Airliners That Never Were

StarGoldLHR · Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:47 am

What passenger jets thru the years have never been more than concepts or vapor trails ?

Ive heard about the Avro Jetliner, The Lockheed Bi-jet and more recently the Sonic Cruiser. The Boeing 2707 is well known.

Didnt Japan make a jet that never went beyond prototype ?

Ive also read about the double deck (or double bodied) VC10 and a Hawker Siddeley "757" look a like.

Any others that never made it beyond the drawing board or got further than test flights ?

luisca · Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:55 am

The Dornier Do728 Jet, only the prototype built, and a few weeks later the company went bye bye. The airplane never flew. What happened to the one prototype, were is it now?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP

fanofjets · Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:24 am

In recent times, three regional jets have never come to fruition:
1. Indonesia's N-2130
2. Japan's YS-X
3. CHINA-Air Express
http://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/97/0425/aa1a.html
http://www.angkasa-online.com/10/02/english/english5.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/02/22/japnair.php

One actually reached prototype stage before being cancelled, the Fairchild Dornier 728:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP

Embraer has made huge strides in this area, introducing the likes of the EMB-190, making competition difficult. The Russians have the Tu-334, Antonov An-74, and Ilyushin Il-114, which have been produced only in small numbers.

The Shanghai Aircraft Manufacture Factory created the Y-10 (Yunshunji, air transport), the first passenger jet airliner designed and built in China. She was a four-engined medium- to long-range airliner similar in size and layout to Boeing's 720 and poweres by four P&W JT-3Ds, spares from CAAC's fleet of Boeing 707-3J6s. Only one plane was built (first flown in 1980), with another airframe retained for static tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Y-10
http://www.samf.cn/fjzzEN.htm
http://community.webshots.com/album/194607929qiSdUz (my collection)

There is also the Antonov An-70, an impressive Ukranian turboprop cargo plane, of which only one or two protoypes have been built:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harald Müller

Another passenger jet that never made it was a turbojet version of the Saunders-Roe Princess, a huge double-deck flying boat. And for civil versions of military aircraft that never made it beyond the drawing board, see my collection here:
http://community.webshots.com/album/362079242OabZwt

srbmod · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:31 am

A few more recent examples:

717-100 & 717-300. The 717-100 would have been a shrink of the 717-200, and would have been around the size of the DC-9-10/20. Would have been powered by either a derated version of the BR-715 or by the BR-710. What killed it was the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 and the Embraer E-Jets family. The 717-300 would have been a stretch of the 717-200 that would have used the same engines as the 712, but would have been around the size of the MD-87 with a similar capacity.

727-300. Was to have been a stretched version of the 727-200, with an improved wings, improved engines, and new landing gear. United and Braniff had expressed interest in the a/c, and the project was publicy announced only to collapse when United decided not to order it.

IFEMaster · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:39 am

Wasn't there a concept for a three-engined 747 kicking around in the 70's? I'm sure I saw an impression/drawing of one a few years ago. I think it was called the 747SP with a tailmounted #2 engine. From what I understand, the concept was nixed because the airflow over the 'hump' severely decreased the efficiency of #2.

[Edited 2006-03-18 01:46:14]

[Edited 2006-03-18 01:46:58]

OzarkD9S · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:41 am

The MD-12 would have been the A380 - 10 (maybe) years earlier if it had been built.

dtwclipper · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:43 am

The DC-8 "Airbus" of 1946.
The 747-300, A T-tail/Trijet version of the 747
The Dc-10 twin

OzarkD9S · Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:58 am

That trijet 747-300 is one of the ugliest damn things I've ever seen! Smile

dtwclipper · Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:15 am

I've also seen pictures of a wide-body DC-8 as well as a version of the VC-10 that was to seat pax in the lower level ahead of the wings.

scalebuilder · Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:35 am

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Thread starter):
What passenger jets thru the years have never been more than concepts or vapor trails ?

I know that Bristol did some experimenting with a jet aircraft right after they launched the Bristol Britannia. It had a look resempling that of an enlarged fighter jet, and it did see progression beyond the drawing bord. A prototype was actually built and it was successfully flown too to my knowledge.

I am not sure what prevented the launch. The lack of orders or interest are the likely culprits. Unreliable or lack of available engines could have caused that too.

VC-10 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:00 am

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Thread starter):
a Hawker Siddeley "757" look a like

For the record the HS design came before the 757

flydreamliner · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:22 am

My favorite is MD-12, Douglas makes essentially something identical to A380 a decade sooner, only to capitulate and have the french run with the idea.

