Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
doulasc
Topic Author
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:12 pm

Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:26 am

After Convair stop production of the Convair 880 in 1961 and the 990 in 1963.Why didn't Convair ever produce another
jetliner.Before the 880 Convair was successful with the Convair 240,340,440 and the prop jet 580 for the short haul
market.But Convair never produced a 4 engine propliner for the medium to long range market. The Convair 880/990 was
medium range and probably could not compete with the Boeing 720 and 727,It seems Convair gave up.
 
User avatar
jetfuel
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:32 am

In the 1950s Convair shifted money and effort into its missile and rocket projects,
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:35 am

Didn't Convair lose a ton of money on building the CV-880/CV-990? Apparently at the time it was the largest loss a corporation had ever incurred.

I would guess that would have spooked them from ever trying again.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:35 am

Look at the sales of the Convair 880/990. Then take a peek at the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8.
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:41 am

Quoting jetfuel (Reply 1):
In the 1950s Convair shifted money and effort into its missile and rocket projects

yes

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 2):
Didn't Convair lose a ton of money on building the CV-880/CV-990? Apparently at the time it was the largest loss a corporation had ever incurred.

and yes.
If you want a more in-depth read:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-articles/read.main?id=67
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 3):

Look at the sales of the Convair 880/990. Then take a peek at the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8.


Add to that the fact that Douglas dug themselves a hole with the DC-8 that the could never get out of. The DC-8, L1011, 880, 990, DC-10 and MD-11 are the reason there is only one maker of commercial jet airplanes in the U.S. today.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
PEK777
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:56 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 2:54 am

It still outsold the 767-400 by a sizeable factor. That did not 'SPOOK' Boeing out of the commercial aircraft market. One must be wiling to take risks. Remember, as my father taught me, "it is only gambling if you don't know what you're doing"
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2177
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:17 am

Quoting PEK777 (Reply 6):

The 764 (and the 747SP/748/720 come to think of it) are variants of successful Boeing jets. Not a similar comparison.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:18 am

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 7):
and the 747SP/748/720 come to think of it

Add to that the 731, 736 and 743, which all feature less than 100 examples produced as well. They were not disasters because they were all easily (and relatively cheaply) either developed into or derived from models that have sold extremely well.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 5):
Add to that the fact that Douglas dug themselves a hole with the DC-8 that the could never get out of.

I'm not going to entirely disagree with you on this one, but I will add a couple things . What really was the beginning of the end for Douglas was their insistence on single-mindedly cranking out DC-6s and -7s, while Boeing moved forward with what would become the 707. In other words, the DC-8 did not put Douglas in a hole (it was profitable for Douglas), their refusal to develop a jet until too late is what did. Therefore, even though the DC-8, -9 and -10 were all profitable to varying degrees, Douglas had ceded its dominant position in the market to Boeing, and found itself constantly trying to play catch-up. And on the flip side, Boeing did nothing to surrender that position, as they simply had more designs that sold more copies that anything Douglas could offer (with maybe the exception of the DC-9/MD-80 series). In the time Douglas designed and produced the DC-8 -9 and -10, Boeing designed and produced the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767; every single one of which has sold over 1,000 copies. To put that in perspective, the only Douglas/MD jet with over 1,000 sold is the DC-9/MD-80 series. The others aren't even close.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:55 am

Quoting PEK777 (Reply 6):
It still outsold the 767-400 by a sizeable factor. That did not 'SPOOK' Boeing out of the commercial aircraft market.

The 767-400, as was mentioned, was just a variant of a popular a/c. The 880/990 wasn't the variant of anything and I think you can probably safely say that the fuel crisis of 1973 killed the Convairs service. On top of that, Convair probably lost money on each copy they built.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6358
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:04 am

Quoting PEK777 (Reply 6):
It still outsold the 767-400 by a sizeable factor. That did not 'SPOOK' Boeing out of the commercial aircraft market. One must be wiling to take risks. Remember, as my father taught me, "it is only gambling if you don't know what you're doing"
Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 7):
The 764 (and the 747SP/748/720 come to think of it) are variants of successful Boeing jets. Not a similar comparison.


The 720 sold pretty well (154), so if you are giving examples of derivatives that didn't sell well, not sure that's a good one. Of course, it was just a 707 derivative.

As mentioned, the 767-400 is a derivative of an airplane that has sold over 1000 and counting. It didn't sell as well as hoped, of course, but not like Boeing lost its shirt on it. I have a few of my own opinions of why the 767-400 didn't sell much better.

The 767-400, 800/990, L-1011, and 717 are all examples of very good airplanes that didn't sell well for factors other than the quality of the airplane. In fact, from what I understand the 880/990 were almost overbuild. They were rock solid and a bit overly complex.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:37 am

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
They were rock solid and a bit overly complex.

Kind of like the Tristar
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:27 pm

It is worth noting that after the 880/990 flopped Convair didn't stop building commercial aircraft; they just stopped building their own. They were subcontractors in some way or another to McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, and Boeing well into the '70s and later. (It was Convair, for example, who constructed most of the DC-10 fuselage and it was a Convair engineer who first identified the -10's cargo door defect).

Their military and space systems arm also produced the Atlas and Centaur rocket boosters (used for Project Mercury, the Surveyor lunar landers, and the Pioneer probes, and still in use in modified form today), and developed the BGM-109 Tomahawk and AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles.

Another worthwhile note is that the company was owned by General Dynamics from 1953 until 1996, so it's not like they were out in the cold all on their lonesome*. When GD decided to call it quits on Convair in the early '90s they transferred the bits they wanted into GD proper and then in 1994 most of the leftovers went to McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed.

* = particularly seeing as GD also had considerable success with Canadair when they owned it between 1946 and 1976.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:38 pm

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 2):
Didn't Convair lose a ton of money on building the CV-880/CV-990? Apparently at the time it was the largest loss a corporation had ever incurred.

Yep.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 5):
Add to that the fact that Douglas dug themselves a hole with the DC-8 that the could never get out of. The DC-8, L1011, 880, 990, DC-10 and MD-11 are the reason there is only one maker of commercial jet airplanes in the U.S. today.
Quoting PEK777 (Reply 6):
It still outsold the 767-400 by a sizeable factor. That did not 'SPOOK' Boeing out of the commercial aircraft market.

The 764 wasn't a big gamble either. New gear, raked tips, new flight deck screens, and some strengthening. R&D couldn't have been much more than half a billion.

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 8):
Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 7):
and the 747SP/748/720 come to think of it

Add to that the 731, 736 and 743, which all feature less than 100 examples produced as well. They were not disasters because they were all easily (and relatively cheaply) either developed into or derived from models that have sold extremely well.

Bingo. Of those, I think only the 748 was a costly mistake, and part of its issue is that dev resources were pulled away for the 787 and the engine busted spec. Had the 748 met time and spec targets, it probably would have done better.

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 8):
I'm not going to entirely disagree with you on this one, but I will add a couple things . What really was the beginning of the end for Douglas was their insistence on single-mindedly cranking out DC-6s and -7s, while Boeing moved forward with what would become the 707. In other words, the DC-8 did not put Douglas in a hole (it was profitable for Douglas), their refusal to develop a jet until too late is what did. Therefore, even though the DC-8, -9 and -10 were all profitable to varying degrees, Douglas had ceded its dominant position in the market to Boeing, and found itself constantly trying to play catch-up. And on the flip side, Boeing did nothing to surrender that position, as they simply had more designs that sold more copies that anything Douglas could offer (with maybe the exception of the DC-9/MD-80 series). In the time Douglas designed and produced the DC-8 -9 and -10, Boeing designed and produced the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767; every single one of which has sold over 1,000 copies. To put that in perspective, the only Douglas/MD jet with over 1,000 sold is the DC-9/MD-80 series. The others aren't even close.

