I saw a photo of a "prototype" in a book when I was younger of the C-17 acting as the "Boeing B-17'" or something along those lines as a civil carrier.


This may have been discussed previously but I couldn't find anything recent on it, but what's the likelyhood of this happening? We already have a few of these in QR liveries, and the Antonov cousins have been doing well for Polet, etc.,

We also saw recently when one of those landed on the wrong Tampa Runways that it could be an efficient lifter for odd airports needing lots of cargo.

I have some advantages and disadvantages that I thought of:
1) lots of space and capacity, and easy ro-ro capabilities,
2) Shorter runway length requirements and is (apparently? IIRC) efficient in the skies

Disadvantages:
HUGE. difficult to store, lots of separation needed behind it, etc etc etc.


Thoughts?

You never know. I bet that, if somebody asked Boeing for one, they'd make it. They'd probably have to make some modsto make it into a civilian aircraft, but anythings possible.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): I saw a photo of a "prototype" in a book when I was younger of the C-17 acting as the "Boeing B-17'" or something along those lines as a civil carrier.

The C-17 was offered to civilian customers first as the McDonnell Douglas MD-17 and then the Boeing BC-17X, however there was no interest.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): This may have been discussed previously but I couldn't find anything recent on it, but what's the likelyhood of this happening?

Basically zero.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): 1) lots of space and capacity, and easy ro-ro capabilities,

There are enough IL-76 and AN-124s out there for charter if that's needed.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): 2) Shorter runway length requirements and is (apparently? IIRC) efficient in the skies

It's not that big of a problem, and again, there are other options out there.

The C-17 is just too expensive to be viable for civilian use both in terms of purchase and maintenance costs.

Uneconomical, filled with capabilities not needed in commercial cargo activities, McD tried to market it for civilian use and got zero interest, so, no, it isn't going to happen.

Other countries' militaries should really want this aircraft because it's amazingly-capable. But not for civilian use.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): I have some advantages and disadvantages that I thought of: 1) lots of space and capacity, and easy ro-ro capabilities, 2) Shorter runway length requirements and is (apparently? IIRC) efficient in the skies Disadvantages: HUGE. difficult to store, lots of separation needed behind it, etc etc etc.

There's a good bit of previous discussion on this, pretty much all of it boiling down to being expensive and impractical for commercial use. MD even offered the MD-17 on paper for a while. FWIW, there also was a recent thread about restarting AN-124 production, but it too faces the same hurdles:

-fitting a niche market in both payload weight and volume
-sky-high operating costs that get passed down as exhorbitant usage rates for customers
-the vast majority of commercial cargo simply doesn't require it's attendant militarized capabilities like STOL and not necessarily requiring external lifts or ramps to load and unload cargo.
-range w/ max payload isn't too great without inflight refueling (again, something the military can deal with but is impractical commercially)

So all told, there's little use other than the niche customer already flying it for a specific purpose (I believe something to do with the royal horses but I can't remember for sure). That's not to say you couldn't possibly buy a few, but as a serial production civilian plane, the likelihood is pretty low.

Edit: sorry for the redundant comments - my browser was taking a while.

[Edited 2012-08-06 10:57:18]

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): Disadvantages: HUGE. difficult to store, lots of separation needed behind it, etc etc etc.

BIGGEST disadvantage is that the C-17 is a fuel guzzler. The military does not rank fuel efficiency very high. As long as it has the range and on station capability the amount of fuel burned doesn’t really matter since fuel is such a small portion of the Air Force budget compared to being more than 50% at an airline. That kills any chances of anyone trying to make a profit flying cargo with a C-17. Unless you are carrying very obtuse things, a 767F or 777F is far better. A 777F is relatively close to the C-17 in Fuel burn, but beats it handedly in cargo payload. A 767F is about 50% more fuel efficient.

The second problem is that it isn’t certified for commercial operations. Operating for a commercial venture would require it to meet the FARs for civilian aircraft, which it does not.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): This may have been discussed previously but I couldn't find anything recent on it, but what's the likelyhood of this happening? We already have a few of these in QR liveries, and the Antonov cousins have been doing well for Polet, etc.,

The C-17 painted in Qatar livery have more to do with the way Qatar Airways and the government of Qatar are linked than with airline cargo operations.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): There are enough IL-76 and AN-124s out there for charter if that's needed.

Ah That is true. I recall an An-124 regularly flying to AZA for parts for helicopters.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): The C-17 was offered to civilian customers first as the McDonnell Douglas MD-17 and then the Boeing BC-17X, however there was no interest.

Ah that's what I meant, thank you. No orders, nothing?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): It's not that big of a problem, and again, there are other options out there.

That was listed as an advantage, the short rwy

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2): The C-17 is just too expensive to be viable for civilian use both in terms of purchase and maintenance costs.

That's another disadvantage i didn't list there

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 3): Other countries' militaries should really want this aircraft because it's amazingly-capable.

Countries that need it. The US is one of only a handful of countries that really needs to be able to airlift large amounts of men and material around the world. A lot of countries whose militaries are not large and do not have global reach simply don't need that much airlift capability and can use civilian or allies' aircraft as needed and focus their own resources on smaller tactical transports, among which the C-17 is a large and expensive option.

The C-17 is already flown by the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Qatar, UAE, and India will in the future. As much as I like the plane I'd struggle to think of more customers who would really need a plane like the C-17. Not to mention that NATO has their multinational heavy airlift wing that members can use if necessary.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7): The C-17 is already flown by the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Qatar, UAE, and India will in the future. As much as I like the plane I'd struggle to think of more customers who would really need a plane like the C-17. Not to mention that NATO has their multinational heavy airlift wing that members can use if necessary.

The A400M is a smaller, more economical transport which was promised to be cheaper and lower cost than the C-17, although that program does have its problems.

Boeing shopped this around, and had there been any takers, they'd have sold as many as they could.

It's a great military airlifter - but alot of the things that you need in a military airlifter are not so hot for hauling around civilian cargo unless it's specialized heavylift stuff. It's a heavy plane for what it is, and it guzzles fuel. Unless you really needed something like this, you would not choose it purely for those reasons.

But if you did need that kind of lift - chartering an IL-76, or even acquiring one in places where you can - is a FAR cheaper alternative. The C-17 in civvies would be about as expensive as a 777 freighter to buy and VASTLY more expensive to run - not a plane to be purchased without a real material plan to use it.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): I saw a photo of a "prototype" in a book when I was younger of the C-17 acting as the "Boeing B-17'" or something along those lines as a civil carrier.

This is and will always and only be the one and only Boeing B-17

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 10): This is and will always and only be the one and only Boeing B-17

Amen. Truly sacred.

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): I saw a photo of a "prototype" in a book when I was younger of the C-17 acting as the "Boeing B-17'" or something along those lines as a civil carrier.

McDonnell-Douglas shopped it as the MD-17 and when it became a Boeing product, it was marketed as the BC-17X.

Would it be able to haul GE90 engines? It wont need a cargo ramp or other expensive ground support equipment either.

Even small Sweden uses the C17, we are a part of the pool of 3 frames. Those I have talked to can only say good things about it.

But it is too specialized to be a 748F..

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 6): No orders, nothing?

Not even close from everything I've seen. Maybe a rendering here or there in a brochure, but that's about as close as it ever got.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8): The A400M is a smaller, more economical transport which was promised to be cheaper and lower cost than the C-17, although that program does have its problems

It is, and that's why it appeals to European countries and others as well. Nations that need to haul planeloads of heavy equipment long distances just aren't that numerous, although it is a vital capability for those countries that require it.

Quoting sweair (Reply 13): Even small Sweden uses the C17, we are a part of the pool of 3 frames. Those I have talked to can only say good things about it.

You mean the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability? It makes sense for them since Sweden isn't going to have to haul large amounts of equipment across the world enough to justify owning planes themselves. Strategic airlifters are probably always going to be a fairly limited market, and the sales of the C-17 kind of shows that even though it somewhat straddles the line between strategic and tactical transports.

