If you could bring one out-of-production plane back from the dead, what would it be?

For aesthetics, or because you assume they would actually be flown for their originally intended purposes?
Airliner, GA, military?

Goes without saying the 757.

SR-71

757-300. I like how long it is, the longest narrow-body ever built. The A321 may be a good replacement for the 757-200, but nothing replaces the 757-300.

IL-62 with modern hi bypass turbofans. Enough power to go from 4 to 2 engines.

DC-10-30 (for purely aesthetic reasons), however changing the layout in economy from 2-5-2 to a 'modern' 3-3-3 (it's still 9 abreast).

The Concorde.

The 717. Boeing should have continued production and renamed the MD-90 717-300 or something.

757 by a mile. It pains me to see less and less 757s every time I travel. Aviation, while more efficient and environmentally friendly, has become so much less fun when my only options on 95% of US domestic flights are 737s and a320s. Bland, the toyota camrys of the skies.

nonflier wrote:

DC-10-30 (for purely aesthetic reasons), however changing the layout in economy from 2-5-2 to a 'modern' 3-3-3 (it's still 9 abreast).

I've never for the life of me understood why 3-3-3 is so strongly preferred over 2-5-2. Who wants to add 2 extra opportunities to be stuck in a middle seat? How many people actually travel in groups of 3 that NEED to be sitting directly next to each other with no isle in between? There must be an industry reason this is preferred (something about IFE I think?) but for travelers I can't imagine how 3-3-3 is better.

No contest...

PatrickZ80 wrote:

757-300. I like how long it is, the longest narrow-body ever built.

Incorrect. Certain DC-8 stretches were approximately 10 feet longer (DC8 Super 61 and 63).

I'd go for the 727, although I also like the 757.

The 757-300, hands down. It's so sexy, so athletic-looking. The long and lanky flying pencil with the takeoff performance of a rocket. It's a damn shame there weren't more of them built.

Beechcraft V35 Bonanza - maybe an update with two doors and a composite wing.

Here's what I was thinking of:

MD-11ER (not the standard MD-11) with new and extended landing gear, 20-25% bigger rudder, wing engines mounted further out, and modern engines (three Trent 1000-R)

And for the Airbus A340neo:

- A340-300 becomes A340-800 and gets upsized, 40 000 lbf "Leap 1A40"
- A340-600 becomes A340-900 and gets "Trent 5000"

Trent 500 engines should be brought back if they are indeed out of production and would be used to power An-124's.

Kno wrote:

I've never for the life of me understood why 3-3-3 is so strongly preferred over 2-5-2. Who wants to add 2 extra opportunities to be stuck in a middle seat? How many people actually travel in groups of 3 that NEED to be sitting directly next to each other with no isle in between? There must be an industry reason this is preferred (something about IFE I think?) but for travelers I can't imagine how 3-3-3 is better.

You're right ... unless you get the middle seat of the 5 central seats, which is really awful. That's why I think 3-3-3 is arguably preferable to 2-5-2.

Kno wrote:

I've never for the life of me understood why 3-3-3 is so strongly preferred over 2-5-2. Who wants to add 2 extra opportunities to be stuck in a middle seat?

There's 3 'middle' seats in either config so don't know where these 2 extra opportunities come from.
w-m-a _a-m-a_a-m-w
w-a_a-m-m-m-a_a-w


I believe the preference is due to the feeling of being crowded and crammed in, experienced by the majority on board that have been shoved in the denser middle 5.
3-3-3 just feels less dense/crowded.


The correct answer is Concorde (maybe with more fuel efficient engines).

Vickers Vanguard

Chuck on some slightly uprated PW150s and new avionics and you have fast 100-120 pax shorthaul propliner.

Also Lockheed L-188 with modern avionics and refinements, 25% bigger propellers with the same overall appearance and shape (keep the four blades), and 20% longer wings. New engine as well, likely PW150.

Slight stretch to be configurable for up to 130 pax or so.

StrandedAtMKG wrote:

The 757-300, hands down. It's so sexy, so athletic-looking. The long and lanky flying pencil with the takeoff performance of a rocket. It's a damn shame there weren't more of them built.

Well said. Boeing doesn't need to add another widebody to their family. Put some modern engines, avionics, etc. on the 757 & for Heaven's sake, keep the mid-cabin door! That's one of the reasons why airlines are choosing the A321 over the tired 737s. then just call it the 797. Done.

A340 and the Super Connie

FatCat wrote:

A340 and the Super Connie

Well here it is:

acjbbj wrote:

And for the Airbus A340neo:

- A340-300 becomes A340-800 and gets upsized, 40 000 lbf "Leap 1A40"
- A340-600 becomes A340-900 and gets "Trent 5000"

Trent 500 engines should be brought back if they are indeed out of production and would be used to power An-124's.

The "Lockheed Constellation Next Generation" series:

- LM-049J
- LM-349J
- LM-749J
- LM-1049J
- LM-1249J
- LM-1649J "Super StarLiner"

Chemist wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

757-300. I like how long it is, the longest narrow-body ever built.

Incorrect. Certain DC-8 stretches were approximately 10 feet longer (DC8 Super 61 and 63).

TU-144 and Concorde were longer, too. If I am not mistaken, the Concorde wins this section with almost 62 m.

I would want the Do X back. But that's a really wet dream...

acjbbj wrote:

FatCat wrote:

A340 and the Super Connie

Well here it is:

acjbbj wrote:

And for the Airbus A340neo:

- A340-300 becomes A340-800 and gets upsized, 40 000 lbf "Leap 1A40"
- A340-600 becomes A340-900 and gets "Trent 5000"

Trent 500 engines should be brought back if they are indeed out of production and would be used to power An-124's.

The "Lockheed Constellation Next Generation" series:

- LM-049J
- LM-349J
- LM-749J
- LM-1049J
- LM-1249J
- LM-1649J "Starliner NextGen"

A340s are perfect as they are
But everyone wants the new toys -- to buy or lease and leave them parked without engines

L-1011 , just because I love it.

To make it more real I would say a B-757-250-MAX-LR (with 787 Cockpit and Cabin Style , Cabin Fibre Materials and new Engines )

Delta777Jet wrote:

To make it more real I would say a B-757-250-MAX-LR (with 787 Cockpit and Cabin Style , Cabin Fibre Materials and new Engines )

And put the thick part of the fuselage forward of the wings instead of aft for better area ruling.

Seriously, there is no currently produced aircraft that can do what the beaver does. It's nice that the Other is getting a new run, but it is a lot of aircraft for the bush.

No real new development is needed. Build them to the specs of Viking's Turbo Beaver upgrade, you're good to go.

757-300 with two Trent 500 or Trent 700

Modifications for 3496.23 fan RPM on takeoff

Wright Flyer, with new engine option.

For nostalgia reasons the list is endless.

For commercial reasons, I think the only type that would actually sell (without modifications or upgrades) would be the Boeing 717 as it still has demand with several operators and tends to operate short, high yielding routes so it doesn’t have to be super efficient. Of course it would likely be prohibitively expensive to get the production line running again.

757/767 would need a MAX option to sellable.

VC-10.

Seabear wrote:

VC-10.

VC-10-80 (baseline)

VC-10-90 (stretch)

Certainly the Tupolev Tu-154. It's such a beautiful and iconic plane. Also the Ilyushin Il-62 and 86, Boeing 727 and 757.

BAC 111, DC8, 707, MD11.

I never got to fly on any of those and that needs to be addressed.

CPHFF wrote:

IL-62 with modern hi bypass turbofans. Enough power to go from 4 to 2 engines.

A modernized IL-62 with two very large rear mounted high bypass engines that are almost as wide in diameter as the fuselage itself would be quite the sight to see.

A modernized AN-225

Concorde, Boeing 717, Boeing 757 - all equipped with modern engines with better efficiency

Airstud wrote:

BAC 111, DC8, 707, MD11.

I never got to fly on any of those and that needs to be addressed.

Airstud wrote:

BAC 111

Heck, they should resurrect the Avro RJ.

I imagine trijets making a comeback if we see need for STOL freight aircraft, but for now that is only a dream. And speaking of the MD-11, that plane with larger and (much) more powerful engines would be perfect. Needs a couple of changes, though:

1. Newer, thicker wings
2. Increase the distance between the engine's and fuselage's centre lines by about 20% (move the engines 20% further out)
3. GP7277 engines
4. Vertical stabiliser above the tail engine is made about 30% taller
5. Any other necessary modifications/enlargements that would be needed. Beefier landing gear would be included.

acjbbj wrote:

Airstud wrote:

BAC 111, DC8, 707, MD11.

I never got to fly on any of those and that needs to be addressed.

Airstud wrote:

BAC 111

Heck, they should resurrect the Avro RJ.

No need; as I have already been on a BAe 146 (airBC, YEG-YVR, January 2001)

757 hands down

Douglas DC-3. Easy to fly, easy to fix.

FCOTSTW wrote:

Douglas DC-3. Easy to fly, easy to fix.

Boeing DC-3-70, DC-3-80, and DC-3-90, turboprop powered.

The Ilyushin 62 is an amazing and interesting aircraft which I'd like to see come back to commercial service. They could modernize it, and (if possible) give it 2 engines instead of 4. I have heard that Ilyushin is considering a 2 engine IL-96, so maybe they could bring back the Il-86 but give it 2 engines, and call it a variant of the Il-96.

The 757, with more efficient engines and more range.

For fun, 727.

For usefulness of an airline, 757 or 717 seem to fit the bill and needs of airlines these days.