hundred more L-100J's, but it appears Lockheed isn't holding its breath too much. Does anyone know what the L-100 order book looks like?

Off the cuff, for this market (commercial over-size lifters), I would say that the two most important birds have been the L-100 and Il-76. But the uniqueness of this market means the An-124 has a valuable role as well, despite its smaller fleet size. I struggle to think of any other aircraft in this league that is commercially relevant, since the An-12 is all but gone now. Maybe...just maybe...the C-2 and KC-390 might get some commercial operators.

Do I have a personal preference, as you mention in your post? No, I wish every aircraft type luck in this limited market - even the An-12 survivors! I've had direct personal experience with C-130 and C-17. I've witnessed a lot of Il-76 ops and have respect for that bird. Any big bird that still flies cargo is a winner in my book.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Thu Mar 26, 2020 2:13 pm

The Boeing MD-17 (or BC-17X) civilian offering found precisely zero takers. It's over-engineered for that, and not fuel efficient at all as a civilian airlifter (plus no cargo airline wanted an orphan fleet). They even got it FAA certified as such, but again you can google around/read up about how the actual market completely rejected the aircraft. Part of the reason is that the floor was designed as such to take the weight of a tank, not pallets or other lighter cargo. It's still an engineering marvel, but can't take the huge outsized civilian stuff the AN-124's do for their market (cement, oil field tooling, or even a GE-9X).

viewtopic.php?t=167659
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:34 pm

Really, they can’t squeeze a GE-9X in a C-17? They can haul a CH-53 and still have room for their per diem. Or did I read that wrong?
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:41 pm

You’d have breakdown a GE-90 to get it inside a C-17. I think the CH-53 needs to broken down to fit, it barely fit in a C-5.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3433
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:05 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You’d have breakdown a GE-90 to get it inside a C-17. I think the CH-53 needs to broken down to fit, it barely fit in a C-5.

Yep, you will have to take off the main rotor and blades, along with the tail rotor and blades. And it's an extremely tight fit.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:57 pm

And that adds a day on arrival for reassembly and test. We’d take 2-3 53s and equipment and crews, they’d be flying in a few hours.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:35 pm

Wow, what a beast. Learn something new every day!

So if the GE-9X is so big it can only be hauled by the AN-124, how will they move engines around when the 124s are all gone? Excluding a boat, of course :)
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5663
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:52 pm

Break them down by removing the fan section which can loaded separately.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:30 am

Kiwirob wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
Cool topic. But I'd have to say that I'd expect exactly zero commercial orders for a C-5. It's way too expensive and unreliable for the value. Only the USAF could throw money down a hole that big. ;)

The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

The An-124 hits a sweet spot (for a market that isn't terribly big) because it's not overly specialized for military use, thereby reducing its operating costs, while also being operated by companies that can operate on the cheap. But I'm afraid that when the An-124 fleets are retired, nobody is going to step up to the plate to design a replacement. But hopefully I'm wrong.
And would you care to produce Prog
A heavy lifter that has made a commercial impact (again, not a terribly big one) is the civilian version of the C-130. However, it's taken LM an awfully long time to get around to certifying the civilian J version since the J version entered military production, which kind of indicates the limited market for these machines.

However, I would say off the cuff that the most commercially successful heavy lifter of this type has been the Il-76. Very utilitarian and in the hands of companies that can make the costs pencil out.


So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!
Since the C130J was slow to civilian Certification in your opinion? Is that your Definite opinion? or a definite Fact?
The C130 has been sold around the world and is a true "front line" freighter aircraft In any operation!
What airplane would you even present that has done MORE than the C130? If your prejudice is getting the way of your reason?
Then why don't you just explain it to us? Because I don't think you can. But? for the sake of argument? I'm open to learn.


Who operates a civilian freighter version of the C-17?

the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:43 am

LyleLanley wrote:
Really, they can’t squeeze a GE-9X in a C-17? They can haul a CH-53 and still have room for their per diem. Or did I read that wrong?


the GE9X is about twice the size of the PW 2000 on the C17. And were on to fail on Takeoff? Would there be the lateral response to counter the Yaw? Maybe not.
Even the AN224 cprobably couldn't do it either though with 4 GE90's? It could surely fly any mission the The 6 PS90's perform, /but since the US Govt probably wouldn't allow the engine to be exported For that airplane? It's academic.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:44 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!
Since the C130J was slow to civilian Certification in your opinion? Is that your Definite opinion? or a definite Fact?
The C130 has been sold around the world and is a true "front line" freighter aircraft In any operation!
What airplane would you even present that has done MORE than the C130? If your prejudice is getting the way of your reason?
Then why don't you just explain it to us? Because I don't think you can. But? for the sake of argument? I'm open to learn.


