Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 19056
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:18 am

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
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:25 am

No Hunchback of Mukilteo model?

Boooooooo!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:47 pm

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.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:59 pm

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

Boooooooo!


Happy?
Anon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14002
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:56 pm

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! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:34 pm

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.
Anon
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:39 pm

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 avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:56 pm

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.
 
swabrian
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:23 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:58 pm

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]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:13 pm

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.
 
WarpSpeed
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:22 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:34 pm

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 !!!!
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:45 pm

Boeing came up with, "interesting" concepts.

Hunchback 767: UGLY
L-1011 copy: LAWSUIT

But imagine how much different designs would be today..
 
ljupco
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:03 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:31 pm

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]
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:27 pm

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
 
BlueBus
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:33 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:06 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:10 pm

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:05 am

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
Posts: 1980
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:38 am

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
Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:05 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:56 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:04 pm

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.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:43 pm

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 avatar
American 767
Posts: 3928
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:41 am

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
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3947
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:52 am

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 avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4970
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:05 am

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
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:42 am

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.

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 gently curved leading edge of the wing, which the B2707 didn't have, but maybe someone could elaborate on this?
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:57 am

Quoting Buyantukhaa (Reply 25):
So why is then that Concorde didn't have area ruling in the fuselage?

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 vary smoothly. Aircraft with conventional wings and normal sweep angles see an abrupt increase in cross-sectional area as you cross the wing leading edge. The fuselage diameter necks down at that point to partially counter the area increase from the wing.

With a delta wing, the wing area naturally varies smoothly for almost the entire length of the aircraft so you don't need to play around with the fuselage diameter to tweak the cross-sectional area.



Tom.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:25 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 22):
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.

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 from airlines like American and (supposedly) Lufthansa, but only if it had greater range than the 717-200. Boeing did not want to give it the range to make it a true MD-80 family replacement since it would compete with the 737NG family of a/c. The proposed shrink of the 717, the 717-100, garnered little to no interest from airlines, mainly because of a/c like the CRJ-700 and E-170/175 being on the horizon and were lighter a/c. Boeing even tried to sell the 717-200 as a corporate shuttle, the 717 Business Express.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030507g.html
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:33 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 23):
Leadership apparently realized there wasn't a market to justify the large investment.

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 intent to order the 747-600. At that point, leadership did indeed feel the market was not right to invest the eleven figures the program was expected to cost.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:17 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
With a delta wing, the wing area naturally varies smoothly for almost the entire length of the aircraft so you don't need to play around with the fuselage diameter to tweak the cross-sectional area.

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 fighter of the USAF. It used an internal weapons bay to carry both guided missiles and rockets. As originally designed, it could not achieve Mach 1 supersonic flight until redesigned with area ruling. "

The F-106 used area ruling too on a Delta,
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:15 pm

Here's an airplane that could have competed with the A380 for ugliness:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/airline...956930005/in/set-72157624753056369
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:40 pm

Quoting American 767 (Reply 22):
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.

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 were North American, Lockheed and Boeing. (North American's design was rejected early in the competition, and I think resembled the XB-70 Valkyrie). Lockheed's design was a Delta wing, and Boeing's had a moveable wing, ala the TFX F-111 and F-14, although after Boeing won the contract competition in 1966, it changed to a delta type wing also. Congress cut off the funds in 1971, over two years before the first oil price shock. Costs, pollution (depletion of the ozone layer), and a lack of market were the reasons that members of Congress opposed continued funding. It was during the Vietnam War, and a sluggish economy, and William Proxmire, a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin led the opposition calling the project wasteful government spending, and he turned out to be correct, because if there was a market for such an aircraft, one would have been bu

At the time the project was defunded, there were 115 unfilled orders by 25 airlines for the Boeing SST, while Concorde had 74 orders from 16 customers. While the Concorde was built, only government owned British Airways and Air France took delivery. Of course, NYC's ban on the Concorde which lasted a few years forcing all Concordes to fly into IAD when they entered service didn't help either, nor did the ban on supersonic flight over the United States. IMHO, when Congress pulled the plug on the Boeing SST, it also stopped the race for increased speed in airliners. Today, the airline business is so different, and airline seats are nothing but a commodity. Yes, there is a first class market, but no airline can survive on it. Cost cutting, which includes fuel economy drive the economics of the business today.

[Edited 2011-12-25 08:54:31]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:09 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 29):
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 fighter of the USAF. It used an internal weapons bay to carry both guided missiles and rockets. As originally designed, it could not achieve Mach 1 supersonic flight until redesigned with area ruling. "

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 while on the Concorde only about the first third of it, and that with a greater sweep, does. So on the F-102 the tail is additional area while on the Concorde is it picking up area from where the wing ends more than adding new area. So the F-102 more or less has to "steal" that tail area from the fuselage.

Also consider the Concorde's engine placement: if they had placed the tail (or moved the wing rearwards) such that the tail was adding area to the cross section more than picking up from the wing, that in combination with the engines would have presented a more considerable "area spike" both where the tail and engines begin and end.

I can tell you that area ruling is most certainly there on the Concorde, and like more modern planes where it is applied from the start rather than an after-the-fact band-aid, it is sometimes well hidden.

1. The fuselage does appear slightly bigger fore of the wing. So rather than the "Coke bottle" it has a bit of a tadpole shape.
2. The engines are placed with their leading edges right at the end of the more highly swept portion of the wing, in other words, where the longitudinal area increase rate is smallest. I've never seen an area plot of the Concorde, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it drops somewhere below the Sears-Haack area up to about the half chord point, and then the engines cause the area to spike and go above it.

