Boeing Vs Douglas

cricket · Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:25 pm

Everyday the frequency of the Airbus v Boeing battles on this forum astound, amaze and humour me. As they do all non-aligned (so to speak) members. But I was wondering, back in the day what would Boeing vs Douglas arguments have been like. Say when Boeing was coming out with the 747, did PR machinery on both sides go batty? Are there any grey-haired people out there who are in the know?

Zkpilot · Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:27 pm

I wouldn't know as I'm not that old but I'd imagine the DC8 vs B707 debate would have been a bit like A340 vs B777.

irobertson · Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:01 pm

I'd be still willing to battle out a DC8 vs 707 topic! Smile

ClassicLover · Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:58 pm

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 2):
I'd be still willing to battle out a DC8 vs 707 topic!

So would I... and throw the VC10 into the mix just to annoy people Smile

kappel · Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:14 pm

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 3):
So would I... and throw the VC10 into the mix just to annoy people

IIRC the VC10 vs b707 sparked quite some controversy at the time in the UK, especially because BOAC went for the 707 is large numbers (even though with the RR engines to appease the politicians) but many still felt BOAC should have gone for the Super VC10, which was very much loved by pax and crew.

Mind you, I have this info from books, as I am not that old (28) to know what exactly happened back then.

bmacleod · Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:21 pm

Wasn't the VC-10 more like the MD-80 or did possess long-range capability to fit in the 707 category? The T-tail certainly made it look like...opps I mean't the Soviet IL-62!!

[Edited 2006-04-13 15:22:58]

kappel · Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 5):
Wasn't the VC-10 more like the MD-80 or did possess long-range capability to fit in the 707 category? The T-tail certainly made it look like...opps I mean't the Soviet IL-62!!

No IIRC the Super VC10 had similar capacity, and a bit less range than the 707-320, but certainly not a MD80. The VC10 and IL62 resemble each other indeed, because they were designed for the same mission.(short field ops) Who knows, there might have been some espionage going on.

ptrjong · Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:37 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Who knows, there might have been some espionage going on.

MI6 stole the Il-62's blueprints? biggrin

Seriously, I think that's nonsense. You give the anwswer yourself:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
they were designed for the same mission.

kappel · Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:11 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
MI6 stole the Il-62's blueprints? biggrin

Seriously, I think that's nonsense. You give the anwswer yourself:

I wouldn't say nonsense, it is a possibility given the striking resemblence. That's why I said who knows. You and I certainly don't know for sure, or are you an ex KGB agent? box

Asturias · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:04 am

I adore the MD Super 80s and DC-9s. Not is much the DC-10 and MD-11. Especially when compared to Airbus and/or Boeing wide-bodies of that time.

I don't think MDD ever really made another mega-product after the DC-9/MD-80s. Incredibly basic, yet charming airliners.

For short hop flights, not more than 90 minutes I'd always choose a MD-80s over a B737 classic.

This is simply my opinion and how I perceive the different models. YMMV.

cheers

Asturias

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:22 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):
are you an ex KGB agent?

How did you find out? Smile

OK, I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that Russia has very capable aircraft designers and it annoys me that every time they design something remotely resembling a Western aircraft, the explanation is espionage.
I'm sure spying occurs, but then you steal the wing profile or some complex detail like that.
There are so many Western aircraft resembling each other.
I don't think the Dutch stole the DC-9 blueprints to produce the F28.

kappel · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:30 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):
OK, I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that Russia has very capable aircraft designers and it annoys me that every time they design something remotely resembling a Western aircraft, the explanation is espionage.

No, don't get me wrong, I certainly am not implying that russian designers are incapable of designing very fine aircraft, especially in the soviet era, when they had more funds available. Nor was it a real implication that it actually happened. A lot of aircraft resemble each other, like you mentioned the F28 and DC9 right down to the 5 abreast config. It doesn't have to espionage, they just saw a good idea (like aft mounted engines) and went to develop a similar aircraft themselves.

bravo45 · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:51 am

Well there couldn't be Douglas vs Boeing rants these days as Boeing owns Douglas. As for the the time they were neck in neck, Douglas during and after the WWII the bigger better and more successful of the two. Their fortunes really went down when Boeing came up with the new 747 while Douglas went for 3 engines with the DC-10 which was competing with the L-1011. DC-10s had the incidents and the crashes which seriously effected its reputation, and we all know what happened after the AA-191 crash.
I wonder how many have seen the crash investigation documentary about the AA-191. I do feel bad for Douglas.

