Was a pre-war, larger DH Albatross ever considered? (2 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Getting back to the original question

For a 1930s four-engined passenger/transport aircraft, the de Havilland DH.91 Albatross was quite small and lightweight compared to others of the type, such as the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor, which had an almost identical span to the Albatross, but was substantially heavier. An upscaled Albatross with four RR Peregrine engines might have been interesting, more akin to a British Boeing 307.

The Albatross was a 29-32,000lb aircraft with two rather different missions.
French had 3 planes in that general size/weight for commercial travel with roughly the same passenger capacity.
Bloch 160; four 710hp engines, gross weight 31,900lbs, 12 seats (?)
Bloch 300; three 915hp engines, gross weight 29,876lbs, 27 seats day/12 night
Dewoitine D.338; Three 650hp engines, GW 24,420lbs, 24 seats.
France had several 4 engined commercial flying boats.
German has the FW 200 but it is all over the place. 1938 Janes says.
FW 200; four 720 hp engines, GW 30,800lbs, 26 seats.
The FW 200B series got 830-850hp engines and GW went to 37,479-38,500lbs. Light weight went up over 3000lbs.
Italy in 1938 had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.75 Marsupiale.
Most had three 750hp Alfa-Romeo engines, some had more powerful Alfa-Romeo versions. 1000hp Piaggo engines were offered but not used?
GW was 31,900lbs and 24 seats were offered.

Albatross was as good or better than many of these but it was not really in the same category as the FW 200 once the FW 200 got higher powered engines.
They were mostly within about 20mph of each other in speed. 2 seats one way or the other should not have been a deal breaker. Trading seats for fuel was always on the table.
The Albatross was not really lighter than the European competition if we look at the empty weights or at least not by much.
Question on the Albatross is how much could it have changed/improved without becoming a new design.

The Boeing 307 was in a different class and without a major redesign the Albatross was not going to come close.
Boeing 307 used a pressurized cabin and went about 45,000lbs max GW.
Boeing 307 could carry 30 passengers, 1650lbs baggage/cargo and 1275 US gal of fuel.

Do not believe everything on Wiki,
" As such it represented a major advance over contemporaries, with a cruising speed of 220 mph (350 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m) compared to the Douglas DC-3's 160 mph (260 km/h), at 8,000 ft (2,400 m) then in service"
220mph is for the last 6 planes built (SA-307-B), not the first 4 with lower powered engines. DC-3s that were flying at 160mph were throttled way back. Most DC-3s could cruise at 195-205mph at 75% power at 8,000ft.

There is the usual nonsense about 2 stage superchargers being confused with two speed. The 307B used two speed, no turbos.

 

[don4331]

Why does a British aeroplane flying from the UK to Canada need to meet American regulations? (Serious question)

I was building on S Shortround6 's post #14 Was a pre-war, larger DH Albatross ever considered? of no sizeable airports between Calgary and Vancouver (Ignoring Kelowna). And American regulation is the easiest to reference. Most other countries had similar regulations either official or not.

And I understand S Shortround6 's frustration over regulations he considers to have been made archaic by the latest technical advances. But Douglas's competition would have had their people campaigning against increasing the ETOPS limits. If you can't improve the ETOPS limits, twin doesn't get the lowest price/passenger mile

The 747/A380 work on a spoke and hub model; where your small (regional) planes bring passenger to the hub which flies overseas.
If you make the twins fly from LAX over Anchorage, Yelizsovo and Tokyo to get to Manila, while the 4 engine plane is allowed to fly direct, the advantages of the twin are eliminated.​

That's a good question as to why the S.20 Mercury had 4 engines; regulations undoubtedly had some to do with it...