DC-8s in service; no 707s?
Merlin Dorfman
A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
Merlin Dorfman
DOR...@NETCOM.COM
Pete Adler
One of the primary reasons for the continuing success of the DC-8 is the =
stretched fuselage (-61/63 series). This significantly improved the =
economics of the airplane in comparison to the DC-8
Stephen Westin
My take on this is that the DC-8 was, due to tail/landing gear
configuration, amenable to stretching while the 707 was not. So there
never was a Boeing equivalent to DC-8-6x. Some airlines deemed it
worthwhile to re-engine the stretched '8s with CFM-56's, which
improved fuel economy and noise performance and extended their useful
life. The 707 re-engine program was dropped for lack of interest,
though KC-135's got the new engines. I believe that 707's have trouble
meeting airport noise requirements, so have been dropped from major
airline fleets.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
swe...@ford.com
The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's.
Steve Lacker
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> It has been
> a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
> yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
> 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
I saw a cargo 707 about 3 years ago belonging to a smaller cargo
company, not one of the big ones. About a 2 years ago I saw an
immaculate, gleaming 707 on the ramp in El Paso, and discovered that it
was a German Air Force aircarft. Others have later info on the
disposition of the 707 fleet than I do, but last I heard there were
still quite a few 707's carrying passengers in other countries-
particularly Latin America and the middle East. My guesses as to why we
see more cargo carrying DC-8's than 707's in the US would be that DC-8
airframes are less in demand for non-cargo applications, both overseas
and by vairious air forces. Also, I suspect that the first-line
operators of both aircraft held on to their 707's and ran them up to
higher hours than did DC-8 operators (not that the DC-8 isn't an
excellent aircraft, but it was decidedly less popular than the 707).
--
Stephen Lacker
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
512-835-3286 sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
J. Heilig
Come to Miami...there are *lots* of 707s still hauling cargo in and out
of here every single day. Not as many as there are DC-8s to be sure,
but I suspect it's a factor of operating costs at this point. The DC-8
has always been a good cargo hauling airplane. Come to think of it, so
is the DC-6 and the DC-10 and the MD-11. Perhaps Douglas should have
learned something from this trend a long time ago?
Jennings Heilig
Karl Swartz
>It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the
>re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series.
A DC-8-61/62/63 re-engined with CFM56 engines is a DC-8-71/72/73,
respectively. However, the ones you see in service are not *all*
re-engined versions -- I still regularly see DC-8s with the older
Pratt JT3D engines, and just the other day I saw a picture of a
DC-8-54F with hushkits on the original engines.
The CFM56-powered 70 Series is the most popular, of course, but
they're far from the only ones left.
--
Karl Swartz |Home k...@chicago.com
|Work k...@netapp.com
|WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills
Terrell D. Drinkard
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service.
Most are third world because they are Stage 1 howlers. There is a
kit to put the CFM56 engines on the '07, but it is tres expensive.
Something on the order of $12Mill if memory serves...
Terry
--
Terry
drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."
Bizfixer
CFM-56 engines on DC-8s allow them to meet current noise requirements and
are also very efficient. As far as I know, hush-kits for the 707 are
marginal on noise and the old engines so equipped are very
fuel-inefficient. I believe USAF re-engined some 707s (AWACS?), but too
expensive for commercial use.
Rgds,
bizf...@aol.com
Vince Wayland
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
I believe it's because there is a re-engining mod for DC-8s that makes
them more fuel efficient and compliant with the noise regs. I never
heard of such a kit for the 707. A United captain on one of them told
me that it was the most efficient plane at that time. The modified
stretch DC8s on United were one of my favorite planes, as a passenger,
of all time. Right up there with the B-720.
--
Vince Wayland - Onsite at The National EPA Supercomputer Center for Cray
Research, Inc.: NESC, 135 Washington St., Bay City, MI
48708 - Voice Mail (800) 326-1020, #53534
way...@cray.com v...@nesc.epa.gov (517) 894-7671
andrew m. boardman
Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline 707).
>But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
There are only 87 707s remaining that are registered in the U.S. (a
pretty even mix of -1xx and -3xx models), and indeed, it's been a while
since I've seen a civilian version in motion in the U.S. I was in Athens
last year, though, and they were reasonably common; I remember lots of
Air Afrique operations, especially. (And just as noisy as you might
remember, with, if I recall correctly, the original JT3Ds. Ouch!) I'd
assume their scarcity on the home soil is the usual matter of noise and
efficiency. Can anyone here speak definitively on the hushkitting and
reengining options for the 707s vs. DC-8s?