If nothing else, MD-12 was better looking than A380.

fanofjets · Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:18 pm

Oops - I forgot the huge Bristol Brabazon and the Armstrong-Whitworth Apollo (the latter being a four-engined turboprop, similar to Viscount).

bohica · Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:39 pm

Convair once built the XC-99 which was a double deck propeller driven plane based on the B-36 bomber. In military configuration it was supposed to be able to hold 400 troops. In fact, Pan Am ordered 15 civilian versions. See more in the link below:

http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/ThingsWings/XC99.htm

Smile

IFEMaster · Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:49 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 7):
That trijet 747-300 is one of the ugliest damn things I've ever seen!

Now stick one on an A380. I bet that's uglier.

There's a thought...maybe a 5-engine jet would be good. A Quinjet. Two on each wing and one at the tail.

Would look horrible, would have a sucky range, but it sure would go fast laughing

stirling · Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:26 pm

Fanofjets....GREAT JOB on your page!
Made my night....(even though head is pounding from TOO much Jager...)

steeler83 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:10 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 11):
If nothing else, MD-12 was better looking than A380.

Too bad for that error with that post of those pics. I will agree with that statement anyway. As for that pic of the tri-jet jumbo 747... vomit

flydreamliner · Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:11 pm

The tri-jet 747 is just the slightest bit uglier than A380. Just a bit though.

studentflyer · Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:20 pm

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 14):
There's a thought...maybe a 5-engine jet would be good. A Quinjet. Two on each wing and one at the tail.

Lol, the 5th engine is there to propel and carry its own weight.. and I have to agree with IFEMaster, it would definitely suck its max range capability..

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Thread starter):
What passenger jets thru the years have never been more than concepts or vapor trails ?

What about the 747-500X and the 747-600X? Also, the Boeing SSC? Embraer recently shelved one of its RJ project didn't they? And I'd say, looking at current trends, the 737-900ER and the 747-8I would never make it either (though it is being built at the moment..)

emrecan · Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:41 pm

I saw the MD-12 for the first time here..

It looks great. It is a pitty that we cannot see it in real life

scbriml · Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:15 pm

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 4):

And they say the A380 is an ugly plane? rotfl

RAFVC10 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:46 pm

- Ahrens AR404, an four-engine turboprop aircraft with only one aircraft made.
- Boeing 7-7, an 150 seats aircraft to short and medium haul flights.
- McDonell Douglas-Fokker MDF-100, a possible competitor of the Boeing 7-7
- ...

StarGoldLHR · Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:12 pm

Was the MD12 to have 2 or 3 engines ?

I read a plan for the VC10 to have 2 fuselages, side by side fastened where the wings were supposed to go. very weird !

After the comet 4 was supposed to be the comet 5.

Alessandro · Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:37 pm

Fano, IL-114 isn´t a jet, neither was AN-70. I like to add the Baade-152.

dogfighter2111 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:39 pm

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 22):
Was the MD12 to have 2 or 3 engines ?

Hey,

4 engines, it is the same as the A380 but looks better an has a larger capacity?

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 22):
I read a plan for the VC10 to have 2 fuselages, side by side fastened where the wings were supposed to go. very weird !

Now, that is something you would really have paid to fly on!

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 22):
After the comet 4 was supposed to be the comet 5.

Wasn't that idea thrown away because of the large competition from Boeing? After looking at Tech specs for the Comet, wasn't it MASSIVELY under-efficient compared to B707?

The Boeing SST looked great in Prototype stage but just wasn't feasible at the time.

Thanks
Mike

gr8slvrflt · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:19 pm

At the time Pan American had the Convair Model 37 on order, they were also planning on using the Republic Rainbow for high-speed express services:

http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic%20XF-12.htm.

And don't forget one of the most fabulous of all, the Northrop Flying Wing Jetliner:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm.

StarGoldLHR · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:32 pm

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 24):
I read a plan for the VC10 to have 2 fuselages, side by side fastened where the wings were supposed to go. very weird !

I was thinking that the cockpit is only in one of the two fuselages.. the other would have been a pilots eye view for F class passengers.

dogfighter2111 · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 26):

You know the more i think about it, the more ridiculous that idea sounds. It may have been possible to do it, but not make it economical. There would just be too much drag for 2 fuselages.

I mean, the VC-10 had 4 Tail Mounted engines for 1 not very long fuselage. How many would it need for 2?

I seariously hope there are still diagrams etc. kicking about of this plan. I would pay money to actually see these diagrams. I am so intereste in the design now that i would like to see how the proposed to do it. Anyone know if it is possible to get any diagrams?