In retrospect, Douglas' decision making wasn't so stupid, the DC-6 was going gangbusters in the 50s and was regarded by many as a better plane than the Connie. A big factor in the success of the 707 was the fact that they won the massive KC-135 order that gave them enough cash to spend on the 707 and the customizations they did to win customers (e.g. long- and short-bodied 100) and launch stretches (300, 300B) much earlier than Douglas could. By about 1963 the market was saturated with most airlines' first orders, of which Boeing had captured a bigger slice by offering more product diversity. The fact that Boeing had access to a high-speed wind tunnel also helped them make the 707 faster, which was a huge plus in the age of regulated fares and cheap fuel.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 4:50 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13):
In retrospect, Douglas' decision making wasn't so stupid, the DC-6 was going gangbusters in the 50s and was regarded by many as a better plane than the Connie. A big factor in the success of the 707 was the fact that they won the massive KC-135 order that gave them enough cash to spend on the 707 and the customizations they did to win customers (e.g. long- and short-bodied 100) and launch stretches (300, 300B) much earlier than Douglas could. By about 1963 the market was saturated with most airlines' first orders, of which Boeing had captured a bigger slice by offering more product diversity. The fact that Boeing had access to a high-speed wind tunnel also helped them make the 707 faster, which was a huge plus in the age of regulated fares and cheap fuel.

In addition, Douglas was having serious issues meeting demand (the Vietnam War did not help) for the DC-8 and especially the DC-9 which resulted in delivery delays to customers on the order of months and cost them a lot of money.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:02 pm

Easy. To be focused on rocketry and blowing stuff up. Lots of money in them government programs....

[Edited 2015-09-30 10:03:41]
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13):
In retrospect, Douglas' decision making wasn't so stupid, the DC-6 was going gangbusters in the 50s and was regarded by many as a better plane than the Connie.

I respectfully disagree. What Douglas should have done was used some of the money that was pouring in from DC-6 and -7 to begin developing a jet before it became obvious that the 707 was gong to be a success. More forward thinking execs would have realized piston engined airliners' days were numbered and acted accordingly.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13):
A big factor in the success of the 707 was the fact that they won the massive KC-135 order that gave them enough cash to spend on the 707 and the customizations they did to win customers

This was largely due to the fact that the 707 (Dash 80 really) existed before the DC-8, and the USAF desperately needed a jet tanker, due to the fact that the KC-97 was woefully inadequate to refuel B-47s and B-52s. Sure, the USAF had a long history of ordering Boeing planes dating back to the early '30s with the B-9 and the P-26, and that gave Boeing a leg up on the competition, but if the DC-8 had been on the scene first, there is a good chance the USAF would have ordered it as their jet tanker.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4921
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 16):
This was largely due to the fact that the 707 (Dash 80 really) existed before the DC-8, and the USAF desperately needed a jet tanker, due to the fact that the KC-97 was woefully inadequate to refuel B-47s and B-52s. Sure, the USAF had a long history of ordering Boeing planes dating back to the early '30s with the B-9 and the P-26, and that gave Boeing a leg up on the competition, but if the DC-8 had been on the scene first, there is a good chance the USAF would have ordered it as their jet tanker.

To that point I disagree. Douglas wasn't even in the running for the jet tanker program, and in fact the KC-135 was selected as an interim solution until Lockheed's L-193 project was to enter service. In the end, with the L-193 service entry delayed 4 years (an eternity in those days) the project was terminated and the KC-135 became what it is today, with the 707 program benefiting from it.

One could argue if Lockheed proceeded with the tanker as a private venture it would have benefited them with a VC-10 type narrowbody family, but to say Douglas could have jumped in on the tanker program, well, I disagree.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:20 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 17):
Douglas wasn't even in the running for the jet tanker program

And that is because they expressed no interest in developing a suitable plane, they wanted to keep cranking out piston engined airliners. If they focused on developing a jet tanker/airliner before Boeing and (unsuccessfully) Lockheed, it's hard to imagine that the USAF would not have been interested. I'm not disagreeing with you, you're absolutely correct, but I am pointing out that what you asserted is a function of Douglas's late entry into the jet market.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4921
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:27 pm

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 18):
Douglas's late entry into the jet market.

