|  Base model:||C-14|
|  Designation System:||U.S. Tri-Service|
|  Designation Period:||1962-Present|
|  Basic role:||Transport|
|  Length:|| 131' 8"|| 40.1 m|
|  Height:||48' 4"|| 14.7 m|
|  Wingspan:|| 129'|| 39.3 m|
|  Wingarea:|| 1,762.0 sq ft|| 163.6 sq m|
|  Empty Weight:|| 117,500 lb|| 53,287 kg|
|  Gross Weight:|| 251,000 lb||113,832 kg|
|  No. of Engines:|| 2|
|  Powerplant:|| CF6-50D11|
|  Thrust (each):||51,000 lb||23,129 kg|
|  Range:|| 3,190 miles|| 5,136 km|
|  Cruise Speed:|| 449 mph|| 723 km/h|| 390 kt|
|  Max Speed:|| 504 mph|| 811 km/h|| 438 kt|
|  Climb:|| 6,350 ft/min|| 1,935 m/min|
|  Ceiling:|| 45,000 ft|| 13,715 m|
Examples of this type may be found at
YC-14 on display
Pima Air & Space Museum
| || || || |
Recent comments by our visitors
| i.have.boeings.new-generation.airlifter.pamphlet.on.yc-14 |
06/03/2013 @ 16:14 [ref: 67866]
| jon whitworth|
| I was lead flight test engineer on the no. 2 aircraft. Probably the most interesting airplane I ever worked on. One hell of a flying machine. |
08/29/2010 @ 15:59 [ref: 29676]
| Richard Keller|
| I was an Instrumentation Engineer on the YC-14 Test Program at Edwards Air Force Base in California. I tried to avoid flying while airpane number one (of two) was in Seattle. Air Force pilots refused to realize how dangerous severe manuvers could be while an Instrumentation Engineer changed the heavy tape recorder reels. One incident of an AF pilot doing a hard push over nearly caused injury to an engineer because at that time you can not be strapped in.
This lead to some of our flight qualified engineers quiting the company. I was pressed into flight service and did all the medical and survival pre qualification classes at Edwards. Seated at my station watching a true air speed indicator register 59 knots on a 45 degree landing approach made a believer out of me. That is slower than the landing speed for a number of private light planes. During a practice of an air show manuver I saw number two airplane bank so close to the ground I expected a crash. The airplane did a 90 degree left turn, flew outward did a 180 degree turn then another 90 degree turn over the runawy. The plane was about 5,000 feet when it passed the end of the 10,000 foot runway.
09/05/2007 @ 14:39 [ref: 17845]
| Brian Scott|
| With all the demand for cargo aircraft and the Army/Air Force fight over the JCA why are we not revisiting this kind of technology? This would make a very good Special Operations platform. Somebady at Boeing should wake up. Speaking of wake up calls, why are there so many 747's in storage when they would make excellent tanker/cargo aircraft? Its a type allready in the inventory and the mx is allready in place, a boom, some MCARS pods and you have true mobility! What happened to corporate development of military aircraft? Aircrews need corporate help, they are sure not getting it from leadership!!!!! |
03/19/2007 @ 04:01 [ref: 15943]
| C. W.|
Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA
I was the prinicpal investigator for infrared signature tests performed on the YC-14 and its competitor, the YC-15. During one phase of the testing, the airplane was required to do a spot landing with a 50ft tolerance AT NIGHT with NO landing lights and no runway lights. VERY IMPRESSIVE performance on the parts of both the pilot and the airplane.
On takeoff, the Coanda effect across the huge flaps made it a particularly vulnerable target to IR SAMs like the Soviet Union was distributing at the time.
02/13/2007 @ 12:23 [ref: 15503]
| Ron Mitchell|
Anaheim Hills,, CA
As a young man of around 25 I worked for a company named ASTECH in Costa Mesa as a prototype mechanic and was assigned the job of helping to build the clam shell reverser for the YC14. It was an interesting project due to the fact that it was a prototype job which meant not much was allocated to create tooling. Consiquently much of the fabrication and fitting was done by hand. It was a nice job to have been associated with and I am glad that the plane, although not selected by the military, was a success and lived up to it's expectations.
02/05/2007 @ 12:47 [ref: 15423]
| Todd Buckingham|
| My father was the test pilot for the YC-14. We were with this beautiful plane from start to finish. I watched it fly many times, even rode in a tank as they loaded it onto the plane during a load capacity test. It was an amazing aircraft and I was sad to see the program cancelled. We visited both models of the plane recently at the Pima Air Museum and AMARC (Bone Yard). It was good to see the planes still standing tall. |
06/18/2006 @ 20:57 [ref: 13544]
| John Henderson|
| Sometime in the late seventies I was driving my 1970 Ford Econoline van south along the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle while the YC-14 was on approach to Boeing Field. I spotted the YC-14 ahead of me as I came out of the Battery Street tunnel. By the time I got off the viaduct down by the Sears building I had passed it. Yes, there was a good headwind blowing but that was most imopressive!!
Illegitimus Non Carborundum
03/30/2006 @ 21:49 [ref: 12986]
| It is a pretty cool concept, and it worked. However, as a MX standpoint, the engines aren't as accessable as they are hangning under the wings. I wonder what an engine change would be like. There would seem to be little room for error if something stupid were to happen.
On a same note on a similar a/c, check out the AN-74. There were some problems with that design after a while, same thing could have happened with this. There is new life in the AN-74. I won't give it away, but Antonov is looking to get in the RJ market.
03/27/2006 @ 21:40 [ref: 12948]
| Rich Linder|
| As a student pilot in the early 70's, (about '74-'75), I remember flying touch and go's with a Scott AFB Aero Club Cessna 150 with both the Boeing YC-14 and the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 in the Scott AFB pattern with me at the same time.
The proposed new aircraft were apparently at Scott AFB (MAC Headquarters) to put on a demonstration for the MAC Staff.
I wished then I had a camera with me.
03/23/2006 @ 08:30 [ref: 12887]
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors