Aircraft That Never Were - McDonnell Douglas MD-12

"Jcarr" (jcarr) 03/12/2015 at 11:50 • Filed to: Planelopnik

9

100

The McDonnell Douglas MD-12 was a four-engine, double deck, superjumbo airliner concept conceived in the early 1990s. Powered by 4 GE CF6-80C2 high-bypass turbofans, the MD-12 was designed to have a maximum capacity of 511 passengers in 3-class configuration, and a maximum range of 9,200 miles.

Although the concept received a fair amount of attention from the press, no orders were ever placed. The lack of interest from carriers coupled with mounting debt at McDonnell Douglas caused the MD-12 project to be scrapped.

For Sweden > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 11:52

129

Although the concept received a fair amount of attention from the press, no orders were ever placed.

Every car loved by Jalopnik, ever.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 11:52

3

What a stumpy butt...

E. Julius > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 11:52

0

It must suck when put all that work into designing something that never even gets built.

TheHondaBro > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 11:53

6

*cough SS cough*

Carl (@stuffcarlsays) > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 11:54

0

This.

Cé hé sin > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 11:54

2

Ooooh, an A380! Kind of.

Jcarr > E. Julius 03/12/2015 at 11:54

4

Yeah, it was probably a frustrating time at MD back then.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 11:55

4

It's a vicious cycle. We would buy all those cars based on bad judgment if we had the money. We don't have any money because we buy other cars (used) and so on due to bad judgment.

Mattbob > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 11:56

4

but does it get you where you need to go as well as MD-2020?

Jcarr > Cé hé sin 03/12/2015 at 11:58

1

I know. MD and Airbus had talked about collaborating on a superjumbo project in the 80s I believe, but it never went anywhere. Interesting how the MD-12 and A3XX projects came out looking.

Jcarr > Mattbob 03/12/2015 at 11:59

0

Not as tastily.

straz85 > E. Julius 03/12/2015 at 12:07

3

You must not work for a company with an R&D department. This isn't uncommon. I work for a relatively large software company (4,000 employees well over .5B in yearly revenue) and the amount of projects that never see the light of day is crazy. We have several development teams working on projects and only a small number will ever make it past the R&D stage.

Buckus > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 12:07

63

United, Delta, American, etc...were all just waiting for slightly used off-lease models to show up after three years and then pick them up for 1/2 off!

Buckus > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:08

1

I wonder how this compares with the A380.

Jcarr > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 12:08

4

Slightly smaller, comparable 3-class capacity, shorter range.

E. Julius > straz85 03/12/2015 at 12:09

0

I'm a college student : P

The company I've interned for does not have an R & D department though!

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:10

1

Fascinating, and a wild looking plane. I was reading just the other day, and was going to make a post about, the MD-10. That is a project that takes older DC-10 airframes and replaces the entire flight deck (and other bits certainly) with a more modern MD-11 version. From Boeing:

The MD-10 program allows operators to retrofit DC-10s with a new, advanced- technology flight deck. Benefits of the retrofit include a two-person flight deck, weight savings, increased reliability, and commonality with the MD-11 fleet.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer…

Jcarr > ttyymmnn 03/12/2015 at 12:12

1

Interesting, I knew the MD-10 existed, but didn't know what made it different from a DC-10.

Ike B > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:12

6

If only McD had given it a manual transmission option, that MD-12 may have been the most popular plane in the sky.

Jayhawk Jake > E. Julius 03/12/2015 at 12:13

2

Depends at what stage in design it gets cut. This doesn't seem like it every got far. If it was in detailed design phases, yeah, that would suck.

Too many M's > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:13

2

I propose the Lockheed L-2000...one of many SST aircraft that never was :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_…

Jayhawk Jake > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:14

0

This landing gear doesn't really look very well thought out

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:14

2

:D

E. Julius > Jayhawk Jake 03/12/2015 at 12:14

0

I have no idea how much work would be involved with getting an airplane design to the point pictured. Thanks for the insight!

