tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562526.post1331632788804412721..comments2023-11-03T09:18:58.314ZComments on Airband Radio & Aviation Enthusiasts Blog: C141 Starlifter vs C17!Mark Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03870187346561099285noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562526.post-37413346588595891922007-12-29T17:58:00.000Z2007-12-29T17:58:00.000ZI'm the above poster. Went to a few sites to chec...I'm the above poster. Went to a few sites to check out the C5/C17 specs and the C17 is quite a bit smaller (100ft shorter basically) and carries about 100,000lbs less in weight.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, maybe keep all the C5B's and upgrade them with digital flight controls, lose a few tons of control wires ;-)<BR/><BR/>We can still use a good number of C17s but since more C5's would be helpful, lets cut my 300 to 250 max ;-)<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the misinformation in my first post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13562526.post-82487197205505984022007-12-29T17:53:00.000Z2007-12-29T17:53:00.000ZActually, there are over 100 C5B's still in servic...Actually, there are over 100 C5B's still in service and there is a 17 billion dollar upgrade program in the works. Of course the Air Force wants all new planes so they're saying things about the C5s that are, apparently not true.<BR/><BR/>The C5, as far as I know carries about as much as the C17 weight wise but is a much larger aircraft (about 30%) so it can carry more volume.<BR/><BR/>I think the best option would be to upgrade 50-75 of the best C5 airframes to C5C versions and get a total of 250-300 C17s. We need more airlift capacity badly but since they're not flashy fighters or expensive bombers the airforce puts them on the back burner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com