Using military cargo a/c at the cargo airlines
 

Hello all,

I am new to the forum. I am curious, I know that the C-130 is used as a carrier for some civilian companies, but why has this not been the same case for the C-5 or C-17, or even the C-141's? Instead of FedEx or UPS investing in the A380s or 777 freighters, why not civilian variants of these cargo jets? Is it operating cost? It would be cool to see a C-17 in FedEx or UPS livery. Just curious to see if this was something that was ever considered.

Because the drive on/off capability built into those airplanes are not needed and or wanted. So it adds additional weight and money to the airframes. A civilian variant of the C17 was proposed but government subsidies for the unneeded drive on/off capanility was a no go.

No company interested in making a profit would buy a C-5 for operations. "The world on time", "Absolutely, positively, overnight", "The speed of business"----forget it :D

The other factor is speed. Military transports are typically big, fat , high wing designs. They are slow. Big difference cruising at .74-.77 versus the civil freighters cruising at .83-.85M. Outsize load designs and drive on/off capability as mentioned before as well.

In general, the large military transports, i.e. C-5, C-141, C-17, do not meet FAR 25 certification standards and the cost of re-design and/or retrofit is prohibitive.

Actually, the C5 (L500), C141 (L300) are FAR 25 A/C. Don't know about the C17.

TH1

C-17 doesn't the range of a 74 when you fill it up with freight.

Lockheed took the time and spent the money for certification, Douglas didn't.
Although unlike the C5 and C141, the C17 is being sold to other countries for their Air Forces.

Boeing has been trying to market a civil model of the C-17 which it calls the BC-17. I've heard there have been some nibbles but not enough to justify the cost of engineering the required changes and certification.

C-130 is certified as the L-100 and the L-382.