Unspiek Baron Bodissey > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:16

0

Lucky for it looked fugly, perhaps as much as the A380.

MonkeePuzzle > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:17

0

any pic comparing it in size to a 747?

Jayhawk Jake > E. Julius 03/12/2015 at 12:17

1

The point pictured could have taken all of a day.

I worked in configuration design for a while. Some things I worked on only lasted a week before we moved on to something different, other things were worked on for a few weeks/months before being dropped, but it was never really frustrating for me as I lived for that early design phase. There were a few moments where I was bummed something died off because I liked it, but it wasn't devastating or anything.

But if we got to the point of getting ready to make tools and cut metal and then cancelled the program I'd be pretty upset. Then again so long as I still have a job, oh well. There's value in the lessons learned along the way.

ZeGermanPwa > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 12:18

12

Why buy a Cessna Caravan when you can have this A380 instead?

Jcarr > Jayhawk Jake 03/12/2015 at 12:19

0

Reminds me of this:

Pacorro > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:19

0

That tail shape is very original. I wonder if Airbus could had competed with this thing on the air in the mid-90's.

Malibu603 > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:20

0

I thought the A380 was ugly...this thing handily beats that in the ugliness department. Wow. It looks like something a 5 year old would draw. Or a beluga whale.

Jcarr > MonkeePuzzle 03/12/2015 at 12:20

0

None that I could find.

ICrackMeUp > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 12:22

0

If they had made it for Europe and not brought it to the states, it would have been perfect.

Titan-E34 > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:25

0

thats a Big Bird

MonkeePuzzle > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:25

2

I made one! using guessing... and not measuring.

its short!

ironparachute > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:26

8

Boeing had some crazy concepts too. See this little gallery of the Boeing model archives on the Airways website... though it oddly doesn't include the trijet 747 concept which, as you can see, looks like the lovechild of a Lockheed L-1011 and a 747.

heeltoehero > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:27

2

I imagine the range issue is mostly a result of the intervening 20 years of tech development. If i showed the phone in using to type this to engineers in 1995, they'd wet themselves.

Jcarr > ironparachute 03/12/2015 at 12:29

0

Wow, I've never seen that before. That would have been weird.

ironparachute > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:33

3

As far as I recall the trijet required too much re-engineering for the 747 design that they decided to make the SP model instead. I could be wrong about the SP origins, but I'm pretty sure that the need for new wings and the tail-mounted engine made the project cost-prohibitive. Would've been interesting nonetheless!

Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time? > Ike B 03/12/2015 at 12:36

1

I'm sure they could paint it brown, but can jet engines run on diesel?

Maybe, but not recommended ... http://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/17/jet…

Odin the S60RD > straz85 03/12/2015 at 12:36

1

I don't think I've seen someone express 500M as .5B before today.

straz85 > Odin the S60RD 03/12/2015 at 12:42

0

I like to think outside the box.

f86sabre > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:51

2

FedEx has a bunch.

Jimbobway > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:51

0

interesting profile on the lower section here. Kinda neat.

irisfailsafe5000 > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 12:52

6

I want to add the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. it was a plane that would have consumed the same fuel as a 767 but with a top speed of mach 0.9 with the option of going to Mach 1+ if Airlines desired. It was proposed in 2001 but with rise in oil, the project was scrapped and Boeing used it's development (like a carbon fiber body) and made the 787 Dreamliner.

Chally72 > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 12:52

2

For the price of this new 777, you could have 4 used MD-12's!

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 12:54

1

By the time this proposal rolled around, MDD's reputation was in the dumper due to over-promising and under-delivering, the MD-11 being a perfect example. AA wanted to use it to fly from their new hub in SJC to Japan, but because of the higher than planned fuel consumption, they couldn't put enough in it for that flight. As a result, they had to take off from SJC and fly 5 minutes to OAK to top off. More landing fees, more stress on the airframe due to the extra landing. Eventually, after years of tweaks and refinements, the aircraft came close to delivering what was promised, but by then it was too late. Couple this with a reorganization in which everyone was fired and had to reapply for their jobs, and the long-term viability of the company was seriously in doubt.