Who operates a civilian freighter version of the C-17?

the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.

the Airplanes aare owned by Quatar. though they have a civilian type Certificate.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4904
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:45 am

strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Who operates a civilian freighter version of the C-17?

the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.

the Airplanes aare owned by Quatar. though they have a civilian type Certificate.

their Model is the MD-17
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:21 am

strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.

the Airplanes aare owned by Quatar. though they have a civilian type Certificate.

their Model is the MD-17

Do you have a source reference for that? That is the first time I have seen anyone claim Qatar operates a different variant to the C-17A. Additionally Boeing didn't even call it a MD-17, the last inference was BC-17,

Boeing claims it is closer than ever to launching the long-awaited BC-17 commercial derivative of its C-17 strategic transport, but says the growing gap in guaranteed production beyond delivery of the final contracted aircraft in 2009 makes this, and any further potential study derivatives, increasingly expensive to develop.

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-clo ... 61.article
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3433
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:50 am

Ozair wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the Airplanes aare owned by Quatar. though they have a civilian type Certificate.

their Model is the MD-17

Do you have a source reference for that? That is the first time I have seen anyone claim Qatar operates a different variant to the C-17A. Additionally Boeing didn't even call it a MD-17, the last inference was BC-17,

Boeing claims it is closer than ever to launching the long-awaited BC-17 commercial derivative of its C-17 strategic transport, but says the growing gap in guaranteed production beyond delivery of the final contracted aircraft in 2009 makes this, and any further potential study derivatives, increasingly expensive to develop.

https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-clo ... 61.article

They are bog standard C-17's; no difference to them and a USAF version, besides the one that has an unusual paint job. That one is assigned to support the Qatari VIP fleet, but it is crewed and maintained by the Qatari Air Force.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:41 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
Wow, what a beast. Learn something new every day!

So if the GE-9X is so big it can only be hauled by the AN-124, how will they move engines around when the 124s are all gone? Excluding a boat, of course :)


At that point it will be disassembled. The (bypass) fan blades can be taken off and then it’s a lot easier to move around. But in flight tests there was a lot of pressure to avoid (further) delays with the 77x program.

There’s a lot of silliness on this thread. The Saudi’s bought plain old C-17’s from the production line as part of an FMS procurement. Boeing certified them for civilian use in 1997. There aren’t any in commercial operation today, and never will be...
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 29, 2020 12:44 am

strfyr51 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!

Wow, one FACT is certain; you were really TRIGGERED by that comment!

the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.

Any idea which three of the eight Qatar registered birds?
Take your pick from....
A7-MAA
A7-MAB (Qatar Amiri Flt special scheme)
A7-MAC
A7-MAE
A7-MAM
A7-MAN
A7-MAO
A7-MAP

I suspect that displaying civilian style registrations and having a civilian type certificate might make it easier to access certain airspace and airports, but having a civilian type certificate does not equal "sold as commercial freighters". Not even if you claim it is a "fact" and shout it in capital letters. Repeatedly
:roll:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: An-124 vs C-5

Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:42 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
smithbs wrote:
The C-17 largely fits in that description too. It's too specialized and expensive for a commercial future, even for a few with a niche operator.

So? How exactly did you come up with the idea the C17 wouldn't fit in a commercial mode? What exactly do you even KNOW about the C17 to be able to say that since a few of them HAVE actually been sold as commercial freighters? And? What makes you think they couldn't be commercial freighters? The engines are commercially available. the work to maintain them is commercially available since I know for a FACT where they have been maintained and the shops that MAINTAINED THEM!! So? In short? You have NO idea what you're saying because I know for a FACT it's not true.!!

Wow, one FACT is certain; you were really TRIGGERED by that comment!

the Saudi's own 3 of them. and they Do have a civilian Type certificate issued by the FAA.

Any idea which three of the eight Qatar registered birds?
Take your pick from....
A7-MAA
A7-MAB (Qatar Amiri Flt special scheme)
A7-MAC
A7-MAE
A7-MAM
A7-MAN
A7-MAO
A7-MAP

I suspect that displaying civilian style registrations and having a civilian type certificate might make it easier to access certain airspace and airports, but having a civilian type certificate does not equal "sold as commercial freighters". Not even if you claim it is a "fact" and shout it in capital letters. Repeatedly
:roll:


Agreed. Even if...if...they were a civilian version, they are government owned and not out there performing civilian contracts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bpatus297 and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos