[rollei_list] Re: OT - The Concorde
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:14:19 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
The biggest problem with correcting conventional wisdom is that so frequently,
the corrections are equally wrong... ;-)
I am familiar with the Dash-80 doc to which you refer and there are other
accounts what provide alternative details... it is all interesting and I'm sure
"the truth" lies somewhere in the mix...
Eric Goldstein
-----Original Message-----
From: David Seifert <dseifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Apr 22, 2005 12:50 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT - The Concorde
The biggest problem with conventional wisdom, is that it is so
frequently wrong. The history of the development of the
367-80/707/KC135 is a very interesting and has many twists and turns.
The 367-80 designation was chosen by Boeing to throw the competition off
the track. Model 367 was a large piston driven B-29 derived commercial
aircraft known as the Stratocruiser. Boeing built the Dash 80 as a
demonstrator, not a prototype. It was designed in secret and built
entirely on company money. Boeing bet to company on the project. As an
aside, Boeing would do the same thing (bet the company on a big idea)
in the late 60's with the 747 program. The purpose of the demonstration
was to get a piece of an anticipated USAF contract for a jet tanker.
The newly developed practice of mid-air refueling long range jet
bombers had shown that piston driven tankers required the jet bombers to
slow to near stall speeds. Upon demonstration the Dash 80 was
acknowledged as largely meeting the USAF needs but the internal politics
were wrong for Boeing. The Air Force really wanted to buy a plane that
Lockheed was proposing but could not deliver for a while. The Air Force
ordered a small number (29 to be precise) of Dash 80 derived KC135s from
Boeing but intended to buy a much larger number of the preferred
Lockheed plane. I mention that the KC135 was a derivative of the Dash
80. The Air Force required that the KC135 have a larger fuselage cross
section than the Dash 80 which required quite a bit of redesign. An
interesting thing is that the KC135 had a circular cross section where
the 707 is bi-lobal. They really were not the same aircraft. In the
fullness of time the Air Force changed their mind about the Lockheed
aircraft. My guess is that the "Senator from Boeing" Henry "Scoop"
Jackson had something to do with it although there can be no doubt that
the KC135 was a near perfect plane for the job.
The development of the 707 followed a similar pattern. The initial 707
design was close but not quite what the airlines really needed. Pan Am
bought a small number of the 707-120 for initial service but planned to
buy a much larger number of the yet to be delivered DC-8. Seeing that
the 707-120 needed to be larger Boeing went about creating the 707-320
Intercontinental. The stretch required a new wing design and
consequently is really a whole new plane. The 707-320 is the model that
was produced in large volumes and the plane we think of when we say
"Boeing 707." Douglas had the benefit of watching what Boeing was doing
and learned from the mistakes and as a consequence the first DC-8 was a
much more durable design.
Marc is correct in that without the initial KC135 contract Boeing would
not have had the resources to have spun-out the 707 series.
Most of this information was covered in a one hour documentary of the
Dash-80 originally shown several years ago on the Discovery Wings channel.
Jerry, first flight of Dash 80 was July, 1954. First KC-135 flight was
August 1956. Initial USAF purchase contract issued in 1954. First
707-120 flight December 1957.
Sources: Boeing, NASA and Airliners.net websites
Ardeshir, with respect to your suspicions about BA and AF claims that
Concorde operations were unprofitable, I point out that your assumption
about actual fares paid per passenger is wrong. The price a handful of
celebrities paid to be on the last flight is not reflective of the
actual fares charged during revenue service. Large numbers of seats
were sold to Cunard as part of QE2/Concorde packages. These were
regularly scheduled flights not charters like the ill-fated AF flight.
BA routinely offered Concorde seats as an even swap for full-fare first
class sub-sonic seats on a space available basis. Also, your dates for
revenue service are wrong. The Concorde first flight was, indeed, in
1969 but final approval for operations between JFK and LHR was not
achieved until 1976 when revenue operations began. This changes your
depreciation numbers quite a bit.
David
Other related posts:
