747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Back in the early 80's, Mc Donnell Douglas had a concept airliner to answer Boeing 757 called the ATMR. The ATMR was design to have a twin aisle 169 inch-diameter cicular cross-section fuselage. It had a span of 129ft, a length of 146 ft and a height of 43ft . The ATMR was supposed to use the same engines that power the 757. I wonder, if MD had lunch this plane, how would thing be different today?
Then there would have been no MD-11 today. And no MD-90 or MD-95/B717 either. Simply because MD would have folded much earlier.
MD did not in the 80'es have a credit rating which made them able to launch an all new airliner design.
If they had had the possibility, then they would most likely have done it, because they really needed something more modern than the DC-8 to fill the huge gap in their product line between the DC-9/MD-80 and the DC-10.
Timing also couldn't be worse. In the early 80'es A and B were fighting hard with new products in the midsize twin category. MD would in any case be too late.
But they couldn't be any earlier because then they would have no engine to power the bird. Engine producers tend to produce those engines which the frame producers ask for, so MD could just have asked earlier for whatever engine they wanted... Not?
Were likely that's exactly what they did. But engine producers are very reluctant to throw billions into development and certification of engines which are wanted by frame producers in shakey economic conditions.
During the last 20 years of MD, they could take engines off the shelf, and that's what they did. There was no way an engine producer would listen to special wishes from MD because they knew that when the engine could be running, then MD was likely to be gone.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm