PDA

View Full Version : Scarebus vs Boeing



Trailer Park Casanova
12-17-2006, 10:29 AM
I remember when the Scarebus came on the aviation scene.
Eastern was putting them into service nationwide.
"The Scarebus got significantly better fuel economy than the current Boeing equiv" was what Frank Borman, the President of Eastern was bragging about all over the news.
I noticed also that on Routes flown by both Boeing and Scarebus aircraft, the Scarebus flite duraton was an hour longer.
Smoke and mirrors?
Was the better fuel economy because the Scarebus flew slower?

Sleek-Jet
12-17-2006, 10:51 AM
Boeing didn't have an equivelant airplane (Widebody twin jet) when the A300 was introduced... so compared to a 747 or a 720 (707), yeah the French wonder got better milage. Nor did Boeing want part of that market. After all, Lockheed and Douglas were going broke vieing for the same mission, a transcontinental wide body. Remember, Airbus doesn't have to make a profit. And Boeing was still recouping from the development of the 747.
In the books I've read, Boeing looked at a widebody twin in the early 70's, figured there was only a market for 500 or 600 airframes world wide and passed.
It wasn't until the 767 was introduced could Boeing go head to head with the Airbus.

beyondhelpin
12-17-2006, 10:54 AM
The Bus cruise speed is about 555mph. The 747 is aout is about 565 mph and the 767 is about 530 mph. Never noticed much difference on arival and departure times, but never paid much attention to it. My understanding is the Bus is more fuel effiecent but the 787 Dreamliner will end that.

Jbb
12-17-2006, 10:56 AM
I remember when the Scarebus came on the aviation scene.
Eastern was putting them into service nationwide.
"The Scarebus got significantly better fuel economy than the current Boeing equiv" was what Frank Borman, the President of Eastern was bragging about all over the news.
I noticed also that on Routes flown by both Boeing and Scarebus aircraft, the Scarebus flite duraton was an hour longer.
Smoke and mirrors?
Was the better fuel economy because the Scarebus flew slower?
The aircraft it was being compared to was the L-1011 Tristar.....with pretty inefficient ...and troublesome Rolls Royce RB-211 engines
The GE CF6-80 engines in the Airbus were far superior engines.
The reason Eastern was the launch carrier for the Airbus,was because they offered the first couple to the airline for a year....free....to try them out....They were very well built,very dependable airplanes...

Tom Brown
12-17-2006, 11:06 AM
They were very well built,very dependable airplanes...
Canadian Airlines flew Air Bus for a couple of decades back in the 80s and 90s. They ran Air Canada's fleet of Boeing aircraft into bankruptcy with them.

beyondhelpin
12-17-2006, 11:16 AM
The 767 also uses the CF-6 80C. Actually they are both avaliabe with diffent engines. Pratts an RR.

Jbb
12-17-2006, 12:44 PM
Canadian Airlines flew Air Bus for a couple of decades back in the 80s and 90s. They ran Air Canada's fleet of Boeing aircraft into bankruptcy with them.
Eastern also had a 2 plane agreement with Air Canada for 2 or 3 L-1011's where each carrier kept it for 6 months of the year.....the paint scheme was EAL on one side ....and Air Canada on the other...

RitcheyRch
12-17-2006, 02:23 PM
I read somewhere that Airbus got started in the business because the old McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company sold them the plans for a widebody twin-engined jet. Basically, a twin-engined DC-10.

Jbb
12-17-2006, 02:31 PM
I read somewhere that Airbus got started in the business because the old McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company sold them the plans for a widebody twin-engined jet. Basically, a twin-engined DC-10.
Not sure about that.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300

skygod73
12-17-2006, 08:06 PM
The Bus cruise speed is about 555mph. The 747 is aout is about 565 mph and the 767 is about 530 mph. Never noticed much difference on arival and departure times, but never paid much attention to it. My understanding is the Bus is more fuel effiecent but the 787 Dreamliner will end that.
Sorry, but the A300 is not faster than the 767. In fact it is quite a bit slower. The 747 and 767 cruise between .82-.84, while the A300 is a .76 cruise aircraft. I don't have the numbers on fuel burns for the A300 vs. 767, however I think it's very close. I won't even get started on the build quality, or the composite tail of the bus. IMO, the 767 is a superior product in almost every aspect.
I agree that the introduction of a twin engine widebody gave AB a big advantage early on, in addition to the government backing of it's european founders. When you can develope a product with the financial backing of governments, and no regard for profitability that is a huge advantage. For years AB has been able to essentialy give away it's aircraft to help increase it's market share. With the 777, and 787 Boeing has rebounded while AB has the 380 fiasco on it's hands.