It is far to expensive and far to ineffiecent fuel wise. A rather heavy bird for rough tasks. When Germany wanted to buy a few of them many years ago, the price was already 1 bio $ per aircraft - you get 3-4 A380 for this.

There may be very very special tasks that aircraft like the A33F or B77F cannot do and are done currently by Antonov - this does not justify the costs of a civil certification - so better Boeing leaves this little niche to Antonov.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): 1 bio $ per aircraft

How much money is this? Sorry, but that didn't make sense to me.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): the price was already 1 bio $ per aircraft - you get 3-4 A380 for this.

I think he means $1 billion, as that roughly equate to 3-4 A380's. I can't speak to that price myself, but I think that's the number being quoted.

Hang two 80K modern engines on it  

The Antonovs will get older and older..

1 bn a piece? I find that hard to believe really.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): When Germany wanted to buy a few of them many years ago, the price was already 1 bio $ per aircraft - you get 3-4 A380 for this.

Germany needs better negotiators.  

India is paying $178 million an airframe, plus another $38 million per set of 4 F117 engines. The entire contract for the 10 C-17s is some $4 billion, but that includes over $1.5 billion in "Government Furnished Equipment" and support contracts.

[Edited 2012-08-06 15:25:43]

May have been the lifetime cost or something like that.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21): May have been the lifetime cost or something like that.

Perhaps. The support contracts are expensive (the latest USAF one was almost a half-billion).

But then A380s are not free to operate, so when you factor in their lifetime costs, you're not going to get 3-4 of them for a billion USD, Burkhard.  

The right to sell the C-17 belongs to the DoD and they do not want civilians operating this aircraft. At one time the USAF was on board but the air tanker scandal and WTO fight between Boeing and Airbus put an end to that. More recent attempts have been made but the DoD has blocked the effort.

Ten years ago I flew C-17 from Hickam AFB at HNL to Travis AFB Cali. If I understood correctly the airframe was designed for the US Air Force to be a flying hospital.

As I recall a ballpark figure for each airframe was about a 250 million in the hospital configuration, which was modifiable. The cost if mass produced commercially would undoubtedly come down. I was in awe when the flight deck told us the C-17 could fly from Dover AFB in Delaware to Bahrain without refueling. I do not know if that is empty or full or with partial payload. The mission originated in Yakota AFB Japan.


If memory serves me the C-17 like the C-5A can carry two crews; one crew sleeps while the other one flies. A Air National Guard crew from New York state was flying the C-17 I had the privilege of riding on.

[Edited 2012-08-06 17:47:03]

Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): lots of separation needed behind it

This isn't a problem with a civilian C-17 at all. The C-17 is a "heavy" aircraft and would fall into the same separation standards as a 767, 747, 777, A330, A340, etc.

FX1816

World Airways was actually in talks to operate the C-17 for the US Military quite a few years ago. World would have been the commercial launch customer for the aircraft, and operated the frames solely for the DoD. I don't remember the rest of the story off hand, but obviously the deal never went through.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 26): A Air National Guard crew from New York state was flying the C-17 I had the privilege of riding on.

Not if it was 10 years ago when you were on the C-17. Stewart is just now finishing the transition from the C-5A to the C-17. If it was a NY ANG crew then it was a C-5A.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25): Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 24):More recent attempts have been made but the DoD has blocked the effort. I'd like a source.

Below is what Alan Estevez the Principal Deputy in the Office of Logistics and Materiel Readiness had to say on the subject in Oct 2010. The letter to the SecDef was a requirement of the FAA. In order for the FAA to proceed with any certification of a civil C-17 they first required that the DoD declare it in the "national interest" like they did for the C-130E. As it turns out Boeing was also no longer supportive of a civil C-17. The irony is that just days after this response from the DoD, they were in India with Boeing selling ten C-17's to them. Would that not constitute endorsing an aircraft type and manufacturer?

Quote: Thank you for your recent letter to the Secretary of Defense requesting that the Department of Defense (DoD) make a determination that it would be in the national interest for REDACTED to operate the Boeing military C-17 aircraft in humanitarian and commercial service. At the outset, please be advised that the DoD cannot endorse any specific aircraft type, manufacturer, or operator. The combination of DoD's organic airlift capacity and the capacity offered through commercial carriers in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, provide adequate airlift to meet our mobility requirements. Therefore, after careful consideration the Department cannot support your request to make a determination that it would be in the national interest for REDACTED to operate C-17 aircraft. I hope that this information is helpful.

