The world’s first modern airliner(onfirstup.com)
onfirstup.com
The world’s first modern airliner
https://onfirstup.com/boeing/BNN/articles/the-world-s-first-modern-airliner-1
45 comments
To my eyes, the Lockheed Model 10 Electra was a much nicer looking plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Model_10_Electra). It was also Amelia Earhart's choice for her round-the-world attempt.
There's one on display in the Science Museum in London: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co29932...
There's one on display in the Science Museum in London: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co29932...
That was 1935.
I would have said a Douglas DC-2, but that was also a year after the Boeing 247.
Oh, lookie at your wiki link. All competitors!
I would have said a Douglas DC-2, but that was also a year after the Boeing 247.
Oh, lookie at your wiki link. All competitors!
> The Model 247 made its first flight on Feb. 8, 1933. It was an immediate success. United Air Lines placed an order for 60...
Note that this was before the government broke up United Aircraft and Transport Corporation into United Aircraft (i.e. Pratt & Whitney), Boeing, and United Airlines. In other words the vertical monopoly "bought" its own planes.
Note that this was before the government broke up United Aircraft and Transport Corporation into United Aircraft (i.e. Pratt & Whitney), Boeing, and United Airlines. In other words the vertical monopoly "bought" its own planes.
What was the first widely produced aircraft to feature a pressurized cabin for passengers?
One could say a major milestone in aviation was the first need for a toilet. What aircraft started travelling such lengths of time that a toilet is necessary?
One could say a major milestone in aviation was the first need for a toilet. What aircraft started travelling such lengths of time that a toilet is necessary?
> first widely produced aircraft to feature a pressurized cabin for passengers
"While the first experimental pressurization systems saw use during the 1920s and 1930s, it was not until 1940 that a commercial aircraft would enter service with a pressurized cabin, when the Boeing 307 Stratoliner ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization
> What aircraft started travelling such lengths of time that a toilet is necessary?
For airplanes, looks like the Vickers Vimy Commercial in 1919. https://archive.org/details/airliners0000wall_v8m6/page/56/m... says "The fuselage of the standard Vimy had been completely rebuilt to give an enclosed cabin with seating for 10 passengers and a lavatory. Company records appear to have been unusually discreet about mentioning this last very necessary facility, but the Vimy appears to hold the record for the first airborne toilet."
Since that the term "aircraft" includes airships, I'll offer LZ 10 Schwaben (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_10_Schwaben), as a likely earlier example. DELAG ("the world's first airline to use an aircraft in revenue service" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DELAG) started flying it in 1911.
"While the first experimental pressurization systems saw use during the 1920s and 1930s, it was not until 1940 that a commercial aircraft would enter service with a pressurized cabin, when the Boeing 307 Stratoliner ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization
> What aircraft started travelling such lengths of time that a toilet is necessary?
For airplanes, looks like the Vickers Vimy Commercial in 1919. https://archive.org/details/airliners0000wall_v8m6/page/56/m... says "The fuselage of the standard Vimy had been completely rebuilt to give an enclosed cabin with seating for 10 passengers and a lavatory. Company records appear to have been unusually discreet about mentioning this last very necessary facility, but the Vimy appears to hold the record for the first airborne toilet."
Since that the term "aircraft" includes airships, I'll offer LZ 10 Schwaben (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_10_Schwaben), as a likely earlier example. DELAG ("the world's first airline to use an aircraft in revenue service" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DELAG) started flying it in 1911.
The B-29 was the first mass-produced pressurized aircraft. Boeing 307 was an earlier passenger airliner, but only 10 were built.
Lockheed Constellation was the first mass produced pressurized airliner.
Lockheed Constellation was the first mass produced pressurized airliner.
I highly recommend reading “Fate is the Hunter”. A memoir of an airline pilot from this time.
I should say that a modern passenger plane is one that can be used practically for regular service, at a reasonable cost. I don't know whether Boeing's plane was the first to meet that criterion or not. But there was regular air service in North America using prop planes before jet airliners were in widespread use.
The Boeing in question is a prop plane, not a jet.
Americans rewriting history again, I see.
