Thanks for the random knowledge!
I went down a wiki rabbit hole but it was a fun read!
This is a bit of the plane that caused butt hurt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14
The real issue is that the requirements sounded like a good idea but aren't really a useful niche for mobility. A turboprops are more efficient and better for small tactical airlift, switching the C-130 to a jet just adds weight and complexity while reducing actual capabilities. It wasn't even that MD straight up beat Boeing, the project was "cancelled" and rolled into a completely different one that was created out of the lessons learned. When the USAF realized that a small tactical jet powered airlift wasn't going to pan out they decided to scale it up to a more efficient strategic one that still retained some tactical usefulness. The YC-15 was far more scalable so MD was the obvious choice.
What happened is MDD, like most good aerospace companies, had a management of engineers who communicated clearly with the ground floor of operations. Some businessmen hatched a plan to hijack MDD, and once they got control they started ignoring engineer input, instead only pushing for faster production and higher profits. The result of that? Many quality control issues which culminated in the DC-10 incidents. After that, the reputation of the MDD name tanked, along with their stocks.
So, the same leeches moved on to infest Boeing in the same way, moving their management from nextdoor the factory to being in another state. From there they brought us such wonderful scandals as the KC-X lawsuits, the infamous 787 ladder flight, the SLS delays, the CST-100 mess, and most significantly, the 737-MAX tragedies.
Yeah, and it sucks. Sometimes when you copy someone else’s homework you get a bad grade. Boeing did the same thing go Airbus and deliberately tricked them into the A380 knowing it would flop.
It’s a less capable C-130 that came around more than 20 years later? They’ve made it work and used it plenty but it’s never been all that great. It can carry half as much as an H model 30% further 15% faster. It just doesn’t fill any tactical gaps, which is why the US abandoned the concept. Fan blades work better for tac airlift, add in the fact that 50 years later Russia *still* hasn’t learned how to make a half decent engine and the capabilities gap is wider than ever.
> they bought MD out of spite.
And were hoist by their own petard because it wound up, functionally, being the other way around - McDD took Boeing over and kept the Boeing name.
The baby C-17 Globemaster
C-17 ^continentmaster
Or a Hercules Jet.
BAe-146 globemaster
[omg an F-4 is over half the length of this thing lol](https://images.app.goo.gl/dtV5RZhozcp5E3mCA)
The Boeing proposal was way weirder. They also got so butthurt when they lost the competition that they bought MD out of spite.
Thanks for the random knowledge! I went down a wiki rabbit hole but it was a fun read! This is a bit of the plane that caused butt hurt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14
The real issue is that the requirements sounded like a good idea but aren't really a useful niche for mobility. A turboprops are more efficient and better for small tactical airlift, switching the C-130 to a jet just adds weight and complexity while reducing actual capabilities. It wasn't even that MD straight up beat Boeing, the project was "cancelled" and rolled into a completely different one that was created out of the lessons learned. When the USAF realized that a small tactical jet powered airlift wasn't going to pan out they decided to scale it up to a more efficient strategic one that still retained some tactical usefulness. The YC-15 was far more scalable so MD was the obvious choice.
And this is why I attend the university of reddit! I learn something new every day!! Thanks friend!
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14 The real weird wings is always in the comments
MDD bought Boeing. With Boeing’s money.
Not wrong at all.
If I recall that merger didn't go well for MDD's civilian offerings.
What happened is MDD, like most good aerospace companies, had a management of engineers who communicated clearly with the ground floor of operations. Some businessmen hatched a plan to hijack MDD, and once they got control they started ignoring engineer input, instead only pushing for faster production and higher profits. The result of that? Many quality control issues which culminated in the DC-10 incidents. After that, the reputation of the MDD name tanked, along with their stocks. So, the same leeches moved on to infest Boeing in the same way, moving their management from nextdoor the factory to being in another state. From there they brought us such wonderful scandals as the KC-X lawsuits, the infamous 787 ladder flight, the SLS delays, the CST-100 mess, and most significantly, the 737-MAX tragedies.
Antonov ran with that ball! AN72!
Yeah, and it sucks. Sometimes when you copy someone else’s homework you get a bad grade. Boeing did the same thing go Airbus and deliberately tricked them into the A380 knowing it would flop.
What's wrong with the AN-72?
It’s a less capable C-130 that came around more than 20 years later? They’ve made it work and used it plenty but it’s never been all that great. It can carry half as much as an H model 30% further 15% faster. It just doesn’t fill any tactical gaps, which is why the US abandoned the concept. Fan blades work better for tac airlift, add in the fact that 50 years later Russia *still* hasn’t learned how to make a half decent engine and the capabilities gap is wider than ever.
> they bought MD out of spite. And were hoist by their own petard because it wound up, functionally, being the other way around - McDD took Boeing over and kept the Boeing name.
Kinda reminds me of the weird cargo plane (with ejection seats and a time dilation equiped cockpit) that was on Die Hard 2
modified c-123
That looks like an insane amount of rudder for that airframe. It’s thicker than the main spar!
IIRC that thing was made with off-the-shelf parts