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 24): WTO fight between Boeing and Airbus

I hadn't thought of that, it's interesting. Surely a plane paid for by the taxpayer being sold commercially would raise some eyebrows.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25): I'd like a source. Right now the C-17 production is being ramped to ZERO. The DoD would love for the line to be kept open until their is a justification to purchase more.

Undoubtedly certain parts would have to be purged for civilian sales, but I'm pretty sure DoD would welcome spreading the costs around a bit more.

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 30):

Is that really discussing export control? All it seems to say to me is that DoD has no need to hire such planes from civilian operators, not that Boeing can't sell them.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 31): I hadn't thought of that, it's interesting. Surely a plane paid for by the taxpayer being sold commercially would raise some eyebrows.

Perhaps, but then again, the commercial buyers picked up a lot of the tab on other planes: KC-10, VC-25, E-3, P-8, etc. Seems it would purely be a question of intellectual property and who owns what designs.

Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 11): Quoting PHX787 (Thread starter): I saw a photo of a "prototype" in a book when I was younger of the C-17 acting as the "Boeing B-17'" or something along those lines as a civil carrier. This is and will always and only be the one and only Boeing B-17

Nice example, SILA operated one or two B-17 after WW2, as interim before getting the Stratocruisers... but in 1946 they merged with DDL and DNL to SAS...

So the B-17 WAS really a passenger plane  

And keep in mind, some Hercules were operated by civilian airlines, I remember SATURN and Delta Herc's...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): Germany needs better negotiators.

I doubt the price tag of 1 billion per copy. The costs have been running away mainly because politicians are holding up the development, reducing the number of rames to be bought constantly which raises the price per frame etc.

However, such items as terrain followin radar for low level flying have been scrapped as far as I understand, or remain as an option only. (That is the A400M I meant here)

This is certainly not needed for civilian operations,

All has been said why the C-17 is no option for civilian operators. The potential use is for a small niche and that niche is occupied by a fat Russian and 2 fat Ukrainian aircraft, the re-engined Il-76 and the An124/225. These are expensive to charter but a C-17 would be more expensive.

Cargo rates on scheduled services would not be high enough to pay for the ops cost of a C-17, not speaking of capital costs. so, the thumb goes down.
.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): When Germany wanted to buy a few of them many years ago, the price was already 1 bio $ per aircraft - you get 3-4 A380 for this.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 18): I think he means $1 billion, as that roughly equate to 3-4 A380's. I can't speak to that price myself, but I think that's the number being quoted.

For $1B USD Germany can get just over 3 C-17ERs with all of the add on packages. They do not get the add on packages if the ordered the A-380 as the 2006 listed price of the A-380 alone was $312M-$337M USD, depending on options. A 2006 A-380 order from CZ averaged $295M USD average for each of the 5 airplanes they ordered.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_price_for_airbus_A380

An A-380 ordered for the Luftwaffe would cost more as it would be optioned out with various military avionics, communications equipment, and possibly military cargo handling equipment designed to handle and secure military cargo and 463-L pallets.

The Luftwaffe recently bought 2 former LH A-340-300s for troop trnsports, so they really don't need the A-380 as long as there are better priced A-340s on the market.

Quoting sweair (Reply 19): 1 bn a piece? I find that hard to believe really.

It is hard to believe because it is incorrect. Canada and Austraila paid the highest price per airframe when the originally order the C-17ER, about $300 Million each. But that included a spares, maintenance, support, training, and scheduling package for each airframe. The RAAF just recently ordered another C-17ER. The UK paid about $250 Million each for the first 3 airplanes they got, but that was originally a lease deal that was eventually changed to a purchase, which is why the price was what it was. The last 5 C-17ERs they ordered Including a recent order of 1 airplane) as a purchase and the price per airframe averaged around $175M, including the spares and maintenance packages. By contrast the RAF will pay an average of $200M USD for each of the 22 A-400Ms they have on order. I do not know if that includes any packages.

