Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If The MD-11 Had Been As Successful As...  
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4749 times:

say, the 777 program, Would McDonnel Douglas still be making airliners? What would their next project have been? a double decker?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

Yes, they would still be in business, and not as a part of Boeing. The MD-95 (B-717) would have still been a failure, though.

Their next project would have been the MD-12, although now I believe that airplane would have to be a MD-80 replacement.


User currently offlineNwa1978 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

I would have to agree. Id the MD-11 had been a success, Md would still be alive and well. I think the 717 would have also been a success becuase it would not have stayed that small (717-200). It would have really been a md-80 replacement. I think the md-11 could have still been a success had boeing pushed it. Just my $.02

User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4629 times:

The MD-XX or MD-12 would have been a Double Decker Widebody Tri-Jet. Truely a shame we never got a chance ot possibly see it. With the way engine technology is rapidly increasing this 3-holer would have been very possible and most likely very successful.

User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
although now I believe that airplane would have to be a MD-80 replacement.

Wasn't that the MD-90 / MD-95 ?

TWA902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4594 times:

Another question : Would Lockheed ever dare to build a civil airliner again ?
Maybe not in a forseable future but lets say in 10-15 years when producing a new tanker or transporter that could lead to a civil derivate.
Too bad that they stopped producing airliners, they build three of the most remarkable airliners ever produced : The Tristar, the Electra and of course the Super Star/Super Constellation.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4305 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 5):
Another question : Would Lockheed ever dare to build a civil airliner again ?

i don't think that lockheed has the cash on hand to start something that big. knowing them, it would probably end up flying mach 3 on 2 gallons of fuel without a sonic boom, but they would have to invest enough money into it to bankrupt themselves in order to have it live up to their standards.

but i'm just speculating.


User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days ago) and read 4234 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 5):
Would Lockheed ever dare to build a civil airliner again ?

I dont think so either. Given nowadays very long times for designing and evaluating a military a/c, any civil (passenger) airliner derived from it would be outdated by the time of its possible entry into service.
Actually it´s working the other way round: Both the B767 and the A330 are running along to become Future Tanker and Transport aircraft, especially in the U.S. and the U.K. ...
IIRC "Future Tanker and Transport Aircraft" (FTTA) actually is the acronym used by the RAF for finding a replacement for its L-1011´s and Vickers VC-10.



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Thread starter):
say, the 777 program, Would McDonnel Douglas still be making airliners? What would their next project have been? a double decker?

If the MD-11 would have been successful, there would have been no 777. I guess the 777 success is very much in accordance to the demise of the MD-11. After Boeing bought MDD, it discontinued the MD-11 line... I wonder why!  stirthepot  duck 
And we would have seen a rebirth of the 727 in a long range version to compete with the MD-11.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD-11 Junkie



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineFreedom4all From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

Quoting KROC (Reply 3):
The MD-XX or MD-12 would have been a Double Decker Widebody Tri-Jet. Truely a shame we never got a chance ot possibly see it. With the way engine technology is rapidly increasing this 3-holer would have been very possible and most likely very successful.

the MD-12 was going to be a D-Decker but it wasn't going to be a tri-jet, the final design called for 4 engines....would have liked to see it too

Shame the MD-11 didn't sell better, one of my favorite plans in the sky



long live the 747!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 4):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
although now I believe that airplane would have to be a MD-80 replacement.

Wasn't that the MD-90 / MD-95 ?

TWA902

I believe you are correct.  thumbsup 

Quoting Freedom4all (Reply 9):
the MD-12 was going to be a D-Decker but it wasn't going to be a tri-jet, the final design called for 4 engines....would have liked to see it too

That is correct, too. Once you mentioned it, I remembered seeing a drawing of it in Aviation Leak. I now think it looked so much like today's A-380.  scratchchin 

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 8):
If the MD-11 would have been successful, there would have been no 777. I guess the 777 success is very much in accordance to the demise of the MD-11.

No, the 7N7 program (B-777-200) launched the same year the MD-11 was certified. The MD-11s longest range version (about 7000nm) was still shorter ranged than the B-777, carried the same number of pax, but burned more fuel, and carried less cargo.  sorry 

The MD-11 would have still been out of production now, even if MD was not bought by Boeing. It wasn't long before the airline realized the MD-11 was a dog.  sigh 

But, if it were still in production, it would only be the MD-11F. That version would be in compitition with the B-767 and A-330 for the KC-135E replacement.  crossfingers 

MD could never make the MD-11 meet it's performance goals, it was a poor, but good looking, design.  ouch 

MD would still be in business, though. Today, they would be building at least to of their designs, the MD-80 series, and the MD-95. They might also be building the MD-12, if they could have gotting the financial backing to launch it.  optimist 

If that happened, and Airbus still built the A-380, would it still be a copycat design?  flamed 


User currently offlineACdreamliner From UK - Scotland, joined May 2005, 519 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4120 times:

if only they had invested a little more in the wings. Remember it was a DC-10-30/40 wing with winglets, if they had designed a better wing, giveing it the range and fuel burn savings that could have occured, we would be seeing alot more 3 holers around today!


Where are you going?
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4108 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
No, the 7N7 program (B-777-200) launched the same year the MD-11 was certified. The MD-11s longest range version (about 7000nm) was still shorter ranged than the B-777, carried the same number of pax, but burned more fuel, and carried less cargo.

These are the figures for the 777-200, the initial model of the 777 family. It does not even scratch the first version of the MD-11, which had a range of 6800nm. The MD-11 "ER" was capable of going as far as 7300nm.

777-200 - Range 229 tonne MTOW 7000km (3780nm), 233 tonne MTOW 7778km (4200nm), 247 tonne MTOW range 9537km (5150nm)

The ER came three years after, 1997, the 200 was rolled out. The MD-11 was 6 years old. Yet again, the 777-200ER is capable of doing 7800nm. beating the MD-11 by not that much.

The main problem with the MD-11 was that it was equipped with old, obsolete engines. If MDD had demanded PW and GE to develop new engines, this would be another story. Shame on Rolls Royce.  Sad

As I said in another post, the 777 runs with a lot of advantages towards the MD-11. The MD-11 was rolled out in 91 and certified that same year. The 777 program was launched in 1991. So, quite a lot of advantages for the twin.

Still, the MD-11, I agree if it was in production, it would be produced in Freighter versions.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD-11 Junkie



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 12):
These are the figures for the 777-200, the initial model of the 777 family. It does not even scratch the first version of the MD-11, which had a range of 6800nm. The MD-11 "ER" was capable of going as far as 7300nm.

777-200 - Range 229 tonne MTOW 7000km (3780nm), 233 tonne MTOW 7778km (4200nm), 247 tonne MTOW range 9537km (5150nm)

No, here is the info from Boeing's web site on the B-777-200/200ER:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

This is from Boeing on the MD-11:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-11family/index.html

It says; "The nonstop range of the standard MD-11 operating at a maximum takeoff weight of 602,500 pounds (273,290 kg) is approximately 7,630 statute miles (12,270 km) with 285 passengers and their bags. The extended-range version of the MD-11, equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank and operating at a higher maximum takeoff weight of 630,500 pounds (285,990 kg), has a range of approximately 8,225 statute miles (13,230 km)."


User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 12):
Shame on Rolls Royce

Maybe they didn't want to make the same mistake again.That came out wrong with the Tristar.

mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 57
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

Quoting AR1300 (Reply 14):
Maybe they didn't want to make the same mistake again.That came out wrong with the Tristar.

Well, the L-1011 had the disgrace of having no other engine option. That screwed up the program. RR went bankrupt, and that almost drained the whole L-1011 program.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
No, here is the info from Boeing's web site on the B-777-200/200ER:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html

This is from Boeing on the MD-11:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-11family/index.html

What's the conversion for nm? That's the only measures I understand in aviation  Silly.

The Data about the 777 is exactly the same.

Cheers! wave 
Gastón - The MD-11 Junkie



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

so, after the 717 line shut down, MD is essentially dead? (from the perspective of not having any further impact on the airliner business.) that is so sad. two incredibly important companies merge, only to be eaten up shortly after their merger, then let out on the vine to whither under boeing's control.

i guess this poses a question that is a bit off topic from my original post, but it is part of what i was thinking about that inspired me to post this topic in the first place:

will we ever see a third competitor to airbus and boeing?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The MD-11 Better Then The 777? posted Tue Jul 13 2004 04:46:45 by NightFlier
What If The 747 Had Never Flown? posted Mon May 2 2005 22:12:01 by Moose1226
KLM MD-11 Business Class - Any Experience? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 22:08:09 by Expatmatt
MD-11, B-747, 777 Or A340? posted Tue Dec 13 2005 17:28:43 by MADtoCAE
KLM MD-11 posted Sun Dec 4 2005 18:42:47 by A330Fan
RG MD-11 AMS-CDG...Is It Really That Bad? posted Tue Jul 26 2005 21:09:04 by Lhrmaccoll
Aer Lingus A330 Vs Aer Lingus MD-11? posted Wed May 25 2005 23:21:26 by Aerlingus330
LON-GIG AF Or BA B744 Or Varig MD-11 posted Tue Feb 22 2005 16:04:24 by Richardw
Where To Sit If The Worst Happens? posted Sun Feb 20 2005 02:07:18 by Kieron747
Best Y Seats On AY MD-11? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 14:04:55 by Nickofatlanta