RitcheyRch
12-17-2006, 08:14 PM
Like said, was something remember hearing and wasnt sure if had any truth to it.
Not sure about that.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300
Airbus planes are disposable planes. When worked for McDonnell Douglas/Boeing from 1986-2001 I saw first hand how all the mfgs planes were built by going and witnessing the maintenance facilities of SRTechnics (Swiss Air facility in Zurich, Switzerland) and SASCO (Singapore Airlines Facility in Singapore) where they had planes from all 3 mfgs. The mechanics at all the facilities liked working on the Airbus planes because there were far less fasteners holding the plane together (Not a good thing in most cases). More than one manager told me that if you took the aircraft structure of the Douglas plane and the System Components (lavs, galleys & such) from the Boeing plane you would have the best plane in the world.
Not sure if they just told me this since worked for Douglas/Boeing at the time. Can honestly say that the Douglas plane structure is far superior in strength and durability.
Sorry, but the A300 is not faster than the 767. In fact it is quite a bit slower. The 747 and 767 cruise between .82-.84, while the A300 is a .76 cruise aircraft. I don't have the numbers on fuel burns for the A300 vs. 767, however I think it's very close. I won't even get started on the build quality, or the composite tail of the bus. IMO, the 767 is a superior product in almost every aspect.

Sleek-Jet
12-18-2006, 05:56 AM
Like said, was something remember hearing and wasnt sure if had any truth to it.
Airbus planes are disposable planes. When worked for McDonnell Douglas/Boeing from 1986-2001 I saw first hand how all the mfgs planes were built by going and witnessing the maintenance facilities of SRTechnics (Swiss Air facility in Zurich, Switzerland) and SASCO (Singapore Airlines Facility in Singapore) where they had planes from all 3 mfgs. The mechanics at all the facilities liked working on the Airbus planes because there were far less fasteners holding the plane together (Not a good thing in most cases). More than one manager told me that if you took the aircraft structure of the Douglas plane and the System Components (lavs, galleys & such) from the Boeing plane you would have the best plane in the world.
Not sure if they just told me this since worked for Douglas/Boeing at the time. Can honestly say that the Douglas plane structure is far superior in strength and durability.
It's been said that American's build airplanes like the Swiss make watches.
The French build airplanes like they make French automobiles... :hammerhea
An interesting side note (if I have my history correct). The DC-10 and L1011 were originally designed as twin engine wide bodies for medium to short haul duty. The airlines wanted the airplanes to be able to do trans Atlantic service, which required 3 engines at the time. So Douglas and Lockheed modified the designs to tri-jets.
It wasn't until ETOPs (Twin engine overwater operations) became common place in the 80's did the big twin jets come into their own.

RitcheyRch
12-18-2006, 06:05 AM
Might be some truth to that about the DC-10 and L-1011 being originally designed to be twin-engined. I will look into that with a few old timer buddies that are still at the old Douglas Long Beach Facility.
It's been said that American's build airplanes like the Swiss make watches.
The French build airplanes like they make French automobiles... :hammerhea
An interesting side note (if I have my history correct). The DC-10 and L1011 were originally designed as twin engine wide bodies for medium to short haul duty. The airlines wanted the airplanes to be able to do trans Atlantic service, which required 3 engines at the time. So Douglas and Lockheed modified the designs to tri-jets.
It wasn't until ETOPs (Twin engine overwater operations) became common place in the 80's did the big twin jets come into their own.

