So most people know that Ford's Edsel was supposed to the the "car of the future" and had a bunch of hype, but once revealed it failed badly.

What commercial airplane would be the Edsel of commercial aviation?

acjbbj wrote:

So most people know that Ford's Edsel was supposed to the the "car of the future" and had a bunch of hype, but once revealed it failed badly.

What commercial airplane would be the Edsel of commercial aviation?

the Lockheed L1011 Because there was no follow-up..

Or the MD-11. Succeeded in the cargo market, but failed in the pax market. Not a failure overall though, but still not a success.

Might be up there because it didn't meet its passenger-carrying promises by falling short on range and payload.

Another candidate I see would be the Dassault Mercure. Epic failure, only 12 built over 4 years, lived for only 24 years. Aggressive marketing and great short-field performance but only Air Inter bought it.

strfyr51 wrote:

acjbbj wrote:

So most people know that Ford's Edsel was supposed to the the "car of the future" and had a bunch of hype, but once revealed it failed badly.

What commercial airplane would be the Edsel of commercial aviation?

the Lockheed L1011 Because there was no follow-up..

The L-1011 was screwed by its dependence on the RB211. If they had gone ahead and offered the CF6 as an option, I would think they could have beaten MDC & the DC-10, especially in light of all the crashes.

I agree on the Dassault Mercure. Very promising, but it didn't work out.

Another example would be the DeHavilland Comet. It was very futuristic for it's time, but it had it's design flaws. Those were fixed in later versions of the aircraft, but by then the damage had already been done. It never became a success.

On the Russian side of the world, you could say the TU-124. It was supposed to be a smaller, regional version of the TU-104 which was quite a success. It didn't work out as planned. Later on, the TU-134 was able to do what the TU-124 was designed for.

The ridiculously short range killed this beauty. But in my mind, everything that went wrong was engineered OUT of the Airbus A320 family. They look a whole lot alike...



I have only read about this one. No idea how many were ever built. Smart idea, huh? Putting the engine CLOSER to the windows!

Those are my two votes.

The Edsel was a total failure; the L1011 wasn't.

I nominate the A380.

Mercure and VFW-614.

Also, I think Concorde has to be in the running here also.

acjbbj wrote:

So most people know that Ford's Edsel was supposed to the the "car of the future" and had a bunch of hype, but once revealed it failed badly.

What commercial airplane would be the Edsel of commercial aviation?

The Edsel - despite the hype - was just another ordinary Detroit car by the standards of the era. It did nothing new, attempted no new technological feats. It was based on both Ford and Mercury chassis of the time.

So, I nominate the MD-11. Based on the DC-10, it didn't advance the art of airplane manufacturing much. It underperformed relative to its competition, both in sales and fuel economy. It lost a pile of money for McDonnell Douglas. The tri-jet era was coming to a close - not unlike the end of the excesses of the '50s Detroit which the Edsel was symbolic of.

The future lay with the 777 and A330.

How much did MD lose between 1967-1997? Probably $100 billion or more.

But yes, the MD-11 is the Edsel of pax planes. Not for cargo, though.

757 and 767. Became obsolete after 1998 when its competitors (A321 and A330) are still in extremely high demand, despite being early '90s aircraft.

They also caused Boeing to lose its market share, as came out before 1987 when modern aircraft technology was developed (A320).

Slightly surprised no one has mentioned the Convair 990 yet.

Not pleased that my favorite aircraft might belong here..... .....



Conceived out of the stillborn ARJ for China and built to fend off the ambitions of Bombardier and Embraer to encroach at the lower end of the airliner market...the Babybus was done in by the PW6000's teething troubles, its own "shortcomings" and poor economics.

Undeservedly unsuccesful? The VC10. Feminine in beauty, like the Edsel was marketed as.

