The Swiss "Interavia" magazine 8/1981 published an artist's impression of Lockheed's C-X proposal (the later C-17). Four engines PW2037 had to be installed. No further details. What was the model number? Which other competitors lost against the McDonnel Douglas design? Any recommended articles or books regarding the topic?

SOURCE: Interavia 8/1981 (page 749)

[Moved to existing thread - MODERATOR]
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed C-X from circa 1981.jpg
    Lockheed C-X from circa 1981.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 1,037
Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed CX. Nice scans via Defense Visual Information Center website (http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil)
 

Attachments

  • Boeing CX.jpg
    Boeing CX.jpg
    89.7 KB · Views: 590
  • Douglas CX.jpg
    Douglas CX.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 556
  • Lockheed CX.jpg
    Lockheed CX.jpg
    168.9 KB · Views: 498
overscan said:
...Douglas CX

Ewwwww! Can't you put up a DISTURBING IMAGE warning? ;D

Although you can see why MacDAC won. Just thinking about the loadpaths between the horizontal tail and the center-to-rear fuselage splice gives me a headache.
 
Hi,

and from Flightglobal,and notice Boeing design had a winglets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%202231.html
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed.JPG
    Lockheed.JPG
    48 KB · Views: 288
  • MD.JPG
    MD.JPG
    32 KB · Views: 259
  • Boeing C-X.JPG
    Boeing C-X.JPG
    44.5 KB · Views: 315

Attachments

  • DF-SC-82-00925.JPEG
    DF-SC-82-00925.JPEG
    39.6 KB · Views: 425
Model of Lockheed C-X concept circa 1980.

Source: Norton, Bill STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2002
 

Attachments

  • LockheedC-XModel.JPG
    LockheedC-XModel.JPG
    36.9 KB · Views: 1,998
Triton said:
From DefenseImagery.mil, an artist's concept of the Air Force's proposed C-17 transport aircraft, formerly known as the C-X transport aircraft. Date Shot: 9/22/1981

Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&guid=0cd29e374e4c7600ca4d37437a83a8bb1cc2c203

Ah yes the "Snooker" painting that the Air Force used to pursuade the Army that they would use the C-17 to land mounted combat forces in unprepared areas. So the Army invested, because it would be able to land without needing very predictable runways.
 
Triton said:
Model of Lockheed C-X concept circa 1980.

Source: Norton, Bill STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2002

Different times, different marketing strategies. Try to go selling an Airbus A400M or a Lockheed C-27 with a girl holding a model nowadays... would look downright silly, right?
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Triton said:
Model of Lockheed C-X concept circa 1980.

Source: Norton, Bill STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2002

Different times, different marketing strategies. Try to go selling an Airbus A400M or a Lockheed C-27 with a girl holding a model nowadays... would look downright silly, right?

Different times indeed. In the "Unbuilt 747s" topic, I posted a photograph of a girl surrounded by models of unbuilt Boeing 747 design concepts. I believe that if a company were to do this today, people would be offended and outraged.
 
Yes, but use Sacha Baron Cohen attired as Bruno (with the umlaut) and you'll istantly be "provocative" and "modern"....
 
Skybolt said:
Yes, but use Sacha Baron Cohen attired as Bruno (with the umlaut) and you'll istantly be "provocative" and "modern"....

Not what I wanted to think about today...
 
Here's the three candicates in a group photo...
 

Attachments

  • CX Candidates.jpg
    CX Candidates.jpg
    357.6 KB · Views: 442
Was reading about the C-17 USAF transport aircraft today and reference was made to the use of the YC-15 for flight testing. That left me wondering what came in between the two.

Wikipedia says that the C-16 designation was reserved for various projects but never assigned. Does anybody know what projects these were?

Also, what about the C-30 designation? Who was it reserved for?
 
The C-16 slot is an oddity in the tri-service designation lists, having been tentatively allocated FIVE TIMES without ever being given to any real project in the end.

  • YC-16 was first reserved on 27 November 1973 for an unidentified Boeing aircraft, then cancelled.
  • C-16A was then reserved on 13 March 1975 for the De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter but eventually this was designated as UV-18A.
  • C-16 was then reserved on 17 December 1975 for USAF with no further details, and cancelled on 30 April 1981.
  • C-16 was then reserved on 13 April 1981 for the C-X project, which eventually became the C-17.
  • C-16A was finally reserved for a version of the Cessna CE-208 Caravan intended for use by Army in FLIR missions against leftist rebels in El Salvador and the forces of Nicaragua, but the aircraft was not accepted.

