Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

GOT: The Boeing 307 Stratoliner

GOTTHREAD

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#11 PMN1

PMN1

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 8 Months and 11 Days
  • 234 topics

Posted 02 September 2011 - 08:01 PM

I thing the de Havilland Albatross was a beautiful design, but never made it in service.


Imperial Airways Albatross started operating between the UK and France late 1938.

#12 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,582 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 9 Months and 21 Days
  • 117 topics

Posted 02 September 2011 - 08:50 PM

The first delivery to Imperial Airways was the 22-passenger DH.91 Frobisher in October 1938. The five passenger carrying aircraft were operated on routes from Croydon to Paris, Brussels and Zurich. After test flying was completed the two prototypes were delivered to Imperial Airways as long-range mail-carriers. The only significant season of their operation was the summer of 1939, when they were the main type on the two-hourly London Croydon to Paris Le Bourget passenger route.

Faraday: Mail carrier variant was delivered to Imperial Airways in August 1939 as Faraday and registered G-AEVV. it was transferred to BOAC when it was formed in 1940 but was impressed into Royal Air Force service with the serial number AX903 for operation by No. 271 Squadron RAF. It was destroyed after a landing accident at Reykjavik on the 11 August 1941.

Franklin: Mail carrier variant was delivered to BOAC as Franklin and registered G-AEVW. Impressed into Royal Air Force Service with the serial number AX904 for operation by 271 Squadron. It was destroyed when the landing gear collapsed on landing at Reykjavik on the 7 April 1942.

Frobisher: Passenger variant was registered G-AFDI and delivered to Imperial Airways (later BOAC) as Frobisher in 1938. It was destroyed on the ground during a German air attack on Whitchurch Airport on 20 December 1940.

Falcon: Passenger variant was registered G-AFDJ and delivered to Imperial Airways (later BOAC) as Falcon in 1938. It was scrapped in September 1943.

Fortuna: Passenger variant was registered G-AFDK and delivered to Imperial Airways (later BOAC) as Fortuna in 1939. Destroyed in a crash landing near Shannon Airport, Ireland on 16 July 1943.

Fingal: Passenger variant was registered G-AFDL and delivered to Imperial Airways (later BOAC) as Fingal in 1939. Destroyed in a crash landing near Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire, England on 6 October 1940.

Fiona: Passenger variant was registered G-AFDM and delivered to Imperial Airways (later BOAC) as Fiona in 1939. It was scrapped in September 1943.

Wiki

#13 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,283 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 21 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 02 September 2011 - 11:32 PM

Thanks for maing my point that the Albatross never made it in commercial service as a success.

A total a seven aircraft were built and when I think of a commercial success, I usually think in numbers considerably greater than seven; say, 200.

Did it fly commerically? Yes. Was it a success? Not by my standards. They built 244 BAC-11 jets and that is the bottom edge of "commercial success" in my book, which hovers at about a build of about 200 for me to consider it a success. Thuis definition of mine is changing as the costs of development change.

Your own defiition of "commercial sucss" may vary, but the type should at LEAST repay it development costs and make a profit for the company for it to be a success. Seven aircraft will NOT repay the development costs alone, much less make a profit.

The A380 has an anticipated break-even point in 2015. It already has 231 orders and hasn't broken even yet. You KNOW the project is expensive when it won't break-even with 200+ planes on order.

#14 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 5 Months and 21 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 03 September 2011 - 01:10 AM

Thanks for maing my point that the Albatross never made it in commercial service as a success.

A total a seven aircraft were built and when I think of a commercial success, I usually think in numbers considerably greater than seven; say, 200.

Did it fly commerically? Yes. Was it a success? Not by my standards. They built 244 BAC-11 jets and that is the bottom edge of "commercial success" in my book, which hovers at about a build of about 200 for me to consider it a success. Thuis definition of mine is changing as the costs of development change.

Your own defiition of "commercial sucss" may vary, but the type should at LEAST repay it development costs and make a profit for the company for it to be a success. Seven aircraft will NOT repay the development costs alone, much less make a profit.

The A380 has an anticipated break-even point in 2015. It already has 231 orders and hasn't broken even yet. You KNOW the project is expensive when it won't break-even with 200+ planes on order.


Something may have happened to prevent the commercial development of the Albatross.....

