Convair 990A - fastest airliner
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Convair bet on speed vs fuel economy, and lost the bet. Pretty plane(s).
Other than over cost and under performance requirements it seems neat.
Classic over promise and under deliver.
Classic over promise and under deliver.
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Convair bet on speed vs fuel economy, and lost the bet. Pretty plane(s).
Ironically - in about 2000, Boeing made almost the same bet with the new airplane after the 777.
It was called the "Sonic Cruiser" and designed for high speed flight on long, thin routes. It would have cruised at 0.95 IM and they got that speed with a canard, rear delta wing design.
But, after the oil price spikes in 2003, airlines clamored for efficiency, Boeing went back to the drawing board, and started designing a super-efficient airplane of conventional configuration, with a 0.82-0.85 IMN cruise speed. The working name was the 7E7 (E for efficiency).
But we know it as the 787.
Convair bet on speed vs fuel economy, and lost the bet. Pretty plane(s).
Ironically - in about 2000, Boeing made almost the same bet with the new airplane after the 777.
It was called the "Sonic Cruiser" and designed for high speed flight on long, thin routes. It would have cruised at 0.95 IM and they got that speed with a canard, rear delta wing design.
But, after the oil price spikes in 2003, airlines clamored for efficiency, Boeing went back to the drawing board, and started designing a super-efficient airplane of conventional configuration, with a 0.82-0.85 IMN cruise speed. The working name was the 7E7 (E for efficiency).
But we know it as the 787.
Last edited:
Superb vid Shannow.
Did you guys see the last record the 787 put up?
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news...ntic-speed.html
A hefty tailwind got them to 776 mph.
Did you guys see the last record the 787 put up?
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news...ntic-speed.html
A hefty tailwind got them to 776 mph.
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Didn't they learn from the Concorde
Who, Boeing?
Sure, they learned, when the government pulled the plug on the 2707 (a Mach 2.5 airliner, with swing wings, and twice the capacity of the Concorde), which sounded the death knell of supersonic airliners. Concorde was built with heavy subsidies, and Air France never did make a profit with their airplanes, though BA made a profit with theirs towards the end.
What the good folks at Boeing were trying to achieve with the Sonic Cruiser, was to bump right up against the speed of sound, without having to contend with the drag rise of transonic (and supersonic) flight.
The Sonic Cruiser would have flown at 0.95+ IMN but at the same fuel efficiency as the 777. So, sure, they learned from Concorde that had over twice the fuel consumption of the 747 (fuel consumption is measured on a per seat-mile basis, and is critical to airline costs) and in the Sonic Cruiser, Boeing had an airplane that would cut two hours off a flight to Tokyo, without burning any more fuel than a 777 on the same route.
But even that performance was not as compelling as flying the same route, at the same speed, while cutting fuel consumption by 25%. Airlines wanted low cost over speed.
The Convair had the fatal flaw of burning considerably more fuel for a slight increase in speed...which made it hard to market, even when fuel was cheap...
Didn't they learn from the Concorde
Who, Boeing?
Sure, they learned, when the government pulled the plug on the 2707 (a Mach 2.5 airliner, with swing wings, and twice the capacity of the Concorde), which sounded the death knell of supersonic airliners. Concorde was built with heavy subsidies, and Air France never did make a profit with their airplanes, though BA made a profit with theirs towards the end.
What the good folks at Boeing were trying to achieve with the Sonic Cruiser, was to bump right up against the speed of sound, without having to contend with the drag rise of transonic (and supersonic) flight.
The Sonic Cruiser would have flown at 0.95+ IMN but at the same fuel efficiency as the 777. So, sure, they learned from Concorde that had over twice the fuel consumption of the 747 (fuel consumption is measured on a per seat-mile basis, and is critical to airline costs) and in the Sonic Cruiser, Boeing had an airplane that would cut two hours off a flight to Tokyo, without burning any more fuel than a 777 on the same route.
But even that performance was not as compelling as flying the same route, at the same speed, while cutting fuel consumption by 25%. Airlines wanted low cost over speed.
The Convair had the fatal flaw of burning considerably more fuel for a slight increase in speed...which made it hard to market, even when fuel was cheap...
Remember TWA's 880 water wagons smoking out of Albuquerque.
This aircraft was actually no faster in cruise in service than the far more abstemious Boeing 720B.
The Boeing probably had a better wing, requiring none of the goiters that the Convair 880 grew in its 990 development.
The Pratts that Boeing used were also probably better engines than the GEs that Convair selected.
IIRC, General Dynamics sustained one of the largest corporate losses seen up to that time on this program, measured in the billions of early sixties dollars.
Quite a change from the very successful Convair piston twin program that preceded this disaster.
The Boeing probably had a better wing, requiring none of the goiters that the Convair 880 grew in its 990 development.
The Pratts that Boeing used were also probably better engines than the GEs that Convair selected.
IIRC, General Dynamics sustained one of the largest corporate losses seen up to that time on this program, measured in the billions of early sixties dollars.
Quite a change from the very successful Convair piston twin program that preceded this disaster.
Elvis had an 880. It's still sitting across from Graceland, on Elvis Presley Blvd.
Enjoyed the video. Thanks for posting.
As a young lad (born in 1953) I had the good fortune to fly a lot with my parents - dressing up in my little man suit and tie with polished shoes!
Anyway, I flew on many Pan American 707s, United DC8s, and American Airlines Convair 880s and 990s - as well as 2 or 3 AA Lockheed Constellations.
I remember my Mom being disappointed that we were flying on a "prop job" (the Connie).
Those were the days. Magnificent machines.
Scott
Anyway, I flew on many Pan American 707s, United DC8s, and American Airlines Convair 880s and 990s - as well as 2 or 3 AA Lockheed Constellations.
I remember my Mom being disappointed that we were flying on a "prop job" (the Connie).
Those were the days. Magnificent machines.
Scott
- Status