Thanks
Mike

Magoonis · Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:52 pm

does any one have any more pics of the md 12 ?
cool
thanks in advance
Mark

vhqpa · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:07 am

in the 1980's there were a couple propjet designs (Boeing 7J7, MD-94X)

The Boeing 7J7 was intended as a competior to the A320 it was intended to enter service in 1992 but never happened. a 727 was fitted with the UDF powerplants as a testbed for the engine.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7J7

The MD-94X was similar but also never happened. a MD-80 was fitted with a single UDF powerplant.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Kirby

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Kirby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-94X

I just googled everthing from Boeing 7A7 - Boeing 7Z7 and came across this when I searched for 7N7 the same image came up for 7X7 but couldn't get any further information on either. It appears to be a 727 with underwing engines

Also I found a car with Boeing 7C7. although reading the site it turned out to be a design competion.

Jason

RichardPrice · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:09 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 24):
Wasn't that idea thrown away because of the large competition from Boeing? After looking at Tech specs for the Comet, wasn't it MASSIVELY under-efficient compared to B707?

Yes it was, but only because the 707 was conceivably a later generation than the Comet series ever was. The Comets first flight was in 1949, while the 707 didnt take to the air until 5 years after (1954). It was only due to the suspension of services due to the fatigue problem that the Comet and the 707 ever actually competed, as if it wasnt withdrawn from service a new design would have taken over by the 707s introduction into service.

Its the same situation as the A340/777 - later entry into service gets newer technology.

egnr · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:34 am

The Avro RJX. BAE Systems cancelled the project, although one aircraft had been completed and flown (G-IRJX) and another prototype was also well into the construction phase. G-IRJX now sits as a museum exhibit at the Aviation Viewing Park at Manchester Airport.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sven Pipjorke

srbmod · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:37 am

Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 29):
I just googled everthing from Boeing 7A7 - Boeing 7Z7 and came across this when I searched for 7N7 the same image came up for 7X7 but couldn't get any further information on either. It appears to be a 727 with underwing engines

This was a originally short range twin aisle project that was under consideration in the early 1970s. Some of the designs were for a narrowbody, others for widebody. The various designs considered under this 7X7 moniker had as few as two engines and as many as four. This program, as well as the 7N7 program ties in with the aborted 727-300 project I mentioned in Reply 3. These two concepts were brought back after the 723 project was aborted. The original design on the 7N7 retained a lot of the main body pieces of the 727 designs, but with a number of innovations. Hundreds of designs later, the 7X7 and 7N7 concepts became better known as the 757 and 767.

dogfighter2111 · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:41 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 30):

I do understand that. Although, the first Jet Powered aircraft was the Comet. The very first Comet could only carry around 14 passengers. The Comet 2 and Comet 3 were the same, with a little added range each time.

The Comet 4 is when it started to have a capacity of 50+. The first Comet 4 is the one that had desing issues which caused it to breakup in-flight. Then, the Comet 4B and Comet 4C had the capacity for more PAX and a greater range. By the time of the Comet 4, there was such a bad reputation around that meant airlines would be glad to see another aircraft. Not to mention, the Barrel Role stunt in the B707/B720 showed great strength.

** I cannot guarnatee that all of the info in this reply is correct, but i after watching a tonne of programs on that era of aviation i think that most of it is correct or atleast just needs editing.**

Thanks
Mike

stirling · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:41 am

I have to wonder if the price of fuel will bring back the UDF?
It produces economies of operation however there is a noise penalty.

RichardPrice · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:49 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 33):

Comet 1, 2 and 3 had capacities ranging from 36 to 44 passengers. Comet 4 increased that to 74 - 81 passengers depending on configuration. If the problems with the Comet 1 hadnt occured, the Comet 4 and 5 would have been much quicker into service, probably directly competing with the 707.

longhauler · Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:54 am

The Comet 5 was actually a very handsome airliner.

The same lean sleek look of the Comet 4, but longer with swept tail and wings! Shame we never saw any in the air.

dogfighter2111 · Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:05 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 35):

Ahh, great thanks.

I just remember seeing photos and the fuselage was long but there were only windows in the centre.

Thanks
Mike

treebeard787 · Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:17 am

I belive Hawker Sideley for a while was working on creating the HS-132 and HS-134 but the programs were hit hard when RR cancelled the RB178.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/miskin/gl..._radical_new_designs_bwp_72dpi.jpg
The HS-134 would carry 185 passengers in what looks like a 757 in it's time and the HS-132 would carry 158 passengers.

stirling · Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:27 am

The picture of that HS132 was in the colours of Sabena...

Did they place an order?

treebeard787 · Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:38 am

From what I remember reading on it a few major airlines were interested but when the RB178 was cancelled the airlines lots interest. I can't remember what airlines were interested in it though.

Doona · Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:39 am

757-100?

A bunch of variants of the MD-90 were proposed, but never realized, series -20, -40, and -50/55, as well as the MD-94.

There was also a proposed two-engined L1011, the -600. I saw a sketch, and guess what it looked like? That's right, it looked just like a regular L1011, but without the tail-mounted engine. silly

Cheers
Mats

IFEMaster · Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:00 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20):

And they say the A380 is an ugly plane?

And I don't understand anyone who says the A380 is an ugly plane. It's the absolute definition of beauty in the skies!

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 24):

4 engines, it is the same as the A380 but looks better an has a larger capacity?

Does anyone have any comparitive info? What range was the proposed range and capacity of the MD-12?

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 22):
I read a plan for the VC10 to have 2 fuselages, side by side fastened where the wings were supposed to go. very weird !

I saw an episode of Megastructures that covered the A380 from conception to test flight, and one of the original blueprints shown was for a 2 fuselage structure, or "Double Bubble". It was thrown out because, as Dogfighter2111 says...

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 27):

You know the more i think about it, the more ridiculous that idea sounds. It may have been possible to do it, but not make it economical. There would just be too much drag for 2 fuselages.

The economics of it were totally unworkable. The drag factor was higher, the wings had to be larger, hence heavier, it would have needed six powerplants etc.

Having said that, if someone fifty years from now makes some amazing scientific discovery that makes that shape workable, what a sight that would be!

StarGoldLHR · Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:04 am

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 27):
You know the more i think about it, the more ridiculous that idea sounds. It may have been possible to do it, but not make it economical. There would just be too much drag for 2 fuselages.

I mean, the VC-10 had 4 Tail Mounted engines for 1 not very long fuselage. How many would it need for 2?

I seariously hope there are still diagrams etc. kicking about of this plan. I would pay money to actually see these diagrams. I am so intereste in the design now that i would like to see how the proposed to do it. Anyone know if it is possible to get any diagrams?

I dont know about diagrams but ive seen concept drawings in two different books... the double deck VC10 looked huge, the double tubed version looked like the channel tunnel with wings !

I'll find the book and post the reference on here.

The plan read that the idea was to join the two fuselages at the wings and the engine spars at the rear on the spot where the engines/wings would go normally. This meant development would be cheaper. In the proposal it I recall it stating the only drawback would be loading / unloading passengers from one side or needing both.. it was obviously a consultants proof of concept.

United_fan · Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:05 am

How about the proposed 717-300 for the Star Alliance ? That one obviously will never be made.
Also,the 777-100 , 757-100 and 757-200ERX

Avianca · Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:07 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 1):
The Dornier Do728 Jet, only the prototype built, and a few weeks later the company went bye bye. The airplane never flew. What happened to the one prototype, were is it now?

its a schame that this great aircraft hadnt the chance for the future.... I am sure the Dornier Jet series had kicked the jungle-jets

bravogolf · Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:18 am

How about the flying wing? They have shown on TV a promo film of the flying wing passenger liner. Is anyone working on an updated design now?

CptGermany · Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:29 am

Quoting Stirling (Reply 34):
I have to wonder if the price of fuel will bring back the UDF?
It produces economies of operation however there is a noise penalty.

Yes, I heard the same thing. The wake-interference of the counter-rotating fan blades produces tremendous noise. In fact, on todays most modern turbo-fan engines the wake interference issue in the bypass is believed to have the greatest noise abatement potential in the future. A search on AIAA databases proves that.

Besides, this issue could already be observed on the Tu-95 Bear. Some of the NATO fighter pilots who intercepted the Soviet bombers reported that they were able to hear the bomber's prop noise above their own jet noise.

Tu-95 Link

IMO, I doubt we will ever see unducted counter-rotating fan blades. The only solution would be some sort of active noise reduction just like in todays general aviation headsets. But that technology still needs some time to evolve.

flydreamliner · Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:38 am

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 22):
Was the MD12 to have 2 or 3 engines ?

4 engines ..... PW4000 series i believe is what they intended for it.....

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 24):
4 engines, it is the same as the A380 but looks better an has a larger capacity?

It was an attractive plane. The design capacity was for rougly 600 in a 3 class layout.

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 42):
And I don't understand anyone who says the A380 is an ugly plane. It's the absolute definition of beauty in the skies!

Have you looked at it? It's fat, stubby, and has an ugly, mis-shapen nose.

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 42):

Does anyone have any comparitive info? What range was the proposed range and capacity of the MD-12?

Douglas intended a 9,000nm range and roughly 600 passenger 3-class capacity for MD-12. Had it gone into production, the engine would decide range. If they waited for like a PW4000, it might have made it....

HBIHLtoEZE · Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:52 am

In the intial years of aviation a lot seemed to go wrong - at least it still had its mythical and adventureous touch.

Let me share some Swiss insights:

http://www.verkehrshaus.ch/en/museum/luftfahrt/bestof.php

Cheers

[Edited 2006-03-18 21:00:04]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net