Originally published at: Boeing Hints at Restarting C-17 Production - AVweb
As-yet unnamed country said to be among several interested in becoming a customer.
It will be like VW restarting production of rear engined beetlesā¦ If there is demand design a new, modern aeroplane.
I suppose Boeing (which shuttered and sold the C17 factory in California) thinks it will be able to grandfather a plane on the existing certificates for the C17, just as it so successfully grandfathered certificates on the new 737.
Whatās the difference between A400M and C17?
- size of cargo
- speed on long distances
- fuel consumption
??
Compared to C-5?
(But hey! may be many DC-10 noses in the SW deserts - what is their remaining structural life? <g,d,r>
The C-17 uses a DC-10 nose.)
I worked at Beech a number of years ago when the AirForce wanted them to see about starting up the 1900 line again. That was when the King Airs were being used for ISR. They figured a 1900 would give more equipment room for missions. They could only find about 85% of the original jigs for manufacture. So Boeing trying to restart this lineā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ not gonna be easy.
Itās too bad they canāt restart the 757 line. What a great airplane that was.
The C17 will likely be kiling bugs, while the 400 has issues.
What are the versions of the A400? (āIssuesā means editions, not problems.)
āKilling bugsā means nothing - not understandable.
Thanks.
Worse was USAF not keeping jigs for C-141, cheapskates.
I recall Canada wanted to buy some. (Eventually bought C-17 which does have large fuselage.)
Interesting reports that Bristol and Lockheed dug into making a frankenplane by mating Belfastās larger fuselage with wing of C-141. But not done, perhaps moved on to C-5.
(I was in a Belfast when it picked up the Supermarine Stranrauer from the ramp outside Pacific Westernās hanger at YVR. Impressive compared to the Herc I worked with, had seating on a mezzanine level behind flight deck which itself was large with ample space for extra crew/navigator/radio operator. (The Strannie biplane is now in a museum in England, it had served the BC coast for decades after ocean patrol duty in 1930s and 1040s.)
Today jigs are not needed as much, because of precision milling and fastener hole location.
The B767ās trailing edge devices were assembled without jigs.
jjbaker said: āThe C17 will likely be kiling bugs, while the 400 has issues.ā
And your reply:
āIssuesā means editions, not problems.
No; in this context āissuesā means āproblemsā.
āKilling bugsā means nothing - not understandable.
Could mean ironing out minor problems (as in debugging software) or it could mean that the C-17 will be in service while the A400 is still dealing with more significant problems.
I apologize. Things which kill bugs are a common term from the automotive world. Bugs end up dead on vehicles in motion, whereas vehicles in the shop, undergoing repairs are usually accumulating no impact bugs. A driving vehicle is therefore killing bugs.
Ofc a new C17 would likely have some period of operational issues, errors and necessary adjustments, but some feeling tells me the A400 will not be competitive.
1 Like
The C17 first flew in 1991 during a time when Boeing was the envy of the world and the pride of corporate U.S. and defense. That all changed in 1997 when MD merged with Boeing and became a stock market greed monkey ran by executives instead of engineers. Then came Muilenburg and Hamilton who should be in prison - if not for the candy-ass DOJ - for the MAX disasters.
Given those facts, the āunnamed countryā should be leery of this contractual purchase.
And today, Planeco?
Are you extrapolating?
How is the A400M working out?
Had early problems, as did other aircraft projects.
Like Canadaās new ASW helicopter.
A derivative of S-92 but with FBW, Sikorsky botched the software. Fatal accident because a maneuvering scenario not thought of, ongoing low availability.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.