Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:02 am

If built, what would be the MD12s story had been today, desert cat or cargoship? Mc Donnell Douglas, was supposed to have their double deck MD12, test flight in 1995. Now the MD12, would have the widest cabin ever built for an airliner, ( 24 ft ) but it was only 200 ft long, with a wing span of 213 ft and powered by 4 CF6 engines. Seeing how A380s and 747s are not selling well, I believe MD12s would have been seeing retirement from major airlines in the near future. Now do you think they would have been going to the desert, or turned into freighters? MD is known for building passenger jet that make great freighters, ( MD11s and DC8s ) so I think airfreight operator, would have love being able to fill three decks of cargo, on an aircraft with a super wide cabin.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 1:09 am

There was never enough interest in it, so the MD-12 never got built. The airframe never left the design study stage. So if it was built on spec, one could safely assume that they'd end up as white tails sitting in the desert, sinking the company with it.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:02 am

Assuming there was sufficient market interest to actually launch the program in the mid-1990s, it would have faced off against the 747-500X and 747-600X, both of which were, frankly, more capable designs as both carried more people farther, had better engines, probably at least as good wings (as they would have been based on the 777's) and better fuel economy per seat.

As such, I don't think it would have lasted long in the market.
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3877
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:14 am

It would be the backbone of the Emirates fleet.   
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:27 am

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 3):
It would be the backbone of the Emirates fleet.

I was just going to say that  

Several plans of the proposed seating show 11 abreast at 3-5-3 in economy. I'm sure if EK ordered it they would have made it 12 abreast @ 3-6-3 or 4-4-4  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
NOLAWildcat
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:29 am

Airbus is having a hard enough time getting more orders for the A380 as it is even with the VLA market slowly growing.

Let's assume McDD gets the MD-12-10 in service by late 1996. First you have the Asian financial crisis hurt one of the key markets for such a bird. By the time McDD can ramp up to full production and maybe launch a stretched version (MD-12-60 anyone?) to nip the A3XX in the bud and push the any 747 developments out of the picture, the bottom drops out of the market when 9/11 occurs.

Meanwhile the 777 is quickly doing for the Pacific what the 767 did to the Atlantic, fragmenting of the transpacific market away from double connections over places like LAX and NRT to single connections at places like DFW and ICN, further reducing the business case for a VLA. Then Boeing breaks out the 777-300ER in direct competition, blowing the MD-12 out of the water just as the 777-200ER did to the MD-11.

Across the pond, Airbus may abandon the A3XX not wanting to play the role of the L1011 in a repeat of the L1011 vs. DC-10 battle of the 70's, instead accelerating A330 improvements towards its current capabilities. With the extra money freed up from the A3XX cancellation, maybe Airbus sees the light and decides the A340NG isn't going to cut the mustard against the 777NG - leading to a A330NG/A350 10 years earlier.

McDD would most likely have to re-engine the MD-12-10 with something like the Trent 500 or 700 to get enough power and efficiency to make a stretch competitive with the 777-300ER (the standard 208 ft. version is probably dead even with GENXs hanging off the wing). There's also the question of whether the wingbox needs substantial redesign to handle stretches or if it is like the A380-800 and is designed from the get-go to be a platform for a future frame--making the short-bodied MD-10 heavier than needed and even less efficient when compared against the 777-300ER.

Ultimately even if McDD could develop a successful MD-12 (without the teething problems that plagued the MD-11 and MD-90) without going under, they are screwed as Boeing and Airbus are going to eat its lunch in the narrowbody and small widebody market segments. The MD-90, as a re-engined stretch of a stretch, would not be able to be scaled up to the size and capabilities of the 737-900ER or A321-200 let alone a 737LEAP or A320NEO. Even with a new wing, the rear-engine set-up and 2-3 seating gives you potential tail-scrape issues, excessive boarding times, a length north of 160 ft., and structural challenges posed by mounting a LEAPX or PW1000G to the rear fuselage. So now McDD is in the unenviable position in 2002-2003 of:

1) Having a decent widebody in a static or shrinking market with its competitors rolling out new birds that completely outclass it unless McDD engages in a costly upgrade program

2) Having to design a completely new narrowbody to combat the ever-improving 737NG and A320.

3) Looking at more expenditures to counter the upcoming A330NG and embryonic 7E7 in the small widebody market (You could make a case that McDD could abandon this segment and focus on the MD-90 successor only, but historically they did, causing no small part in their eventual disappearance.)

By 2014, I doubt we see many MD-12s still in regular passenger service unless McDD is able to somehow roll out a blockbuster stretched model in the middle of the post-9/11 industry downturn. Would ME3 have been able to reach critical mass by 2000-2001 to order the boatload of frames needed to warrant further MD-12 development in the numbers that have arguably kept the A380 program afloat? I have my doubts.

Even as a cargo bird, I'd imagine the MD-12F to suffer from the same problems as the A380F did. New Builds would be too expensive to compete against MD-11Fs and 747-400Fs on the shorter routes much less match the long legs of the 777F. I suppose you could convert the passenger frames a la the MD-11, but a hypothetical MD-12DCF would still not be able to match the cargo densities of the 747F family. Not sure if the business case is there for converting them to high volume, low density package haulers suitable only for FedEx and UPS when MD-11Fs and 747-400BCFs are aplenty.

Much as I love flying in McDonnell-Douglas products (from a passenger perspective the 2-seat side of an MD-90 is hard to beat), the writing was on the wall for the company as soon as the MD-11 missed its contractual performance guarantees (maybe sooner). The MD-12 was always a pipe-dream and any VLAs were going to be built by Airbus or Boeing. McDD should have focused on the narrowbody market and pushed towards a 767 replacement down the line rather than develop the MD-11 if they chose to stay in the commercial business.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1483
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:26 pm

McDonnell never saw fit to fund/green light a truly new Douglas Commercial product. As such it's pretty incredible they managed to maintain the market share they did until nearly the bitter end (30+ years).

Sure, the 737 on NB has similarly persisted but obviously BA had invested much more through the years on new models (777, 767, 727, 757, etc.)

They really needed an answer to the 777 at least by 1995 but the MD-12/MD-11X and other half measures were really just gambles on Boeing (and A330/340) failing. Ultimately the gambles I guess paid off for the shareholders and executives, though not in the civil market (or assembly line/engineering staffs).
 
B707MT
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:47 pm

Quoting NOLAWildcat (Reply 5):

Thank you, mate, for the time and effort of your well-considered response to the posted 'thinking out loud' question. Very interesting to read your detailed thoughts. Yes, there was nowhere left for MD-D to go with the extended Mad Dog family, was there? I think you're on the money that the narrowbody market would have been the brake that broke the back in the end.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:54 pm

I've never understood how the MD-12 could have been built as envisioned. It was to use four 747-400 engines and wings about the size of those on the 747-400 to lift more weight than a 747-400. I think they would have needed either more engine or more wing in the end. (McD's typical approach at the time was to just add engine -- see both the MD-80/90 and MD-11.)
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:15 pm

Quoting NOLAWildcat (Reply 5):
the writing was on the wall for the company as soon as the MD-11 missed its contractual performance guarantees (maybe sooner).

I think they should have had a DC-10 Super 60 or MD-11 aircraft in commercial service during the first half of the '80s. Some airlines like NZ, AZ and SR were interested but following AA191, plans were stopped and these interested airlines went to buy 747s. Its only in 1986 that the MD-11 was officially launched into production, which I consider too late. And since it was late on its original schedule and performing awfully, the rest is history. People at St Louis should have invested money in something new, probably an aircraft like the 767 or A330. Instead they talked about a MD-12 trijet, then the quadjet, then nothing happened except the end curtain.
 
trex8
Posts: 5597
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:24 pm

I vaguely recall reading in some book either about the A380 or the 744 and larger 747 developments that after the MD12 and B taking over McD, B approached several Euro firms about jointly developing a VLA. They approached the parent firms of the various euro companies which comprised A but never A itself. They didnt think A would still be around when this thing, if ever developed, would be flying!
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:02 pm

It would be a stretch MD-11 sharing the majority of its commonality with the DC-10, just with some newer technology patched in.  
Chicks dig winglets.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:11 pm

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 11):
It would be a stretch MD-11 sharing the majority of its commonality with the DC-10, just with some newer technology patched in.   

They actually pitched that as the MD-XX Stretch and MD-XX-LR.  
MD-XX-LR Design Study
 
User avatar
MD80
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:29 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:47 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
I think they should have had a DC-10 Super 60 or MD-11 aircraft in commercial service during the first half of the '80s. Some airlines like NZ, AZ and SR were interested but following AA191, plans were stopped...

  

The plans for the DC-10 Super 61/62/63 generated enough interest and was a really interesting development to augment the DC-10-lineage. You are right that AA191 and the shock-waves ended all plans. It became really difficult for McDonnell Douglas to advertise their civil products with the initials "DC".

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
They actually pitched that as the MD-XX Stretch and MD-XX-LR.  

It´s really difficult for me to distinguish all the design-concepts. Some also wear the same name but they were different concepts. In the mid-1990s, there were (again) plans to stretch the MD-11 and three airlines were mentioned due to their interest: American Airlines, Japan Airlines, Korean Air (?), and Swissair. I know that JAL held ten options for MD-11s which could have been converted for potentially stretched versions.


Regards
Dedicated to the MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, and DC-9: www.MD-80.com
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:55 pm

Quoting MD80 (Reply 13):
It´s really difficult for me to distinguish all the design-concepts.

The MD-XX and MD-XX LR were updates to the MD-11 incorporating a new 213-foot super-critical airfoil wing, a composite tail, 65k engines, a new six-wheel main gear and four-wheel center gear. The MD-XX LR would have had the same fuselage length as the MD-11 while the MD-XX Stretch would have been a 31-foot stretch. The operating weights would have been significantly increased, as well.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10902
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:57 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
They actually pitched that as the MD-XX Stretch and MD-XX-LR.  

I actually think the Stretch is far nicer looking with its length:
http://d121tcdkpp02p4.cloudfront.net/clim/49303/md-xx.jpg

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The MD-XX Stretch was lengthened 32 ft (9.8 m) over the MD-11 and had seating for 375 in a typical 3-class arrangement and 515 in all-economy seating. Its range was to be 7,020 nmi (8,080 mi; 13,000 km)

Tugg

[Edited 2014-08-20 17:02:42]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
They actually pitched that as the MD-XX Stretch and MD-XX-LR.  

MD-XX-LR Design Study


I believe Fed Ex would have love this plane. I also believe the GE CF6-80E1 or P&W 4072, would have been a great engine to power it.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:15 am

It is fun to speculate and imagine what would have happened with the MD-12 quad. But in reality, it's regretful that any funding or resources were wasted on this proposal. MDC's leadership were misguided in wanting to hit the WB home run, rather than focus more attention on sustaining the DC-9 design through the MD-90/95 families.

Quoting NOLAWildcat (Reply 5):
2) Having to design a completely new narrowbody to combat the ever-improving 737NG and A320.

You contributed an interesting post, with some good points. But this is the one item that sticks out as being sorely mistaken.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
I think they should have had a DC-10 Super 60 or MD-11 aircraft in commercial service during the first half of the '80s. Some airlines like NZ, AZ and SR were interested but following AA191, plans were stopped

UA was to be the launch customer. Others included NZ, AZ, JL, TG, WO and SR.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 13):
In the mid-1990s, there were (again) plans to stretch the MD-11 and three airlines were mentioned due to their interest: American Airlines, Japan Airlines, Korean Air (?), and Swissair. I know that JAL held ten options for MD-11s which could have been converted for potentially stretched versions.

There were firm LOIs for 50 MD-XX frames, spread between DL, SR, LH, BR, FX, and one other that I'm not 100% sure of. I believe it was JL, as I recall JL having advanced discussions with DAC regarding the MD-XX Stretch. This turned into a 777-300 order, shortly after the program was dropped.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
I believe Fed Ex would have love this plane.

   Together with LH, FX would have co-launched the freighter version, which was to be based off of the LR.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):

Sounded good on paper. And leadership was pushing it hard, (even more than the MD-95 as shown by the order book). It sure would have been interesting for us to see another generation of this design.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:17 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
UA was to be the launch customer.

That would've been epic and awesome. I wonder how this would've affected them ordering the 777 later on.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:28 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
MDC's leadership were misguided in wanting to hit the WB home run, rather than focus more attention on sustaining the DC-9 design through the MD-90/95 families.

Not to mention that both the narrowbody and widebody lines needed new wing designs to compete, and neither one got them. The MD-11 was already pushing the old DC-10 wing further than it wanted to go. The idea of a 31-foot stretch being able to compete with the 777-300 is just not plausible.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
The MD-11 was already pushing the old DC-10 wing further than it wanted to go. The idea of a 31-foot stretch being able to compete with the 777-300 is just not plausible.

The MD-XX would have had a new 65m using a supercritical air foil.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The MD-XX would have had a new 65m using a supercritical air foil.

Thanks -- I didn't know that; I thought it was the MD-11 wing with new winglets and maybe root extensions.

It would still have had the issue of one too many engines.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:17 pm

What MDD truly lacked was a plane slotted between the MD80 and MD11. Something in that spot would have allowed MDD to pitch a family of aircraft to airlines, as Boeing and Airbus had family models in service or on the drawing board in the mid to late 80's while MDD just tweaked existing frames.

So many might-hav-beens with MDD.  
Next up: STL DEN PSP DEN STL
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:38 pm

No one has mentioned yet that McD lacked the resources to even move this plane from graphic design to the research/prototype phase. Designing a new airliner from a blank page was simply beyond their reach at the time, and it seemed like a lot of people realized that at the time.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 22):
What MDD truly lacked was a plane slotted between the MD80 and MD11.

They were also kicking around the twin-aisle DC-XX / AMTR program at that time, which was between the 757 (at 2+2+2) and 767 (at 2+3+2).
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:01 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
They actually pitched that as the MD-XX Stretch and MD-XX-LR.

They would have looked fantastic.    If only they could have been built.   As I said in another thread earlier this summer, I wish widebody trijets were built for longer.

Are there any technical details on the illustration's back side?

Quoting MD80 (Reply 13):
It became really difficult for McDonnell Douglas to advertise their civil products with the initials "DC".

I guess this is why they went from Super 80 to MD-80.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
UA was to be the launch customer. Others included NZ, AZ, JL, TG, WO and SR.

Yes, I remember that from a previous thread not so long ago. Back then it already surprised me to see WO on the list.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 17):
There were firm LOIs for 50 MD-XX frames, spread between DL, SR, LH, BR, FX, and one other that I'm not 100% sure of. I believe it was JL, as I recall JL having advanced discussions with DAC regarding the MD-XX Stretch.

As was already mentioned, JL had options for 10 more MD-11s convertible for MD-12 if I remember correctly. Those 50 frames clearly show the confidence airlines had in MDC. It's really sad they never came to be, even though in today's world having a third engine and a central main landing gear is not well considered.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
They were also kicking around the twin-aisle DC-XX / AMTR program at that time, which was between the 757 (at 2+2+2) and 767 (at 2+3+2).





     


MDC could have made a nice profit off the AMTR, because in the 80s and 90s, airlines still somewhat cared about passenger confort, and saying in a commercial that your a/c has a wider cabin than Eastern's or Delta's 757s, would catch some future passengers eyes. I believe if launched, AA and DL would have order the AMTR, and the Long Beach plant could have stay open a little longer.
 
justplanesmart
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:42 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 26):
MDC could have made a nice profit off the AMTR

The actual designation was ATMR, for Advanced-Technology Medium-Range. It would have been a two-aisle, six-abreast 757-sized twin, with the same engine options as that aircraft.
"So many planes; so little time..."
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:59 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Are there any technical details on the illustration's back side?

Yes.

MD-XX Stretch | MD-XX-Stretch Freighter

MTOW: 802,000 pounds | 802,000 pounds
MLW: 568,000 pounds | 620,000 pounds
MZFW: 538,000 pounds | 600,000 pounds
OEW: 387,830 pounds | 365,540 pounds
Fuel: 66,866 gallons | 66,866 gallons
Payload: 124,020 pounds | 210,140 pounds
Passengers: 375 in three classes
Range with passengers and bags: 7,020
Range at Maximum Payload: 5,740nm | 4,200nm

MD-XX LR | MD-XX-LR Freighter

MTOW: 802,000 pounds | 802,000 pounds
MLW: 508,000 pounds | 563,000 pounds
MZFW: 478,000 pounds | 543,000 pounds
OEW: 362,130 pounds | 335,240 pounds
Fuel: 66,866 gallons | 66,866 gallons
Payload: 96,205 pounds | 168,600 pounds
Passengers: 309 in three classes
Range with passengers and bags: 8,320
Range at Maximum Payload: 7,350nm | 5,770nm
 
beeweel15
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:12 pm

The MD12 is Techincally flying today. If you go further into the history of the MD12. MDC went to Airbus to jointly develop the aircraft. When MDC went out Airbus just dusted off their plans and you have the A380 that we have today.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Yes.

Thanks for posting.

So both variants would have been heavier than the Longer Range 777s, while offering about the payload-range performance of the "standard" 777s of their respective sizes (a little worse, actually). It looks to me like they would have been outcompeted even by the A340NG.

No, they wouldn't have been helpful to McD.

[Edited 2014-08-21 17:04:19]
 
User avatar
MD80
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:29 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:41 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 26):
MDC could have made a nice profit off the AMTR, because in the 80s and 90s, airlines still somewhat cared about passenger confort, and saying in a commercial that your a/c has a wider cabin than Eastern's or Delta's 757s, would catch some future passengers eyes.

That´s correct. However I fear that a configuration of 2+2+2 (earmarked for the ATMR IIRC) would have been one of the most inefficient ways to use the available space in the cabin. The comfort would have been fantastic for passengers and cabin crews.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
Those 50 frames clearly show the confidence airlines had in MDC.

I also think that the support by traditional operators of McDonnell Douglas was there but many other factors resulted in a steady deterioration and shifts to alternative manufacturers.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 25):
I guess this is why they went from Super 80 to MD-80.

Yes. Officially, the merger (from 1967!) was mentioned as a major reason but I agree with you that the major factor was the problem to use the designation "DC". That was very sad because the initials "DC" was a trademark for decades and positively associated. The change to "MD" was IMO a step needed to open a new chapter.

Thanks to @all for explanations!

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 29):

The MD12 is Techincally flying today. If you go further into the history of the MD12. MDC went to Airbus to jointly develop the aircraft. When MDC went out Airbus just dusted off their plans and you have the A380 that we have today.

There were indeed talks between Airbus and McDonnell Douglas and IIRC the main focus was a possible "combination" of the A330/340 wing with the fuselage pf the MD-11? There are indeed visual similarities when looking at the concept of the MD-12 and A380.

There were also talks about possible co-operation between McDonnell Douglas and a Taiwanese company (?) during the first half of the 1990s with the aim to get additional funding (and possibly transfer of technology) regarding the MD-12. These Taiwanese venture later shifted to possible interest in civil aircraft produced by BAe and Fokker IIRC.
Dedicated to the MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, and DC-9: www.MD-80.com
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:52 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 30):
So both variants would have been heavier than the Longer Range 777s, while offering about the payload-range performance of the "standard" 777s of their respective sizes (a little worse, actually). It looks to me like they would have been outcompeted even by the A340NG.

No, they wouldn't have been helpful to McD.

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. It's hard to say for certain because this was 1996. You have to analyze from that moment in time.

For one, the focus was more on besting the 773A for the Stretch. The 77E had not even had EIS, and the 77L or 77W were not yet in play, never mind the A345/6. Also, the A342/3 were selling rather modestly to that point (through 1996). In fact at production levels that were inferior to even the MD-11 during it's hot start (1991-93).

If the MD-XX launched with orders from LH, SR, and JL; it's not unreasonable to the think that the likes of KL, KE, SK, and IB (all DC-10/MD-11 operators) may have followed suit. This would have dented the A340's market-share.

That said, the 77E and 77W would have owned the top spot no matter what.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 22):
What MDD truly lacked was a plane slotted between the MD80 and MD11.

I think they made the mistake of scrapping the DC-8's tooling in early '70s and solely focusing on the DC-9 and DC-10. If MDC could have refined with DC-8's design into a twin-jet with a new wing, perhaps the 757 would have had a little competition. For a third design, this would have been the most fiscally conservative strategy, which we know McDonnell were all about.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 31):
However I fear that a configuration of 2+2+2 (earmarked for the ATMR IIRC) would have been one of the most inefficient ways to use the available space in the cabin.

Agreed. I also think MD would have lost to the 767 in any smaller widebody twin competition.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
MD80
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:29 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:46 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 32):
I think they made the mistake of scrapping the DC-8's tooling in early '70s and solely focusing on the DC-9 and DC-10. If MDC could have refined with DC-8's design into a twin-jet with a new wing, perhaps the 757 would have had a little competition. For a third design, this would have been the most fiscally conservative strategy, which we know McDonnell were all about.

That´s my impression too! It is even more evident because the DC-8 was very much in demand after production ceased in 1972 and this type soldiered on very successfully with a large number of companies. A number of airlines also opted to re-equip their DC-8s with new engines and the DC-8 showed an impressive performance-improvement.

I think that the basic design of the DC-8 Super 60 series would have been a good basis for a much improved 200/250-seater and McDonnell Douglas showed that they were able to squeeze out the most through derivatives. One major change would have probably been a change to DC-9/-10 windows to ensure that every seat-row has a window at reduced seat-pitch.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 32):
...IB (all DC-10/MD-11 operators)...

There was an article from December 1987 about the important order placed by Iberia for 15 Airbus A320s, 17 MD-87s and eight A340s and the order for A340s was explained in the statement by Iberia that that it was to "participate in the A340 programme as a launch customer", which would mean "special prices".

It was expected that Iberia would order the MD-11 to replace their hard-working DC-10s but McDonnell Douglas was nevertheless very pleased to secure the order for MD-87s.

I think that the huge customer-base with a large number of traditional customers could have been a very good base for larger derivatives of the MD-11. I am not quiet sure about the MD-12 due to its size. It seems that the majority of airlines are reluctant to operate very big jets. IMO the huge fleet of A380s at Emirates indirectly also affected and affects the fleets on other airlines. For example, some European airlines operated long hauls from Europe down to South Asia and onward to Australia. This is a thing from the past in most cases. A stretched MD-11 or even the MD-12 would only work under different circumstances and without a huge airline in Dubai sucking many passengers away   .
Dedicated to the MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, and DC-9: www.MD-80.com
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:09 am

Airbus knocked a lot of times on Macdonell Douglas doors to make joint ventures in aircraft. Stupid people at MDC always showed them the door or made crazy requests, in the end the guys at Touluse would laugh all the way to the bank while MDC would suffer a long agonizing death and takeover by Boeing.

This MD12 would have been the joint baby of Airbus and MDC. SA airbuses would have been produced in Longbeach but alas, ego prevailed and the rest is history.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):

Thanks for that.   

Quoting MD80 (Reply 31):
other factors resulted in a steady deterioration and shifts to alternative manufacturers.
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 34):
Stupid people at MDC

I remember reading somewhere that people from McDonnell, was it Sandy, who answered to potential DC-10 customers or existing ones that wanted to order more but have it at lesser price: "Take it (at that price) or live it!" I guess this mind set paved the way to the wall for MDC. IIRC, Donald Douglas Sr was escorted off site at LGB.

Quoting MD80 (Reply 31):
Yes. Officially, the merger (from 1967!) was mentioned as a major reason

Yeah, yeah yeah!   It took them a dozen years to suddenly say: "Hey lets change it to reflect the merger." Did they really thought they could fool people with that? Why then did they start working on DC-10 Super 60 or DC-9 Super 80?
 
User avatar
ghost77
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Quoting MD80 (Reply 33):
There was an article from December 1987 about the important order placed by Iberia for 15 Airbus A320s, 17 MD-87s and eight A340s and the order for A340s was explained in the statement by Iberia that that it was to "participate in the A340 programme as a launch customer", which would mean "special prices".

Iberia actually ordered 24 MD-87s on April 1st, 1988:

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...pageid=m25064&RequestTimeout=20000

g77
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:13 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 35):
Did they really thought they could fool people with that? Why then did they start working on DC-10 Super 60 or DC-9 Super 80?

Well, DC-9 Super 80 series sold 1,191 copies, and over a thousand were sold as "MD-80s." There was also some prevailing thought that the "DC" moniker was aged and that an "MD-83" sounded more modern than a DC-9-83.

That said, the moniker may have never changed if MDC weren't buried by the US media following AA 191...

Quoting MD80 (Reply 33):
eight A340s and the order for A340s was explained in the statement by Iberia that that it was to "participate in the A340 programme as a launch customer", which would mean "special prices".

Thank you for that. I was thinking about the MD-XX Stretch in place of the A346. But IB may likely have gone with Airbus anyway, due to fleet commonality.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 35):
I remember reading somewhere that people from McDonnell, was it Sandy, who answered to potential DC-10 customers or existing ones that wanted to order more but have it at lesser price: "Take it (at that price) or live it!" I guess this mind set paved the way to the wall for MDC.

I don't know about "Sandy." But undoubtedly some orders were lost for McDonnell folks being to hard-nosed. Things improved greatly with James Worsham in the 1980s, and it is reflected in the order backlog during his tenure.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:23 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 32):
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. It's hard to say for certain because this was 1996. You have to analyze from that moment in time.

Sure, but some things are easy to see -- the weights Stitch listed are just too heavy to compete. The Stretch would have been more than 50 tons heavier than the 773A, likely with similar payload and passenger capacity except for the lack of a 10-abreast option. But it wouldn't have had much more range. Had it come out 7 or 8 years in advance of the 773A, it might have served as a good 747 Classic replacement. But by 1996 the 773A was well on the way.

Similarly, the LR has similar payload range to the 777-200ER but similar weight to the 777-200LR. The problem with the A340NG ended up being that it was just too heavy. I think the same would have been true for these frames, and it would have been possible to see that coming in the mid-1990s.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:23 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 38):

Well, I did concede the 77E and 77W would have been on top no matter what. The MD-XX had a better chance against the A340.

In the long run, it likely would have been a losing battle without any form of subsidy. But the order book would have probably cracked 100-150, which means we would have been blessed with another trijet generation. I'm not a bean counter and neither are you, so for the enthusiast side in us that would have been pretty cool.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:34 pm

Wasn't there also a twin that was based on the DC-10/MD-11 that was envisioned?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:12 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 37):
Well, DC-9 Super 80 series sold 1,191 copies, and over a thousand were sold as "MD-80s."

Indeed. Didn't the manufacturer gather some large order even before it changed the moniker?

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 37):
That said, the moniker may have never changed if MDC weren't buried by the US media following AA 191...

Of course.

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
Wasn't there also a twin that was based on the DC-10/MD-11 that was envisioned?

Yes there was, based on the DC-10. It was in fact a DC-10 Twin.

If MD Had Gone Ahead With The DC-10 Twin... (by MCIGuy Jul 9 2006 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
ghost77
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:07 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:14 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 38):
except for the lack of a 10-abreast option.

The proposed MD-12 tri-jet was to be based on the MD-11 cross-section, which it roomy enough for 10-abreast rows. Finnair selected a 3-4-3 economy class layout for its Asian destinations when the MD-11 was their long-haul flagship equipment.

g77

[Edited 2014-08-22 13:22:02]
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:20 pm

Quoting ghost77 (Reply 42):
The proposed tri-jet MD-12 was to be based on the MD-11 cross-section

Which was based on the DC-10 and both are wide enough to squeeze 10-abreast. Many airlines used that configuration in the DC-10.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:50 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 43):
Quoting ghost77 (Reply 42):The proposed tri-jet MD-12 was to be based on the MD-11 cross-sectionWhich was based on the DC-10 and both are wide enough to squeeze 10-abreast. Many airlines used that configuration in the DC-10.

Depends on your definition of many. It was only charter and leisure carriers. I can't recall any major full-service scheduled carriers operating 10-abreast DC-10s.

Pan Am's L-1011-500s were 10-abreast which always surprised me for a major carrier. They were very cramped. After those aircraft wound up with DL (after brief service with UA following their purchase of Pan Am Pacific routes) DL converted them to the more usual 9-abreast configuration.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:19 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
Depends on your definition of many. It was only charter and leisure carriers.

My aim was to underscore the fact that a 10-abreast configuration in the then planned MD-12 trijet was possible since the fuselage was based on that of the DC-10 which was operated with that many seats by many airlines, whatever their types.

[Edited 2014-08-22 15:20:50]
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:42 am

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 41):
Indeed. Didn't the manufacturer gather some large order even before it changed the moniker?

I guess if you consider PSA a large order. It had been MD-80 for almost a year when AA finalized their 67+100 landmark deal.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
MD80
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:29 pm

RE: If Built, Mc Donnell Douglas MD12 Today?

Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:26 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 46):
I guess if you consider PSA a large order. It had been MD-80 for almost a year when AA finalized their 67+100 landmark deal.

Here are some extracts of my hobby-researches. Three customers received their ordered MD-80s in 1980: Swissair, Austrian Airlines and PSA.

The year 1981 allowed deliveries to early customers like Austral, TDA, Hawaiian Air, Inex Adria, AirCal, Muse Air, Republic Airlines, Martinair Holland, aeromexico, and Jet America.

It is noteworthy that some of the mentioned airlines became very important, rather large and/or long-time operators of the MD-80.

In 1982, Balair, Frontier Airlines, and ALM became operators of the MD-80. 1982 was also important due to the commitment by Finnair to order three MD-82s and the decision by Alitalia to order 30 aircraft. The first order by Finnair for three aircraft may be seen as a very small order but at the same time this ensured that Finnair became co-launch-customer of both the MD-83 and MD-87 and the combined DC-9/MD-80-fleet became the workhorse of Finnair for many years.

I think that the orders placed by Alitalia and the deals placed with American Airlines and TWA kick-started sales of the MD-80series. The orders were really important because most of the early customers already received their originally ordered aircraft and the backlog dried up.

The decision of Finnair to use the DC-10-30ER was also very important. Boeing offered the Boeing 747SP and Boeing 737/757s as an alternative fleet-solution and it was a victory for McDonnell Douglas that Finnair decided to stay with their traditional supplier from Long Beach. It also allowed Finnair to become an early customer for the MD-11.

Regards
Dedicated to the MD-80, MD-90, MD-95, and DC-9: www.MD-80.com

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos