Seven civilian planes that made Boeing Great

Lose the DC-3 because it was not Boeing's at the time (I can't believe they did that). In its place, add the 377 Stratocruiser.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I thought the Stearman would have made that list!

 

When NASCAR race announcers rename Winston Cup-era races and drivers as "Sprint Cup."
Today, you will rarely, if ever, hear a specific mention of Winston Cup. I wondered if there was an imaginary line in history when they wouldn't. The beach races? Fonty Flock? (name the monkey)

Sorry for going off-topic, but I hate examples of this kind of corporate revisionist history.

 

I find all M.Fool articles must be taken with a dose of skepticism.

If the author had to include the DC-3, it would have been much more accurate to title the article as great civilian planes. Then illustrate why they think Boeing is a good investment as the company made many of the planes and has some of the other players.

 

All true, but it had a lounge on the lower deck that was accessed via a spiral staircase. How cool is that!
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Izzaat the bomb bay? And one guy looks like GeorgeRomney..and the lady w/legs a little like GraceKelly,nice.
Cheers,
RE

 

I love those old advertisements. Here's another one. Not as old, but still Boeing-related.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have a book listing all significant airline crashes through the years, and it's appalling to see how many crashes in the '50s were due to engine or propeller failure, involving all of these types. I think the limits of trying to combine power with reliability on reciprocating engines had just about reached the limits, and people paid with their lives. When you turn in this book to the '60s, the number of crashes attributed to engines in the jet age dropped very quickly to near-zero.

 

Regarding whether the DC-3 should be listed in a Boeing history listing, my opinion would be: no. It made Douglas great, not Boeing.

When one company merges with or takes over another, only the aircraft in production at the time should be assigned the new manufacturer's name. Thus, it is proper to refer to the F-16 as a Lockheed Martin aircraft, or the F-18 as a Boeing aircraft.

But older types should simply be referred to as "heritage" aircraft. That's what we do at Lockheed Martin. We acknowledge that the B-24, B-26, PBY, 440, P6M, F-102 etc are part of our "heritage fleet", but never call them Lockheed or Lockheed Martin aircraft.

Of course, legal types might still insist on things like the "Boeing-licensed" sticker I saw today on a model kit of the North American XB-70, but that's fine as long as they don't refer to it as a Boeing airplane!

 

I would pick the "three holer", since it was such a successful aircraft, both in terms of performance and sales. The "27" was taken out of airline service because more efficient aircraft came along (due primarily to higher bypass ratio engines), but what eventually killed the airplane was noise regulations. It was flying freight long after it was retired from airline service, and doing it well for a long long time. The long life and exceptional performance of the 727 made it one of the greatest aircraft of all time, and it made a lot of money for Boeing, and in fact it was one of "the" airplanes that made Boeing great.