The hub and spoke model is self limiting due capacity limits at the hub airports - with growth, hubs will encounter real estate and operational limits, resulting in a limited number of operations and increasing ATC delays. Point to point makes more sense, and Boeing obviously made the right call when they eventually shelved their 747-8 for the 777ER and the versatile 787 that can operate at any airport served by jet transports...
@@jimmbbo Given that the origin of many point to point flights is often a large hub airport, an increasing prevalence of point to point traffic would if anything increase the number of flights hub airports need to accommodate - hence for example the desire to build a third runway in Heathrow. The simpler explanation is that ETOPS extensions and the better fuel economy of twin engine wide bodies have sealed the fate of tri- and quad-engine planes, as given the choice most of us would prefer a direct flight over changes at hub airports.
Interesting, I did a small internship at McDonnell Douglas back in 1989. I remember going to meetings discussing the future of the MD-11. The LR and "stretch" plans were in the works back then. I also remember talks and concept ideas for the MD-12 and a small RJ I believe was going to be the MD-93. Instead of jets mounted near the tail section, it was going to have propellers.
Reputation was poor for MD-11 because design didn't meet with promised fuel proposals. American Airlines was disappointed, and sold their MD-11's. The sales for passenger models fell sharply and thus one of the only happy customers was FED-EX with a all cargo version.
1) Twin engine wide body Would also love to see your take on a pair of twin engine wide bodies: -The AMTR and later dubbed the DC-11 -The twin DC-10 or twin MD-11 I understand both were considered at multiple instances. 2) Douglas had more influence over Airbus than viceversa. Yes! The original A300 is essentially a plane mostly designed by former Douglas engineers after they were laid off following the disastrous merger with McDonell.
@@RS-ls7mm Air bus has had their own share of problems, not everything has been wonderful for them. But the planes of the last 20 years from them are far better than the previous 20.
The MD-12 would have come at the perfect time. It would have had the success the A380 envisioned. Having worked on the MD-11 for almost a decade, I'm sure the MD-12 would have been a remarkable and perfectly engineered aircraft.
Agree'd 100%. However, knowing the Long Beach Manufacturing Facility... MD-12 size would have been a challenge to build with facility that existed at the time. MD may have made final assembly somewhere other than Long Beach.
@@votes-haveconsequences2165 - Would it have been engineered in fields all over the world like the DC-10, and to a lesser degree the MD-11? I flew both, so I’m not a hater, but MD engineering was definitely second rate.
Not a case of courage or “balls” as you put it, but rather easy government money to get them through it... if Airbus had faced the same financial constraints as a fully privately held company like Boeing/MCD, they too would’ve probably injected reason into the A380’s mostly ego driven project.
@@sheldoninst Only Boeing has been heavily subsidised by the state and also by DoD with lavish cost plus miitary contracts, hence why the EU and US are engaged in stupid tariffs against each other. Save the tariffs for the Chinese!
@@Hattonbank Note quite the same thing... As is the case for Boeing (and formerly Lockheed and McD), Airbus is composed of 2 entities: Airbus Defense and Airbus Commercial. It's perfectly ok for Airbus Defense to receive government contracts in exchange for military hardware... however, the other entity Airbus Commercial used to blatantly receive direct SUBSIDIES - a practice that has since been changed to one where Airbus now receives extremely favorable nearly 0% interest loans, and *ONLY RETURNABLE* as long as the plane in question is in *STILL IN PRODUCTION*!! - a form of subsidy indeed. Therefore, the European governments are NO longer expected to receive "loan" repayments from Airbus for the A380 - not a penny since it's cancellation! Meanwhile, Boeing Military (and formerly Lockheed and McD) receives military contracts from the government IN RETURN for military hardware... this is NOT a SUBSIDY.. on the other hand Boeing Commercial (as was the case for formerly Lockheed Commercial and the Douglas Commercial side of McD) do NOT receive any government subsidies nor favorable loans for aircraft development... otherwise both Lockheed Commercial and McD would have remained in business which is the point of this entire video which properly shows how McD could not raise the sufficient funds to develop this new aircraft!!!! Incidentally, of course Boeing Military and Boeing Commercial will exchange IP - they should! Next, the state level tax breaks for Boeing were only granted to remain competitive and keep Boeing in WA state; otherwise they move to a no/low tax state!!! Not only that, this puny little state level tax break is a pittance in comparison to the advantages of Airbus' former subsidies and favorable loan terms. And lastly, I do agree with you that both Europe and the US should better coordinate their ire towards the chinese.
Thanks man! I had a lot of fun putting it together and I hope you enjoy the rest of the videos. Aiming for two videos a week so should have another one later
@@theskyline1425 Actually, it was McDonnell that cut corners at Douglas after their merger.. Douglas' lucrative commercial business was basically ransacked by McDonnell to help them through their F-4 Phantom troubles (which they eventually sorted out).
A terrible decision for Boeing to "buy out" Wall Street Driven MD and allow the management from MD to virtually "take command" of the "engineering driven" Boeing Company. Now the Boeing company is concerned mainly with shareholder return and profits and builds crappy commercial aircraft compared to Air Bus. Boeing wanted into the Defense Contractor business/ They made that happen through the MD acquisition. "A bad trade-off" for the general flying public that will trash Boeing's reputation until they go bankrupt.
To be fair it was still a lot smaller, the A 380 has a passenger limit of 853 (typical seats 575), while the MD-12 would have been in the seat class of the 747-400 or today the 777-X.
With COVID putting a stop to almost all international air travel and with little chance of passenger levels returning to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon, the capacity issues are just not there at the moment. I can't see another large or high capacity aircraft being developed for a long time to come.
The length of the MD-12 was 208 ft (63.4 m) with a wingspan of 213 ft (64.9 m). A380 was 73m long and carried more passengers. Thus the A380 is bigger.
@@FoundAndExplained Given that the A380 is bigger, while MD-12 were just around the size of the 747-400, i wonder if MD-12 were able to fly more airport compared to A380, given the latter only able to fly certain international airport that can handle A380 type aircraft (due to its size, weight, etc.)?
Since A380 and 747 sales collapsed to the point that both planes are no longer in production, the MD-12 would have suffered the same fate. The age of the Jumbo Jet is over. It died when airlines started moving away from the "hub and spoke" model for routes.
Now that you’ve done a history video about the MD-12 here, would you like to do history videos about the NLA itself and 747-700X in the near future? If yes, that would be very fascinating to watch I’ll tell you that much. 😎
McDonnell Douglas invested over a billion dollars in the failed development of the MD-12. That was at a time when a billion was serious cash. The Taiwan Aerospace company was only weeks old when Mcdonnell Douglas was negotiating with them for the collaboration, I believe that was all for show to plant a little fear in Boeing. The stock share price for Mcdonnell Douglas skyrocketed in its final years for no apparent reason. There were several stock splits before the "merger." Everyone that worked at MD knew something was happening well before it was announced.
@@dknowles60 I agree. Boeing would have had to know MD-11 was close to 767 market and MD-95, (later renamed 717) proved to not be cost effective up against 737. Thus, when Boeing bought the Company, MD-11 was first to be cancelled ... short time later the 717, even after Boeing tried to market their branding of the aircraft in the 100 seat market. Wishes were that Bomardier, Embraer or Cessna would have been a better fit to buy MD ... but that never happened.
I like to believe that the AM300 would have been a similar success as the A340. Maybe MDD would still be around and we would still have a commercial Trijet around (similar to the A340s that are still flying).
I imagine the tinfoil-hat suspicion that MD proposed the MD-12 as a stock juicer is probably the rule, not the exception. Aerospace firms, like most megacorporations, are never NOT considering their stock price at every turn. So it probably didn't seem like such a cynical ploy to those involved at the time. Whole aerospace careers revolve around what we on the outside would consider cynical ploys.
Given ALL the issues Douglas had with the DC-10 (especially at launch, ie the many crashes), I’d be reluctant to hop on one of these birds. I would have still loved to see it in the air.
@@dknowles60 yeah I get that, but the number of hours flown by each type aren't even close. It's an apples to oranges comparison in that regard, I would think...
@@radudeATL yea. the dc 10 has flown a lot more hours. that makes the max look very bad. that is why the max has had the longest ground in history. china will still not let fly today. europe will not let it fly today
Actually, back in the late 60s/early 70s after the McDonnell-Douglas merger, a number of Douglas engineers indeed went to Toulouse to lead the design on the original A300, as well as did several McD employees after there were mass layoffs with the initial difficulties of the F-4 Phantom program (ones they eventually resolved), hence the similarity in cockpit layout concepts between DC/McD planes and Airbuses... This makes a lot of sense since at the time European firms hadn’t the experience to design a large passenger plane in that time frame, and this Douglas experience was key to achieving the original A300 design and to eventually pass down that knowledge to European engineers now in charge of all Airbus designs. My understanding is that the original American Douglas design engineers mostly retired in the 90s... So yes, there is a history between Douglas and Airbus. Perhaps if Airbus had jumped earlier, McD would've been split back up into their 2 original entities, with Airbus absorbing Douglas Commercial and Boeing absorbing McDonnell Military.
@@sheldoninst Interesting thought on Airbus jumping in to MD financial rescue. Don't think it would have happened though, due to consortium of countries with their government interests in Airbus Corporate structure. I don't know that for sure, but the logic sounds plausible. Boeing may have had something legal to say about it if MD was absorbed into Airbus.
@@votes-haveconsequences2165 Airbus would’ve wanted the Douglas side for their expertise obviously (an expertise that also Boeing took advantage of in their B7x7 redesigns) and would’ve probably been able to pull it off.... However, it probably would’ve been more difficult for Airbus to acquire the military focused McDonnell side, had it been able to it definitely would’ve been quite the coup and an instant foothold into the US military market, let alone acquiring that amazing military know how. In the late 90s this scenario would’ve proven difficult indeed, however if this scenario would’ve presented itself during or after the 2008 financial crisis Airbus could’ve gotten away with it... Airbus has had discussions with Lockheed about joint ventures, but the numbers never added up for Lockheed.. who knows, when the Chinese start to offer competitive passenger planes and gain a minimal market entry, one could see some kind of cooperation between Airbus & Lockheed in parallel with Boeing & Northrop Grumman (NG is already a subcontractor for Boeing commercial). Lastly, parts of that McDonell rocket expertise, particularly with those cool landing rockets, did indeed find itself later on being acquired by Blue Horizon and SpaceX.... In conclusion, the McDonnell and Douglas engineering remnants have indeed left quite a legacy starting with the A300 (the basis for which the A310, A330 & A340 were developed), and now with the SpaceX and Blue Horizon rocketry.
@@sheldoninst - Having flown both the DC-10 and MC-11, as well as the L-1011, B-747-400, and B-757 I found MD engineering to be rather lacking. I’m not a hater, they had their good qualities, but they were definitely under-engineered in a number of aspects compared to their competitors. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I can’t imagine Airbus wanting that.
If the MD-12 were made by airbus (in terms of specs), would it be better for customers since it has lesser passengers and would be able to maximise the plane?
It failed only in the sense that it came too late. Otherwise you can also call 747 a failure, which it's not. MD-12, had it came out in the '80s, would not be too late.
The idea of flying across either of the Ponds with only 2 engines scare s me as I am an engine builder and understand only too well what can go wrong with engines. Give me a plane like the queen or that never built MD12 any day. just my Opinion but something is unsafe about current regulations with twin engine aircraft.
@@davidtucker3729 This is why a twin jet's engines has enough power to still lift them off the ground past V1 with just one engine. Trijet engines only need to be 150% more powerful, quad jets 133% and twinjets 200%. Their rudders are huge to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust. The best comparison is with the A330 and A340 which are very similar apart from the number of engines.
Nice video. What do you use for rendering? I think what makes the Aviation Industry really not be successful, is: 1) No price stability on fuel, as it should be 2) No easy information logistics for the potential flyers to buy and reserve tickets: how many seats there are available and where in the airplane, what's the speed and schedule of the aircrafts; important info for the user to choose on their phones, even dedicated sites are difficult and convoluted to use 3) Better handling of luggage: luggage is mistreated because carefully handling by humans it's too much for their human bodies, we need automatic robotic and even exoskeletons for better handling of luggage and cargo 4) Better aerodynamics and engines: 4.1) The Connies where great at it, better than today's tubes, they just need modern aerodynamic and avionic, Plus Blended Wing Design, the wing should be in the middle of the airplane for optimum stability and efficient performance. 4.2) The Engines don't mix well the hot and cool exhaust air flows through a Nozzle, to have better thrust and 3-engines is a winner, nice redundancy and efficient in performance and economy over 4 engines
No, Airbus started on what would become the A380 in the late 1980s. As a student at Glasgow in 1995 I had the double-deck Airbus A3XX brochure as my dissertation was on aspects of double-deck airliners.
I'm confused by this video because you describe a tri-jet with an upper deck cockpit, but you animate a quad-jet with a lower deck cockpit that looks just like an A380.
revelation more seats less jets = winner.... While the market has moved to more point to point, there are still plenty of logical routes (COVID ended) where the big jets will still roar.As an Aussie we need a big bird to get us to anywhere.
....depends on whether or not the A380 would have successfully competed with a MD-12. And, of course, if MD would have built it and it was successful in sales. .... a lot of "depends!"
MD should have abandoned the widebody triject market and focused on narrow & widebody twins with range to take on the 737/A320/757 and the 767/A330. Take the best from Airbus & Boeing with a focus on range through ever bigger high bypass turbofans. The twinjet MD12 ... would have destroyed the 777 and the 747 ... if they could get powerful enough turbofans from RR, GE etc. Sheez. Instead of stretching the MD11 ... they should have simply made made a twinjet( obviously with the latest engine designs) and a more efficient new composite wing and tail. MD mess up big time ... going sticking with trijets and planning to make a quadjet. with the 777 & 767 ..... twinjets was clearly the future.
At the end both Boeing and Airbus makes most of the money with the 737/ A 320, the best selling aircraft class on market. MDD had it's MD-90 here, but it was a modernized MD-80 which was a modernized DC-9, so it was an early 1960s aircraft in core. MDD had the same problem like Boeing today, modernizing old aircraft to a point where the old air frames comes to the limit. Unnecessary to say a lot of MDD managers came into Boeing's management and introduced the MDD corporate spirit to Boeing which was once an engineer company and not the mess it is today
You are forgetting about the military, space and computer systems components of McDonnell Douglas that Boeing would be incorporating into its operations, when setting its offer price. Boeing is far from just a commercial airframe manufacturer, as was McDonnell Douglas.
@@FoundAndExplained That and the 320.. They just became irrelevant because they were not investing everything we did from the early 1970s was just warmed over designs
In fact, Douglas originally looked at a “twin 8” (much like the 737 being essentially a twin 707), and then considered a medium twin widebody plane similar to the A300 (way before the B767), which McD dubbed a “twin 10”... In hindsight, had Douglas gone ahead with these “twin” designs, I doubt we’d be living in an Airbus-Boeing duopoly... perhaps a healthier triopoly. What a loss.
There are three adbreaks, but not all fire at once - normally. For you, it seems you are deemd a high value person by google and its putting in double ads for each break, resulting in two at the start, and six throughout. Then it seems google has added another advert in. If you like we have a pateron that is ad free or you can sign up to youtube premium, but i can't control the ads you see and unfortnatly. last week google brought in a new policy of bringing in double the ads. RUclips runs on a loss after all :(
Given McDonnell Douglas was developing it, it would've been a flop.. operationally and financially. They couldn't even get derivatives right.. Look at the MD11 was an absolute flop commercially.
The A 380 is way bigger (seat limit 853 against MD-11 511), and 560 t MTOW instead of MD-12 430 t. The MD-12 is in the size of the 777-X and smaller than the 747-8
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Wish the MD-11Stretch and MD-11LR had come to market, so we would of had one more generation of a trijet.
It would've been the best-looking trijet ever produced.
Really interesting video, thanks for sharing!
Still,he still impresses us with this animations.
So MD-12 was too early and the A-380 was too late. Was there ever a right time for such a big plane?
Well Boeing certaintly found the right time with the 747z
@@FoundAndExplained So the right time was the early 70's. Both MD and Airbus were too late to the party.
The hub and spoke model is self limiting due capacity limits at the hub airports - with growth, hubs will encounter real estate and operational limits, resulting in a limited number of operations and increasing ATC delays. Point to point makes more sense, and Boeing obviously made the right call when they eventually shelved their 747-8 for the 777ER and the versatile 787 that can operate at any airport served by jet transports...
About 15 years after the 747
@@jimmbbo
Given that the origin of many point to point flights is often a large hub airport, an increasing prevalence of point to point traffic would if anything increase the number of flights hub airports need to accommodate - hence for example the desire to build a third runway in Heathrow.
The simpler explanation is that ETOPS extensions and the better fuel economy of twin engine wide bodies have sealed the fate of tri- and quad-engine planes, as given the choice most of us would prefer a direct flight over changes at hub airports.
Interesting, I did a small internship at McDonnell Douglas back in 1989. I remember going to meetings discussing the future of the MD-11. The LR and "stretch" plans were in the works back then. I also remember talks and concept ideas for the MD-12 and a small RJ I believe was going to be the MD-93. Instead of jets mounted near the tail section, it was going to have propellers.
Also the MD-12 design reminds me of that early duble decker concept of the 747
Which also appears in the video
@@FoundAndExplained time stamp please
MD-12 would've had a short shelf life, we're seeing that with the A380 right now. Smaller, fuel efficient twin jets for passengers.
I believe its shelf life would be at least 20 years. Without spending 20 billion to develop it, MDD could have survived selling 300 or 400 of them.
But MDD screwed up with the DC10 in the first place. And got "rewarded" for its dirty play against British jets in the 60s.
Regardless of their bad reputation, the MD-11 is easily my favourite airliner! Gorgeous bird.
Reputation was poor for MD-11 because design didn't meet with promised fuel proposals. American Airlines was disappointed, and sold their MD-11's. The sales for passenger models fell sharply and thus one of the only happy customers was FED-EX with a all cargo version.
It's great to see that the Boeing NLA is mentioned in this video. Sure it was only for just a little bit, but it's much better than nothing.
6:40 "Hindsight is 20/20" I have never hated that phase as much as I do now.
Done intentionally. It starts at "6:40" too. Subliminal message aimed at the Chinese.
peekaboo peekaboo Wdym?
1) Twin engine wide body
Would also love to see your take on a pair of twin engine wide bodies:
-The AMTR and later dubbed the DC-11
-The twin DC-10 or twin MD-11
I understand both were considered at multiple instances.
2) Douglas had more influence over Airbus than viceversa.
Yes! The original A300 is essentially a plane mostly designed by former Douglas engineers after they were laid off following the disastrous merger with McDonell.
Very interesting! 👍👍
Those 3D animations are 🔥🔥
As far as i knew, MD12 is streched version MD11
Imagine if MD merged with airbus instead then boeing....
I've actually heard that Boeing acted on MCD when they did to prevent Airbus from merging with or taking over MCD.
Then Airbus would have 737 MAX type problems. MD managers pretty much destroyed Boeing.
Then they could run airbus
@@RS-ls7mm Air bus has had their own share of problems, not everything has been wonderful for them. But the planes of the last 20 years from them are far better than the previous 20.
I rather not
The MD-12 would have come at the perfect time. It would have had the success the A380 envisioned. Having worked on the MD-11 for almost a decade, I'm sure the MD-12 would have been a remarkable and perfectly engineered aircraft.
Agree'd 100%. However, knowing the Long Beach Manufacturing Facility... MD-12 size would have been a challenge to build with facility that existed at the time. MD may have made final assembly somewhere other than Long Beach.
@@votes-haveconsequences2165 - Would it have been engineered in fields all over the world like the DC-10, and to a lesser degree the MD-11? I flew both, so I’m not a hater, but MD engineering was definitely second rate.
I hope you can cover more topics beyond aviation, I'm looking forward to that!
More to come! Its a bit tricky as aviation has become a big thing for my viewers :)
I'm a fan of both!
MD was the best ever...
A lot of company's designed double deck planes but Airbus was the first and only one with the balls to actually build it.
Which turned out not to be a very smart decision
Not a case of courage or “balls” as you put it, but rather easy government money to get them through it... if Airbus had faced the same financial constraints as a fully privately held company like Boeing/MCD, they too would’ve probably injected reason into the A380’s mostly ego driven project.
@@johniii8147 yes
@@sheldoninst Only Boeing has been heavily subsidised by the state and also by DoD with lavish cost plus miitary contracts, hence why the EU and US are engaged in stupid tariffs against each other.
Save the tariffs for the Chinese!
@@Hattonbank
Note quite the same thing... As is the case for Boeing (and formerly Lockheed and McD), Airbus is composed of 2 entities: Airbus Defense and Airbus Commercial.
It's perfectly ok for Airbus Defense to receive government contracts in exchange for military hardware... however, the other entity Airbus Commercial used to blatantly receive direct SUBSIDIES - a practice that has since been changed to one where Airbus now receives extremely favorable nearly 0% interest loans, and *ONLY RETURNABLE* as long as the plane in question is in *STILL IN PRODUCTION*!! - a form of subsidy indeed. Therefore, the European governments are NO longer expected to receive "loan" repayments from Airbus for the A380 - not a penny since it's cancellation!
Meanwhile, Boeing Military (and formerly Lockheed and McD) receives military contracts from the government IN RETURN for military hardware... this is NOT a SUBSIDY.. on the other hand Boeing Commercial (as was the case for formerly Lockheed Commercial and the Douglas Commercial side of McD) do NOT receive any government subsidies nor favorable loans for aircraft development... otherwise both Lockheed Commercial and McD would have remained in business which is the point of this entire video which properly shows how McD could not raise the sufficient funds to develop this new aircraft!!!! Incidentally, of course Boeing Military and Boeing Commercial will exchange IP - they should!
Next, the state level tax breaks for Boeing were only granted to remain competitive and keep Boeing in WA state; otherwise they move to a no/low tax state!!! Not only that, this puny little state level tax break is a pittance in comparison to the advantages of Airbus' former subsidies and favorable loan terms.
And lastly, I do agree with you that both Europe and the US should better coordinate their ire towards the chinese.
I have seen so many MD accidents that Im glad this never existed.
Dude, your content is really interesting. You got my subscribe button!
Thanks man! I had a lot of fun putting it together and I hope you enjoy the rest of the videos. Aiming for two videos a week so should have another one later
@@FoundAndExplained Awesome, can't wait to see those!
I think that the MD-12 twinjet would have been a market success.
MD bought Boeing with Boeing's money
McDonnell Douglas was known for cutting corners even at the expense of safety.
@@theskyline1425
Actually, it was McDonnell that cut corners at Douglas after their merger.. Douglas' lucrative commercial business was basically ransacked by McDonnell to help them through their F-4 Phantom troubles (which they eventually sorted out).
A terrible decision for Boeing to "buy out" Wall Street Driven MD and allow the management from MD to virtually "take command" of the "engineering driven" Boeing Company. Now the Boeing company is concerned mainly with shareholder return and profits and builds crappy commercial aircraft compared to Air Bus. Boeing wanted into the Defense Contractor business/ They made that happen through the MD acquisition. "A bad trade-off" for the general flying public that will trash Boeing's reputation until they go bankrupt.
@@FatManDoubleZero Boeing was building junk before the merger
...and Boeing hasn't been the same since.
Can you do a video on Dassault Mercure ?
It would be very interesting to see this thing compete with the A380. Shame it never got built.
To be fair it was still a lot smaller, the A 380 has a passenger limit of 853 (typical seats 575), while the MD-12 would have been in the seat class of the 747-400 or today the 777-X.
With COVID putting a stop to almost all international air travel and with little chance of passenger levels returning to pre-pandemic levels anytime soon, the capacity issues are just not there at the moment. I can't see another large or high capacity aircraft being developed for a long time to come.
Who is the biggest the md-12 or the airbus a380?
The length of the MD-12 was 208 ft (63.4 m) with a wingspan of 213 ft (64.9 m).
A380 was 73m long and carried more passengers.
Thus the A380 is bigger.
@@FoundAndExplained Given that the A380 is bigger, while MD-12 were just around the size of the 747-400, i wonder if MD-12 were able to fly more airport compared to A380, given the latter only able to fly certain international airport that can handle A380 type aircraft (due to its size, weight, etc.)?
@@FoundAndExplained ohh ok and i love your video upload more video pls
MD-12= Boeing 747X + Airbus A380.
Since A380 and 747 sales collapsed to the point that both planes are no longer in production, the MD-12 would have suffered the same fate.
The age of the Jumbo Jet is over.
It died when airlines started moving away from the "hub and spoke" model for routes.
Sad. England and US used to make so many cars and planes, now? It’s Airbus and Boeing with smaller companies like Bombardier and Embraer.
"As for the MD-12 Program, well that chapter is closed."
A-380; Yeah, tell me about it.
Great vid 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks! hope you stick around to see more!
@@FoundAndExplained of course I'm gonna stay
So MD pulled a bit of a Nikola Badger with its MD-11 Stretch, eh?
GREAT VIDEO !!!!
actually looks way more believable than a lot of double decker designs.
Does make you wonder what if on so meney levals its a shame MD didnt work out but you can see the MD 12 in the A380
Now that you’ve done a history video about the MD-12 here, would you like to do history videos about the NLA itself and 747-700X in the near future? If yes, that would be very fascinating to watch I’ll tell you that much. 😎
I think so! There is likely enough to tell about the 747x that it deserves its own video
@@FoundAndExplained Sounds great. I’ll be looking forward to all that when those videos come out. 😎
That twin engine double deck is beautiful.
McDonnell Douglas invested over a billion dollars in the failed development of the MD-12. That was at a time when a billion was serious cash.
The Taiwan Aerospace company was only weeks old when Mcdonnell Douglas was negotiating with them for the collaboration, I believe that was all for show to plant a little fear in Boeing.
The stock share price for Mcdonnell Douglas skyrocketed in its final years for no apparent reason. There were several stock splits before the "merger." Everyone that worked at MD knew something was happening well before it was announced.
No body hog tied Boeing and made then buy md
@@dknowles60 I agree. Boeing would have had to know MD-11 was close to 767 market and MD-95, (later renamed 717) proved to not be cost effective up against 737. Thus, when Boeing bought the Company, MD-11 was first to be cancelled ... short time later the 717, even after Boeing tried to market their branding of the aircraft in the 100 seat market. Wishes were that Bomardier, Embraer or Cessna would have been a better fit to buy MD ... but that never happened.
Interesting video
I like to believe that the AM300 would have been a similar success as the A340.
Maybe MDD would still be around and we would still have a commercial Trijet around (similar to the A340s that are still flying).
The background piano in the first few minutes is really great. What is it?
I imagine the tinfoil-hat suspicion that MD proposed the MD-12 as a stock juicer is probably the rule, not the exception. Aerospace firms, like most megacorporations, are never NOT considering their stock price at every turn. So it probably didn't seem like such a cynical ploy to those involved at the time. Whole aerospace careers revolve around what we on the outside would consider cynical ploys.
Thanks McDonnell Douglas
Given ALL the issues Douglas had with the DC-10 (especially at launch, ie the many crashes), I’d be reluctant to hop on one of these birds. I would have still loved to see it in the air.
The dc 10 has a better safety record then the 737 max
@@dknowles60 As of Sept 2015, the DC 10 has been in 55 incidents with 32 hull losses and 1,261 deaths.
@@radudeATL from your own fed gov faa NTSB the max has had more crashes per hour flown them the dc 10 ever had
@@dknowles60 yeah I get that, but the number of hours flown by each type aren't even close. It's an apples to oranges comparison in that regard, I would think...
@@radudeATL yea. the dc 10 has flown a lot more hours. that makes the max look very bad. that is why the max has had the longest ground in history. china will still not let fly today. europe will not let it fly today
When your super early and don't know what to comment
MD-12.. sounds weird
Actually... a number of the engineers from MD in Long Beach, CA ended up going to work at Airbus after the Boeing "merger".
I’m really on the fence if it needs it’s own video...
Actually, back in the late 60s/early 70s after the McDonnell-Douglas merger, a number of Douglas engineers indeed went to Toulouse to lead the design on the original A300, as well as did several McD employees after there were mass layoffs with the initial difficulties of the F-4 Phantom program (ones they eventually resolved), hence the similarity in cockpit layout concepts between DC/McD planes and Airbuses...
This makes a lot of sense since at the time European firms hadn’t the experience to design a large passenger plane in that time frame, and this Douglas experience was key to achieving the original A300 design and to eventually pass down that knowledge to European engineers now in charge of all Airbus designs. My understanding is that the original American Douglas design engineers mostly retired in the 90s...
So yes, there is a history between Douglas and Airbus. Perhaps if Airbus had jumped earlier, McD would've been split back up into their 2 original entities, with Airbus absorbing Douglas Commercial and Boeing absorbing McDonnell Military.
@@sheldoninst Interesting thought on Airbus jumping in to MD financial rescue. Don't think it would have happened though, due to consortium of countries with their government interests in Airbus Corporate structure. I don't know that for sure, but the logic sounds plausible. Boeing may have had something legal to say about it if MD was absorbed into Airbus.
@@votes-haveconsequences2165
Airbus would’ve wanted the Douglas side for their expertise obviously (an expertise that also Boeing took advantage of in their B7x7 redesigns) and would’ve probably been able to pull it off....
However, it probably would’ve been more difficult for Airbus to acquire the military focused McDonnell side, had it been able to it definitely would’ve been quite the coup and an instant foothold into the US military market, let alone acquiring that amazing military know how.
In the late 90s this scenario would’ve proven difficult indeed, however if this scenario would’ve presented itself during or after the 2008 financial crisis Airbus could’ve gotten away with it...
Airbus has had discussions with Lockheed about joint ventures, but the numbers never added up for Lockheed.. who knows, when the Chinese start to offer competitive passenger planes and gain a minimal market entry, one could see some kind of cooperation between Airbus & Lockheed in parallel with Boeing & Northrop Grumman (NG is already a subcontractor for Boeing commercial).
Lastly, parts of that McDonell rocket expertise, particularly with those cool landing rockets, did indeed find itself later on being acquired by Blue Horizon and SpaceX....
In conclusion, the McDonnell and Douglas engineering remnants have indeed left quite a legacy starting with the A300 (the basis for which the A310, A330 & A340 were developed), and now with the SpaceX and Blue Horizon rocketry.
@@sheldoninst - Having flown both the DC-10 and MC-11, as well as the L-1011, B-747-400, and B-757 I found MD engineering to be rather lacking. I’m not a hater, they had their good qualities, but they were definitely under-engineered in a number of aspects compared to their competitors. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but I can’t imagine Airbus wanting that.
If the MD-12 were made by airbus (in terms of specs), would it be better for customers since it has lesser passengers and would be able to maximise the plane?
I find it funny how he said that the 777X will fly next year but now it’s 2024 and it’s still not flying for airlines but being certified
Looks like it was ahead of its time
The MD-12 was not built because MD decided the market was not large enough to warrant the development costs.
No-Hum. Even the A380 is a failed concept, given the change in flying patterns today. Point to Point, vs. Hub and Spoke.
It failed only in the sense that it came too late. Otherwise you can also call 747 a failure, which it's not. MD-12, had it came out in the '80s, would not be too late.
@@georgedang449 The video said it would have been ready to launch in 1997 - a lot later than the '80s
The idea of flying across either of the Ponds with only 2 engines scare s me as I am an engine builder and understand only too well what can go wrong with engines. Give me a plane like the queen or that never built MD12 any day. just my Opinion but something is unsafe about current regulations with twin engine aircraft.
David Tucker. After almost 40 years of twin ETOPS, shouldn't you be past that?
@@infidel6728 Not when only 50% of the potential output is lost and in some circumstances 50% is not enough to keep you airborne
@@davidtucker3729 This is why a twin jet's engines has enough power to still lift them off the ground past V1 with just one engine. Trijet engines only need to be 150% more powerful, quad jets 133% and twinjets 200%. Their rudders are huge to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust. The best comparison is with the A330 and A340 which are very similar apart from the number of engines.
Airline companies today just prefer the more fuel efficient 2 engine wide body airliners instead of the 4 engine double decker airliners.
Would have loved to see this, Mcdonel Douglas was a great company with some Shit screw ups later on.
what was the intro music?
Bonitas lineas para este gran avion de dos niveles MD- 12 capasidad para 670 pasajeros bien comodos
Nice video. What do you use for rendering?
I think what makes the Aviation Industry really not be successful, is:
1) No price stability on fuel, as it should be
2) No easy information logistics for the potential flyers to buy and reserve tickets: how many seats there are available and where in the airplane, what's the speed and schedule of the aircrafts; important info for the user to choose on their phones, even dedicated sites are difficult and convoluted to use
3) Better handling of luggage: luggage is mistreated because carefully handling by humans it's too much for their human bodies, we need automatic robotic and even exoskeletons for better handling of luggage and cargo
4) Better aerodynamics and engines:
4.1) The Connies where great at it, better than today's tubes, they just need modern aerodynamic and avionic, Plus Blended Wing Design, the wing should be in the middle of the airplane for optimum stability and efficient performance.
4.2) The Engines don't mix well the hot and cool exhaust air flows through a Nozzle, to have better thrust and 3-engines is a winner, nice redundancy and efficient in performance and economy over 4 engines
MD-12? I like.
No, Airbus started on what would become the A380 in the late 1980s. As a student at Glasgow in 1995 I had the double-deck Airbus A3XX brochure as my dissertation was on aspects of double-deck airliners.
Ngl it would be interesting to see if md still existed today
I'm confused by this video because you describe a tri-jet with an upper deck cockpit, but you animate a quad-jet with a lower deck cockpit that looks just like an A380.
When I get a 3d printer I’m gonna try to make a 4 or 6 inch kind of this. I can try. Anything is possible.
2:03 Fun fact: this trijet 747 was actually an airplane model in GTA Liberty City Stories.
@Plane guy 787 Yeah cool I was talking about the video game.
revelation more seats less jets = winner.... While the market has moved to more point to point, there are still plenty of logical routes (COVID ended) where the big jets will still roar.As an Aussie we need a big bird to get us to anywhere.
If i rmb the MD-11 had a quite higher landing speed i forgotten by how much
Maybe if the MD12 came to light the A380 would never have been built
....depends on whether or not the A380 would have successfully competed with a MD-12. And, of course, if MD would have built it and it was successful in sales. .... a lot of "depends!"
2:09 A *what* room??
This was the first A380 was an Md12, wow 🤔
I believe everybody was trying to achieve this marvel
Why MD12 Like Airbus A380
Yeah it is
:) thanks for watching!
MD should have abandoned the widebody triject market and focused on narrow & widebody twins with range to take on the 737/A320/757 and the 767/A330. Take the best from Airbus & Boeing with a focus on range through ever bigger high bypass turbofans.
The twinjet MD12 ... would have destroyed the 777 and the 747 ... if they could get powerful enough turbofans from RR, GE etc. Sheez. Instead of stretching the MD11 ... they should have simply made made a twinjet( obviously with the latest engine designs) and a more efficient new composite wing and tail. MD mess up big time ... going sticking with trijets and planning to make a quadjet. with the 777 & 767 ..... twinjets was clearly the future.
At the end both Boeing and Airbus makes most of the money with the 737/ A 320, the best selling aircraft class on market. MDD had it's MD-90 here, but it was a modernized MD-80 which was a modernized DC-9, so it was an early 1960s aircraft in core.
MDD had the same problem like Boeing today, modernizing old aircraft to a point where the old air frames comes to the limit.
Unnecessary to say a lot of MDD managers came into Boeing's management and introduced the MDD corporate spirit to Boeing which was once an engineer company and not the mess it is today
You are forgetting about the military, space and computer systems components of McDonnell Douglas that Boeing would be incorporating into its operations, when setting its offer price. Boeing is far from just a commercial airframe manufacturer, as was McDonnell Douglas.
the wall street reference is appropriate. not a conspiracy theory.
MD should have been Focused on developing an all new narrow body design . Much bigger market and the MD-80/ MD- sales were drying up.
If they made a Boeing 737 competitior...
@@FoundAndExplained That and the 320.. They just became irrelevant because they were not investing everything we did from the early 1970s was just warmed over designs
In fact, Douglas originally looked at a “twin 8” (much like the 737 being essentially a twin 707), and then considered a medium twin widebody plane similar to the A300 (way before the B767), which McD dubbed a “twin 10”...
In hindsight, had Douglas gone ahead with these “twin” designs, I doubt we’d be living in an Airbus-Boeing duopoly... perhaps a healthier triopoly.
What a loss.
Does anybody noticed the front looks a bit weird why?
I want one!!
A ten minute video, NINE ADS!!!
There are three adbreaks, but not all fire at once - normally. For you, it seems you are deemd a high value person by google and its putting in double ads for each break, resulting in two at the start, and six throughout. Then it seems google has added another advert in. If you like we have a pateron that is ad free or you can sign up to youtube premium, but i can't control the ads you see and unfortnatly. last week google brought in a new policy of bringing in double the ads. RUclips runs on a loss after all :(
And these are skippable ads after five seconds
@@FoundAndExplained But they break in at odd times during your narrative, and viewers lose the continuity.
if the md 11 would be the a380 it honestly looks like the a380 plane singapore uses
5:01 distracting typo lol
This guy's telling us stuff from the future, talking a lot about 9093 and 9097. Crazy.
Haha sorry for my thick accent! I was told Unless I was American I would never be successful on RUclips
The MD-12 could have completely changed aviation It's sad that it didn't recived any order
even 20-100 orders would have changed the game completely
@@FoundAndExplained i agree
Given McDonnell Douglas was developing it, it would've been a flop.. operationally and financially. They couldn't even get derivatives right.. Look at the MD11 was an absolute flop commercially.
Imagine if this plane flew that would be cool
That looks like an A380.
Actualy wanted to build 1994- until the 2010s/built by md
Can you make a vedio about the airbus a380
So is A380 a sucessor of MD12?
No. Similar in appearance. Different engineering design.
I’m going with the KR-860.
And how do I know that’s not just an Airbus A380 with McDonnell Douglas MD-12 written on the sides?
It's true. It was a concept aircraft that never made it to production.
The A 380 is way bigger (seat limit 853 against MD-11 511), and 560 t MTOW instead of MD-12 430 t.
The MD-12 is in the size of the 777-X and smaller than the 747-8
On the contrary its not md 12 that has the original design way back 1960s the design was a proposal for the dc 10. But itwas not approved.
it really looks like A380 lol
How many dads does the a380 have
Cute! Here in Indiana, we're called Hoosiers because when you meet someone from outta town, they usually ask, "Hoosier daddy?"
Imagine this in a crash...considering md history
That's not a fair statement in any kind of light!
I like md11 and 12s presented. Pity they weren’t sold and flying.
ОТ !... РЕАЛЬНА КРАСОТА !!!….. ВІН , В ПРИНЦИПІ , ТАКИЙ І Є !!!.... ( "НАШЕ МАЙБУТНЄ"...)
The MD-12 is the much better A380 as its much lighter, has no oversized (/weight) Wing.
The MD-12 Concept Looks Kool fa sure I hope that this will become a Reality.
I’m gonna be honest with you the MD 12 looks so goddamn goofy compared to the A380 lol