Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3736 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Douglas has the DC-8 to compete with the 707 and the 737 was Boeing answer to the DC-9, so why Douglas did not fight back with a narrow body trijet to compete with the 727? They could have used the DC-8 design and turn it from a four engine jet, to a T tail trijet. So why Douglas past on the chance to compete with the 727?

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 5093 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So why Douglas past on the chance to compete with the 727?

They did... they streached the DC-9. I think the Series 50 was the answer to the B727.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

well lets see:

A> the original 727 (-100) was competed with, the Dc-9-30/-40/-50 all did a fine job.

B> By the time the 727-200/-200ADV became a major factor, MCDD was in trouble already with the DC-10 and didn't have time to worry about something in that size class. Eventually the MD-80 program came along and that did compete with the 727-200 for a few years till Boeing ended production and switched to the moderately successful 757.

C> The only true 727-200ADV competitors Boeing ever saw: Trident 3B (underpowered and under ranged), Tu-154 (very good equivalent from the Eastern side of the iron curtain) and one that never got far: Mercure 200 (died due to US/France relation strains).



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Perhaps they were psychic because it is just as well they didn't.

There are squadrons of DC-9s still flying paying peeps when the 727-200s are mostly freighters and the -100s are now beer cans.

As wonderful an airplane as the 727 was, I think DACO read the market better and produced a plane to fit in a bigger niche.

edit: spel abbrev.

[Edited 2006-08-02 01:55:41]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4895 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Mercure 200 (died due to US/France relation strains).

You don't think the 400nm range (at max payload) had something to do with it?  Wink




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4852 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

actually the -200 would of had a 2000nm range and CFM56 powerplants... kinda like a 70s A320.


Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4837 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 5):

Wow, I didn't realize that. Interesting...




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineMandargb From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

Yes they had a competetor to 727.
It was called DC-9.

727s are long gone from pass service DC-9s (now MD8X).
Ask NW, Air Canada and AA. MD8Xs are here to stay.

If B had not killed it, history would have been different.
And we would have had more machine to talk about.


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting Mandargb (Reply 7):
If B had not killed it, history would have been different.

B didn't kill it...the 717 died due to a lack of orders to be a productive, profit making airplane. All the conspiracy theories fail to take into account that the market operates according to supply and demand. No demand, no reason for supply, hence the 717 was shut down. Everyone loves to hammer on B as to killing off competition by buying them. The reason for the merger was the fact that McD was going under financially, particularly in the commercial side. So the commercial product line was dying before B ever had a say over the future of it. A lot of credit actually should go to B as they tried very much to keep that line alive. The California delegation is a powerful political force and having a production line there gets that support. So it wasn't an easy decision to close that line.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4587 times:

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 8):
All the conspiracy theories fail to take into account that the market operates according to supply and demand.

So very true.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No "Clarinet Look" On The 787? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 03:19:40 by Zippyjet
Why No V2500 On The A318 posted Sat May 28 2005 13:52:30 by HAWK21M
Why No Winglets On The 777? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 12:19:58 by Regis
Why No Windows In The Restrooms? posted Wed Oct 1 2003 17:53:32 by Gopal
Why No Winglets On The 737-600 posted Sun Sep 28 2003 00:41:25 by Cancidas
Why No Winglets On The 717? posted Mon Oct 14 2002 21:35:26 by BR715-A1-30
Why The 3rd 727 Engine posted Wed Oct 17 2001 01:47:24 by SAAB340
Why No Main Landing Gear Doors On The 737? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 22:57:00 by Starship
Why No Further A330 Stretch? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:50:51 by MarkC
A340-600 Why No Body Gear Steering? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:16:18 by BALandorLivery

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format