Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17657 times:
Came across following interesting video (Seattle TV station) from last February covering Boeing's collection of hundreds of models, mostly of proposed designs that never made it beyond the drawing board or were changed significantly from the original concept. It may have been posted before it but couldn't recall seeng it. http://www.king5.com/news/business/B...nes-that-never-flew-116515378.html
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17203 times:
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16776 times:
We know that Boeing in the middle 1970's proposed a 727 that was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or 2040 engines instead of three JT8D's (Aviation Week & Space Technology showed models of that proposal). If that had become reality, the 757 would probably never have existed.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10470 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15870 times:
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15276 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 2): We know that Boeing in the middle 1970's proposed a 727 that was powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or 2040 engines instead of three JT8D's (Aviation Week & Space Technology showed models of that proposal). If that had become reality, the 757 would probably never have existed.
The 757 was the 727 replacement project; it started as a twin engined 727. But Joe Sutter had proved for the 737 that two engines under the wing are more efficient than two engines on the tail, and Boeing had not forgotten that. So it was not so much that this airplane would have supplanted the 757 but that it evolved into the 757. This was in fact the starting point for the 757, it is not in the same category as the planes that never flew.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14912 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6): The 757 was the 727 replacement project; it started as a twin engined 727. But Joe Sutter had proved for the 737 that two engines under the wing are more efficient than two engines on the tail, and Boeing had not forgotten that. So it was not so much that this airplane would have supplanted the 757 but that it evolved into the 757. This was in fact the starting point for the 757, it is not in the same category as the planes that never flew.
Also, I believe there was probably the issue of the plane being a tad heavy on the back of the plane with the T-tail and the twin PW2037 installation. As such, the original proposal probably evolved into the 7N7 proposal from around 1976, and that finally evolved into the final 757 design of 1978.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13056 times:
I've been collecting Boeing concept designs over the years and they have certainly had some interesting ones.
If Boeing had launched the Sonic Cruiser for long-range travel. would that have brought back the 767-6xx design from the 1980's to bring higher speed to transcon missions?
Boeing and Aeritalia were playing with some 7X7 designs in the early 1970's (I am guessing) with engines mounted in-line with the front of the wing and extending forward.
They had two t-tail models - one with two engines and one with four (guessing for medium and long range missions).
They also had one that had two inline with the wing and a 727 tail and engine.
And then there was one that looks like an L-1011 - two engines under the wing and one in the tail/aft fuselage.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12835 times:
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 5):
I heard tdscanuck was in mourning for months when they didn't develop that plane.
That thing was before my time, thank goodness. It would have been *awesome* to test but I would have had to wear a paper bag over my head every time I walked out to board.
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12483 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): Boeing and Aeritalia were playing with some 7X7 designs in the early 1970's (I am guessing) with engines mounted in-line with the front of the wing and extending forward.
I wonder if the MAX could have used this concept to allow an engine with a much larger by-pass ratio for even greater efficiencies? About a year ago FlightGlobal reported that Boeing had conducted 737 wind-tunnel tests with engines nacelles tucked a little tighter to and a bit forward of the wing to allow for a bigger fan. Maybe we'll see this for the MAX?
neutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 215 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12304 times:
Boeing came up with, "interesting" concepts.
Hunchback 767: UGLY
L-1011 copy: LAWSUIT
But imagine how much different designs would be today..
am I wrong, but the first picture concept looks like a mixture of a wide and narrow body craft. it seemed like the front section is cross stretched toward the middle, wing area, and again the back is also wider then wing area.....
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9507 times:
Quoting ljupco (Reply 13): am I wrong, but the first picture concept looks like a mixture of a wide and narrow body craft. it seemed like the front section is cross stretched toward the middle, wing area, and again the back is also wider then wing area.....
Classic "area ruling". Check out the fuselages of fighters like the F-5, F-106, etc.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8939 times:
Quoting ljupco (Reply 13): am I wrong, but the first picture concept looks like a mixture of a wide and narrow body craft. it seemed like the front section is cross stretched toward the middle, wing area, and again the back is also wider then wing area.....
The plane would have five seating cross sections - 2+1+2 First Class right behind Door 1 expanding to 2+2+2 First Class and 2+4+2 Economy Class around Door 2 then shrinking to 2+3+2 Economy Class before and after the tightest section, which would be 2+1+2 Economy Class.
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7598 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): Boeing and Aeritalia were playing with some 7X7 designs in the early 1970's (I am guessing) with engines mounted in-line with the front of the wing and extending forward.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 11): I wonder if the MAX could have used this concept to allow an engine with a much larger by-pass ratio for even greater efficiencies? About a year ago FlightGlobal reported that Boeing had conducted 737 wind-tunnel tests with engines nacelles tucked a little tighter to and a bit forward of the wing to allow for a bigger fan. Maybe we'll see this for the MAX?