(There are a pair of 707s registered to "Quiet Skies Inc." in CA, which I
assume is working on hushkit options. Still, an amusing owner after my
Athens experiences.)
andrew
Richard Isakson
Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
> number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
> a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
> yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
> 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
>
It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the
re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series. Boeing made
the strategic decision not to re-engine/stretch the 707 (though they looked
very hard at it). They did re-engine the military versions but choose not
to certify the changes.
Rich
ERIKG3
707's are in service-
-with the U.S. Air Force as the VP's Air Force Two
-With MEA of Lebanon
-With some African airlines
-With (I think) TAROM of Romania
I recall that no stage 3 engine was developed for the 707, but is
available for the DC-8. Perhaps this is the reason?
-Erik
Kim Hackett
> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
I think it is because the DC-8s were reengined with CFM-56 enginees.
The 707 was never reengined with CFM-56s, like the KC-135s were to
make the KC-135R. If I remember correctly, Boeing was looking into
reengining 707s in the late 70s or early 80s here in Wichita about the
time they were doing the KC-135R program, but decided not to because
it would reduce their new aircraft sales.
Brian Maddison
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:
>Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service.
---
I don't think so. Flight magazine's census gives a figure of 136 in
airline service worldwide. JP lists 218 including private, corporate,
government and military.
Another factor to be considered in the fewer 707 survivors compared to
DC-8s is the acquisition by the US Air Force of over 100 airframes from
the airlines in 1981-4. These were bought for use as a source of spares
for the KC-135 fleet. Many of the TWA and American 707s went this way.
Were it not for this, presumably these would have ended up on the
used market along with the DC-8s which of course the USAF had no use for.
Most have been scrapped over the years, but some are still lined up in
rows at AMARC storage in Tucson.
Brian M
Louis A. Ramsay
In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Richard Isakson"
<r...@whidbey.com> writes:
>
>> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
>> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
>>
- - - - - snip - - - - -
>
>It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the
>re-engined/stretched versions. I think it was the -60 series. Boeing
>made the strategic decision not to re-engine/stretch the 707 (though
>they looked very hard at it). They did re-engine the military
>versions but choose not to certify the changes.
I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the
height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more
engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be
rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit
bigger in diameter. There a few of the re-engined KC-135's at Bangor
and those cowlings don't have much ground clearance. I just wonder,
with the engines that close to the ground, if there is much of an
increase in the amount of FOD?
Lou.
Steve Lacker
A number of people have written along these same lines:
I still don't think this is the whole or primary reason we see more
cargo DC-8's in the US. Why? Because the majority of cargo DC-8's I see
are powered not by CFM-56's, but by non-hushkitted P&W JT3D's, making
them either rather loud Stage-II or quiet Stage-I aircraft (I believe
they are Stage II, but I'm not sure).
Both the 707 and DC-8 started life with the turbojet powerplants, P&W
J-57 (commercially designated JT-3) or a larger P&W pure jet- the
J-75/JT4 I believe, but I'm not positive. Starting with the 707-100B,
the JT3D TurboFAN engines were used. I'm not sure which DC-8 first used
these engines, and I'm neglecting a small number of 707's that got RR
Conway engines.
My point is that the "most common" configuration for both the 707 and
DC-8 through the bulk of their domestic lives was to have JT3D
low-bypass turbofans under the wings. Although some civilian DC-8's and
now freight-carrying DC-8's received CFM-56 re-enginings, a lot are
still out there with JT3D's just like many of the surviving 707's.
However, most of the 707's now operate overseas carrying passengers.
Thats why I think (not a fact, just my opinion!) that the DC-8 is more
popular as a freighter here. Its less in demand elsewhere for passengers
(cheaper to buy), has great freighter economics, and yes, it does have a
certified upgrade "path" to CFM-56 engines- but thats less of a factor
since having JT3D's does NOT severely hamper operations... YET! Now,
Boeing did build and fly the 707-700 with CFM 56 engines, but decided
not to market it commercially, although the later AWACS and
foreign-sales military 707 derivatives were based on it (NOT on the
KC-135, by the way!) I don't know what rules/certification requirements
must be met in order to upgrade a JT3D powered 707 FREIGHTER to
CFM-56's. Clearly it can and has been done for military applications and
NOT for passenger applications.
KC-135's are another ball of wax. Many were re-engined to JT3D's
(Military TF33), and have since been re-engined again to CFM-56's.
I've left out a lot, and probably got something wrong- the history of
the 707 and KC-135 is truly a tangled web, and I'm going largely from
memory :-) I recommend "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter Bowers for
a good story of the evolution of the 367-80/707/717/KC-135/720 family as
well as other Boeing aircraft.