Indeed, they were pulled into it kicking and screaming by Pan Am, no?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:09 pm

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 8):

I'm actually going to disagree with you. While Douglas may have been able to sell DC-8s for more than they cost to build, they never recovered all of the R&D, etc. Also, in order to make sales, they made concessions and deals that Boeing didn't have to make. The first and worst mistake was refusing to alter the external dimensions of the fuselage until the 60 series. Boeing stretched the 707 into the 320 series and took a lot of sales from Douglas.

There was incredible risk associated with developing the first generation of jetliners. Look at the Comet. Most boards of directors would have second thoughts after DeHaviland's difficulties. Also, Douglas was talked into the DC-7 by C. R. Smit at American Airlies. Boeing had the B-47, B-52 and KC-135 under their belts which greatly reduced the risks with the 707. In fact, Douglas came up with the 6 abreast fuselage and forced Boeing to widen the 707 from the Dash 80's fuselage.

Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of the Douglas jets. The DC-8 is my favorite airliner of all time. I have been interested in this issue for a long time and read most of the contemporary coverage from the 1960s on.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:03 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 14):
In addition, Douglas was having serious issues meeting demand (the Vietnam War did not help) for the DC-8 and especially the DC-9 which resulted in delivery delays to customers on the order of months and cost them a lot of money.

Wasn't a lot of this due to PW falling behind on engines because of military demand? I read somewhere that GE got back into passenger jets because people were pissed off at PW.

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 16):
I respectfully disagree. What Douglas should have done was used some of the money that was pouring in from DC-6 and -7 to begin developing a jet before it became obvious that the 707 was gong to be a success. More forward thinking execs would have realized piston engined airliners' days were numbered and acted accordingly.

I'm not so sure they viewed it that way at the time, perhaps they saw turboprops as the way of the future after the DC-7. Boeing literally bet the company on the 367-80, and without the KC-135 they probably would have failed. In the early 1950s, Boeing had very little clout in the airliner market, so the 707 was a bit of a hail-mary pass. To expect the incumbent OEM to likewise bet that hard on an untrusted technology would have been foolish. FWIW, they followed the 707 into service only a year late, so they must have been doing at least a bit of tinkering.

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 16):
This was largely due to the fact that the 707 (Dash 80 really) existed before the DC-8, and the USAF desperately needed a jet tanker, due to the fact that the KC-97 was woefully inadequate to refuel B-47s and B-52s. Sure, the USAF had a long history of ordering Boeing planes dating back to the early '30s with the B-9 and the P-26, and that gave Boeing a leg up on the competition, but if the DC-8 had been on the scene first, there is a good chance the USAF would have ordered it as their jet tanker.

True. Boeing foresaw the need for a jet tanker as they were still finishing up the B-52 design, so they started with the same formula (35* sweep, podded engines) and made a tanker/transport. For Douglas to build up the knowledge base to speculatively build such a design would have been a cost-prohibitive gamble. Basically, the 707 only existed because of all the DoD money being chucked at the big bombers and their R&D (e.g. high-speed tunnels, swept wings), which was then transferred.

Without the B-47 and B-52, it probably would have taken a lot longer until any of the OEMs decided to plunk down enough money on developing a jet airliner.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:39 pm

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 2):
Didn't Convair lose a ton of money on building the CV-880/CV-990? Apparently at the time it was the largest loss a corporation had ever incurred.

I would guess that would have spooked them from ever trying again.

General Dynamics, Convair's parent, lost an unheard of the time, $475 Million on the 880/990 program. At the time, it was the largest corporate bungle in US business history. Yes, the Convair twin had been successful, but the original 240 program needed government orders to get it over the break even mark. And while the 340./440 program was profitable, Convair ended up with some white tails at the end of the production run in 1958.









Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
The 720 sold pretty well (154), so if you are giving examples of derivatives that didn't sell well, not sure that's a good one. Of course, it was just a 707 derivative.