Also remember that the number of airliners in service in the late 1930s was much less than today, and I'm sure the break even point was fewer units than for the likes of the A380.

de Havilland could have persued development of the Albatross post war, as Lockheed did with the Constellation and Douglas did with the DC series, but realised that it was too small for future use. Instead they built the Comet.

#15 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 5 Months and 21 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 03 September 2011 - 01:36 AM

While I echo Lightning's sentiments on RT's posts, I don't agree with this - both Stratoliner and Stratocruiser have aways just seemed to bulbous to me. Like a B-17 who ate a DC-3...


I think aesthetically the problem for the Stratoliner is that the fuselage is too short for its diameter. A fuselage extension both for and aft of the wing would do wonders for its looks.

The Stratocruiser, on the other hand, is just plain ugly!


RT, very nice job.

#16 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,283 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 21 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 03 September 2011 - 01:50 AM

Hi Wuzak,

I think you are right. The break-even on the Albatross was probably somewhere around 25 - 40 aircraft, and they didn't make it. But the skin it used pioneered the Mosquito skin, so they learned sometheing from the exercise.

I understand that the Alabtross failed because it didn't do very well in the open and the tail warped in wet conditions. Perhaps they changed the internal structure on the Mosquito, I can't say. I do know the Albatross was not a success.

Personally, I think it was a good-looking airliner, for a small one, and might have been good as a larger design. The same can be said for others that just had bad timing. The SAAB 340 comes to mind.

Edited by GregP, 04 September 2011 - 02:38 AM.


#17 martha124

martha124

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 19 Days
  • 0 topics

Posted 03 September 2011 - 04:23 PM

http://t3.gstatic.co...TTrujWM2tbyDUMw

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1aYhoPWuCPYftvFitOQoxuYabury9NxXXQnK0ca3a4Wf9IZl_

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5ukrwNh0Vw39mLehh9RTA5MXraLUxVm0AIrkXPG6lakqkO0Pk9g

Great collections....:)

#18 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,283 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 21 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 04 September 2011 - 01:29 AM

Me too Martha, and welcome to the forum.

Please feel free to jion right in and post. We love new members and this is a pretty friendly community most of the time.

#19 curmudgeon

curmudgeon

    Regular Member

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,057 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 9 Months and 4 Days
  • 28 topics

Posted 05 September 2011 - 06:19 AM

Hi Wuzak,

I think you are right. The break-even on the Albatross was probably somewhere around 25 - 40 aircraft, and they didn't make it. But the skin it used pioneered the Mosquito skin, so they learned sometheing from the exercise.

I understand that the Alabtross failed because it didn't do very well in the open and the tail warped in wet conditions. Perhaps they changed the internal structure on the Mosquito, I can't say. I do know the Albatross was not a success.

Personally, I think it was a good-looking airliner, for a small one, and might have been good as a larger design. The same can be said for others that just had bad timing. The SAAB 340 comes to mind.


OK, it was a pre WW II aircraft, prettier, faster, smaller than the DC-3. By 1938 dH was moving to a war footing, the Albatross wasn't a war plane. Post WW II the design was dead, it wasn't on the Brabazon list, it would have needed 'resurrecting', and it was ranged against 10 000 war surplus DC-3s. No brainer. Could it have sold 50 airframes if WW II hadn't intervened? Moot point. We need to remember there wasn't much of an international market in airframes pre WW II, and air travel was seen as a limited market in Europe. My guess is that it would have been pushing it.

#20 Romantic Technofreak

Romantic Technofreak

    GOT Custodian

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,038 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 15 Days
  • 297 topics

Posted 07 September 2011 - 04:17 PM

Oops, found another picture on my HD! (Source: Flickr, James Vaughan's *X-Ray Delta One* account)
Posted Image


Thank you for laud and contributions, friends!:)

Well, you can discuss if the Boeing 307 is a beautiful aircraft or not. It has been called "portly", depending on the comparedly short and thick fuselage, but this was due to the passenger capacity requested at this point of time. Later passenger aircraft may look better, but they can't deny the Stratoliner standing in the direct line of their technical predecessors.

Once there will be a GOT topic about the DH Albatross, and your welcome input here will of course be merged!

Regards, RT





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GOTTHREAD

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users