Hey guys,
I nominate the VFW-614.... New ideas, new look, total commercial failure.
I really hope to see one some day in a museum in Europe.
I guess the Convair 880/990 siblings could be classed as well as Edsels.
Cheers
Bunumuring

In the corporate world the Beechcraft Starship has got to be a contender.

MON wrote:

In the corporate world the Beechcraft Starship has got to be a contender.

I totally agree!
What an amazing plane. Such a shame it failed so dismally. I believe that Beech even had to buy back the surviving examples and destroy them : is that true or just a myth?
Cheers,
Bunumuring

PatrickZ80 wrote:

On the Russian side of the world, you could say the TU-124.

A more modern Russian example that's challenged to find firmer footing..... .....


http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... erlets.jpg

MON wrote:

In the corporate world the Beechcraft Starship has got to be a contender.

Speaking of 'pusher' prop aircraft, here's one that's currently making the news for its limited success.....




And where the A318 is, can Boeing's 736 be far behind?..... .....






https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/get ... emid=75471

1989worstyear wrote:

757 and 767. Became obsolete after 1998 when its competitors (A321 and A330) are still in extremely high demand, despite being early '90s aircraft.

They also caused Boeing to lose its market share, as came out before 1987 when modern aircraft technology was developed (A320).

With over 1000 sold of each variant your
contention makes no sense


The 757 and 767 have been extremely successful aircraft with a healthy market share and proven technology making them
passenger and airline favorites worldwide

Quite a few.

MD-90: Basically a tarted up DC-9 with new engines, marketed as a giant leap forward in technology. Sold about as well as sand in Sahara.
A318 & 737-600: Built to compete in market where they were heavier, burned more fuel and was much more expensive than the alternatives. The alternatives won the day.
BAC 1-11: BAC listened too much to BOAC, throwing away what could have been a very attractive 727 competitor to please them. Ended up being nixed by the very people who demanded it looked and worked the way it did.
B767-400: Eclipsed in every way by the A330. The model which might have saved a bit of the day, the -400ER, was cancelled when the sole customer was made an offer for 777s they couldn't resist.
MD-11: Failed spectacularly to meet contracted obligations, subsequently rather quickly dropped by most of those who did end up taking deliveries, whilst many others chose to cancel outright. Saved a bit of grace as a freighter, but a total of around 200 built is far from impressive.
SSJ: The epitome of how poor aftermarket support can ruin an otherwise promising offering

B777LRF wrote:

Quite a few.

MD-90: Basically a tarted up DC-9 with new engines, marketed as a giant leap forward in technology. Sold about as well as sand in Sahara.
A318 & 737-600: Built to compete in market where they were heavier, burned more fuel and was much more expensive than the alternatives. The alternatives won the day.
BAC 1-11: BAC listened too much to BOAC, throwing away what could have been a very attractive 727 competitor to please them. Ended up being nixed by the very people who demanded it looked and worked the way it did.
B767-400: Eclipsed in every way by the A330. The model which might have saved a bit of the day, the -400ER, was cancelled when the sole customer was made an offer for 777s they couldn't resist.
MD-11: Failed spectacularly to meet contracted obligations, subsequently rather quickly dropped by most of those who did end up taking deliveries, whilst many others chose to cancel outright. Saved a bit of grace as a freighter, but a total of around 200 built is far from impressive.
SSJ: The epitome of how poor aftermarket support can ruin an otherwise promising offering

The BAC 1-11 didn’t go up against the 727
perhaps you’re thinking about the Trident ?

I
The 1-11 was much smaller, in the same size range as the original DC-9 -10 and 737-100

The Trident, for sure. Even its off-set nose wheel competes with the Edsel's horse collar grill in the awkwardness award category...

Yeah. Trying to keep up with British European Airways Corporation's constantly-changing specifications killed it (only 117 built and no aftermarket freighter conversion to save it). Heck, British Airways threw out its tridents in 1985. Lived for only 33 years, compared to (for example) DC-10 still flown by FedEx that are almost 50 years old.