Warlockjer
12-18-2006, 06:53 AM
Finally something interesting on this forum:) :)

Seadog
12-18-2006, 06:56 AM
The europeans and US were looking at a monopoly by Boeing because they built superior equipment. No other commercial plane builder could compete. Most of the aircraft builders were depending on military aircraft to stay afloat.
Airbus brought some competition to the field. The pity is that they have to rely on government handouts to survive. As long as we can keep the advantage from subsidies as low as possible, the competition from Airbus will be to our advantage. It spurs thinking outside of the box and more consideration given to the needs of the buyers.

RitcheyRch
12-18-2006, 07:42 AM
McDonnell Douglas definitely relied on military aircraft to stay in business.
The europeans and US were looking at a monopoly by Boeing because they built superior equipment. No other commercial plane builder could compete. Most of the aircraft builders were depending on military aircraft to stay afloat.
Airbus brought some competition to the field. The pity is that they have to rely on government handouts to survive. As long as we can keep the advantage from subsidies as low as possible, the competition from Airbus will be to our advantage. It spurs thinking outside of the box and more consideration given to the needs of the buyers.

skygod73
12-18-2006, 05:45 PM
Like said, was something remember hearing and wasnt sure if had any truth to it.
Airbus planes are disposable planes. When worked for McDonnell Douglas/Boeing from 1986-2001 I saw first hand how all the mfgs planes were built by going and witnessing the maintenance facilities of SRTechnics (Swiss Air facility in Zurich, Switzerland) and SASCO (Singapore Airlines Facility in Singapore) where they had planes from all 3 mfgs. The mechanics at all the facilities liked working on the Airbus planes because there were far less fasteners holding the plane together (Not a good thing in most cases). More than one manager told me that if you took the aircraft structure of the Douglas plane and the System Components (lavs, galleys & such) from the Boeing plane you would have the best plane in the world.
Not sure if they just told me this since worked for Douglas/Boeing at the time. Can honestly say that the Douglas plane structure is far superior in strength and durability.
I agree, Douglas overbuilt their planes. The DC 8 had the strongest wing ever made. That is a big reason why the 8's are still flying cargo around the world. I love the way the Boeing's fly though, having flown both brands. My Gma, Aunt, Mom, and Dad have a combined 60+ years working in Long Beach at the plant. On the flying side between my Gpa, Dad, Uncle, and myself we have flown the Herc, Electra, DC 8, 727, 737, DC 9, DC 10, and 747. Not counting military. I guess it's in the blood.

voodoomedman
12-18-2006, 08:42 PM
I agree, Douglas overbuilt their planes. The DC 8 had the strongest wing ever made. That is a big reason why the 8's are still flying cargo around the world. I love the way the Boeing's fly though, having flown both brands. My Gma, Aunt, Mom, and Dad have a combined 60+ years working in Long Beach at the plant. On the flying side between my Gpa, Dad, Uncle, and myself we have flown the Herc, Electra, DC 8, 727, 737, DC 9, DC 10, and 747. Not counting military. I guess it's in the blood.
We still have a few of those DC 8's in the air.

RitcheyRch
12-18-2006, 08:44 PM
I read somewhere that the re-engined DC-8 is the most fuel efficient airplane flying.
I worked at the Long Beach plant from 1986 to 2001. I designed parts on the C-17, Dc-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90 and 717. Douglas sure built some nice planes and was sad to see that Boeing stopped marketing them as there is still a HUGE market for them. Still have a bunch of friends that work there. Was visiting a few friends back in Feb and was sad to see that the plant has been turned to rubble.
After leaving Boeing in Long Beach I went to Northrop in El Segundo and now am at Lockheed Martin in Palmdale working on the F-35. Most of my family has worked in the aircraft industry. Mom retired from Lockheed and Dad retired from Hydraulic Research. My Sister is the only one that didnt venture into the industry.
I agree, Douglas overbuilt their planes. The DC 8 had the strongest wing ever made. That is a big reason why the 8's are still flying cargo around the world. I love the way the Boeing's fly though, having flown both brands. My Gma, Aunt, Mom, and Dad have a combined 60+ years working in Long Beach at the plant. On the flying side between my Gpa, Dad, Uncle, and myself we have flown the Herc, Electra, DC 8, 727, 737, DC 9, DC 10, and 747. Not counting military. I guess it's in the blood.