Roger Chung-Wee
On 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 , drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D.
Drinkard) wrote:
>In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
>Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
>>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
>> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
>>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
>>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
>>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
>> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
>>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
>
>Actually, there are over 400 707's still in active commercial service.
There are about 120 707s, mostly -300 freighters, still in commercial
service out of 1,009 ordered and delivered.
By comparison, there are over 250 DC-8s (out of 556 ordered and
delivered) in service mostly as freighters. Some 110 have been
re-engined with CFMI CFM56 turbofans which extended the life of this
aircraft.
--
Roger Chung-Wee <ro...@concord-world-travel.co.uk>
Concord World Travel, 278 Wightman Road, London N8 0LX
Tel: +44(0)181-342 8400 Fax: +44(0)181-348 0822
Jorge Bela-Kindelan
Two 707s serve as the Spanish equivalent to Air Force One (used to fly the
Head of State on official trips). They are so noisy they need
to obtain a special waiver from US authorities when traveling to the US.
They replaced a DC-8 (sorry I cannot remember which one) that had
frequent break-ups and became a source of concern.
David Lesher
So 707's are not [easily] hush-able....
But at one point 3 domestic airports had waivers. MIA was sure
one -- the only way to tell what was abandoned in Corrision Corner
and what was just parked RON was to look for inflated tires ;=|
Do those waivers still exist?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Michael Jennings
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Bizfixer <bizf...@aol.com> wrote:
>CFM-56 engines on DC-8s allow them to meet current noise requirements and
>are also very efficient. As far as I know, hush-kits for the 707 are
>marginal on noise and the old engines so equipped are very
>fuel-inefficient. I believe USAF re-engined some 707s (AWACS?), but too
>expensive for commercial use.
The 707 was still in production for military variants until
quite recently (six or seven years ago) was it not? Were these aircraft
built with CFM56 engines from the word go?
Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge. mj...@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk
"`I need every aluminum can you can find! And duct tape!"
Louis A. Ramsay
In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> Steve Lacker
<sla...@arlut.utexas.edu> writes:
- - - - - snip - - - - -
>Also, I suspect that the first-line
>operators of both aircraft held on to their 707's and ran them up to
>higher hours than did DC-8 operators (not that the DC-8 isn't an
>excellent aircraft, but it was decidedly less popular than the 707).
The B-707 may have been more popular with the scheduled carriers,
but, in the 70's, the majority of aircraft used by supplemental
carriers were DC-8's. The only supplemental using B-707's back then
was World Airways and they were in the process of changing over to
DC-8's and DC-10's.
I should have qualified "supplemental carriers" to read "U.S.
supplemental carriers". For some reason, a high percentage of European
supplemental carriers used B-707's. Go figure.
The DC-8/63 had a MGTOW of 355,000 lbs as did some models of the
B-707 (TWA's B-707BAH comes to mind).
Lou.
Karl Swartz
>I remember reading somewhere that the 757 has the same fuselage
>than a 707.
Above the cabin floor, the 727 and 737 have the same basic fuselage
design as the 707, and the fuselage in the cockpit area is likewise
the same. Below the floor they have a different cross-secion and
there are other differences such as a thicker skin on the 737 to
handle a higher cycle life.
The 757 is similar but is at least an updated design due to newer
certification rules and materials.
>If so can't we say that 707 are still flying though with new
>electronics and engines?
And a new wing, new tail section, new cockpit area (based more on the
767 than the older Boeing narrowbody designs), new landing gear, new
flight controls ... there are many similarities in design philosophy
and thus a strong family resemblance from many points of view, but
that's about it.
National Aero Safety
Louis A. Ramsay wrote:
>
> In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Richard Isakson"
> <r...@whidbey.com> writes:
>
> >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
> >It's a question of engine noise. The DC-8s that you see are the
> >re-engined/stretched versions ...
> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the
> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more
> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be
> rubbing on the ground ...
Isn't it also a factor that the Douglas DC-8's being the superior
product, are less prone to corrosion that the Draconian Boeing 707's?
All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort
into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design.
Ralph D. Livingston
alain arnaud
: >In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
: >Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
: >>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
: >> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
: >>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
: >>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
: >>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
: >>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
I remember reading somewhere that the 757 has the same fuselage
than a 707.
If so can't we say that 707 are still flying though with new
electronics and engines?
Alan Arnaud
John Ahrens
Roger Chung-Wee wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> There are about 120 707s, mostly -300 freighters, still in commercial
> service out of 1,009 ordered and delivered.
-----------------^^^^^
this isn't quite right as the last one out of Renton in 1991 (an E6 for
the US Navy) was line number 999.
--
I don's speak for Boeing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Ahrens | You can't control the wind
john.l...@boeing.com 94-26 | But you can adjust your sails.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
RD Rick
In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> National Aero Safety
<nat...@wwisp.com> writes:
>Louis A. Ramsay wrote:
>> In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Richard Isakson"
>> <r...@whidbey.com> writes:
>> >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
>Isn't it also a factor that the Douglas DC-8's being the superior
>product, are less prone to corrosion that the Draconian Boeing 707's?
>All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort
>into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design.
My first DC-8 ride was in 1959. The 707 wasn't all that much earlier.
I remember being told years ago that the 707 wing is prone to cracking,
and good for only about 30,000 hours, while the DC-8 is overbuilt, and
many have exceeded 100,000 hours.
When UPS was in the midst of buying re-engined DC-8's, they looked at
what it would take to fly them for another 20 years. They modernized
the avionics. They also certified and installed a new autopilot -
unprecedented in a transport category jet.
It doesn't make sense to re-engine a plane with limited hours life -
unless you are the USAF, with limited utilization.
WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56.
RD
Ryan Michael Stevens
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
ro...@concord-world-travel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote:
>On 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 , drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D.
>Drinkard) wrote:
>
>>Merlin Dorfman <dor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
>>>number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
>>> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
>>>a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
>>>yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
>>>707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
>>>up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
>From what I recall, most of the servicable 707s fleets were purchased by the
Air Force for parts to upgrade and support the KC-135. The larger vertical
stabilizer and the JT3D engines (turbofan as compared to the KC-135's
turbojets) were the most sought after items, in addition to (possibly) the
landing gear. This arrangement was beneficial to both parties, with the Air
Force receiving a large quantity of parts inexpensively and the airlines being
able to dispose of entire outdated and uneconomical fleets quickly.
In talking to a friend of mine that works in the airline business, he
mentioned that selling a used aircraft or fleet, especially to a third (or
lower) level carrier, can sometimes be more trouble than it is worth. The
purchasing airline quite likely needs spares, manuals, training, overhauls and
maintenance, etc. In the case of the 707 fleets being sold to the Air Force,
they were relatively straightforward sales without the post sale support
requirements and demands.
Ryan
J. Heilig
National Aero Safety wrote:
> All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort
> into corrosion protection. The DC-8 is also a newer design.
I'd beg to differ on that last statement. Both types were designed
within a couple of years of each other in the early 1950s, and the 707
was in production (even the pax versions) longer than the DC-8. The
last DC-8 was delivered in 1972. IIRC the last passenger 707 was
delivered in 1975 or so.
Jennings Heilig
Peter & James Liddell
While there is no re-engining for the 707 that is
comercially viable there is a "super"hush kit made by Comfan call
Q-fan. MEA has reffited some of it's 707s in this way.
--
Peter
"All alone in the Lonely Land"
Karl Swartz
>WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56.
The CFM34 is a GE engine in the roughly 9,000-14,000 lbs thrust range,
used on the Canadair RJ and its cousins. Far too small for the DC-8,
which uses CFMI's 22,000 lbs thrust CFM56-2C series engines on the
Super 70 series.
Damon Marcus Lewis
Louis A. Ramsay <l.a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the
> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more
> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be
> bigger in diameter.
I think they had the same problem with the change from 737-1/200 to current
generation 737's. The result, don't have a circular engine. The newer 737
engines appear flattened at the bottom. The engine accessories which would
normally be there were moved to the side. The result was good ground
clearance and a higher bypass engine.
--
Damon Lewis
H Andrew Chuang
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Karl Swartz <k...@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:
>>WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56.
>
>The CFM34 is a GE engine in the roughly 9,000-14,000 lbs thrust range,
>used on the Canadair RJ and its cousins.
Minor nit: it's CF34. The "M" in "CFM" comes from Snecma's engine
designation scheme. Snecma is not involved in the CF34 program.
Rich Nute
Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has
an APU, while the 707 does not.
Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to
get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started
from its APU.
If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground
equipment.
I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and
one big reason airlines favored the DC-8.
Richard Nute
San Diego
Gary McKinnis
>Louis A. Ramsay <l.a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
>> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the
>> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more
>> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be
>> rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit
>> bigger in diameter.
For those who don't know, the KC-135R is the KC-135A, with CFM56 engines
replacing the J57s. A year or two after the "R" entered USAF service, I
spoke to an "R" pilot who had flown his plane into Mather AFB (RIP), for a
static display. He said that the biggest operational concern he had with
the "R" vs. the "A" was that the huge nacelles on the "R" dictated a
significantly lower crosswind component during landings. On the *plus*
side 8-), he was very pleased with the extra power and the much shorter
runway requirements.
