Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Was The Best Aircraft Never Put In Production  
User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 630 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26061 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Opinions on what was the best aircraft never to see production... Could be a plane that never made it past the drawing board or a model that actually flew but was never green lighted for production or even a model that was green lighted and then cancelled before any production variants were built. It could be anything really. What are your thoughts?

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26060 times:

Quoting AviationAddict (Thread starter):
Opinions on what was the best aircraft never to see production...

The 7J7.

Had Boeing built a true replacement for the 737 in the late-80s, Airbus never would have picked-up the momentum they did in the 90s. It was probably Boeing's first, last, and only clear shot to definitivly sink Airbus.

That being said, I don't blame them for continuing with the 737/757. The 7J7 incorperated some highly speculative technology that is ambitious by today's standards. Had Boeing screwed up the execution, they would have given Airbus an even bigger opportunity.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26052 times:

I'm thinking the Boeing 2707 or Tupelov Tu-144 (not sure if that last one counts).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26063 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



My opinion? The Dornier 728:



With more secure funding and more solid corporate management, there's no telling how far this aircraft could have gone. At the very least, it would have become a contender to the new Embraers.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25693 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26014 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Princess:

http://www.knight-gkla.supanet.com/flyingboat.htm

 Smile

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 25973 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3):
With more secure funding and more solid corporate management, there's no telling how far this aircraft could have gone.

That's a very good point.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25820 times:

The Boeing SST

Only a wooden mock up that cost $400 mln.

Micke//SE Sad



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25758 times:

The Lockheed Chain Lightning, a development of the P-38.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineLarspl From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25730 times:

my opinion: Fokker F130!


facebook.com/ddaclassicairlines
User currently offlineEHHO From Bulgaria, joined Dec 2005, 815 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25713 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
Tupelov Tu-144

What do you mean? Surely the Tu-144 had been put in production  scratchchin 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christian Waser
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Roggeman




"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25716 times:

I vote for the Princess as well  Wink A very beautiful early A380..... And we would not have needed to spend any runway or taxiway money Big grin

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineDH106 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25660 times:

Not a commericial aircraft, but my vote's for the British 1960's TSR2 supersonic bomber. Fantastic potential killed off by political interference and ineptitude.


...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25605 times:

The concorde and the TU-144 were pitted against each other and the better of the two would go into production wasn't it? The crash during the display the Le Bourget in 73 kind of doomed the Tu-144 did it not?

Also remember, that any aircraft, on paper, looks good. Its all heresay and conjecture really isn't it?


User currently offlineEHHO From Bulgaria, joined Dec 2005, 815 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25622 times:

Boeings 747-500 and 747-600 come to mind..

And what about this beauty:



"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25612 times:

XB-70 Walkyrie.

http://sr71.net/Airplanes/XB-70/tn/xb-70-3.med.jpg


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 25565 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 12):
The concorde and the TU-144 were pitted against each other and the better of the two would go into production wasn't it? The crash during the display the Le Bourget in 73 kind of doomed the Tu-144 did it not?

Uhm no, Concorde was the Anglo French aircraft, and the Tu-144 was the Soviet aircraft - competitors in the same manner as the 737 and the A320, not competitors for the same production contract.

The Tu-144 flew for several years within the Soviet Union before suffering a second crash which permanently grounded the fleet (until NASA took one over for several years in the 1990s).


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 25422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 12):
The concorde and the TU-144 were pitted against each other and the better of the two would go into production wasn't it?

Ummm.... No!

Concorde ---> BAC/Aerospatiale
Tu144 ---> Tupolev

2 different companies, both went into production, and both saw airline service but the TU144 didnt last long, and was used for the postal run in the end. And we all know Concorde's story.



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25418 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 16):
the TU144 didnt last long, and was used for the postal run in the end

Actually the Tu-144 started out on postal runs, and was only upgraded to passenger flights later on! It entered service running post and freight in December 1975, and two years later started passenger service. A second crash in 1978 meant the types withdrawl from passenger service, with a freight service running from 1979 to 1980. The last commercial run was in 1987.


