Author | Message | ||
adminSee 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 |
SnowJSee my 648 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 |
karmapoliceSee 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 |
HJHopkinsSee 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 |
ivecoSee 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 |
sck166See 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 |
DipstickSee 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.
|