During the same visit, a couple of boom operators related stories of a
couple of "R" ground mishaps. It seems that ground crews were used to
walking around the inlets of running J57s with impunity. That habit
quickly changed after a ground crewman was sucked into a CFM56 running at
full power, during a ground test. The problem was that he was *not*
walking near the engine; he was apparently lined up even with the nose of
the aircraft when the suction got hold of him and his jacket.
The second story had to do with USAF maintenance truck operations near
aircraft with running engines. With the "A", it was OK to park a van
behind the airplane, just past the tail, but in the line of sight of the
jet blast. That habit stopped after a van was blown over during a ground
run-up of the CFM56s on an "R".
Gary
Andrew Muir
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
"Damon Marcus Lewis" <dml...@mit.edu> wrote:
>Louis A. Ramsay <l.a...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
>> I think another consideration in re-engining the B-707 was the
>> height of the existing engine off the ground. You can't add much more
>> engine diameter to a 707 before the lower part of the cowling will be
>> rubbing on the ground and, face it, the new engines are quite a bit
>> bigger in diameter.
>
CFM-56s under the wing. The last civilian 707 built was a CFM-56 protptype,
707-700 built in 1977. Boeing decided not to pursue the the airliner project
because it would have taken sales away from the 767 and 757. The plane was
converted to a JT3 707 and delivered to the Moroccan Government in 1982.
Terrell D. Drinkard
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Brian Maddison <BMAD...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>
>drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:
>
>
>I don't think so. Flight magazine's census gives a figure of 136 in
>airline service worldwide. JP lists 218 including private, corporate,
>government and military.
I'm going by an internal Boeing listing of active aircraft that we actively
support. I can not vouch for the accuracy of Flight Magazine.
--
Terry
drin...@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."
Dave Lee
The 707 was produced by Boeing in the "Dash 80" form well before Douglas
produced the DC-8. The DC-7 had numerous backorders when the Dash 80
came out. Douglas saw the writing on the wall, and even with the
backorders on the DC-7 giving them ample reason to sit on their laurels,
they commenced a task to develop a 4 engined plane which became the DC-8.
It was in response to Boeing.
When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance
characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were
disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption was
incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than stated on
the spec sheet.
The 707 was redesigned quickly after the DC-8 was launched, being the
"wider" one of the pair allowing six abreast seating while the Dash 80
allowed only 5 abreast. The 707 is 1 inch wider inside than the DC-8 thus
becoming the wider of the pair.
The DC-8 suffered in long-range performance compared to the 707 due to its
having a less swept back wing angle than the 707.
This information comes from my father who worked on the Dash 80 and 707
among other aircraft from 1950-1987.
Dave
Seattle, WA
--
"But seek first his kingdom and his rightousness, and all these things
will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for
tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
-Matthew 6:33-34
Seth Dillon
Richard Nute wrote:
No DC-8's as far as I know was delivered with APU's. Some were fitted
with them during the conversion to CFM-56's. The APU was actually two
727 type APU's installed in the aft end of the C-2 cargo compt. They
were contained in a pair of titanium (I think) enclosures. Exhaust was
routed through ducts and exited foreward and a little below the wing
leading edge. The exhaust ducts had a door which opened inward on apu
start. The actuators on these were somewhat unreliable at first and
would allow the door to close with the APU running, with predictable
results. The mod was not very popular as most operators already had the
necessary GSE in place to support the aircraft. Only one customer I
know of had the APU's installed
Also part of the mod was to replace the freon air conditioning system
with an aircycle machine type system.
-Seth Dillon
Ken
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>
> A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the
> number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s.
> A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been
> a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS,
> yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline
> 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines.
> Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?
If you go to Africa and the Middle East, you will find a number of B-707s
still in service. The DC-8 was stretched which makes it more economical
to continue flying than the 707; also the DC-8 was designed to have a
longer fatigue-life (100,000 hours) than the 707 (60,000 hours).
Ken Madden
J. Heilig
Dave Lee wrote:
> The 707 was produced by Boeing in the "Dash 80" form well before
> Douglas produced the DC-8. The DC-7 had numerous backorders when the
> Dash 80 came out. Douglas saw the writing on the wall, and even with
> the backorders on the DC-7 giving them ample reason to sit on their
> laurels, they commenced a task to develop a 4 engined plane which
> became the DC-8. It was in response to Boeing.
