Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew  
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25191 posts, RR: 22
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21610 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

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21160 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No Hunchback of Mukilteo model?

Boooooooo!


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8005 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20732 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.

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20706 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 1):
No Hunchback of Mukilteo model?

Boooooooo!


Happy?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12465 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19826 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 3):

Happy?

I've finally seen a plane uglier than (IMHO) the A380, so I'm more disgusted than happy right now.

I thought the fat forehead was ugly, but the hunchback takes the cake.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19283 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I've finally seen a plane uglier than (IMHO) the A380, so I'm more disgusted than happy right now.

I thought the fat forehead was ugly, but the hunchback takes the cake.

I heard tdscanuck was in mourning for months when they didn't develop that plane.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19231 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
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8005 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 18867 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.


User currently offlineswabrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18444 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
I've finally seen a plane uglier than (IMHO) the A380, so I'm more disgusted than happy right now.

I thought the fat forehead was ugly, but the hunchback takes the cake.

Yeah, but what if they had put windows at the front of the hunchback area? It would have been like a railroad dome car. Think of the views.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17011 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



[Edited 2011-12-23 08:59:19]

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16790 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.

Tom.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 587 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16439 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?



http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...010/12/is-this-boeings-re-eng.html





[Edited 2011-12-23 09:46:38]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16260 times:

Boeing came up with, "interesting" concepts.

Hunchback 767: UGLY
L-1011 copy: LAWSUIT

But imagine how much different designs would be today..


User currently offlineljupco From Macedonia, joined Feb 2010, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14197 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):



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.....

[Edited 2011-12-23 12:32:37]

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13462 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.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jiri Zedka



Heck, sometimes the tip tanks are like that too!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel T Jones




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinebluebus From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12949 times:

That is a really cool segment.

There are some photos from the models inside the archives too:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/...of-amazing-boeing-airplane-models/

I love the model of the 747 tri-jet. Probably would have been not much a looker, but cool none-the-less.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.....
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14):
Classic "area ruling".

Exactly.

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.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 971 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11553 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.


User currently offlinefanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1970 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11277 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
User currently offlineFlyboyOz From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 1985 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10645 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.



The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4811 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10555 times:

Quoting fanofjets (Reply 18):

There was also a three-engined Boeing 747 that has been posted on A.net.

Singled-out among the collection, too.....

.
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...25.jpg.pagespeed.ic.w8cn_eTHur.jpg

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!  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10454 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

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



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3070 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10419 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.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10384 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
Boeing (etc.) Renderings That Never Came To Be posted Sat Mar 6 2010 19:04:39 by Airport
Is CO The Only US Carrier That Never Flew BOS-Eur? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 17:36:50 by Zrs70
Carriers That Never Flew The DC-9 posted Thu Apr 8 2004 22:09:10 by PHLBOS
Airplanes That Never Flew posted Fri Apr 6 2001 17:29:15 by 9A-CRO
Airlines That Never Flew posted Fri Apr 6 2001 08:23:41 by 9A-CRO
Registration Of Planes That Flew About 5 Years Ago posted Mon Apr 18 2005 14:34:01 by DRAIGONAIR
LCCs That We Never Flew 2000-2003 posted Mon Nov 10 2003 06:16:23 by GalvanAir777
Non Airbus/Non-Boeing Planes That You've Been On? posted Thu Oct 4 2001 04:49:20 by Vctony
Airlines That Fly/flew Between Europe And Oceania posted Mon Nov 14 2011 13:28:00 by taichen
Airliners That Never Broke Even posted Thu Dec 2 2010 03:09:05 by faro