Competent − but too big?
 

Recent discussions on VC10 and Concorde threads lead me again to wonder: has any competent airliner-type ever failed on account of being too large for the job? A quick search has not revealed any previous thread, but let me know if there is one.

I can think of several big aircraft that were slow to catch on; and some that inspired short-fuselage versions to improve range, perhaps only until more power became available.

Let’s think back as far as the 1920s: the basic rules haven’t changed. You can include freighters; rotor-wings, if you can think of one; and aeroplanes that operate from water.

There is just one in my mind that might fit the bill. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone agrees with me. In the meantime, “after you…”

Brabazon comes to mind.

Btw, the VC-10 is no mirage!

What is the better plane - Brabazon or XC-99?

What about the Howard Hughes monster, Spruce Goose?

But what was the payload?

Big can be good, big with small payload is useless for most purposes - certainly most commercial ones.

G

What about Rosanne Barr and Dawn French?

Competent - But Too Big
 

There were only 56 Boeing 377's Stratocruisers built.

Soviets built a couple of An-225 Cossacks to transport bits of space kit and one may still be flying. Wingspan was not far short of 300ft. That count?

The title of this thread is a classic.

And I'm either immature or have just been flying far too much and am suffering withdrawal symptoms from ...

Hi guys,

I'm not in charge of this discussion; ;) but, for what it's worth, I did say competent... I'm not sure that the Brabazon and Princess quite achieve that soubriquet, due primarily to lack of power?

The weakness in my question may be that "failed" is a subjective term. For me, the starshift10-quoted 56 Stratocruisers (about the same number as the too-small VC10) is getting darn close. I suppose you have to compare it with the opposition, to some extent? Was the Stratocruiser really too big, or were there other problems?

Keep them coming,
Chris

I think I'm with High Heeled - slightly confused about use of the word "competent" and "failed" in the same question. Surely, competent = fit for purpose = not a failure?
However, reading into what Chris is getting at I wonder about the A340-600. A successful aircraft but perhaps too big to get easily into a few awkward fields that it otherwise is ideally placed to serve (e.g. Iberia over run at Quito)

OK:

"Competent" = It achieves the original objective, or - if you like - "what it says on the tin".

"Failed" = Airlines buy far more of at least one smaller aircraft that is available for the same mission; is otherwise no more "competent" than the big one; and is no less expensive per passenger seat.

Hope this helps.

They may have only built 56 Startocruisers, but didn't they build plenty more for the airforce as refuellers/transports? Dunno about competent tho, plenty of examples of prop/engine failures on them.

Well...as I've actually flown the Stratocruiser (although it had been just slightly ahhh, enlarged from the original design:rolleyes:), it was a very nice flying aircraft, but rather complicated electrically...and then there were the engines, Pratt&Whitney R4360's...very smooth in operation (almost turbine-like) however extremely complicated bits of machinery (a supercharger and a turbosupercharger), that consumed enormous quantities of oil (never mind fuel) and, on some models, were fitted with Curtis-Electric propellors, the complexity of which would glaze over the eyes
of the most attentive of mere pilots...

Stratocruiser, the operation of which, best left to the Flight Engineer....and an old experienced one, at that:}

From a number of fascinating conversations with the late Dick Stratton, who was flight engineer on the Princess (and went on to FTE some equally impressive projects) the basic problem with the Princess was that it was a big seaplane, at the time when the world was building runways around the world and seaplanes were becoming superfluous. As an aeroplane, and within the available technology of the 1950s, it seems to have been pretty effective.

Dick did tell me once that he believed he had the world record for simultaneous engine failures - 6 !

G

Dubious. There is that other ten engine plane, with hundreds of frames in service. What has been the absolute record for simultaneous engine failures out of those 6 turning 4 burning?

Interesting respose 411A. I know this is off thread, but I am sure it would be of interest
to readers - How many flight crew and cabin crew did the B377 carry and what were their titles/duties? I assume your flying on them was with an American carrier as your location is posted as the beautiful state of Arizona. :confused:

Normal crew complement...eight.

Capt
F/O
F/E
Navigator

Purser
3 CC

Some Stratocruisers had a statemoom at the aft end, beds and all.

All of my flying was on freighters, however.

Quote from Post #1:
…has any competent airliner-type ever failed on account of being too large for the job?
I can think of several big aircraft that were slow to catch on; and some that inspired short-fuselage versions to improve range, perhaps only until more power became available.
[Unquote]

411A, it looks as if your Stratocruiser may well be an exception that proves the normal rule: that airliners can never be too big, provided they are technically sound (and not underpowered or underfuelled).

My crew experience does not include the post-war large pistons, although their magic qualities hooked me into aviation as a boy, and I flew in several types as SLF. But think it’s safe to say that, by the mid-to-late 1950s, some of the big radials had achieved a state of power and sophistication that reintroduced alarming levels of unreliability. Did the Stratocruiser engines fall into this category? If so, was that why the Stratocruiser failed to sell in large numbers, compared to the DC6s and L1049s? Bars and bedroom areas do hint that the cabin might have been too large in volume, but is it possible that there was a payload or payload-range problem as well?

What sort of payload-range was available for your freighter (Guppy?), and was the P&W R4360 the same engine as the airliner and military transports had (unlike the Super Guppy)?

The Stratocruiser piston engines were nearly at the top of the chain for complexity, topped only by the CurtisWright turbocompound series, which I also flew...on 1649 Constellations.

Excessive oil consumption was a rather large problem, but was overcome by a central fuselage oil tank, which could supply each 38 gallon engine tank.
Another problem was propellers...aircraft destined to Northwest were equipped with Curtis Electric props, which had hollow steel blades.
Corrosion was a big problem with these steel blades, often originating under the de-ice boot.
Blade departs...engine departs...goodbye airplane, was the scenario.
Later on, all of these Curtis props were retired, and the fleet standardized with the Hamilton Standard aluminum bladed propeller.
The Stratocruiser was quite a complicated electric airplane.
The landing gear was electrically operated, and sometimes, during gear retraction, all engine driven DC generators would trip offline, the ships battery would then be not able to complete gear retraction...at this point, if an engine was to fail, continued positive climb would be impossible...in fact, the battery may well have been quickly drained of capacity with a failed gear retraction, then no power was left for the feather pump, to complete feathering of the offending propeller...goodbye airplane.
Hydraulic boost was provided for the rudder, and this was the beginning of rudder boost problems for Boeing...which later on carried over to the B707 and B737.
Not many were built mainly because there were not that many customer airlines that a) could have afforded to operate the beast, b)needed it for very long range flights, and c)had the expertise to keep this mechanical nightmare in the air.

Yes, I flew the piston-powered Guppy.
Can't remember the payload possible, but the airplane was restricted to 250 knots TAS, mainly to keep the quite large front end, just above the FD, from structurally failing...which it did on one occation.
A very big 'dent'.
Not pretty....:ooh: