Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bönan

A modern Dc-7 - what would happen?

Recommended Posts

This is just something that struck me, and I knot it's a highly theoretical question. However, I thought someone might find it interesting too.

 

So, the Douglas Dc-7 must be considered the "ultimate" propliner (sorry Connie guys...), able to cruise at 330+ knots and fly up to 4900 nm (the C-model). Now, what if we built a new, modern Dc-7 incorporating modern materials and techniques?

 

  • Improved airframe for reduced drag, add winglets
  • Reduce weights by using modern materials
  • Modern propellers
  • A modernised engine design, still using piston engines but again incorporating modern ideas and materials.
  • Computer control to maximise the effectivity of engines and other systems.

After these modifications, and possibly something else I've forgot to mention, how much could we improve the performance? As I understand it, the most advanced propliners were almost as fuel effective per passenger as modern long-range jets. A more modern design should be able to improve fuel efficency even more. Could this be a modern, super-efficent green airliner? Propably not...

 

Oh how I wish there was a aircraft design simulator, I would love it...

Share this post


Link to post

Airliners don't like 4 engines as it is double the maintenance so a modern Douglas DC-7 would likely be a 2 engine turbo prop not much different then a Dash 8 or an ATR 72.

 

Even the Dash 7 didn't work out like the Dash 8 as it was a four engine aircraft. Also today the 747-800 is a hard sell against the 777 for the same reason, the only 747-800 customer was Lufthansa. The Airbus A340 wasn't a commercial success either due to 4 engines and has a low resale value compared to other airliners.

Share this post


Link to post

People, at least Americans, have gotten used to the speed of jets. Cross-country in a propliner probably wouldn't be popular. I remember years ago someone came up with a turbo prop like engine to replace the jet engines on the 727. It was immediately quashed and never heard of again. I always wondered about that one because it was like 75-80% the speed of a jet powered 727.

Share this post


Link to post

I still think that the TU-95 was a clever design, because Russia didn't have the jet technology at the time, they used turboprops instead, and its still in service with the Russian air force, being first introduced in 1956. There was a civilian version as well the Tu-114, but to my knowledge its long out of service.

Share this post


Link to post

If I was rich I'd own a DC-7 or a Connie for long range trips and a DC-3 or 4 for shorter trips VS owning a gulf stream and a lear jet,but sadly I'm not rich...... Airlines are dumb when a 777 looses an engine over the poles it needs to find a place to land when a 747 looses an engine it keeps going to destination.I remember it happened to a BA 747-400 they had to shut an engine down after takeoff from LAX did they come back and land? Nope they flew it all the way to England if it had been a 777 they would of been forced to come back.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


A modernised engine design, still using piston engines but again incorporating modern ideas and materials.

 

Jet-A is cheaper than 100LL fuel.  That being said, the DC-6/7 use 130 Octane which is even more expensive.  But if you were able to design an engine to run on 100LL I don't think it would have enough power.  The only option would be to go Turboprop.  Once you have made this decision you'll notice there are aircraft that fit the DC-7 bill already.  A Q-400 almost flies the same amount, just as fast if not faster.  The only reason you would see anything like this would be for a very small niche in the Industry.  It would be in cargo if anything, and it would be EXPENSIVE.  The only aircraft I really know thats almost completely redeveloped is the DC-3.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed, past a certain power requirement, piston engines just aren't fuel efficient enough anymore.  We have much better alternatives, though. And once you strike the engines, what you end up with is in essence a Dash 8.

So, very good thinking, but some companies were ahead of you ;-)

 

 

 

 


The only 747-8 customer was Lufthansa

Now, now, don't forget Korean, Arik Air, Air China, Transaero, a bunch of undisclosed orders, AND, the very reason the 747-8 was designed, the heap of 747-8f customers. The 747-8i probably won't be a commercial succes, but the 747-8f will more than make up for it. Especially once we get out of this damn recession...

Share this post


Link to post

Now, now, don't forget Korean, Arik Air, Air China, Transaero, a bunch of undisclosed orders, AND, the very reason the 747-8 was designed, the heap of 747-8f customers. The 747-8i probably won't be a commercial succes, but the 747-8f will more than make up for it. Especially once we get out of this damn recession...

 

Don't get me wrong....the 747 will always be my favourite airliner, it was just unfortunate to see so little orders for the 747-800 in the commercial market this time round, but understandable.

 

Also no customers from the US companies so Americans have to fly the 747-800 with Germany, Korea or China. It would have been nice to fly on a 747-800 from Sydney to Los Angeles on United or American

Share this post


Link to post

bönan,

 

Personally, I think an airplane could be built with the features you list, but that's just the exterior. In a world where the 50 pound roll behind carry on is the rule rather than the exception, you would be hard pressed to find enough room for both carry on luggage and passengers, let alone all of the amenities needed by today's traveling Public.

 

The DC-7 was the Queen of the Skies in its day, at a time when traveling by airplane was an event, instead of just another way to get somewhere. The travelers of yore didn't bring on massive carry on bags, 18 wheel strollers or need 1.21 jigawatts [sic] of Power to run their myriad of devices. As a whole, they were also much more polite and patient than today's passengers.

 

Leave the allure of the beastly, throaty R-2800 and R-4650 in the past, where it belongs. This is the 21st Century, where patience and tolerance are thin, and airplanes are designed to be disposable; to be stripped and left to the scrap dealer out in the High Desert..  

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest if the plane was going to be re-done it will probably be turbo props which are quieter and more comfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest if the plane was going to be re-done it will probably be turbo props which are quieter and more comfortable. 

Ah yes- memories of the Vickers Viscount and Vanguard!

The latter with much of the interior fittings in brain deadening harmonic rattling / vibration as the four props went in & out of synch! 

The Viscount however, was a fine airplane from passenger viewpoint.

Spent many hours aboard these airplanes- and happy to switch to DC8s when they arrived on the scene.

january

Share this post


Link to post

Don't get me wrong....the 747 will always be my favourite airliner, it was just unfortunate to see so little orders for the 747-800 in the commercial market this time round, but understandable.

 

Also no customers from the US companies so Americans have to fly the 747-800 with Germany, Korea or China. It would have been nice to fly on a 747-800 from Sydney to Los Angeles on United or American

 

Why do you keep calling it the -800? It's not a -800 it's a -8. The -8 is used to signify the fact that it has technology from the 787. Just because it went -100 thru -400 doesn't mean it just JUMPS to -800. It's a whole new series.

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...