GovtMinion > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 12:56

2

That's why you NEVER buy a new airliner, you know the value just plummets the instant it flies off the lot...

LoremIpsum010101 > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 03/12/2015 at 13:05

1

"As a result, they had to take off from SJC and fly 5 minutes to OAK to top off."

...the fuck?!

ranwhenparked > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 13:22

0

I remember being quite disappointed when McDonnell-Douglas got absorbed by Boeing. They really weren't viable as an independent company anymore, but it was sad to see another competitor in the commercial airliner market disappear and leave Airbus and Boeing in a more boring duopoly (United Aircraft doesn't count, they sell like 1 plane every 2 years).

Jcarr > ranwhenparked 03/12/2015 at 13:30

0

I agree, I have a soft spot for the DC-10 and MD-11. Beautiful birds.

kernow > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 13:37

4

I could fill a very long list of planes that never were. I'll settle for the BA P.125 because it looks like it's straight out of a 1980 cartoon.

Yep British Aerospace wanted to build a stealthy supersonic STOVL fighter with no windows and the pilot sat as if he was in his favorite comfy chair in front of the TV.

Instead we get the F-35b.

For Sweden > f86sabre 03/12/2015 at 13:55

3

Thank you FedEx and KLM, the retirement home in the sky.

TheHondaBro > Jayhawk Jake 03/12/2015 at 14:11

1

It probably works well with weight-distribution. The 747 really doesn't need its nose gear for anything other than steering. It can stand perfectly without its nose gear.

TheHondaBro > Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time? 03/12/2015 at 14:13

2

WAAAAAAAAGGGOOOOONNN!!!!!!!

Harris_the_Unknowing > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 14:27

0

I wonder what it would be like to try to sell one to Carmax?

noise > ranwhenparked 03/12/2015 at 14:31

0

What about Embraer an Bombardier?

Jayhawk Jake > TheHondaBro 03/12/2015 at 14:34

1

No.

It'll fall on its belly without a nose gear.

There's a couple problems with the nose gear I highlighted. For one thing ground handling would suuuuuuuck. It would be so hard to line up with anything on the ground because it's so ridiculously aft of the cockpit. Secondly, and more importantly, it doesn't look far enough from the mains to prevent tip over in turns. The aft mains are also too far back in that view, it would actually be difficult to rotate.

The drawing looks more correct.

Source: I have a degree in aerospace engineering

McPherson > MonkeePuzzle 03/12/2015 at 14:36

1

A little stubby, I would have held out for the stretch version.

fivepointnine > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 14:46

0

World airlines flies some MD11's too (contracted Military flights to Iraq and Afghanistan, I flew on a couple)

clear-prop > ironparachute 03/12/2015 at 15:00

0

The tail of that 747double looks a lot like the 747LCF tail. Still not as fugly as an A380 though.

pyramidofgreatness > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 15:10

0

Plenty of orders went through....under Airbus for the A380...

this thing is just as big and beluga-ish as the A380.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 15:14

1

You've just described Delta's ACTUAL purchasing strategy, though they tend to wait until the aircraft in question are 10-15 years old.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > noise 03/12/2015 at 15:22

0

They play in the regional just market, though Bombardier is moving into the mainline market with the C-Series .

MonkeePuzzle > McPherson 03/12/2015 at 16:08

1

that what she... nevermind

maxburto > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 16:14

0

Looks like the stumpy B-52 tail... Were they planning on an optional tail gun?

maxburto > MonkeePuzzle 03/12/2015 at 16:17

0

Ha! Imagine how awkward it would look if NASA had chosen the MD-12 as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.

Jim is one of KFCs secret ingredients > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 16:47

1

I bought a ton of these back in the day on Aerobiz Supersonic.

J "oppo" Zeke > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 17:04

0

Background: I'm an industrial/transportation designer.

Ungainly designs, or radical designs seem to be a hard sell in aerospace. I know that engineers are "selling" viable concepts to other engineers in essence, but it strikes me that most of the aircraft that never saw the light of day just seem "off" to my designer's eye.

In contrast, the most successful birds all look "right." Who can deny the elegance of the 747, or the globalist-modernity of the A380? Is the 787 not gorgeous as well? Howabout the slim and sexy regional jets plying short haul routes?

In military aviation I see the same thing over the decades: successful airframes seem to have elements of convention in their form. From the F-15 referencing F22 winning over the YF-23 (I realize there was A LOT more to that program but it has to be mentioned) to the C5 Galaxy. There's something inherently good in winning designs that is universally understood.

Granted: many failed programs Ive loved can be beautiful too: XB-70 Valkyrie anyone?? And some successes which are ugly at first morph into classics with enough familiarity: Hercules, I'm talking to you big guy.

If an aerospace engineer can either prove or disprove or at least lemme know if this track makes sense that'd be awesome!

BraappBraapp > Mattbob 03/12/2015 at 17:08

1

Depending on the weather, similar levels of induced vomiting.

tripzpedalz > ttyymmnn 03/12/2015 at 17:09

1

It's quite interesting. The DC-10 (and MD-10) is one of the safest and more reliable older planes out there. It's enjoyed quite the swan song in cargo service. Because of all the bungled safety issues in the beginning as a pax aircraft, it's safety record actually improved as it aged, which is rare.

ranwhenparked > noise 03/12/2015 at 17:47

0

Bombardier, Embraer, (and COMAC, and soon, Mitsubishi) are regional jets, not mainline airliners.

Dieter > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 17:56

0

This looks better than the A380 that Airbus is producing.

Uncle Bobby G, baby! > Jim is one of KFCs secret ingredients 03/12/2015 at 17:57

1

You and I both good sir. Forgotten gem from the 16 bit era, I'd kill for a updated version.

Jim is one of KFCs secret ingredients > Uncle Bobby G, baby! 03/12/2015 at 18:00

0

I still play it on occasion when bored on an emulator.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > LoremIpsum010101 03/12/2015 at 18:04

0

Perhaps if the runway at SJC was longer they wouldn't have had to make that stupid extra stop, but AA bought the aircraft on the promise that it could make the flight from SJC to NRT using the existing runway. Eventually it could do it, but it was too little, too late, and MDD died amongst a pile of failed promises.

LoremIpsum010101 > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 03/12/2015 at 18:05

0

Ah, so the runway wasn't long enough for it to take off with a full tank of gas? Yikes!

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > LoremIpsum010101 03/12/2015 at 18:11

0

It wasn't the fact that the runway was too short, but that MDD guaranteed that the flight could be done with the existing runway. Had they lived up to their performance promises it wouldn't have been a problem.

ccc40821 > kernow 03/12/2015 at 18:35

0

There's a long list of planes that never made it.

Uncle Bobby G, baby! > Jim is one of KFCs secret ingredients 03/12/2015 at 18:47

0

As do I.

There's a game (iOS and Android) called Pocket Planes, same developer as Tiny Tower. I consider it an "Aerobiz Lite," same deal opening hubs, airports etc etc, but sadly no multiplayer element to speak of.

4b11t > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 21:12

0

Too bad the GE CF6-80C2 didn't come in a 40-speed manual.

4b11t > straz85 03/12/2015 at 21:14

0

Same here. We have about 6500 people and a little over a bil and to cobble together something like the MD12 would've taken maybe an afternoon to get prelim spec and some basis sketches together.

bratkitty > Buckus 03/12/2015 at 21:21

1

United, Delta, American, etc...were all just waiting for slightly used off-lease models to show up after three years and then pick them up for 1/2 off!

