NoelG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5512 times:
I was reading the article about the 717 in Airliner World this month, and thought what a nice aircraft it was. Its a shame that it hasn't been more successful, would love to see these aircraft in more liveries!!
What "failed" aircraft (that flew or never got past the design stage) would you like to see more of now?
Mike77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 203 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5478 times:
The MD-11. I don't know if it was considered a failure, but I do know that it did not meet expectations due to a variety of reasons. I love those planes, and wish that more airlines flew them. I have never been on an MD-11, unfortunately. I have flown many times on the DC-10's on American, Northwest and Western, and I had always imagined the MD-11 to be a more powerful, sleeker version of those DC-10's.
To AJ: Why were the 747SP and 764 aircraft considered failures? I'm sorry to hear that. Those are cool planes!
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2739 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5398 times:
Come on, Conocrde never really failed did it? Its been in service for over 40 years and theres not much aircraft around now that have been in service for that long. Conocrde is being used more than twice a day. Its a shame that concorde wasnt' bought by other airlines. But I think its been an excellent 40 years for these birds. And its a shame that BA are retiring them. In my opinion Conocrde has been one of the most successful aircraft of all time, due to its long service and style!
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8194 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5386 times:
The 747SP is a strange one for me, one of the routes it was specifically designed for was NYC - Tokyo nonstop, which the 747 classic couldn't do. Why JAL never bought any is a complete mystery. Maybe their flight attendents liked the stuffed polar bear in the lounge at Anchorage.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3996 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5243 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The Dassault Mercure was definitely a failure. Only 12 were built, 11 of which went into service with French domestic airline Air Inter, the only operator of the type. Not only it wasn't successful but it was the only jetliner Dassault has ever made. I can understand that airlines much prefered the B737 over the Mercure because it had a short range compared to its US rival, but Dassault could have designed a Mercure ER to attract other carriers and compete with US built B737. I don't understand why not even Air France, France's major flag carrier, was interested in the Mercure.
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4871 times:
The L-1011 was one of the most popular civilian aircraft ever built, both with pilots and passengers. It was one of the biggest technological successes ever. It never suffered a crash due to the aircraft itself.
Unfortunately, it was a financial nightmare. I just finished reading "End of an Era: My Story of the L-1011" by James West, former President and CEO of Lockheed. An excellent book on the 1011, which, due to attitudes within Lockheed's high-level administration, was likely doomed from the start.
Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4827 times:
How about the A342, the 753 and the 736? The Dassault Mercure was a good example above too. I suggest these with only sheer order numbers compare to "successful" airliners. These three just haven't sold well.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4756 times:
I think the reason why JL never bought the 747SP was the fact the major sacrifice in pax/cargo capacity was something JL disliked. So when the 747-200B versions with more efficient engines and the ability to carry extra fuel capacity became available to JL, they bought this plane instead, which could fly from JFK to NRT with only a small sacrifice in pax/cargo capacity compared with the regular 747-200B. Indeed, one of these specially-made JL 742B's is credited with the fastest flight from JFK to NRT--an amazing time of just over 11 hours!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4576 times:
VC-10, 747SP, Vanguard, BAC 1-11 (did ok, but with development of airframe and engines it could have done a lot better), Mercure (odd that the planned CFM-56 powered version was not proceded with), Bristol Britannia, CV-990.
Concorde has not been flying for 40 years, though it may seem like that!
Prototype first flew in 1969, first pax services in 1976.
Without this version, it is hard to see how further sales could have happened, but then we are probably talking about twice or three times as many sales, which would have made life much easier; http://concordesst.com/concordeb.html
The HS-748 did OK sales wise, in production for over 20 years, though it helps to remember what 'good' sales are nowdays, you expect more sales as air travel has expanded into a bigger market.
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4528 times:
There is absolutely no reason the MD-11 should have been more popular.
It was easitly outshadowed technically and economically by the 340 and 777.
Also, the inherent design flaws making it unstable in some flight regimes (slow speed flight) are again a good example of MD rushing a product to the marketplace. Had it been available five years earlier.....this post would likely not include the MD-11
It's may be nice for enthusiasts (definetely one of the more interesting looking aircraft)..but it was easitly overshadowed by much more capable competition.
Tonyctnyc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4503 times:
Check again -- the BAe/HS 748 was very definitely popular - - though not as popular as its rival, The Fokker F27 (my favorite plane) , The 748 flew in large numbers all over the world !! In fact, small numbers, I'm sure, are still flying !
The 748 was the inspration for the bigger failure-- the ATP .. which was a newer model stretch of the 748 which sat approx 65. That bottomed out quickly, thank god. AN awful, ungainly, slow, bad plane.
To add to the list of failed planes, i wish the Fokker 50 was able to have had more of a chance !