As for C-30, it was apparently reserved for the USAF office; however, the designation was dropped and not reassigned for unknown reasons, probably for fear of possible confusion with C-130; of course, it could also be used for a classified project...
 
Hi Stéphane,
Was the C-30 (KC-30) designation not connected with the Airbus A330 candidate tanker for the USAF before this became a new ball game?
I`ve seen the designation KC-30B for the RAAF aircraft and KC-30A for the proposed USAF model (which I have also seen as KC-45A). Moreover the RAF aircraft were also supposed to be C-30s, which is strange because why a USAF designation if that service has not (yet?) ordered it. ???
 
I didn't mention the KC-30 thing as I believe this was a strictly commercial designation used by Northrop Grumman as a lobbying device... However, KC-45A was olfficially assigned to the KC-X program, "as directed by the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force", on 24 November 2006.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I didn't mention the KC-30 thing as I believe this was a strictly commercial designation used by Northrop Grumman as a lobbying device... However, KC-45A was olfficially assigned to the KC-X program, "as directed by the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force", on 24 November 2006.

The KC-45 designator was officially removed as the designator of the KC-X replacement by the USAF shortly after the contract with EADS/NG was declared null and void. EADS/Airbus continues to use the designator in their advertising. The USAF has publicly stated the new tanker will get a different designation (maybe KC-46?) The KC-30 designator is, as you state, strictly a commercial designation used by EADS/Airbus in marketing their a/c - I don't believe NG developed it as EADS had already sold tankers with that designator prior to NG coming onto the scene.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
The C-16 slot is an oddity in the tri-service designation lists, having been tentatively allocated FIVE TIMES without ever being given to any real project in the end.

  • YC-16 was first reserved on 27 November 1973 for an unidentified Boeing aircraft, then cancelled.
  • C-16A was then reserved on 13 March 1975 for the De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter but eventually this was designated as UV-18A.
  • C-16 was then reserved on 17 December 1975 for USAF with no further details, and cancelled on 30 April 1981.
  • C-16 was then reserved on 13 April 1981 for the C-X project, which eventually became the C-17.
  • C-16A was finally reserved for a version of the Cessna CE-208 Caravan intended for use by Army in FLIR missions against leftist rebels in El Salvador and the forces of Nicaragua, but the aircraft was not accepted.
No problems with the first 4 entries in this list, but as far as I know the fifth one (CE-208 Caravan) is nothing more than an unconfirmed rumour. Do you have any solid evidence for this alleged reservation of "C-16A"?
 
Andreas Parsch said:
Stargazer2006 said:
No problems with the first 4 entries in this list, but as far as I know the fifth one (CE-208 Caravan) is nothing more than an unconfirmed rumour. Do you have any solid evidence for this alleged reservation of "C-16A"?

I don't, I'm afraid. But then again, the involvement of the US in Latin American countries is not necessarily always very well documented and may take a while to get declassified... Let's assume for now, therefore, that it's just what you're saying, an "unconfirmed rumour".
 
Camo model at the top is not the YC-14, but Boeing C-X submission, larger tri-jet version of YC-14.
 
Triton said:
Model of Boeing C-5A, Boeing YC-14, and unknown transport concept at the Boeing Archives. Is the model on the lower right a C-X concept?

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinereporter/4957523600/in/set-72157624753056369/

The middle model is of Boeing's entrant for the CX competition won by the McDonnell-Douglas C-17 and isn't a model of the Boeing YC-14; see:-

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2706.msg1266.html#msg1266

Terry (Caravellarella)
 
You're both correct, my mistake. I was concentrating on the model on the lower right of the photograph and didn't pay much attention to the model in the middle.
 
Always liked the looks of Boeing "three-holers", be it 727 or this C-X design. Air Force should have run a competition fly-off with the McD and Boeing designs....
 
Triton said:
Model of Lockheed C-X concept circa 1980.

Source: Norton, Bill STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. 2002

Hmmm, looks like Bill Norton was mistaken and this is an AMST concept.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Triton said:
Model of Boeing C-5A, Boeing C-X (Cargo-Experimental) concept, and unknown transport concept at the Boeing Archives. Is the model on the lower right another C-X concept?

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinereporter/4957523600/in/set-72157624753056369/

Going by the lower fuselage/hull design and the dolly-type wheels, the model on the right appears to be of a flyboat?

Regards
Pioneer
 
This larger Boeing tri-engine YC-14 derivative to C-X!
Does anyone have any further details, specifications etc......???????

Would love to see and read more about this design! It's three-engine arrangement would appear to negate the concerns of the two-engine safety issue of the YC-14 design, in a one engine out scenario!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Two Boeing in-house models show size comparison between AMST (YC-14) and C-X (C-17) proposals. Fuselage diameter is larger on C-X, to meet USAF requirements.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing C-X & AMST.jpg
    Boeing C-X & AMST.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 1,347
I've been looking for more info on this three-engine Boeing CX design for years!
Thanks for sharing Circl-5
Keep it coming! As their must be more info on this interesting design!

Regards
Pioneer
 
I wonder if the Boeing C-X proposal would have been named Stratofreighter II?

Andreas Parsch has this to say about the "missing" C-16 designation:

C-16

The C-16 designation was never officially assigned to any aircraft. However, it was tentatively reserved no less than four times before it was finally cancelled for good. The first reservation, dated 27 November 1973, was for "YC-16" for an unidentified Boeing aircraft, but this reservation is marked as "not used". On 13 March 1975, the designation C-16A was reserved for the deHavilland DHC-6. However, this aircraft was eventually designated as UV-18A, and C-16 remained unused. On 17 December 1975, C-16 was again put "on hold" for the Air Force. This third reservation was officially cancelled on 30 April 1981, shortly after the fourth and final reservation for C-16 was made on 13 April 1981. The latter was for the "C-X" aircraft (which eventually became the C-17A Globemaster). A formal request for allocation of an MDS designation, forwarded on 3 September 1981 by the USAF Nomenclature Office to HQ USAF for approval, says:

1. The attached letter requesting a Model Series Designator for the C-X Aircraft is forwarded for consideration and approval.

2. We do not recommend assignment of C-17 as requested in subject letter.

3. This office recommends assignment of C-16A to this Aircraft as "16" is the next available number in the Cargo Aircraft category. C-16 has been on reservation for this aircraft since April and skipping this number is in conflict with AFR 82-1, paragraph 3g.

However, only one day later this letter was cancelled and replaced by the following:

1. Disregard ASD/ENESS letter, 3 Sep 1981, same subject.

2. The attached letter requesting a Model Series Designator for the C-X Aircraft is forwarded for consideration and approval.

3. We concur with assignment of C-17 as requested in the attached letter.

4. The designation "C-16" will have to be marked in the DoD master list of aircraft designations as "Not Used".

There was obviously a reason to skip C-16, but unfortunately it was not written down. It is reported, however, that the design number 16 was skipped because of "concerns over confusing the plane with the F-16 during the stress of high combat radio traffic".

Interestingly, when Boeing worked in the 1978/80 time frame on a four-engined YC-14 derivative for the C-X competition, some drawings were labeled with "C-16". However, this was simply a Boeing in-house label reflecting the anticipated designation of the C-X, and not related to any officially reserved C-16 designation.

There are two reports which associate the C-16A designation with other aircraft. In light of the above documentation, these reports are either wrong, or refer to unofficial and/or classified use of a previously unused designation. The first report says that C-16A was planned to be used for a Cessna 208 Caravan intended for use by the U.S. Army (but eventually not accepted) in missions against leftist rebels in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Another unconfirmed report states that the designation C-16 is allocated to Boeing 737s in CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) used by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command).

Source:
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missing-mds.html
 
More photos of the Boeing C-X factory proposal model. The C-X competition was won by the McDonnell Douglas C-17. Today, these two designs would not compete, because the government allowed both companies to merge. Mergers are good for shareholders and CEOs, but often bad for everyone else.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing C-X 01.jpg
    Boeing C-X 01.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 1,057
  • Boeing C-X 04.jpg
    Boeing C-X 04.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 985
  • Boeing C-X 05.jpg
    Boeing C-X 05.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 965
  • Boeing C-X 03.jpg
    Boeing C-X 03.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 988
Triton said:
Thank you, circle5. Is this model from the Boeing Archives?
No, this is from my model collection. Three of these were built at the Boeing model shop in early 1981: two are in the Boeing archives (one silver, one camo) and this one.

The landing gear detail is quite interesting -- will post later.
 
Thanks from me as well Circle-5
Do we know what this Model designation this Boeing 3-engine derivitive of their YC-14 is??
Would love to see the actual specifications for this!!
But I think I've already denoted this :)

Regards
Pioneer
 
Back
Top Bottom