Why buy a new Boeing 737 when you can get an used McDonnell-Douglas MD-12 for the same price?

4b11t > Jcarr 03/12/2015 at 21:21

0

Pffft... it's called the SkyWhale, bitches!

Morris Minor > ranwhenparked 03/12/2015 at 21:47

0

I was disappointed too, because it brought the mediocrity of McDonnell Douglas into Boeing. The DC-10 was inferior to the Lockheed L-1011 and the competition between the two made them both poor business propositions. It drove Lockh Ed out of commercial aviation. The DC-10 was famous for its spectacular crashes, cargo door latch failure into the woods in Paris, engine mount failure for American out of O'Hare while the passengers watched on cockpit tv, all-hydraulic system failure making United 232 land in Sioux Coty trying to steer with throttles only. It's a pity Boeing just didn't let McDonnell Douglas exit commercial aviation altogether.

Morris Minor > ironparachute 03/12/2015 at 21:50

0

I've never seen that concept either. Pretty wild.

Morris Minor > irisfailsafe5000 03/12/2015 at 21:52

0

The high-speed idea banged around for a while, long enough that it was known as the Chronic Snoozer. It would have been fast but burned more oil. As oil prices rose, that became an unattractive option.

Forester guy > For Sweden 03/12/2015 at 22:19

0

hahah You got that right.

vegasstyleguy > ZeGermanPwa 03/12/2015 at 23:30

1

Fucking brilliant lol

noise > ranwhenparked 03/12/2015 at 23:45

0

as a layperson, whats the difference?

and whats to stop bombardier from making a scaled up regional and calling it an airliner?

ranwhenparked > noise 03/13/2015 at 00:27

0

Well, regional jets are airliners, just regional airliners. Smaller payload and shorter ranges, generally used for regional/feeder routes and other low-density services. There's a limit to how much a plane can be scaled up, based on its wing and tail designs, what engines it can accommodate, etc. Bombardier does offer a stretched version of their regional jets, the CRJ1000, which has up to 100 seats, which puts it just slightly under the smallest 2-class configurations of the Boeing 737. At the moment, that seems to be about as big as they can take it. Although it is similar in passenger capacity, it still only has about half the range, which is the significant difference. The 737 can theoretically be used on longer haul routes, if you really needed to.

Bombardier is working on an entirely new design, their C-Series, which will compete squarely with smaller mainline airliners like the 737 and A320. A few prototypes are flying right now and they have over 200 firm orders, but entry into service has been pushed back a few times and is probably going to happen in either the latter part of this year or early 2016.

noise > ranwhenparked 03/13/2015 at 14:07

0

I've flown in a few bombardier regionals and was impressed with them, they were nice.

I find myself rooting for the little guys, competition is more fun than just boeing and airbus and noone else.

But theres a strong aviation heritage in the finger lakes down here, maybe i'm just pining for the days of small companies in fierce competition

kernow > ccc40821 03/13/2015 at 17:16

0

Luigi Colani's are just a design study rather than a serious attempt at building a working aircraft. Just like The Whale.

ccc40821 > kernow 03/15/2015 at 14:30

0

I know, but they're beautiful noneless...

burntartichoke > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 03/16/2015 at 16:30

1

It really isn't a looker but McD-D was looking at the aerodynamics of the Screwdriver tail since the '80s so this is probably just the natural evolution from the MD-80's tail.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > f86sabre 05/19/2015 at 15:23

0

MD-11s

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ranwhenparked 05/19/2015 at 15:25

0

Yes, but as soon as Boing bought MD, they changed the name of the MD-95 to a B7-whatever.

f86sabre > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 05/19/2015 at 16:37

1

They have MD-10s as well.

http://www.fedex.com/us/charters/md…

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > f86sabre 05/19/2015 at 16:48

0

Given your screen name, I will assume that you know what you are talking about!

f86sabre > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 05/19/2015 at 18:04

1

Thanks, and I do!