Upper surface blowing (USB) was in vogue during the early/mid-70s. Boeing applied USB to the YC-14 test aircraft for the Air Force AMST program to replace the C-130.
It obviously provides a benefit to low-speed lift and a reduction in take-off/landing distance. I have to wonder if it comes with any penalty during high-speed cruise? Given that Boeing has now booked firm orders for the 737MAX, I think it's unlikely we will see major design changes to the location of the engines. Applying USB would essentially require an all-new wing.
Quoting Viscount724 (Thread starter): Came across following interesting video (Seattle TV station) from last February covering Boeing's collection of hundreds of models, mostly of proposed designs that never made it beyond the drawing board or were changed significantly from the original concept. It may have been posted before it but couldn't recall seeng it.
Boeing is probably one of the most competent organizations in the world at developing conceptual trade studies. Everyone knows the cost of developing a new airplane. You have to get it right. One of the reasons Boeing has been a leader for so long is their ability to correctly refine specific client requirements and broad market forecasts into a product that is demanded for 30+ years. The trade study process of hitting and missing (more times than hitting) is a vital part of that capability.
fanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7322 times:
Thanks for the interesting pix, Stich. Those planes with the engines mounted above the wing leading edge were designed to take advantage of the Coanda effect, a popular desing idea in the late 1970s. Boeing proposed it for its YC-14. Antonov actually used it for its An-72/-74 aircraft. (Interestingly, the latest derivatives of that design feature engines in pods below the wing.)
There were many interesting studies of the proposed 707 design, including turboprop versions and what could best be described as a Stratocruiser with swept wings and two sets of twin-podded engines.
Boeing proposed stretches to both its 707 and 727, but the airlines weren't interested.
There was also a three-engined Boeing 747 that has been posted on A.net.
Going back even further in time, Boeing proposed a twin-engined high-winged feederliner, similar to the Douglas DC-5 but with a Stratocruiser schnoz. I have a collection of these "paper airplanes" - I see if I can find a way to post some of them here. This is a very interesting topic.
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
FlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1893 posts, RR: 28 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6690 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): If Boeing had launched the Sonic Cruiser for long-range travel. would that have brought back the 767-6xx design from the 1980's to bring higher speed to transcon missions?
I remember that curve-shaped fuselage is for the supersonice aircraft (probably B2707). I have got a seat map of the curve-shaped interior cabin.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 6679 times:
Quoting FlyboyOz (Reply 19): I remember that curve-shaped fuselage is for the supersonice aircraft (probably B2707). I have got a seat map of the curve-shaped interior cabin.
Yes, the 2707 did have area ruling of the fuselage and indeed it was a single-aisle forward of Door 1 (First Class), then dual aisles between Door 1 and the mid point between Door 2 and Overwing Exit 1, where it went back to single aisle.
But it looks like the 767 trijet instead of the 747 without the hump.
I guess a tour inside the Archives would be the perfect gift for a lot of people here. Doesn't Boeing commission replicas of the more popular, unique models to sell as presents for its visitors? Happy Holidays to all!
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
When Boeing was designing the 727 back in the late 50s, several models were proposed. One of the proposed model was a tri jet model, but not as T-Tail, kind of like the tri-jet Dassault Falcon business jet. The T-Tail tri-jet model was the final decision.
The 2707 would have been the American Concorde. I guess that part of the reason it never became reality was the oil embargo crisis of the early 1970s. The United States never made a Supersonic plane (and I don't think it will ever happen), unlike Europe and Soviet Union.
I remember also the Sonic Cruiser back in 2001 before the 7E7 was announced. The Sonic Cruiser would have flown at Mach 1, or at least Mach 0.95
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 21): But it looks like the 767 trijet instead of the 747 without the hump.
It would have been the perfect competitor against the DC-10/MD-11 and the L-1011. I'm sure ANA, American, British Airways, Northwest, Delta and United would have considered it seriously. They would have been the first to show interest in that model. And maybe others such as JAL, Singapore and Cathay Pacific would have followed.
Boeing considered also a 727-300, a stretched model of the 727-200. United and Braniff showed an interest in it.
On the Mc Donnell Douglas site (I know this topic is about Boeing, but we can consider also Mc Donnell Douglas models), there has been:
-The DC-10 Twin.
-The MD-XX , a mid size widebody that would have been a competitor against the Airbus A300 and the Boeing 767. Delta and United would have ordered it. Maybe they never made it because not enough airlines showed interest to make the project viable in making profit financially.
