Could the Shuttle be transported overseas?

[VunderBob]

@ElvisL1ves

The shuttle’s wingspan is 78 feet, a C-5’s cargo area is 19 feet wide. Are you suggesting cutting the wings off? The shuttle is intended to be reusable.

Partially dismantled; not cut up.

[VunderBob]

And just to make myself clear, I’m talking about the Easter Island scenario, not the already established European trips.

[KP]

@VunderBob

It would be a lot easier and probably cheaper to remove the control surfaces and engines, and fly it home in a couple of those huge Air Force cargo planes (C-117? the one that make the C-5 look like a Cessna…)

AFAIK, no aircraft in existence can make a C-5 Galaxy look like a Cessna. The C-117 “Super Dakota” was an enhanced version of the DC-3 prop plane that could, if disassembled, fit in the Shuttle’s cargo bay. (I happen to like the DC-3, which is still in service around the world, but many have become -er- 1930s style death traps) Maybe you were thinking of the C-17 Globemaster III but that’s a larger replacement for the C-131, and at 75% of the aircraft length, isn’t even close.to the C-5. In fact, one of its design objectives was to free up the C-5 by taking over some smaller loads

The Russian Antonov AN-124 (NATO: CONDOR) is a “larger aircraft” than the C-5. The two are fairly comparable in size, in terms of, e.g., Length x Wingspan (the C-5 is 247.1’ x 222.9’ and the AN-124 is 240’ 5" x 226’ 3") but the AN-124 has a slightly larger fusilage, and can carry about 10% more loaded weight (incl. fuel).

There is one single “stretched” AN-124 in use, the AN-225 (NATO: COSSACK), with more engines and better wings – and a second one, designed, appropriately enough to carry the Soviet Buran Space Shuttle and Energiya boosters, is slated for completion in 2005. (Yes, I know the “soviets” are gone now, but the Buran will always be “Soviet” to this old Cold Warrior.) I think this picture showing the AN-225 carrying the Buran shows that main fuselage of neither the Buran nor US space shuttle Shuttle could fit inside the AN-225 (the two are quite comparable in size) AFAIK, the AN-225 is the largest airplane in the world.

[KP]

Here’s a better (larger) photo of the AN-225 + Buran [Source: NASA]

[Robot_Arm]

KP beat me to my post.

But to be a stickler, the C-17 is a replacement for the C-141. I’m sure it was just a typo, but there’s one poster here who might want to have that cleared up.

[VunderBob]

That’s why I posted C-117**?**, because I was unsure of the number. I did intend for C-17, because I thought it was bigger than a C-5.

And I knew about the Antonovs being bigger, but I didn’t want to confuse myself and everyone else even more…

[VunderBob]

@ElvisL1ves

The shuttle’s wingspan is 78 feet, a C-5’s cargo area is 19 feet wide. Are you suggesting cutting the wings off? The shuttle is intended to be reusable.

Another point that hasn’t been addressed, but in an emergency landing scenario, the shuttle most likely would be irreparably damaged, even if the occupants all walked away.

[pilot141]

@Robot Arm

KP beat me to my post.

But to be a stickler, the C-17 is a replacement for the C-141. I’m sure it was just a typo, but there’s one poster here who might want to have that cleared up.

Thank you very much!

[douglips]

@KP

AFAIK, no aircraft in existence can make a C-5 Galaxy look like a Cessna. The C-117 “Super Dakota” was an enhanced version of the DC-3 prop plane that could, if disassembled, fit in the Shuttle’s cargo bay. (I happen to like the DC-3, which is still in service around the world, but many have become -er- 1930s style death traps) Maybe you were thinking of the C-17 Globemaster III but that’s a larger replacement for the C-131, and at 75% of the aircraft length, isn’t even close.to the C-5.

Thus was born douglips’ Law:

Any post criticizing incorrect military aircraft designations will itself contain incorrect military aircraft designations.