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:53 am

Copying an idea is legal, as in writing or photography Smile

As to the topic, I interviewed a Boeing salesman a few years ago, and he said that rivalry and personal relations between Boeing and Airbus employees were just as good or bad as those between Boeing and Douglas had been.

He was pretty relaxed about the other side, unlike all the A and B groupies here. I wish they'd preserve their energy for their local football team.

FlagshipAZ · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:57 am

In my view, the first head-to-head jetliner battles would look like this....

707 vs DC-8 vs Comet
VC-10 vs IL-62
727 vs Trident vs Tu-154
Caravelle vs Bac-111 vs Tu-134
DC-9 vs 737 vs Mercure
Concorde vs Tu-144
747 vs L-500
DC-10 vs L-1011 vs A300

These were all first generation jetliners. All classics to say the least. Again, all IMHO. Regards.

kappel · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 12):

What also didn't help at Douglas was the fact they didn't have competent managers. They had great engineers, but management wasted a huge sum of money on useless derivatives (dc9-20 and -40) that hardly sold, and they lost money on the dc9 program (or was it the md 80 program) even though sales were huge. I have this out of the book "Douglas Twinjets", I forgot who wrote it. Too bad really, I love douglas planes, from the DC9 to the MD11. (never flew the props of course, too young for that)

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 13):
Copying an idea is legal, as in writing or photography

Haha, I know I know, ik geef me gewonnen... checkeredflag

airfrnt · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:05 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 10):

OK, I'm not exactly sure, but I do know that Russia has very capable aircraft designers and it annoys me that every time they design something remotely resembling a Western aircraft, the explanation is espionage.

Perhaps it's because Russia had such a steller record with commercial and millitary espionage? I do remember coming across a reference recently to a dedicated program inside of the secret service organs to steal technology from the west. In particular they were interested in ICs (integrated circuts -- it was the mid 80s before Russia's capacity here really took off), aluminum fabrication and engines (with Rolls Royce being a particular target).

That seems to me to be pretty clear evidence that Russia really didn't have a "NIH" problem.

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:13 am

Sorry for trotting on, Sergio Wink

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 14):
747 vs L-500

I didn't know that one...

bravo45 · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:20 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 15):
(never flew the props of course, too young for that)

Same here

I would so love to fly the DC-3 or something. I'll look for the book you mentioned, I'd love to read more about their demise. Thanks.

frugalqxnwa · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):
I wouldn't say nonsense, it is a possibility given the striking resemblence. That's why I said who knows. You and I certainly don't know for sure, or are you an ex KGB agent?

So, now the question is how much espionage did Airbus do on the IL-86/96 in order to come up with A340? The argument runs both ways, Russian designers are just as capable as western designers; they were for the most part limited by a system that didn't allow for radical innovation in technology except when the West already had or was working on the technology.

N328KF · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 16):
Perhaps it's because Russia had such a steller record with commercial and millitary espionage? I do remember coming across a reference recently to a dedicated program inside of the secret service organs to steal technology from the west. In particular they were interested in ICs (integrated circuts -- it was the mid 80s before Russia's capacity here really took off), aluminum fabrication and engines (with Rolls Royce being a particular target).

Right. The story (well documented by The History Channel, among others) with R-R was that some Soviet bureaucrats were on a tour of the Rolls Nene plant. They wore specially manufactured boots on the tour that allowed the boots to pick up metallurgical shavings for analysis back in the Motherland.

And with regard to the IC tech...there was a book a few years ago entitled At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War. The CIA managed to penetrate a Soviet effort to steal ICs from the U.S. These ICs were to be used to control oil pipelines. Anyhow, the CIA made subtle changes to the ICs so that, in testing, the ICs would perform as intended. In production, the ICs were designed to fail catastrophically. The result was the largest non-nuclear detonation in recorded history. It was kept secret by the Soviet state. Anyhow, it's well documented now.

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:05 am

I trust that the Soviets spied for technology. My point was that you don't need to steal a concept like that of the VC10.

By the way, I just found out the Il-62 first flew in January 1961, 18 months before the VC10. biggrin

Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):
the CIA made subtle changes to the ICs so that, in testing, the ICs would perform as intended. In production, the ICs were designed to fail catastrophically. The result was the largest non-nuclear detonation in recorded history.

I don't believe a word of that.
What detonation?

N328KF · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:10 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21):
I don't believe a word of that.
What detonation?

As you wish. The book was written by Thomas C. Reed. He used to be Secretary of the Air Force. The guy who pulled it off is Gus Weiss, who worked at the White House under Reagan. The incident was publicized by The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002. Just because it is dramatic doesn't make it false.