-The MD-12 which would have looked like the A380.
-After Mc Donnell Douglas merged with Boeing, they were considering making a 717-300, a stretched 717 that would have replaced the MD-80, but apparently no airline showed interest.
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2311 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 6464 times:
Boeing considered the 747-500 and -600 around 1996. Each would have been Fly-by-wire and had a 777 like AIMS cabinet (Airplane Information Management System which integrates some avionics systems into one). In other words, it would have a lot of 777 systems architecture. The -600 would have been longer as a VLA. The -500 would have been ultra long range. Leadership apparently realized there wasn't a market to justify the large investment.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 6429 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 7): Also, I believe there was probably the issue of the plane being a tad heavy on the back of the plane with the T-tail and the twin PW2037 installation.
That is precisely the reason that Joe Sutter found the underwing engines were more efficient; the structural support for the tail mounted engines and the T-tail was much heavier. The engines on the wing also reduce stress on the wing spars, making them lighter as well.
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 11):
I wonder if the MAX could have used this concept to allow an engine with a much larger by-pass ratio for even greater efficiencies? About a year ago FlightGlobal reported that Boeing had conducted 737 wind-tunnel tests with engines nacelles tucked a little tighter to and a bit forward of the wing to allow for a bigger fan. Maybe we'll see this for the MAX?
When Boeing developed the B-47 they discovered that the most efficient position for a jet engine was in a pod suspended below and in front of the wing with a substantial space between the nacelle and the lower leading edge of the wing. When they designed the original 737 they discovered that they could put the engine tight against the lower wing surface provided that they had a nacelle that extended well in front AND behind the wing for very small drag penalty. While the tools that engineers use have improved very markedly, the aerodynamics themselves have not changed. I suspect that the 737 nacelles that are in use now are not as efficient as those on the 767, for example, but they were a compromise to allow the basic 737 configuration (i.e. wingbox and landing gear) to stay pretty much the same. I'm quite sure that the Boeing engineers have examined every engine configuration they could think of, and have chosen the best one with the constraints that they have. I very much doubt that any of us will think of something that they haven't.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 Buyantukhaa: So why is then that Concorde didn't have area ruling in the fuselage? I guess it is because the aircraft cross-section expands very gently given the
26 tdscanuck: Because Concorde was a delta wing. The basic principle of area ruling isn't the "coke bottle" fuselage, it's that the cross-sectional area should var
27 srbmod: There was interest in the 717-300, just not in what Boeing was offering. The interest was not only from existing customers (AirTran, Midwest), but fr
28 Stitch: The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 forced TG and MH to cancel their 747-500 and 747-600 MoUs and pushed BA to the decision to withdraw from their int
29 Spacepope: That's strange. Per Wikipedia (I know...) "A member of the Century Series, the F-102 was the first operational supersonic interceptor and delta-wing
30 HOMSAr: Here's an airplane that could have competed with the A380 for ugliness: http://www.flickr.com/photos/airline...956930005/in/set-72157624753056369
31 milesrich: The 2707 project was too expensive for Boeing alone so the US government was funding it. First there was a design competition and the competitors wer
32 BMI727: Part of it is likely length and tail arrangement. Looking at the F-102 and F-106, it looks like about half of the tail lies within the wing chord whi
33 KC135TopBoom: Actually, MD did (essentially) make a B-717-300 (MD-95-50), it was called the MD-90-30, which essentially was a reengined MD-88. They did not sell to
34 tdscanuck: BMI727 basically covered it all...I was being oversimplistic because, as you correctly point out, the F-102 is a delta and still needed a coke bottle
35 Spacepope: Thanks for the explanation. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm just curious why it was present on some delta winged aircraft. Looking closely, you ca
36 ER757: Wow, that is hideous! Glad it never saw the light of day in anything other than scale-model form.
37 Stitch: Ah yes, the "Anteater" 747 concept. I expect that one was driven by concerns the flight crew could not maneuver the plane on the ground.
38 Viscount724: Nobody seems interested in the SV MD-90s due to their different cockpit layout and instrumentation which was intended to be compatible with their MD-
39 HOMSAr: I don't think the 717-300 and MD80/MD90 were to be in the same size category. The MD-80 is longer than the DC-9-50 (which I'm assuming is the size th
40 B2707SST: The early 733 and 2707 designs, up through most of the FAA's design competition, were all single-aisle. The 2707-100 design they intended to submit t
41 BMI727: I don't think that's what it would be. Where the area is doesn't make that much of a difference in area ruling so a flap track fairing or engine nace
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Macedonia, joined Feb 2010, 31 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2739 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1893 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}