You're not logged in.

User Name  Remember me?
Password 
  Register   Lost your password? 
 
> 1 <

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 57 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2118
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#432 2007-07-21 05:58 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?

View large    View medium
Click here for medium size photo!

Photo © Michael Baldock
View large    View medium
Click here for medium size photo!

Photo © Jaysen F. Snow - Midwest Tail Chasers

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?

View large    View medium
Click here for medium size photo!

Photo © Rob Tabor

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

SnowJ


Photographers
See my 543 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 26
Location: Arlington, Washington
Occupation:
Age: 40

#434 2007-07-22 00:44 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
Aviation Photographer
Everett, Washington, USA

Author Message

karmapolice


Photographers
See my 22 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 4
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#706 2007-08-25 10:39 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


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 40
Location: Almere
Occupation: Aviation artist and bus driver
Age: 52

#709 2007-08-25 16:48 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


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 190
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Occupation: IT Administrator
Age: 42

#717 2007-08-26 13:53 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


Photographers
See my 15 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2
Location: St Albans, Hertfordshire
Occupation: Student
Age: 25

#789 2007-08-28 20:23 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


Photographers
See my 180 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 13
Location: Lincolnshire
Occupation: Driver
Age: 47

#815 2007-08-30 00:52 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


Photographers
See my 10 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 3
Location: Little Rock, AR
Occupation: C-130J Loadmaster
Age:

#2132 2008-02-26 11:11 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


Database Editors
See my 1,174 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 55
Location: Montreal
Occupation: Senior Aeronautical Design Engineer (F-35 / A400M / C-Series)
Age: 38

#2136 2008-02-26 22:59 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,

Johannes Berger

Author Message

ruger11mcrdpi


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 4
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#2288 2008-03-19 03:59 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


Platinum Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 1
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 56

#2296 2008-03-21 07:26 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


Photographers


 Online status  

 
Posts: 10
Location: Arizona
Occupation: Aircraft Mechanic
Age:

#2315 2008-03-24 02:55 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 <