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 25411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):
Actually the Tu-144 started out on postal runs, and was only upgraded to passenger flights later on!

I stand corrected.....



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineDH106 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25374 times:

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 14):
XB-70 Walkyrie

Absolutely - the Valkyrie was awesome !!!!



...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25371 times:

Re Tu-144, I flew on the beast from Moscow to Alma Ata as part of a press junket for Aeroflot as a member of the foreign correspondent team. Never in my life have I experienced such vibrations of the plane and the cabin. No wonder they crashed. Luckily, our's didn't. Home trip to Moscow was on an IL-62.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25327 times:

RIXrat, you have mentioned a very rare and fascinating experience with the TU-144.
Maybe post this on the free forum here;
www.concordesst.co.uk

On topic, myself I favour only count aircraft that actually flew.
Thus ruling out B2707, in any case, the first two versions were impractical, losing too much time and money.
We'll never know about the final B2707-300.

Definitely the Saunders-Roe Princess, if only for the once suggested troop transport role.

TSR-2-Yes, the flights carried out boded well for the airframe/engine, avionics-very advanced for the time, might have been a different matter.

XB-70 looked and was impressive, though really not having the 3rd prototype flying raises questions about if it would have met the performance targets.
As a weapon system, it would have been pretty useless, dodging, avoiding SAM-2 missiles and IA-PVO fighters pre the Mig-25 was one thing, but SAM-5 missiles and the Mig-25/AA-6 weapon combination might have been different.
Unlike the B-52, it would not have had the versatility in roles other than strategic nuclear attack, that has ensured the B-52's very long service.

Though aircraft actually built and not flown, are easier to judge than aircraft that remained on paper.

The Dornier 728-if it had flown, definitely, but it seemed a good enough project.

As for unbuilt variants of aircraft that did fly;
The original Super VC-10-Longer than the Super that was flown, seating up to 212 pax, if the refanned Conway, the abortive RB.178 in it's initial versions, had been fitted, (an improvement like the JT8D-200 over previous versions), this could have been a contender into the early/mid 70's.

The MD-12-No not the proto A380, but the stretched MD-11, presumably with newer engines and other enhancements, but really, it would have needed to be in service not long after the basic MD-11.
A tough call for MDD then.

The Hawker Hunter was perhaps the best looking, certainly near to the ultimate transonic fighter.
Stupid then that the RAF showed no interest in the 'thin wing' Mach 1.3 version, the first of a planned series of performance/weapon system enhancements.
Huge export potential, following on from the success of the Hunter.

In 1946/7, Miles in the UK, were near to completing the M-52. A jet powered aircraft to break the sound barrier.
In many ways similar to the Bell X-1, but it's jet propulsion meant no launching from another aircraft.
A lack of government support denied legendary Naval and Test Pilot Eric Brown, the chance to be the first supersonic pilot.

The BAC Lightning was a well loved aircraft, silly then that the proposed P.8 version never flew.
Area ruling of the rear fuselage, allowed undercarriage retraction into that area, thus freeing the wings for more fuel, more weapon plyons.

Avro RJX-(The 1991/2 proposals, not the version cancelled in 2001). Swapping the four engines for two new RR/BMW powerplants, with other enhancements and fuselage length choices, could well have given BAe a powerful presence in the emerging RJ market-from 1997 onwards.
Had BAe showed any real commitment to this area.

Gnat Mk.2 and Mk.5-Supersonic versions of the light fighter, the Mk.5 with twin engines and even better performance.
Might well have given the F-5 a run for it's money.

The Original Trident-The initial larger, Medway powered version, until major customer BEA had a brain fart and forced HS to build a smaller Spey version, unattractive to all outside BEA, and BEA themselves later on.
With Medway built-a prospect of much more development of the BAC 1-11.
Perhaps culminating in a CFM-56 BAC 1-11-800, to rival the MD-80.

