Sleek but too small. It couldn't take advantage of the bigger, more powerful engines coming out at exactly this time. It's actually engine technology that drives aerospace - they get the best engines they can and basically wrap a plane around them or on them.
I was at the air show at NAS Whidbey Island, the 247 was there, just after it was finished by Boeing. Sunday morning, it was there, and it had a flat tail wheel. Best image ever was a young AM3 from one of the local squadrons who was offering to help. young man, working on a plane that was older than his grandparents.
It's always a good morning when there's an upload from Paul Stewart! Sounds like Boeing suffered from de Havilland's experience with the Comet. They were first so their competitors were able to learn from their mistakes, and in the Douglas example you use, they knew to make it a little larger. Thanks!
Another reason for the Vultee windscreen was that the airstream was intended to push raindrops down the glass instead of up, obviating the need for wipers.
Very nice review and very nice plane too. The DC-3 is still a favorite, but the lines of the 247 and all its descendants are also very nice. Thx for putting this together!
Wrong on sales being due to the airlines preferring the products of Douglas. You need more and better sources. If you had read Widebody as part of your research, you would have learnt that the first 60 Boeing 247 were destined for Boeing Air Transport, another part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation alongside Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. This meant that Boeing had no spare capacity for building aircraft for other airlines. Meanwhile, down in California, Douglas were marketing their DC1 which used windtunnel data stolen from Boeing by the research student running the windtunnels tests.the DC1 was the far superior plane. After the passage of the Air Mail Act of 1934 UATC was broken up and Boeing Air Transport became U ited Airlines.
@@PaulStewartAviation as stated tge airline and manufacturer were sister companies, so selling to rival airlines wasn't going to happen. The 247 used P&W engines and Hamilton Standard props both of which came from sister companies. It was these incestuous relationships that hampered the development of Boeing's products.
The DC-3 was a fat body instead of the slim 247 craft. To me, the DC-3 is an ugly bugger compared to the 247. Thanks for posting an airliner most forgot or never heard of.
It is worth noting that Boeing had proposed larger engines and more capacity but this was opposed by United and United pilots that a bigger plane would be too much for inexperienced pilots and a handful on rough strips. TLDR - Boeing wanted to make it bigger right from the start but it was the early thirties and United said no.
One of these days, I have to get to that museum for my own channel, Brilliant video. I had a look at the United Boeing 247 at the Washington DC location of the National Air and Space Museum, and learned that it finished 3rd in the MacRoberston Air Race from the UK to Australia in 1934. Only finishing behind a Comet DH88 Comet, that was specfically built for the race and a KLM DC-2. Good airliner, but like you said, that deal between United and Boeing probably killed it.
That museum I would love to go to what a great looking place Thanks for the windscreen information, I have wondered why they angled it forward for years It made absolutely no sense to me and would have to have an adverse effect on aerodynamics
@@PaulStewartAviation have a good day. My wife and I visited HARS a couple of months ago. Really enjoyed it. We were taken around by someone who really new what he was talking about.
Perhaps more a marker point showing how fast technology was moving during the 1930s. The 247 would today be described as a proof-of-concept machine, combining the newer higher powered engines with novelties like metal skins and retractable undercarriage. From this experience Boeing (run by engineers not the money people) could move onto the XB-15, B-17, 307, B-29. Nice enough plane, but the DC1/2/3 made more economic sense for the airlines.
The 307 came out just before WW2 and production was cancelled due to it. The constellation didn't fly for five years after the 307. You logic is flawed.
I don’t think it would be accurate to blame the poor 247 sales on WW2. My point with the 307 was that, like the 247, it was advanced and first to the market but ultimately less popular and outsold by competitors that arrived shortly afterwards.
![An Icon Of The US Army Air Corps | Boeing P-26 'Peashooter' [Aircraft Overview #20]](/img/1.gif)
Apologies, I made an error. The DH-61 Giant moth came out in 1927, not 1937 like I mentioned.
Sleek but too small. It couldn't take advantage of the bigger, more powerful engines coming out at exactly this time. It's actually engine technology that drives aerospace - they get the best engines they can and basically wrap a plane around them or on them.
I like that United Airlines livery, United should go back to this retro look.
I was at the air show at NAS Whidbey Island, the 247 was there, just after it was finished by Boeing. Sunday morning, it was there, and it had a flat tail wheel. Best image ever was a young AM3 from one of the local squadrons who was offering to help. young man, working on a plane that was older than his grandparents.
It's always a good morning when there's an upload from Paul Stewart! Sounds like Boeing suffered from de Havilland's experience with the Comet. They were first so their competitors were able to learn from their mistakes, and in the Douglas example you use, they knew to make it a little larger. Thanks!
As soon as I saw the windscreen I thought of the Stinson.
Awesome overview mate, very interesting little thing. Enjoyed the historic footage.
Another reason for the Vultee windscreen was that the airstream was intended to push raindrops down the glass instead of up, obviating the need for wipers.
Why would raindrops going up the screen need wipers but those going down wouldn’t?
Very nice review and very nice plane too. The DC-3 is still a favorite, but the lines of the 247 and all its descendants are also very nice. Thx for putting this together!
Wow !!-that is one beautiful Aeroplane,--next to it that Fokker,--looks like something,from the"dark-ages'-
Interesting video Paul. It's confronting seeing a 247 with a swastika! Interesting to hear it's a competitor to the DC-3 as it looks a lot smaller!
The degree of sweep on the DC1 had a marginal effect on cruise speed, but it did make the aircraft controlable.
Wrong on sales being due to the airlines preferring the products of Douglas. You need more and better sources. If you had read Widebody as part of your research, you would have learnt that the first 60 Boeing 247 were destined for Boeing Air Transport, another part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation alongside Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. This meant that Boeing had no spare capacity for building aircraft for other airlines.
Meanwhile, down in California, Douglas were marketing their DC1 which used windtunnel data stolen from Boeing by the research student running the windtunnels tests.the DC1 was the far superior plane.
After the passage of the Air Mail Act of 1934 UATC was broken up and Boeing Air Transport became U ited Airlines.
That was Boeing’s decision to give preference to BAT/united. They could have sold some of the first 60 to TWA could they not?
@@PaulStewartAviation as stated tge airline and manufacturer were sister companies, so selling to rival airlines wasn't going to happen. The 247 used P&W engines and Hamilton Standard props both of which came from sister companies. It was these incestuous relationships that hampered the development of Boeing's products.
The DC-3 was a fat body instead of the slim 247 craft. To me, the DC-3 is an ugly bugger compared to the 247. Thanks for posting an airliner most forgot or never heard of.
The first all metallic commercial airplane was de Junkers F-13. Maiden flight 6 years before the Ford Trimotor.
It is worth noting that Boeing had proposed larger engines and more capacity but this was opposed by United and United pilots that a bigger plane would be too much for inexperienced pilots and a handful on rough strips.
TLDR - Boeing wanted to make it bigger right from the start but it was the early thirties and United said no.
Hey Paul, hope you are doing fine. If possible, please do a walk around Bleroit XI...
Sometimes you'd think Paul was talking you through a flat, house or the specs on a car, rather than aircraft 😁
With Airliners it's all about Bums on seats the more the better that's why Boeing learn their lesson with the 247 and years later Boeing made the 747
could passengers make a loggy on dis ?
One of these days, I have to get to that museum for my own channel, Brilliant video. I had a look at the United Boeing 247 at the Washington DC location of the National Air and Space Museum, and learned that it finished 3rd in the MacRoberston Air Race from the UK to Australia in 1934. Only finishing behind a Comet DH88 Comet, that was specfically built for the race and a KLM DC-2. Good airliner, but like you said, that deal between United and Boeing probably killed it.
it's definitely worth a visit!
This design went on to become to be come the B17 Bomber
I see it as a failure from the legal team not the design team
That museum I would love to go to what a great looking place
Thanks for the windscreen information, I have wondered why they angled it forward for years
It made absolutely no sense to me and would have to have an adverse effect on aerodynamics
It's brilliant! Hope you've seen my full guided tour video around it.
Oh, to own a time machine! Knowing what I know now.
Fun and informative Paul as always
Thank you for another great video. All the best from Sydney Australia 🇦🇺
Cheers from Wollongong!
@@PaulStewartAviation have a good day. My wife and I visited HARS a couple of months ago. Really enjoyed it. We were taken around by someone who really new what he was talking about.
yes Hars is great!
Would be sooo great to see a 307 one day! ❤
Perhaps more a marker point showing how fast technology was moving during the 1930s. The 247 would today be described as a proof-of-concept machine, combining the newer higher powered engines with novelties like metal skins and retractable undercarriage. From this experience Boeing (run by engineers not the money people) could move onto the XB-15, B-17, 307, B-29.
Nice enough plane, but the DC1/2/3 made more economic sense for the airlines.
Great show thanks
It's a very pretty plane
Great job Paul 🙂
At 6:20 you see the Stewardess step over the mid cabin wing spar-another disadvantage over the DC2
Okay, not a doubt, this guy taught me a lot about aviation, amazing!
Very nice video
EXCELENTE CANAL...
The 307 came out just before WW2 and production was cancelled due to it. The constellation didn't fly for five years after the 307. You logic is flawed.
I don’t think it would be accurate to blame the poor 247 sales on WW2. My point with the 307 was that, like the 247, it was advanced and first to the market but ultimately less popular and outsold by competitors that arrived shortly afterwards.
Great thanks Paul.🛩🍺
Interesting!
Glad you think so!
Thanks
Cheers!
Based on your video? I would lean towards fail.
What fail?🙄🤔
The wheels, as the footage shows retracted into the rear of the nacelle not tge fuselage.
Geez you seem to know everything.😁
@robertcoleman4861 no, I just observed the footage this time.
Very cool video, of a very cool plane!
Thanks a lot!
Excellent Paul 👍👍
Cheers Mike
This aircraft debuted in 1933, you implied it was 1943
Didnt I say it first flew in 1933? Around 1:00
@@PaulStewartAviation you did, but you also said it was introduced six years after the de Havelin which you said came out in 1937
ops I meant to say that the Giant moth came out in 1927. Apologies.
@@PaulStewartAviation I understand. And I know what you meant. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
thanks for letting me know