Qatar (2) and the UAE (6) operate the C-17A which does not have the centerwing fuel tank the C-17ER has.

India has an order for 10 C-17A/ERs, and an option for 6 more.

The USAF has 70 C-17As and 142 C-17ERs. The one loss was the C-17ER crash in Alaska in July 2010 (sadly there were no survivors).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): Germany needs better negotiators. India is paying $178 million an airframe, plus another $38 million per set of 4 F117 engines. The entire contract for the 10 C-17s is some $4 billion, but that includes over $1.5 billion in "Government Furnished Equipment" and support contracts.

Correct.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25): Everything I've heard is lack of demand is preventing BC-17 sales.

Correct.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 26): I was in awe when the flight deck told us the C-17 could fly from Dover AFB in Delaware to Bahrain without refueling. I do not know if that is empty or full or with partial payload.

No, that is not true, it would need air refueling tanker support to fly that distance, even if it were empty and just being ferried. The C-17ER range with a max cargo weight load of 171,000 lbs is just over 2400 nm, carrying just paratroopers (102 troops), it has a range of just over 5600 nm, and the max empty ferry range is 6200 nm, with USAF required fuel reserves. DOV-DXB is just under 7000 nm.

DOV-DXB&DU=nm&DM=&SG=400&SU=kts" target="_blank">http://www.gcmap.com/dist?P=DOV-DXB&DU=nm&DM=&SG=400&SU=kts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Gl...ster_III#Specifications_.28C-17.29

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36): The Luftwaffe recently bought 2 former LH A-340-300s for troop trnsports, so they really don't need the A-380 as long as there are better priced A-340s on the market.

They are actually VIP transport, together with 2 A319CRJ and 4 Gulfstreaqms

Cargo, Medevac and troop transports are carried out by A310s

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):Everything I've heard is lack of demand is preventing BC-17 sales.

Incorrect -- As of late 2010 it is a written fact the DoD and even Boeing are against selling a civilian version.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35): Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):The potential use is for a small niche and that niche is occupied by a fat Russian and 2 fat Ukrainian aircraft, the re-engined Il-76 and the An124/225. These are expensive to charter but a C-17 would be more expensive. And that ends the business case. Otherwise the AN124 would have re-entered production.

Incorrect -- According to a ten year old USAF and Boeing study, there is a market for the civil C-17 called the "Short Austere Market" (SAM). The An-124 cannot participate in this market which is worth $2 billion per year. The problem with a civil C-17 is political and not the lack of demand.

Yet another thread on a much discussed already subject in multiple forums. Phx787 learn to use the search function, you have done this multiple times. Even though the thread may be old/dated in the past threads, nothing has come up as news breaking or relevant ( ie new orders, talks etc) worthy of a new thread.

Quoting 93Sierra (Reply 39):

  

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32): Perhaps, but then again, the commercial buyers picked up a lot of the tab on other planes: KC-10, VC-25, E-3, P-8, etc. Seems it would purely be a question of intellectual property and who owns what designs.

But if commercial companies want to buy/pay for stuff for their countries, it's no trouble (I would argue they didn't pay anything or they would certainly not have done it, except maybe the VC-25 for publicity/prestige).

However if a government pays for an aircraft that is then offered on the international commercial market, that violates WTO rules.

Quoting CiC (Reply 33): And keep in mind, some Hercules were operated by civilian airlines, I remember SATURN and Delta Herc's...

But even our L-100s (DL) weren't really the best for the kind of cargo we were carrying. While every other legacy carrier was using 727s, 707s or DC-8s for cargo operations, we were using L-100s for the same kind of bulk cargo that they were carrying. Once we received widebodies, the cargo we used to carry on the Herc, was carried on 747s, DC-10s and Tristars. I worked on our freighter crew for a short time at ORD and towards the last of it's operation, we were taking carts of cargo, meant for pax flights and using that cargo to fill up the pallets. DL would occasionally have some sort of niche cargo that needed an L-100 but it wasn't a regular thing.