P.1181-Bascially a swept wing version of the Royal Navies Sea Hawk fighter, the P.1181 could have been in service the same time as the Sea Hawk, with much better exports and RAF service too.
Just in time to engage Mig-15's over the Yalu River region in Korea.

Finally, for now, this;
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2648 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 25316 times:

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/images/t4_2.jpg

User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 25315 times:

The TSR-2. My Dad built them



User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 25305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cosec59 (Reply 23):
The TSR-2. My Dad built them

That's a really interesting looking design. What was it used for, bombing, recon, etc.?


25 Post contains links HT : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR-2 --> primarily a nuclear bomber with recon ability Quite an amount of experience earned by designing/flying the TSR
26 Nonfirm : found this on the net. The McDonnell Douglas MD-12 was a design study undertaken by the McDonnell Douglas company in the 1990s. Initially it was to be
27 GDB : Excellent Wiki link, HT. Cosec59, like your dad, some of my former colleagues in BA Concorde Engineering, were ex BAC, some from the TSR.2 The bittern
28 HT : Many Thanks for the very comprehensive insight of history in that case ! -HT
29 Jeffry747 : The XB-70 has a bit of legacy to it. When the Soviet Union saw the XB-70 as a threat, they built a fighter that could catch it; the MiG-25 Foxbat. Th
30 Post contains links and images Boeing Nut : Why do you think the SR-71's were retired? Hmmm? Anyway, my vote is for the F-20 Tigershark. Even Chuck Yeager thought it was one of the best aircraf
31 Post contains links and images Fanofjets : I don't know how good the plane was, but I have always admired the Avro Jetliner: http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/manatee/272/jetliner.html http://w
32 CruzinAltitude : I wonder how safe this design would have been. With the engines in the wings a engine fire would be a VERY scary situation!
33 Checo77 : For me definitely the Sonic Cruiser, which was to be the replacement for the Concorde. Too bad Boeing never produced it. Adam
34 Post contains images Btriple7 : How are these different to the 747-8? Practicality wins out over beauty unfortunately. Uhh...not quite. The Sonic Cruiser was designed to cruise at m
35 Boeing Nut : The -500 was slightly larger than the -8. 460 passengers. The -600 was even bigger seating 530 or so passengers. The range of the -500 was advertised
36 Andz : The Spruce Goose! The message you were about to post is too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic at hand. You should think long and
37 Areopagus : A-12 predecessor to SR-71 design started 1958, contract 1959, first flew 1962 SR-71 first flew December 1964 XB-70 contract issued 1958, first flew S
38 Post contains images ATCT : I agree with the Dornier 728JET. I loved that thing. Piper Pocono, piper's failed B1900/JS31 competitor. ATCT
39 Post contains links Fanofjets : I have a collection of photos of "paper airplanes," including some early double deckers (aside from the Princess already mentioned). I have posted the
40 ReidYYZ : Smells a little AVRO ARROW-ish: 1965=1959, LBJ White House= DDE White House, UK=Canada. I would like to have seen Lockheed go ahead with the L1011-60
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...
What Is The Best Flight School In USA? posted Mon Feb 6 2006 21:33:00 by LXSWISSA330
What Is The Best Time Of Day To Travel? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 00:46:51 by Pizzaandplanes
What Is The Easiest Aircraft To Acquire? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 23:34:22 by Lazyshaun
What Is The Worst Flight To Check In? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 08:29:19 by RicardoFG
What Is The Best Navaid Search Engine? posted Fri Dec 2 2005 15:32:49 by Skywatch
What Are The Best Seats On A 747? posted Thu Aug 11 2005 07:14:58 by Adam727
What Was Your Best Economy Class Meal? posted Fri Aug 5 2005 20:34:31 by Highpeaklad
What If The 747 Had Never Flown? posted Mon May 2 2005 22:12:01 by Moose1226
What Is The Best Pax-Airplane For Cargo? posted Sun Mar 27 2005 00:48:34 by Avianca
What Was Your First Aircraft Flown On? posted Wed Nov 10 2004 00:12:26 by Luxair