> 1 <
| Author | Message | ||
admin
See my 107 Photos  
|
2007-07-21 GMT-5 hours 
|
||
|
Looking at these photos of the C-17, I can't help to think if it was designed with a stretched version in mind. Look at these two photos below, doesn't it look a bit too stubby?
Besides looking better, I think a stretched version would definitely help provide much needed lift capacity. Are the wings big enough to support a stretch? Will we ever see a stretched C-17?
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
SnowJ
See my 666 Photos
|
2007-07-22 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Kinda like the C-130 and C-141...the original versions were rather stubby lookin', but look what followed!
Good call!  Thanks for using my photo by the way...I'm honored! 
Jaysen F. Snow - Sterling Aerospace Photography |
| Author | Message |
karmapolice
See my 22 Photos 
|
2007-08-25 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Stretched Globemaster? it sounds good, but here in the south we need a smaller lifter, Have u heard about EMBRAER C-390 project? it looks like a little twin engined C-17A...
Cheers. |
| Author | Message |
painter
|
2007-08-25 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I always found the C-17 looking quite chubby, and its design inspired by the ill-fated protos YC-14 and YC-15. Remember those? They were supposed to fly-off, the winner was supposed to replace the good old Herc. Kinda like trying to replace a BUFF... Anyway, I suspect there would be no big problem stretching the C-17. One can always slightly increase the wingspan, like happened with the B747-400 compared with the -300...
Ciao... Smoke on...Go! |
| Author | Message |
N74JW
|
2007-08-26 GMT-5 hours
|
|
The C-17 is designed to be a wide-body. It really doesn't look that big, but the hold inside cavernous. Truly a remarkable aircraft, but a bit pricey...
/N |
| Author | Message |
HJHopkins
See my 15 Photos 
|
2007-08-29 GMT-5 hours
|
|
But if you stretched a C-17 it wouldnt be able to get into half the airstrips that it can as it is, then your back to the C-5 which it is replacing
|
| Author | Message |
iveco
See my 180 Photos
|
2007-08-30 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Ive never seen the inside of the C-17 apart from photos and you cant tell the size by that
I cant see the UK being interested in the stretch but i bet the US will |
| Author | Message |
sck166
See my 10 Photos
|
2008-02-26 GMT-5 hours
|
|
There is no need to stretch the C-17. It has ample cargo capacity and stretching it would only detract from it's tactical capabilities.
|
| Author | Message |
Dipstick
See my 1,991 Photos
|
2008-02-27 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Streched C-17? Sounds interesting but I don't see that happening.
Boeing barely has enough orders to keep the production line open, so apparently the demand is very low. Regards, |
| Author | Message |
ruger11mcrdpi
|
2008-03-19 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I think the point is that is you stretch the plane you lose it's tactical focus. If we needed a pure hauler to carry just pallets into perfectly safe, modern runways, than we'd just use a modern cargo plane like a 747F... it's be WAY cheaper and carry more pallets by # than any C-17.
I think thats partly the mindset behind the KC-45 as well. The thing can carry a lot of pallets as a frieghter, it's a big jet, and that frees up a lot of workload on the C-5s, which have had a poor % rate of operatinal readiness I believe. C-17 is great for what it does, exactly the way it is. THIS is why the C-17 is great: Biggest airdrop since Panama... 100% reliability, 100% success |
| Author | Message |
EK772LR
|
2008-03-21 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I'd really like to see a stretched version myself. Let's face it, the C-5 ain't getting any younger. I believe the Air Force could definitely find a use for it
The Boeing 777-200LR-Long Legs & Sexy! |
| Author | Message |
bytefyter
|
2008-03-24 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I don't think there will be a stretched C-17. The AF is currently working on upgrading the C-5Bs to C-5Cs, with new engines, avionics, and airframe upgrades.
|
> 1 <