I hate to quibble, but that's not entirely true either. The project
office for what eventually became the DC-8 jet airliner was set up at
Douglas in 1952. The USAF's requirement for a jet powered
tanker/transport was issued just prior to this happening, and it was a
direct response to the USAF requirement that Douglas started looking
seriously at four-engined jet airplanes. This is just about the same
time Boeing started working seriously on the Dash-80 - which, btw, was
also intended to be primarily a military tanker prototype which could be
easily turned into an airliner. The main difference is that Boeing kept
at it while Douglas dilly-dallied around building DC-6s and DC-7s.
Boeing was Gen. Curtiss Lemay's favorite, so they naturally got the
KC-135 contract. It was at that point that Douglas came along with
their still-paper DC-8 and made it wider, etc (it's an old story).
> When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance
> characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were
> disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption
> was incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than
> stated on the spec sheet.
Hmmmm...that sure does have a familiar "MD-11" type ring to it,
doesn't it? Perhaps the airlines should have learned something in 1958?
>
> The 707 was redesigned quickly after the DC-8 was launched, being the
> "wider" one of the pair allowing six abreast seating while the Dash 80
> allowed only 5 abreast. The 707 is 1 inch wider inside than the DC-8
> thus becoming the wider of the pair.
Actually, "re-designed" is a better term. At that point it was a game
of catchup for Boeing (or so they thought), although overall, the early
707 was a superior product for long range flying (when the -320 model
came along in 1959). It wasn't until the DC-8-50 & 60 series came along
in the 1960s that the DC-8 ever really caught up with the 707 in any
measure.
Jennings Heilig
Ray Clawson
On 13 Feb 97 01:37:42 , ri...@sdd.hp.com (Rich Nute) wrote:
>Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has
>an APU, while the 707 does not.
>
>Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to
>get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started
>from its APU.
>
>If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground
>equipment.
>
>I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and
>one big reason airlines favored the DC-8.
I don't think the 8 had an APU from the factory. Some cargo 8's now
have APU installed in the forward belly compartment. It provides both
air and electrical (AC) power
Some 8's had an "Aux. Manifold" installed. A high pressure air bottle
for engine start where no ground air was available. It was a one shot
deal.
Ray Clawson
WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to
foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please
change the "eight" to "8" in the return address or it'll bounce.
Thundercraft
In article <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>, ri...@sdd.hp.com says...
>Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has
>an APU, while the 707 does not.
>
>Without an APU, the 707 needs auxiliary ground equipment to
>get the first engine started, while the DC-8 could be started
>from its APU.
I believe that the DC-8 used bleed air from onboard storage
to start the first engine. From there they used bleed air
from the running engine. I believe that most large a/c can use
bleed air for starting (including those with apu's). Smaller
a/c such as BAe146, Fokker 100, etc use electric starters.
>If true, the 707 can only go to airports with auxiliary ground
>equipment.
>
>I thought this was a serious negative factor for airlines, and
>one big reason airlines favored the DC-8.
Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8???
Even though I am a dedicated Boeing fan, I will concede the point
that the best looking jetliner ever built was the streched 8. It
is the only plane made in the last 40 years that one can
say had any sex appeal. (The previous winner was the super connie).
Don Stokes
In article <airliners...@ohare.chicago.com>,
Dave Lee <dl...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance
>characteristic and fuel consumption. Upone delivery the airlines were
>disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption was
>incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than stated on
>the spec sheet.
That's something the early 707-100s were also accused of.
>The DC-8 suffered in long-range performance compared to the 707 due to its
>having a less swept back wing angle than the 707.
Er, quite a number of airlines picked the DC-8 for its range; the 707 and
DC-8 leapfrogged each other a bit on the range front:
Seats Range
Year Model (Max) (St Mi) Engine Comment
1958 707-120 181 3000 JT3C-6
1959 DC-8-10 179 3800 JT3C-6
1959 707-320 189 4500 JT4A-3 Wing improvements
1960 DC-8-50 179 4800 JT3D-3B
1963 707-320B 202 5000 JT3D-3
1967 DC-8-62 189 5500 JT3D-7 Major airframe changes
1968 DC-8-63 252 5000 JT3D-7 S-t-r-e-t-c-h!
1970 747-100 ~400 5000 JT9D
1972 DC-10-30 ~250 6000+ CF6-6 With extra tankage
The DC-8 was fundamentally better range-wise (although not as fast) than
the 707-100, but not quite as good as the 707-320. Douglas only had one
basic airframe up until 1967, and just changed the engines. Boeing made
some significant wing improvements on the -320, rammed home by finally
putting some decent engines on the -320B.
it often seems to me that Douglas were always just a wee bit better than
Boeing at building a wee bit more into a basic airframe, and then
exploiting it later when engines became available, or a need demanded.
