douglas DC 16

From Wikipedia – for what it is worth

Wikipedia never admit to using that .

(No proof: just a logical surmise). Maybe your “DC-16” related to 1947.
10/11/1946, French Elections, largest Party, and Air Minister: Communist.
4/3/1947 Treaty of Dunkirk: UK will treat an attack on F as on GB. Rehearsal for NATO. Not welcome in Moscow.
April,1947, the incomparable (except by L-749) DC-6 enters US service.
Spring,1947 French President dismisses all Communist Ministers, who foment strife and strikes, especially in nationalised Aero industry. Sud-Est and Douglas had been exploring licenced DC-6 to bury ludicrous Armagnac/Languedoc/La.631 and duck pond. Stymied by Reds: “fear of vassalisation (of Aero-France) French airplane factories were bombed particularly heavily by (US/UK) in the last months of the War. Perhaps now we can better understand why.” PP.282/300,H.Chapman, State Capitalism and Working Class Radicalisation in the French Aircraft Industry,UCP,1991. Thank the Lord, eh? Bristol Theseus/£-priced DC-6? Dishing of Britannia and much besides.

By early-1952, Sud, full with US-funded licenced work, was designing (to be) Caravelle, so unlikely to have renewed interest in DC-6. Fokker, 1938 licencee for DC-3/B-18, by 1952 was off on F-27: in 1947 may have been up for a JV with France and Douglas.

Douglas were only interested in their own long range aircraft….

Not quite accurate…

Douglas had a role in the Piaggio PD-808 biz jet, and in the 60s seriously looked at the offering a development of the French Breguet 941 as a STOL city center to city center airliner. One was test flown in an FAA program in New York with American and Eastern Airlines markings.

Also, they were looking at a shout haul jet…the 1957 DC-9 concept looked like a mini DC-8 while they were also looking at a “DC-10” …which was supposed to be a “DC-3 replacement” (where have we heard that before?) that looked like today’s CN-235.

From Wikipedia – for what it is worth

Fokker on 4 May 1981 announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with McDonnell Douglas to jointly develop a 150-seat aircraft. To be designated the MDF-100, the new project became the most discussed topic at the Paris Air Show a month later when the two companies took the opportunity to release further information on their plans for cooperation. While the MDF-100 was in fact a further development of the F29, McDonnell Douglas had been working for some time on the design of a slightly larger aircraft. This was the ATMR (Advanced Technology Medium Range) of about the same size as the Boeing 757. The MDD project however was at an earlier stage of fruition than the F29 and this resulted in a relatively larger Fokker content in the MDF-100. After less than a year with no orders being placed, the Fokker-McDonnell Douglas agreement was terminated.

As to your query, after checking with ‘Fokker Commercial Aircraft’ a book produced by Fokker, it mentions talks were held postwar with various American airliner makers for a possible joint venture. But the end result was no deal! Douglas were only interested in their own long range aircraft and Boeing did suggest providing some design input and if plans came to fruition would implement the sales. But military orders and a new commercial design (the 707) ended Boeings interest. I can find no mention of the Douglas DC16 in my literature but I dont claim to have every bit of information there is.

hello there many thanks for your research efforts i do appreciate this
regards vic

As to your query, after checking with ‘Fokker Commercial Aircraft’ a book produced by Fokker, it mentions talks were held postwar with various American airliner makers for a possible joint venture. But the end result was no deal! Douglas were only interested in their own long range aircraft and Boeing did suggest providing some design input and if plans came to fruition would implement the sales. But military orders and a new commercial design (the 707) ended Boeings interest. I can find no mention of the Douglas DC16 in my literature but I dont claim to have every bit of information there is.