> Is an aircraft of this size economical It's not just the size, it's also the shape of such airlifters that makes them non-economical for commercial use. For

> Is an aircraft of this size economical It's not just the size, it's also the shape of such airlifters that makes them non-economical for commercial use. For example the USAF's own data shows that the C-17 burns more fuel per hour than the KC-10 but carries 20 tonnes less payload by weight, all because of the fat rear-loading-for-tanks fuselage ( that's seldom used for such ) and thick wing. Both the C-17 and the C-5 were touted on the civil market but had zero uptake.