Boeing 417

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing 417.

Just after World War II, Boeing presented a concept for a feederliner, a DC-3 replacement. It comes as no surprise that the design never left the drawing board, as it bears an uncanny resemblance to the Douglas's unsuccessful DC-5. Source: Nicholas Veronico, Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (North Branch, MN: Specialty Press, p. 9)

Source: http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2172493080048918155kWtLjZ

 

[Steve Pace]

Cool! The guy in the back of the pickup truck must be very heavy...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

 

[MC72]

Similar plane of the previous Douglas DC-5, The "417" never reach the Sky, was propose as Feder Liner in the 1946 , but the market wasnt quite ready , and Boeing finished the project.
With two Wright Cyclone C-7 BA-1 and 20 passenger, the "417" would have been a good commuter , i imagine this bird as a Pan American colors switchig between mid size cities.

Saludos
MC72

 

[Stargazer]

Fabulous work! Welcome to the forum and keep the nice images coming...

 

[MC72]

Thanks Stargazer! I appreciate that .
There are a lot of subjects without a good images

Saludos
MC72

 

[gatoraptor]

If this was a postwar airplane, the two-bladed prop looks rather anachronistic.

 

[Apophenia]

That cutaway of the 417 also appeared in the July 1946 edition of Popular Science. http://books.google.ca/books?id=TCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22boeing+417%22&source=bl&ots=-shTyvlaaf&sig=lwgnnCow5dtYP9eX2JHuIWzzs00&hl=en&ei=J43YTJbFDIrEsAPk7fHwBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22boeing%20417%22&f=false

The caption says 20-24 pax and 800hp Cyclones. Flight (28 Nov 1946) adds an AUW 18,750 lb.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202270%20-%200158.html

Copies of the 1946 Boeing 417 manual are all over the web. The cover reads:
Boeing Airplane Company; General Description and Performance Analysis: Boeing 417 - WD-12086 - Issue #386; Wichita Division - Witchita, Kansas
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-25743750278216_2126_18016212

AeroKnow lists a cutaway of the 417 in the Journal American Aviation Historical Society 37/3 (Fall 1992) but I suspect this is the same drawing shown above. Other sources are:

Inter Avia (No.1166/15 June 1946): XB-42, Consolidated Vultee 240 and 110, plus Boeing 417

Décollage, La magazine de l'aviation mondiale, 3 Avril 1947. N° 53.
Le Boeing 417. In-4 de 18 pages illustrées de photographies noir et blanc. Couverture illustrée couleurs.

ps: gatoraptor, note the 3-bladed prop on the Décollage cover

 

[gatoraptor]

ps: gatoraptor, note the 3-bladed prop on the Décollage cover

That's what I would have expected, but the drawing in the first post clearly shows a two-bladed prop. The Decollage drawing looks like it might have been a variation of the same drawing.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

A recent donation to the Museum of a number of 8x10 photos had this image of the Model 417-36.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[OM]

Cool! The guy in the back of the pickup truck must be very heavy...

...Noticed that too, eh? It's either that, or the cutaway's wrong, and the plane's tail is on top of the truck's trunk.

[thinks]

...Which means the guy in the trunk's actually squashed flat!!

 

[Stargazer]

Allow me to put in perspective the Boeing 417 with similar contemporary projects.

Consolidated-Vultee Model 107:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10120.0

Curtiss-Wright CW-32:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5623.0

 

[taildragger]

it bears an uncanny resemblance to the Douglas's unsuccessful DC-5. Source: Nicholas Veronico, Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (North Branch, MN: Specialty Press, p. 9)

Source: http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2172493080048918155kWtLjZ


I feel compelled to stick up for the DC-5, which I've never heard referred to as "unsuccessful" in any technical sense before. As Ed Heinemann describes it his book Ed Heinemann - Combat Aircraft Designer, Hap Arnold personally delivered the news that the Air Corps was dropping the aircraft from the production program in order to standardize on one transport in this category, the C-47, not because of any shortcomings of the aircraft. I guess that makes it an unsuccessful project but everything I've read says the machine performed well.

 

[Stargazer]

it bears an uncanny resemblance to the Douglas's unsuccessful DC-5. Source: Nicholas Veronico, Boeing 377 Stratocruiser (North Branch, MN: Specialty Press, p. 9)

Source: http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2172493080048918155kWtLjZ


I feel compelled to stick up for the DC-5, which I've never heard referred to as "unsuccessful" in any technical sense before. As Ed Heinemann describes it his book Ed Heinemann - Combat Aircraft Designer, Hap Arnold personally delivered the news that the Air Corps was dropping the aircraft from the production program in order to standardize on one transport in this category, the C-47, not because of any shortcomings of the aircraft. I guess that makes it an unsuccessful project but everything I've read says the machine performed well.

The way I understand "unsuccessful" here is more from a commercial point of view. Apart from the DC-1 and DC-4E prototypes, all the DC-* series is made up of types that were very successful from a commercial point of view.

 

[taildragger]

Apart from the DC-1 and DC-4E prototypes, all the DC-* series is made up of types that were very successful from a commercial point of view.

If that were true, Douglas would still be around. I'm sure that the DC-9 series (including the MD airplanes except for the -95) made a boatload of money, but I doubt that any of their other jetliner programs did much better than break even and several were almost certainly big losses. Annual reports don't typically break out P/L by product line, so we're left to speculate, but:
Standard DC-8:
- According to the The Road to the 707 by William Cook, the 707 didn't break even until 500 were built (as I recall). Douglas built 294 standard DC-8s.
- average price was probably similar to the 707 but costs were probably higher, since:
- it was developed in a big, probably very expensive, rush to catch Boeing
- Douglas had no USAF tanker program to share the costs (in addition to R&D, Boeing was able to use much of the same tooling on the 707 and KC-135)
- The original DC-8 wing section didn't work out and Douglas had to modify early aircraft with a new leading edge - that sort of thing is a financial sinkhole.
Super DC-8
- was selling well when Douglas pulled the plug at #262 to concentrate on the DC-10. If it was very profitable, I suspect a different decision would have been made.
- was built in a period when Douglas lost control of costs and suffered such a cash squeeze that they were forced into the MD merger.
DC-10
- L-1011 average price was probably somewhat less than the DC-10 as Lockheed was reentering the market and costs were probably higher due to starting up a commercial division and having to wait on RB211s.
- Nonetheless, Lockheed wrote off $2.5B USD when the TriStar was shut down after 252 examples. Granted, that write-down also covered the shut down of the airliner business, but TriStars were 100% of the product line. Let's be charitable, and speculate that the DC-10 was only $1B in the red after the first 252 examples. Could they have made that back on the remaining 194 examples? Competing against 767s and A310s? Remember the DC-10 never really shook off the taint of several accidents and a grounding - this may have something to do with retiring the DC designation in favor of MD.
- I recall that when the USAF selected the KC-10 in 1977, one of the justifications was that it would keep MDD in the airliner business.
MD-11
- During it's production run, MDD collapsed into the arms of Boeing, who pulled the plug after #200.
- initially failed to meet range guarantees, prompting loud complaints from American Airlines, perhaps others, and a modification program.

Perhaps a Douglas alumni can weigh in, but I doubt that DC/MD jets as a whole made much money.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks a lot taildragger for this detailed and sensible analysis. You are right indeed, apart from the DC-9 series, none of Douglas's jets were profitable enough to generate profit and save the company from extinction. One can also add that if the world market had remained in the hands of only Boeing and MDD, the latter might have been able to sell more, but the advent of Airbus made it impossible for them to compete. Besides, the DC-10 range lacked the modularity that Boeing offered on their 747, with short and long versions, freighter and passenger, etc.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


also from Aerophile magazine,here is an artist drawing to Boeing Model-417.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Boeing Model 417 with a small info about Model 431.


Airpower 2/2007

 

[sienar]

"The Model 417 local service transport was ordered into quantity production at Boeing Wichita in 1946. This cutaway drawing of the two-engine, high-wing plane with tricycle landing gear, shows the basic arrangement whereby it was to have accommodated 20 passengers with a large cargo compartment at the rear and a smaller cargo compartment and hand luggage spaces at the front. The Model 417 was to have been offered with alternate interiors. However, the program was cancelled before production could get off the ground."

source;

http://www.boeingimages.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2JRSN23CD8R_2

 

[hesham]

From Decollage 4/1947.

 

[hesham]

From Boeing magazine 1946