AviationAddict 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:
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?
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.
Bill142 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?
RichardPrice 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).
RichardPrice 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.
RIXrat 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.
GDB 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.