Engines tend to be a huge wrench in the works of area ruling. Their position usually doesn't have a whole lot of room to adjust and the area even less so. Change the engine area and area ruling won't matter since you won't have enough thrust.

3. The tail begins right about at the point where the engine nacelles reach their widest point. Also, the fuselage itself begins to taper at about that point too.

Of course, getting close to perfect area ruling is something that just doesn't really happen. All planes are going to have spikes in the area here and there. Even if the engines are internal, the inlets are still going to be a significant change to the area. And no supersonic plane is likely to have its maximum area near the middle the way area ruling would say it should. If that were the case, there wouldn't be enough space in the Mach cone to get enough wingspan.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:16 pm

Quoting American 767 (Reply 22):
-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.

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 many of them. DL, the biggest customer was initially not happy with its performance (or lack of performance), and the high maintenance costs of the IAE V-2500 engines. DL canceled their contract after delivery of the first 14 airplanes. Since then, DL has been getting as many used MD-90s as they can, including 16 from JL with deliveries beginning in 2012. Did DL ever take the 10 MD-90s SV had?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:29 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 29):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
With a delta wing, the wing area naturally varies smoothly for almost the entire length of the aircraft so you don't need to play around with the fuselage diameter to tweak the cross-sectional area.

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 fighter of the USAF. It used an internal weapons bay to carry both guided missiles and rockets. As originally designed, it could not achieve Mach 1 supersonic flight until redesigned with area ruling. "

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 fuselage. However, if you look at the planforms of the F-102 beside the Concorde, you can see the Concorde did a lot of other smooth area variation (including better taper ahead of and behind the wing, an wing taking up proportionally more of the overall length, etc.). The F-102's canopy and intakes also make a, relatively, much larger contribution to the cross-sectional area than they do on Concorde.

http://www.chew76.fsnet.co.uk/filton/concorde/bris4.jpg

Tom.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3181
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:44 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 34):
However, if you look at the planforms of the F-102 beside the Concorde, you can see the Concorde did a lot of other smooth area variation (including better taper ahead of and behind the wing, an wing taking up proportionally more of the overall length, etc.). The F-102's canopy and intakes also make a, relatively, much larger contribution to the cross-sectional area than they do on Concorde

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 can also see it not only in the F-106 but the B-58 as well. Perhaps this goes back more to a common Convair heritage than anything else, since you don't see it (or at least much) in the Dassault delta designs.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2474
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:45 pm

Quoting HOMSAr (Reply 30):
Here's an airplane that could have competed with the A380 for ugliness:

Wow, that is hideous! Glad it never saw the light of day in anything other than scale-model form.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:02 pm

Quoting HOMSAr (Reply 30):
Here's an airplane that could have competed with the A380 for ugliness...

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.
 
Viscount724
Topic Author
Posts: 19056
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:02 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
Did DL ever take the 10 MD-90s SV had?

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-11s. (Fleet lists show SV with 29 MD-90s, not 10. I think most are now stored.)
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:45 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 33):
Quoting American 767 (Reply 22):
-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.

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 many of them. DL, the biggest customer was initially not happy with its performance (or lack of performance), and the high maintenance costs of the IAE V-2500 engines. DL canceled their contract after delivery of the first 14 airplanes. Since then, DL has been getting as many used MD-90s as they can, including 16 from JL with deliveries beginning in 2012. Did DL ever take the 10 MD-90s SV had?

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 the MD-95-50/717-300 would have been), and the MD-90 is even longer than the MD-80.

Using SeatGuru as a guide, the DL MD-90 has 160 seats, MD-80 has 140-150 seats (depending on configuration), DC-9-50 has 125 seats, and the 717-200 has around 100 or so seats (I recall that being the capacity of NW's DC-9-30s).
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
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.

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 to the FAA had a constant-width 3+3 cabin cross section over much of the fuselage length. Interestingly, Boeing found that widening the forward fuselage and then then tapering it more strongly to the tail decreased wave drag enough to overcome the added cross-sectional area. Overall seat count only increased by 3 (from 277 to 280 in two classes), but the widebody seating configuration apparently impressed the airlines.

At the same time, Boeing also reduced minimum wing sweep from 30 to 20 degrees and also carved "speed gullies" into the upper surface of the fixed horizontal tail between the engines. I assume this was to help mitigate the extra area of the engine nacelles to conform the empennage section more closely to the area rule. This model shows some of the details, but a drawing I saw describing that particular change showed more pronounced depressions running down most of the chord of the tail:




--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing Archives - Planes That Never Flew

Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:30 am

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 40):
At the same time, Boeing also reduced minimum wing sweep from 30 to 20 degrees and also carved "speed gullies" into the upper surface of the fixed horizontal tail between the engines. I assume this was to help mitigate the extra area of the engine nacelles to conform the empennage section more closely to the area rule.

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 nacelle below the wing "counts" just as much as a anti-shock body or engine nacelle protruding from the wing.

My guess is that either the curvature added some area to better conform to the area rule (but on that part of the plane it would seem to me that you could just alter the tail sweep/height a bit) or may have been an attempt to mitigate some spanwise flow over the surface.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aircountry, alasizon, Alexa [Bot], anonms, B6JFKH81, b777erj145, Baidu [Spider], cessna2, Coal, DCA-ROCguy, Florianopolis, fry530, grbauc, IrishTexan, KLMatSJC, ouboy79, PlanesNTrains, rrapynot, thepinkmachine, Varsity1 and 253 guests