Boeing only sold 65 non fan 720s, the exact same number of 880s that Convair sold. Only the development of the JT3D low bypass fan jet led to more 720 orders.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 20):
I'm actually going to disagree with you. While Douglas may have been able to sell DC-8s for more than they cost to build, they never recovered all of the R&D, etc. Also, in order to make sales, they made concessions and deals that Boeing didn't have to make. The first and worst mistake was refusing to alter the external dimensions of the fuselage until the 60 series. Boeing stretched the 707 into the 320 series and took a lot of sales from Douglas.

There was incredible risk associated with developing the first generation of jetliners. Look at the Comet. Most boards of directors would have second thoughts after DeHaviland's difficulties. Also, Douglas was talked into the DC-7 by C. R. Smit at American Airlies. Boeing had the B-47, B-52 and KC-135 under their belts which greatly reduced the risks with the 707. In fact, Douglas came up with the 6 abreast fuselage and forced Boeing to widen the 707 from the Dash 80's fuselage.

Don't get me wrong, I am a great fan of the Douglas jets. The DC-8 is my favorite airliner of all time. I have been interested in this issue for a long time and read most of the contemporary coverage from the 1960s on.

Douglas lost big money on the DC-8 program and it led to the sale to McDonnell, along with production problems with the DC-9. The reasons for the DC-8s problems vs the 707 were several. Yes, the Dash 80 prototype and KC-135 tanker program gave Boeing a big jump on Douglas, but Douglas claimed they were going to deliver a superior airplane. Had Boeing not agreed to widen the fuselage for C.R. Smith, and stuck with the narrower fuselage that would not seat six across, the story would have been different. Additionally, when the DC-8 finally did enter service, it was not superior to the Boeing, operationally. Once the wing was fixed, it was a worthy competitor. I always preferred the DC-8 as a passenger, probably because my first jet ride was on a short tail 707, and it was not fun. Douglas lost its edge because Boeing went that extra step to gain customers, with various fuselage lengths etc.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:43 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13):
The 764 wasn't a big gamble either. New gear, raked tips, new flight deck screens, and some strengthening. R&D couldn't have been much more than half a billion.

Bit more to it than that, including upgraded hydraulics for the heavier gear and new engines, I suspect it cost more than that.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:47 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 22):
Boeing only sold 65 non fan 720s, the exact same number of 880s that Convair sold. Only the development of the JT3D low bypass fan jet led to more 720 orders.

They only delivered 65, because once the JT3D came, nobody wanted the JT3C anymore. It was the same engine with +50% thrust and -13% fuel burn, total no-brainer. Structurally, the only difference was the longer horizontal stabilizer to deal with the increased thrust/pitch couple. AA even modified their 720s to 720B standard.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Bit more to it than that, including upgraded hydraulics for the heavier gear and new engines, I suspect it cost more than that.

Fair enough, but less than a billion, no?
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:43 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 22):
Boeing only sold 65 non fan 720s, the exact same number of 880s that Convair sold. Only the development of the JT3D low bypass fan jet led to more 720 orders.

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with this. That's usually how it works: new, more efficient engines make preexisting designs more attractive. For example, if the CF-56 was not offered on the 737, there would be thousands fewer built.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 24):
They only delivered 65, because once the JT3D came, nobody wanted the JT3C anymore. It was the same engine with +50% thrust and -13% fuel burn, total no-brainer. Structurally, the only difference was the longer horizontal stabilizer to deal with the increased thrust/pitch couple. AA even modified their 720s to 720B standard.

   And furthermore, once the JT3D was offered, the 707-120 and -320 also became much less attractive in favor of the -120B and -320B.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6358
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:54 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):

Bit more to it than that, including upgraded hydraulics for the heavier gear and new engines, I suspect it cost more than that.

And the 764 has120kva generators, rather than the 90kva on the 767-200/-300. The 767-400 could have benefited from more range, and a common flight deck with another model. That was right when the Boeing, McD merger took place so you can draw your own conclusions about the investments that would have been necessary to make it more attractive.
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:54 pm

This was an interesting read on the topic we have been discussing. Explained a lot.
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/leo...%20Killed%20Douglas%20Aircraft.pdf

[Edited 2015-09-30 16:56:00]
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 25):
I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with this. That's usually how it works: new, more efficient engines make preexisting designs more attractive. For example, if the CF-56 was not offered on the 737, there would be thousands fewer built.

My point was that there was not a large market for a slightly smaller medium range 4 engine jet airliner. Convair sold 65 of which 43 went to TWA and Delta. Boing sold 65 and 44 went to United and Eastern. The JT3D made the airplane very efficient, but still American sold off their 720-023Bs before they got rid of the 707-123Bs. There was a limited market for both airplanes. Boeing only developed the 720 to compete with Convair. By 1960, the 727 was already being ordered and it did the same thing an 880 did with three engines, and for less cost, plus it could operate out of smaller airports that the 880 could not. The 990 was even more of airplane without a market, and the fact that it could never meet its guaranteed range and speed didn't help. The Convair Jets were well built airplanes that were graceful and beautiful but should never have been designed and built, at least when they were. Choosing GE engines didn't help either.
 
User avatar
Adipasquale
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:39 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:43 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 28):
My point was that there was not a large market for a slightly smaller medium range 4 engine jet airliner

Thanks for clarifying. The 720 really exhibited many of the problems associated with "shrinks" of larger designs (particularly the 736 and A318). It was essentially too much plane for the number of pax it carried. Thus, when the 727 arrived on the scene, it was a much more attractive option.
DH8A DH8B CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 E45 E70 E75 E90 D93 M88 318 319 320 321 333 343 712 732 733 734 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77L 77W
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:15 am

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 26):
And the 764 has120kva generators, rather than the 90kva on the 767-200/-300.

Yes, good point, forgot about that.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 24):
Fair enough, but less than a billion, no?

I don't know but that figure seems low.


People forget this wasn't just an afterthought done 'on the cheap' Boeing took the 764 around the world on a sales tour, exhibited it at Farnborough and Paris and made a concerted effort to sell it to all potential clients.


A heavier gross weight version with uprated engines, a stabilizer fuel tank and other improvements was planned and the aircraft was designed with that in mind, that upgrade was never taken up by anyone after Kenya Airways cancelled their order which is a great shame. The performance increase would have been significant, made it the Aircraft it always should have been and boosted its prospects considerably.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 27):
Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 29):
Thanks for clarifying. The 720 really exhibited many of the problems associated with "shrinks" of larger designs (particularly the 736 and A318). It was essentially too much plane for the number of pax it carried. Thus, when the 727 arrived on the scene, it was a much more attractive option.

The 720 was created for only reason - to kill Convair 880 sales in the short/medium range market. When United cancelled it's 880 order and opted for the 720, the 880 was dead in the water. The 720 was always considered by Boeing an interim product; as you mentioned the 727 was optimized for the short/medium haul market. The 720 itself was almost done by the early 70s, even before the 1973 oil crisis, which parked the TWA and Delta 880 fleets.

The UNC-Berkeley paper you linked was a very interesting read, thanks for posting!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:08 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 23):
Bit more to it than that, including upgraded hydraulics for the heavier gear and new engines, I suspect it cost more than that.
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 26):
And the 764 has120kva generators, rather than the 90kva on the 767-200/-300.

While true, don't forget that some of that stuff was pulled off the shelf from the 777 (I believe the wheels/brakes/tires are the same, maybe some of the electrical architect?) to help lower costs.

That said I agree that $500 million to develop it sounds low. Even small things add up quickly in the aviation world.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:49 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 32):
While true, don't forget that some of that stuff was pulled off the shelf from the 777 (I believe the wheels/brakes/tires are the same, maybe some of the electrical architect?) to help lower costs.

Don't know about the brakes but the wheels and tires are the same as the 777.


The electrical system is still a pretty much standard 767 architecture apart from the upgraded generators.


The triple is completely different.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
shankly
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 10:42 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:11 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 21):
Without the B-47 and B-52, it probably would have taken a lot longer until any of the OEMs decided to plunk down enough money on developing a jet airliner.

Add to this, had the DH.106 Comet not failed, Vickers would have probably secured the Govt funding to launch the VC-7 and the DH.106 would have well on its way to its "NG" version by the time Tex was rolling the prototype 387.

The 707 would have looked like a converted military plane...instead, it became the template for pretty much all subsequent successful civil designs.....low wing, podded engines with conventional tail arrangement.
L1011 - P F M
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:22 pm

Quoting Adipasquale (Reply 27):
This was an interesting read on the topic we have been discussing. Explained a lot.

Good article, thanks for posting. That somewhat corroborates my idea about Boeing's advantage, but also sheds light on spectacular mismanagement over at Douglas, which I hadn't known about.

Quoting shankly (Reply 34):
Add to this, had the DH.106 Comet not failed, Vickers would have probably secured the Govt funding to launch the VC-7 and the DH.106 would have well on its way to its "NG" version by the time Tex was rolling the prototype 387.

The 707 would have looked like a converted military plane...instead, it became the template for pretty much all subsequent successful civil designs.....low wing, podded engines with conventional tail arrangement.

It would have been a simple 5-Y conversion of the KC-135 had CR Smith not told Boeing to respond to the DC-8 and to 6Y as well. It's funny how you could line up a 707 in a modern airport and the casual observer would have no clue.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:05 am

It is interesting to me that one factor causing airlines to favor the 707 over the DC-8 was fuselage height above the ground. The DC-8 had taller gear, making ladders and stands necessary for some servicing that could be done from the ground on the 707. The 8 also had an upswept rear fuselage giving it something of a ducktail. Boeing fans made fun of this.

Of course, it was this extra height and upswept rear fuselage that made the extreme stretch of the DC-8-61 and 63 possible, extending the manufacturing cycle of the commercial DC-8 beyond the commercial run of the 707.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:31 am

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 20):
The first and worst mistake was refusing to alter the external dimensions of the fuselage until the 60 series. Boeing stretched the 707 into the 320 series and took a lot of sales from Douglas

The minimal 6 foot stretch from the 707-120 to the -320 only made the 707 competitive with the DC-8. All DC-8 models from the -10 through the -50 had the same overall length, 150 ft. 6 inches. The 707-320 was only slightly more than 2 feet longer, not even enough for one row of seats. The maximum certified seating on both the 707-320 and all the early DC-8 models through the -50 series was also identical.

The smartest decision made by Douglas was to use a constant section fuselage which made the DC-8 very easy to stretch, unlike the 707 which would have required major redesign.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25011
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:41 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 21):
Basically, the 707 only existed because of all the DoD money being chucked at the big bombers and their R&D (e.g. high-speed tunnels, swept wings), which was then transferred.

I've read it had a lot to do with tax consequences. They were taking in so much money from the B47 and B52 that they would have been hit with windfall taxes unless they could find a big write down, and the Dash 80 was a program that fit the bill.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:15 am

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 36):
It is interesting to me that one factor causing airlines to favor the 707 over the DC-8 was fuselage height above the ground. The DC-8 had taller gear, making ladders and stands necessary for some servicing that could be done from the ground on the 707. The 8 also had an upswept rear fuselage giving it something of a ducktail. Boeing fans made fun of this.

I was a DC-8 pilot for seven years, own several books on early jetliners and never heard any of this.

The DC-8 was designed with taller landing gear for a very specific reason - to have the future ability to stretch the fuselage, which is exactly what happened. The 707 short landing gear limited the 707s growth potential to the length of the -320 fuselage; any longer would limit rotation and lift off. That's a mistake Boeing didn't make again.

The decision to build the DC-8 involved more than a new design; Douglas had to build an entirely new factory at Long Beach for DC-8 production because Santa Monica was too small a facility, both building and runway wise.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:20 pm

[quote=maxpower1954,

I respect your experience and knowledge. My sources are Jane's All the World's Aircraft articles on the DC-8 while it was still in production and contemporary news articles that I remember. I am no longer young, but I do remember fairly well.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:48 pm

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 40):
I respect your experience and knowledge. My sources are Jane's All the World's Aircraft articles on the DC-8 while it was still in production and contemporary news articles that I remember. I am no longer young, but I do remember fairly well.

I'm no longer young either! I know you didn't make it up, I just never heard this before. But I also flew the 707 (actually a 720) and don't remember any difference in the GSE but that was nearly 40 years ago and I'm not that confident of my memory!

Not familiar with articles by Jane's (but I have a copy of "Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1970-71".) Are they on line? Here's a excellent resource - Flight International magazine is online and searchable, a great source of information if you haven't used it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/

Russ Farris
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:06 pm

I don't know that there was a lot of difference in the GSE, but the extra height was probably a bit of an inconvenience for the ground staff.

I really appreciate having a well seasoned professional on this site. It also gives comfort that your recollections are generally in line with mine. Thanks for you contributions to the general body of knowledge on aviation.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:32 am

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 42):
I really appreciate having a well seasoned professional on this site. It also gives comfort that your recollections are generally in line with mine. Thanks for you contributions to the general body of knowledge on aviation.

Thank you sir! Airliner history discussions like this are my favorite part of Anet. The knowledge base here is always very impressive.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:09 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 39):
The DC-8 was designed with taller landing gear for a very specific reason - to have the future ability to stretch the fuselage, which is exactly what happened. The 707 short landing gear limited the 707s growth potential to the length of the -320 fuselage; any longer would limit rotation and lift off. That's a mistake Boeing didn't make again.

Sorry Maxpower, but I disagree. Boeing made the same mistake twice. Once on the 767, which is why building the -400 required a new gear, and with the 737NG. Although it has a new wing, and new landing gear, I have read from those who fly the -900 that that tail strikes can be a problem on rotation.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:24 pm

At least in the case of the 767, a major wing redesign wasn't necessary. The 767 was stretched once without a problem. The 737 has also been stretched several times without a major problem. The problem with the Max is the diameter of the new engines.

The 707 would have required major wing changes to accommodate any additional stretches.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:30 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 44):
Sorry Maxpower, but I disagree. Boeing made the same mistake twice. Once on the 767, which is why building the -400 required a new gear, and with the 737NG. Although it has a new wing, and new landing gear, I have read from those who fly the -900 that that tail strikes can be a problem on rotation.

That's true, but when the original 737-100 first flew in 1967 no one ever could have predicted the design would 45 years later evolve into the -900. They would have had been laughed right off the Boeing property!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:18 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 44):

Sorry Maxpower, but I disagree. Boeing made the same mistake twice. Once on the 767, which is why building the -400 required a new gear, and with the 737NG. Although it has a new wing, and new landing gear, I have read from those who fly the -900 that that tail strikes can be a problem on rotation.

You're correct and the 727, as great as it was suffered from a 'short gear' as well.


It allowed for a stretch to to the -200 but there wasn't much clearance at all, tail strikes were quite common.
Before the 757 was developed there was much talk of a 727-300 but a further stretch was impossible
without a taller gear.


There was no way to engineer that in without massive redevelopment.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
TN486
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:31 am

Arn't most of you off topic now!!!!!!!
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
 
masseybrown
Posts: 5573
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:40 pm

Re: RE: Why Did Convair Not Produce After The 880/990

Fri Sep 02, 2016 1:42 pm

Adipasquale wrote:
. What really was the beginning of the end for Douglas was their insistence on single-mindedly cranking out DC-6s and -7s, while Boeing moved forward with what would become the 707. In other words, the DC-8 did not put Douglas in a hole (it was profitable for Douglas), their refusal to develop a jet until too late is what did.


Fear of cannibalizing one's own profitable product with a replacement model paralyzes lots of companies. This fear played a big part in the decline of General Motors as well. As Steve Jobs said [paraphrasing], "If we don;t cannibalize the Mac, somebody else will."

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