[deleted]
This feels like a re-writing of history. The world's first jet airliner was of course the de Havilland Comet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
It takes a stretch to suggest that it was the plane described in the article rather than the Jet Age that marked the transition to what could be described as a "modern airliner".
It takes a stretch to suggest that it was the plane described in the article rather than the Jet Age that marked the transition to what could be described as a "modern airliner".
This is a propellor airliner, from a generation before the Comet. Though even then it's unclear what makes it the first modern airliner; if you're defining that as "metal, purpose-designed, more than 10 passengers", as they seem to be, the similar Junkers Ju 52 was around earlier (this is mostly remembered as a military aircraft now, but started life as a civilian airliner).
Then we can go back all the way to 1920:
https://blog.klm.com/klms-first-real-passenger-seats/
https://blog.klm.com/klms-first-real-passenger-seats/
I feel like you and the article are talking about different things since the 247 was a prop plane in 1933, and the precursor to the DC-1, 2, and 3. The DC-3 being of course one of the most successful planes in history, and is still in service as an airliner in some places. How many comets are still flying on regular schedules?
Debates about what counts as "modern" are always subjective, but the DC-3's longevity owes a lot more to its indestructibility, its convertibility to non-airliner uses, and and relative lack of interest on the part of modern airframers in newer small, slow models optimised for bouncy landings than it having much in common with what most people think of as a "modern" airliner.
Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements that resulted than the notion that small slow planes with less to go wrong with them are a more modern design. Suspect there are more retro rotary phones in service than first generation iPhones today for similar reason, but I'm not sure that weakens the iPhone's claim to be the first modern mobile phone.
Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements that resulted than the notion that small slow planes with less to go wrong with them are a more modern design. Suspect there are more retro rotary phones in service than first generation iPhones today for similar reason, but I'm not sure that weakens the iPhone's claim to be the first modern mobile phone.
Basically both Boeing and Douglas (and others) had various dual-prop planes that could be used for passenger service in the early 30s timeframe--of which the DC-3 is the best-known (and came a couple years after the plane in the article).
But were these modern airliners and which was the first in that class. <shrug>
But were these modern airliners and which was the first in that class. <shrug>
Plus of course a few takes on all metal monoplanes with multiple engines and multiple rows of passenger seats in the 1920s, if those are the criteria for modernity...
Think there's a decent case for the Vickers Viscount in the early 1950s too, as the first airliner with a modern turboprop engine type, with speed and range and passenger experience (big pressurised cabin) comparable to small airliners still being built, unlike the 247 or DC-3.
Think there's a decent case for the Vickers Viscount in the early 1950s too, as the first airliner with a modern turboprop engine type, with speed and range and passenger experience (big pressurised cabin) comparable to small airliners still being built, unlike the 247 or DC-3.
> Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements
Don't forget engine efficiency. Early jets engines were extremely fuel hungry, and even today in the span of a decade engine efficiency has drastically improved.
Don't forget engine efficiency. Early jets engines were extremely fuel hungry, and even today in the span of a decade engine efficiency has drastically improved.
True, consistent fuel efficiency is a huge part of the limited design life of modern aircraft, and why it makes sense for airliners to pay for brand new aircraft to replace perfectly adequate 10 year old aircraft on competitive routes. And the fuel economy of the Comet and 707 was awful. But to my knowledge the DC-3 fuel economy doesn't compare favourably on a passenger-km or tonne km basis with later generation jet aircraft that have been retired
Difference is you can keep an ancient DC-3 around for occasional use with relatively basic maintenance, whereas a second generation jet or turboprop comes with service and life-limited parts requirements to make it considered airworthy that would cost more than the aircraft is worth...
Difference is you can keep an ancient DC-3 around for occasional use with relatively basic maintenance, whereas a second generation jet or turboprop comes with service and life-limited parts requirements to make it considered airworthy that would cost more than the aircraft is worth...
The Comet wasn't particularly successful (at least in part because of its fundamental design flaw) - but the military version - the Nimrod - flew until 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod
Wait until you learn that the "early modern" period started in 1400 or so.
The point being that the term modern is most certainly subjective and definitely has usage that is different from "contemporary" even though the latter is how people often read it.
The point being that the term modern is most certainly subjective and definitely has usage that is different from "contemporary" even though the latter is how people often read it.
The Comet, also known for square windows and structural design weaknesses. But agreed, it was the comet who started modern civil aviation.
If you want to start earlier, I'd personally pick the Super Constellation so.
If you want to start earlier, I'd personally pick the Super Constellation so.
I flew on a Douglas DC-6 and a DC-7 in 1957 -- they seemed quite modern to me at the time, despite having propellers.
Absolutely agree, it looks like it's just a marketing puff piece.
Qualified disagreement -- it's all about the word modern.
The Comet airframe was inherently limited by the decision to embed the engines -- de Havilland Ghost turbojets -- in the wing roots. Obviously this wwas great for drag reduction, but it made it difficult to modify the design to accommodate other, more efficient/economical engines. In the end, the attempt to refit the last Comet-descended airframes, the RAF's Nimrod MRA2's to MRA4 spec with Rolls-Royce BR700 turbofans in the 1990s/2000s failed due to spiraling prices because the higher diameter turbofans required substantial redesign/reworking of the wing roots. More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4#Delays...
Now compare this to the succssful engine retrofit program for the USAF's KC-135 fleet, which kept them in service for a couple more decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker#Eng...
Having the engines hung on pods below the wing (or alongside the fuselage) makes them inherently easier to service and easier to upgrade (although problems can emerge if you push it too far, as witness the Boeing 737 MAX crashes).
This isn't to dismiss the Comet completely: it was a pioneering design, broke ground, and was the first trans-Atlantic jet airliner in service. But it had design flaws beyond the infamous metal fatigue problem.
The Comet airframe was inherently limited by the decision to embed the engines -- de Havilland Ghost turbojets -- in the wing roots. Obviously this wwas great for drag reduction, but it made it difficult to modify the design to accommodate other, more efficient/economical engines. In the end, the attempt to refit the last Comet-descended airframes, the RAF's Nimrod MRA2's to MRA4 spec with Rolls-Royce BR700 turbofans in the 1990s/2000s failed due to spiraling prices because the higher diameter turbofans required substantial redesign/reworking of the wing roots. More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4#Delays...
Now compare this to the succssful engine retrofit program for the USAF's KC-135 fleet, which kept them in service for a couple more decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker#Eng...
Having the engines hung on pods below the wing (or alongside the fuselage) makes them inherently easier to service and easier to upgrade (although problems can emerge if you push it too far, as witness the Boeing 737 MAX crashes).
This isn't to dismiss the Comet completely: it was a pioneering design, broke ground, and was the first trans-Atlantic jet airliner in service. But it had design flaws beyond the infamous metal fatigue problem.
I think if the Comet is ruled out on the ground of design flaws, Boeing's 707 (only slightly after it, and the first commercially successful jet) is a much better "modern airliner" candidate than the 247 since there are still bestselling airliners rolling off the production today with cabins based on the 707's, which cruise at a similar speed over similar distances using a much more advanced development of its jet engine technology. (The 707 is also derived from the same experimental platform as the KC-135)
I don't see engine retrofits as being disqualifying though, as modern engines seldom retrofit to older wings even if the original engines were podded (the MAX wings were a new design), and the turbojets the Comet was supplied with were much closer to modern engines than the 247's pistons anyway.
The monocoque aluminium shell and cantilevered (across the aisle!) wing of the 247 was its novelty, but I'm not sure cramped piston engined 10 seaters with 200mph maximum speed are really what people think of as "modern airliners"...
I don't see engine retrofits as being disqualifying though, as modern engines seldom retrofit to older wings even if the original engines were podded (the MAX wings were a new design), and the turbojets the Comet was supplied with were much closer to modern engines than the 247's pistons anyway.
The monocoque aluminium shell and cantilevered (across the aisle!) wing of the 247 was its novelty, but I'm not sure cramped piston engined 10 seaters with 200mph maximum speed are really what people think of as "modern airliners"...
That evokes something of a bygone era where people just went out and built stuff.