BDL2DCA · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 14):
DC-9 vs 737 vs Mercure

Come on! There's no three-way battle there. Wasn't the Mercure so heavy and range limited that nobody other than UTA bought them, and they were only used on domestic flights within France?

flydreamliner · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:20 am

Quoting Irobertson (Reply 2):
I'd be still willing to battle out a DC8 vs 707 topic! Smile

Same here. No contest, the DC-8 was then, and is now the superior aircraft. DC-8s are still in wide service. DC-8 was longer, flew farther, with more people, in more comfort than 707. Simply put, the boys in Long Beach made the best plane flying at the time.

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 3):
So would I... and throw the VC10 into the mix just to annoy people Smile

I think VC10 would get quickly written off as unpopular and inferior. VC10 kind of reminds me of L-1011, nothing so much wrong with the aircraft, it just was eclipsed by its competition.

The DC-9 was one of the greatest jetliners ever to fly. Just ask NW, they still have plenty of those things flying. Trust me, DC-9 is the loudest thing to fly out of MSP. I can tell one over my house from in bed. The DC-10 was profitable and scared Boeing enough they came up with 747SP. MD-11, once it was revised with its improved performance package, was a good competitor to 777 and A340. I think ultimately, it would never have sold many MD-11s though, as competing against 777 is challenging.

I loved Douglas. They built their aircraft to a higher standard. Look at how many of their old birds still fly. DC-8s, DC-9s, and DC-10s all still many aircraft flying.

TriStar500 · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:21 am

Quoting BDL2DCA (Reply 23):
Come on! There's no three-way battle there. Wasn't the Mercure so heavy and range limited that nobody other than UTA bought them, and they were only used on domestic flights within France?

You are right about that except for the small fact that Air Inter was the unlucky carrier of choice for the Mercure fleet.

TomFoolery · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:25 am

Lets not forget the Convair 880/990's. They were quite a nice ride (back in the day).

N328KF · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 24):
Same here. No contest, the DC-8 was then, and is now the superior aircraft. DC-8s are still in wide service. DC-8 was longer, flew farther, with more people, in more comfort than 707. Simply put, the boys in Long Beach made the best plane flying at the time.

The only reason more 707s aren't still more widely used is because USAF bought a lot of them and parked them in the desert for cannibalization. This widely skews your sample. Wink

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 22):
Just because it is dramatic doesn't make it false.

Oh, well, maybe there's even some truth in it, no problem. What made me laugh, apart from the good story itself, is your certainty that every comma of it is true. That is just so rarely the case. Note my signature.

Areopagus · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:43 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 24):
I think VC10 would get quickly written off as unpopular and inferior.

Inferior in terms of fuel consumption, as it was designed for operating out of short, hot, high airfields. I read a Flight International article in the early 80s that claimed that it turned out that total operating costs were the same, because the 707 required a lot of mainenance for corrosion, whereas the VC10 had better corrosion resistance measures applied in construction.

PGV · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:50 am

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 26):
Lets not forget the Convair 880/990's. They were quite a nice ride (back in the day).

You beat me to it! The 990 was one hot bird capable of running .91 all day long. But what a fuel bill that would produce today.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 27):
The only reason more 707s aren't still more widely used is because USAF bought a lot of them and parked them in the desert for cannibalization. This widely skews your sample.

I don't quite buy into that theory. Granted the USAF needs parts for the KC-135 fleet. But back when the -70 series was being developed on the 8, there wasn't even an interest to do this on the 707. I think one 707 got CFM engines, and it wasn't even sold. So how come UPS, DHL, ATI, and others aren't out shopping for delinquent 8's to cannabalize? There are quite a few and are known for being very universal. I've got quite amount of time invested in the 8 and for some our frames that are 30-40 years old, the repairs and parts replaced are minimal by many standards for that age.

N328KF · Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting Pgv (Reply 30):
I don't quite buy into that theory. Granted the USAF needs parts for the KC-135 fleet. But back when the -70 series was being developed on the 8, there wasn't even an interest to do this on the 707. I think one 707 got CFM engines, and it wasn't even sold. So how come UPS, DHL, ATI, and others aren't out shopping for delinquent 8's to cannabalize? There are quite a few and are known for being very universal. I've got quite amount of time invested in the 8 and for some our frames that are 30-40 years old, the repairs and parts replaced are minimal by many standards for that age.

Buy into it or not, but USAF acquired 250 previously airworthy 707s for this purpose. How much of a difference do you think that would make in the breakdown of flying DC-8s vs. 707s if that hadn't happened?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-135e.htm

kappel · Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:28 am

Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 18):
I'll look for the book you mentioned, I'd love to read more about their demise. Thanks.

I looked it up for you. It's called "Douglas Twinjets" by Thomas Becher. ISBN 1-86126-446-1. It's a great book, covers the whole DC 9 family, 'till the 717.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/186...-2100131?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21):
By the way, I just found out the Il-62 first flew in January 1961, 18 months before the VC10.

Oopsie, should have looked into that before. So it WAS MI6 who spied on Ilyshin!! Big grin

flydreamliner · Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:39 am

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 26):
Lets not forget the Convair 880/990's. They were quite a nice ride (back in the day).

To this day, the fastest subsonic airliner ever, capable of .91-.92, and that was using the famously smokey GE CJ-805 turbojets (not turbofans, turbojets). Too bad we don't have airliners that fly at those speeds anymore. That's practically sonic cruiser territory. Now we have 737, that flies m.775 instead.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 27):
The only reason more 707s aren't still more widely used is because USAF bought a lot of them and parked them in the desert for cannibalization. This widely skews your sample.

Fair enough, but the only DC-8s still around are the -60s and -70s, esp -73s, which were way larger than any 707, making them better suited to cargo.

irobertson · Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:47 am

Quoting Pgv (Reply 30):
You beat me to it! The 990 was one hot bird capable of running .91 all day long. But what a fuel bill that would produce today.

I looked into the thrust of the turbojets on the Convairs and they were only about 12 or 13 thousand lbs a piece. Relatively low compared to the bigger and heavier DC8. Nowadays, you could probably fit a 14,000lb engine in place which would be more fuel efficient and push the 990 back in that 0.91 range without too much trouble. But alas, I don't know if there's any potentially airworthy 990s sitting in the desert somewhere waiting in vain for someone who cares enough with a nice fat VISA card to come along and rebuild 'er.

FS2004 will have to suffice for the poorer folks.

AviationAddict · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:41 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
Seriously, I think that's nonsense.

How could you say it's nonsense? Look at all the planes the Soviets copied from the West over the years. The B-29, the DC-3/C-47, even the Space Shuttle just to name a few.

saturn5 · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:59 am

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21):
By the way, I just found out the Il-62 first flew in January 1961, 18 months before the VC10.

That is true but it doesn't prove anything. Tu-144 also flew before the Concorde and we know how well the Tu-144 project followed the Concorde development - they even seperated bank of engines in the last moment because Concorde did the same. Soviets at that time were very keen on winning "we are the first" propaganda show in everything - what counted was being the first regardless whether you were actually ready or not. There was a very nice documentary made for TV about the Concorde/Tu-144 rivalry that highlighted Tupolev's determination to fly first.

RC135U · Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:46 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 33):
Fair enough, but the only DC-8s still around are the -60s and -70s, esp -73s, which were way larger than any 707, making them better suited to cargo.

I understand that the 707's weakness vs the later DC-8s was the landing gear, in that the 707's lower/shorter gear did not allow for much stretching past the length of the 320/420 series.

I guess Boeing learned their lesson - no problem stretching a 757. Wink

flydreamliner · Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:59 am

737 feels that same problem, I'm amazed they could stretch 739ER as far as they could.

As for 757, they sure did learn, that thing sits on top of a rediculously high undercarriage.

RC135U · Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:10 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 38):
737 feels that same problem, I'm amazed they could stretch 739ER as far as they could.

I think when the NG series was produced with the new wing, the landing gear was lengthened to allow for stretching the frame.

KBGRbillT · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:05 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 24):
Same here. No contest, the DC-8 was then, and is now the superior aircraft. DC-8s are still in wide service.

If it's superiority is so apparent to you then why did the airlines favor the B707/720 with about 855 built versus the aprrox. 555 DC-8's built. (Not to mention the 820 C-135 series aircraft built for various militaries)

Quoting Pgv (Reply 30):
I think one 707 got CFM engines, and it wasn't even sold.

Ever heard of the 200 + military variants that are engined with the CFM56 engines? (KC-135R's, E-6's, E-3D's, KC-135FR's, RC-135's et al.)

geoffthomas · Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:46 pm

The DC-8 was clearly superior to the 707 once its range was fixed.
The 707/720 outsold the DC-8 because it was cheaper -thanks to a military contract for the KC-135 and was available earlier by one year.

The Super DC-8s blitzed the 707 and you only have to look around today to see how many DC-8s are still flying in useful service compared to the 707.

On the VC-10, it was a way better aircarft than it was made out to be by BOAC and they made a very great mistake in dumping it for more 707s. Beacuse of its very quiet cabin it enjoyed load factors of plus 70% across the North Atlantic when the average was just 54% in the 1960s.

Best
Geoffrey Thomas

pillowtester · Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:57 pm

I was under the impression the VC10 was an awesome aircraft that was VERY popular with pilots and passengers, only not so much so by the companies running them due to fuel.

They are gorgeous in my opinion.

VC10 vs IL62 thats a joke - IL62 is underpowered wheras I believe the VC10 was over powered.

VC10 was like the sports car of the early jets.

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:35 pm

Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 36):
That is true but it doesn't prove anything. Tu-144 also flew before the Concorde and we know how well the Tu-144 project followed the Concorde development - they even seperated bank of engines in the last moment because Concorde did the same. Soviets at that time were very keen on winning "we are the first" propaganda show in everything

Correct, and I actually believe the VC10 had a long design history. It just amuses me that people assume that the VC10 was first. And the VC10 was not that prestigious, so it is not likely that the Soviets undertook a crash programme just to overtake the VC10.

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 35):
How could you say it's nonsense? Look at all the planes the Soviets copied from the West over the years. The B-29, the DC-3/C-47, even the Space Shuttle just to name a few.

The B-29 was indeed literally copied, but that's an unique act in aviation history.

The DC-3 was simply and quite legally built under license.

I'm sure the Buran was inspired by the Space Shuttle, just as the Tu-144 was inspired by Concorde. But they are not copies.

I'm sure Soviet spies were interested in many aspects of the Shuttle and the Tu-144. But the Russians didn't need espionage to adopt a general configuration, just as Fokker didn't need espionage to adopt the general configuration of the DC-9.

cricket · Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm

Lots of points have been raised, but while the 707 remained popular with passenger usage - until the USAF bought so many fuselages and even after that, the DC-8 was quickly withdrawn from passenger service and converted to freighters. Much like the MD-11 today? Was there any partcular reason Douglas (later McDonnell Douglas) jets were good as cargo planes?
With all the arguments about the VC-10 I am surprised that if it 'was' so great why didn't other Commonwealth countries buy it?

ptrjong · Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:19 pm

Quoting Cricket (Reply 44):
With all the arguments about the VC-10 I am surprised that if it 'was' so great why didn't other Commonwealth countries buy it?

The VC10 was good from short runways, but longer runways were built everywhere to accomodate the 707 and DC-8.

Quoting Cricket (Reply 44):
the DC-8 was quickly withdrawn from passenger service and converted to freighters. Much like the MD-11 today? Was there any particular reason Douglas (later McDonnell Douglas) jets were good as cargo planes?

Maybe the DC-8 has more cargo capacity in its belly? It has that bit of a double-bubble shape.

I'm also under the impression that the DC-8 was built stronger (and heavier), but I don't know if that is really true, or if it is really a significant advantage in airline-style cargo operations.

BDL2DCA · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:10 pm

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 40):
(Not to mention the 820 C-135 series aircraft built for various militaries)

Quoting KBGRbillT (Reply 40):
Ever heard of the 200 + military variants that are engined with the CFM56 engines? (KC-135R's, E-6's, E-3D's, KC-135FR's, RC-135's et al.)

Actually, the C-135 platform and the B707 are not the same plane. They are very similar, hence why the USAF bought a lot of 707s for spares, but they have different fuselages and other details, and were never produced on the same line.

The reason why we have CMF56 engines on the C-135 platform is because Boeing examined a re-enginge for the 707. Airlines did not want the plane, and they were afraid a 707 with CMF56 airliner would compete with the 757, so they killed the program. But the C-135 got the upgrade.

jwenting · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:12 pm

Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 3):
So would I... and throw the VC10 into the mix just to annoy people

Il-62 forever.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 8):
You and I certainly don't know for sure, or are you an ex KGB agent?

ex?

cricket · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:24 pm

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 45):
Maybe the DC-8 has more cargo capacity in its belly? It has that bit of a double-bubble shape.

I'm also under the impression that the DC-8 was built stronger (and heavier), but I don't know if that is really true, or if it is really a significant advantage in airline-style cargo operations.

What I mean to say is that other than the 747 - few Boeing aircraft (maybe the 757 today) have been as popular as douglas aircraft for cargo. Maybe McDD did design their planes to be cargo friendly.

Leskova · Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:26 pm

All I can say is that the DC3 (SAA Historic Flight - flight around Durban from/to Durban's Victoria Airport sometime between 1998 and 2000) and B707 (Air Zimbabwe from Victoria Falls to Harare in 1996) were two of the most memorable flights I've ever been on...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net