Boeing on the other hand always seemed a wee bit better at modifying an
airframe to achieve a given need.
--
Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
d...@vuw.ac.nz(work) d...@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386
gerhard
Rich Nute wrote:
>
> Somewhere, sometime, I was led to believe that the DC-8 has
> an APU, while the 707 does not.
The DC-8 does not have an APU as standard, from the factory equipment.
It's my understanding that UAL added an APU to their airplanes when the
CFM-56s were installed. DL's DC-8s did not have APUs while they were
with DL.
Mark McLean
I'm new to the newsgroup and have been reading this thread. Very
interesting, indeed. And I have a question that may have been already
answered, so please bear with me.
I'm a long-time fan of the DC-8, and probably flew it (as a passenger) in
the USA as long as it was available here. UAL (were they the last
domestic US carrier to fly them?) was flying a few of them up to about
five or six years ago (they often flew them ORD-SAN -- my route).
Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to fly the 707. Is there
anywhere in the USA that one might be able to fly one without leaving the
country? (or even leaving the country, for that matter?). Am interested
in doing it at least once.
Thanks for your help.
Mark McLean
mmc...@pacbell.net
RD Rick
In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> rpar...@uniserve.com
(Thundercraft) writes:
>
>Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8???
Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the
DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying
Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any
rate DAC wanted to build them. DAC refused, and FTL never bought
another new Douglas airplane.
Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be
building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so
taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is
unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet
transport airframe, but UPS did it.
rd
Steve Lacker
RD Rick wrote:
>
> In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> rpar...@uniserve.com
> (Thundercraft) writes:
> >
> >Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8???
>
> Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the
> DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying
> Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any
>
> Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be
> building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so
> taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that.
All granted as being true... in HINDSIGHT. I have to wonder, though, if
ANY airframe builder really saw the emerging importance of converted
freighters in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Also, I have to wonder if
UPS would be so "taken with the DC-8" if they had to pay for factory-new
airframes, rather than upgrade cheaper second-hand aiframes. Maybe they
would, since the upgrades they apply are definitely expensive. To my
mind, though, a used airframe is perfect for the freight industry, where
hours and especially cycles are accumulated much more slowly than in the
daily grind of passenger service. Even if Douglas had kept the ability
to produce the DC-8, could new DC-8's have competed with used ones for
the freight market??
--
Stephen Lacker
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
512-835-3286 sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
Filip De Vos
RD Rick (rick...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM> rpar...@uniserve.com
: (Thundercraft) writes:
: >
: >Why did the 707 out-sell and out-last the DC-8???
: Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10. They broke up the
: DC-8 tooling and converted the factory to DC-10. At the time, Flying
: Tigers wanted to place an order for 25 DC8-6x to be delivered at any
: rate DAC wanted to build them. DAC refused, and FTL never bought
: another new Douglas airplane.
Was the CFM allready in the works then? I remember reading in a story
about SPANTAX, a Spanish charter airline, that they were planning to
re-fan their Super sixties, should the offer be made, but I think that
was with the JTD8? Memory is tenuous.
: Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be
: building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so
: taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is
: unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet
: transport airframe, but UPS did it.
In addition, the fuselage could have become a major part of a new
airliner with two modern, high-bypass engines, sort of a 757 avant la
lettre.
(There was talk about McDonnel-Douglass cooperating with Dassault to offer
the Mercure as a DC-9 replacement)
Add a DC-10 derivate with the central engine chopped off and the forward
fuselage shortened.....
--
Filip De Vos Pierce Brosnan is OK as Bond nr.006
FilipP...@rug.ac.be
Daniel Mecco
The 707 was a much better aircraft, more versatile, and the U.S.
military contracts with Boeing IE: KC/RC/EC/135 --- AWACS & COBRA BALL
kept Boeing going back to the drawing board for many years to improve a
great product .Still today with the KC-135 the upgrade with the CFM-56,
engine the 707 airframe is still being improved and updated with the
latest technology
J. Heilig
RD Rick wrote:
> Among Monumental Dumb Decisions, that ranks high. They could still be
> building DC-8s, with a modern cockpit and new autopilot. UPS is so
> taken with the DC-8 they spent big bucks to do just that. It is
> unprecedented for a new autopilot to be certified in an existing jet
> transport airframe, but UPS did it.
> rd
I agree that it may have been dumb, but the DC-10 was fairly successful
itself. In the age of the widebody airplane (late 60s and early 70s),
Douglas would have gone down the tubes for sure if they had steadfastly
clung to the narrowbody line. The USAF bought a substantial number of
KC-10s, which they wouldn't have if the DC-8 had still been coming down
the line at Long Beach. We might now have KC-747s in service with the
USAF....
Hindsight is always 20/20. Who could have guessed 25 years ago that
the DC-8 would be the freighter of choice in an overnight package market
that barely existed back then?
Jennings Heilig
John van Veen
Something that has not mentioned is the price of a previously owned
airframe. I recall seeing adds offering DC-8's for about
$1,000,000US sometime ago. Such a deal at twice the price.
John
Filip De Vos
Thundercraft (rpar...@uniserve.com) wrote:
: Even though I am a dedicated Boeing fan, I will concede the point
: that the best looking jetliner ever built was the streched 8. It
: is the only plane made in the last 40 years that one can
: say had any sex appeal. (The previous winner was the super connie).
One word: Concorde.
Steve Lacker
Filip De Vos wrote:
>
>
> : Douglas killed the DC-8 to launch the DC-10.
>
> Was the CFM allready in the works then? I remember reading in a story
> about SPANTAX, a Spanish charter airline, that they were planning to
> re-fan their Super sixties, should the offer be made, but I think that
> was with the JTD8? Memory is tenuous.
Yes it was... an interesting fact I recently read about the CFM-56
series (in 'Encyclopedia of Aero Engines' by Gunston). Gunston says that
the CFM 56 existed for nearly 10 years before it really caught on. If I
remember right, CFMI was formed around 1970 or a little before, the
basic engine first ran in the early 70's, but didn't sell in large
numbers until the 737-300 in '81 (all dates may be off by a couple of
years... I read the chapter on CFMI, thought 'hmmm, interesting' and
then never re-read it). As for re-fanning with JT8D's, I think that all
the JT8-D series engines prior to the -200 had about the same thrust or
less than a JT4 turbojet, and definitely LESS than the JT3D turbofan...
in other words, 'not much of an upgrade' in terms of performance,
although noise and efficiency would improve. I do wonder why the CFM-56
is the upgrade of choice now instead of the JT8D-200. I guess the answer
is 'its been done and certificated.'
On a different subject, but one that started from this thread....
You mentioned SPANTAX... Were they not the last airline to operate the
Convair CV-990 Coronado? It certainly gets my vote as one of the
'sexiest airliners' of all time, even if it was a total failure in the
marketplace. And it had some sexy engineering features too... like the
clever aft-fan development of the GE J-79 engine. Plus, the only
airliner with a higher cruise speed than the Coronado is the Concorde.
Does anyone know if Coronados are still flying anywhere? I remember
being shocked when I saw one at Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl. about 6
years ago. I wondered what it was doing there at first, but soon found
out. It was being broken up for scrap... it left in small pieces.
Malcolm Weir
Except that KC-135s are 717s, not 707s.
Incidentally, it looks like the E8 JSTARS aircraft will mark the last
"new" application for direct Dash-80 devivatives.
On a barely related note, I was looking through my old copy of Jane's
last night, and was seriously amused to see that the 777 "is basically a
767 with a plug inserted forward of the wing and an additional engine
mounted over the rear fuselage".
[ I don't have the date of this issue handy, but the 767 hadn't yet
flown when the above was written. ]
Malc.
Richard Isakson
Malcolm Weir <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in article
<airliners...@ohare.Chicago.COM>...
<snip>
> On a barely related note, I was looking through my old copy of Jane's
> last night, and was seriously amused to see that the 777 "is basically a
> 767 with a plug inserted forward of the wing and an additional engine
> mounted over the rear fuselage".
>
> [ I don't have the date of this issue handy, but the 767 hadn't yet
> flown when the above was written. ]
There actually was an official Boeing 777 that was a three engine 767
derivative. The program was canceled when Boeing found that they owned
enough congressmen to get ETOPS approval for the 767. The 777 number was
then recycled for the new airplane.
Rich
J. Heilig
The only Convair 880/990 series still flying that I'm aware of is the
NASA 990 which is used as a landing gear testbed. The keel of the
airplane has been cut so that a center (test) landing gear could be
installed. They've been using it to simulate hard landings on the
Shuttle. The aircraft's landing gear is fixed down, so it won't be
breaking any speed records any time soon. According to the person I
spoke with at Dryden, they hoped to use it until the thing broke its
back at some point.
Jennings Heilig
Simon Ellwood
Stephen Lacker wrote:-
>Convair CV-990 Coronado? It certainly gets my vote as one of the
>'sexiest airliners' of all time, even if it was a total failure in the
I couldn't agree more - the 990 was (is!) a superb looking airliner.
I have spent much time trying to establish exactly which 990's are still
in existance - never mind airworthy!
NASA's space shuttle "gear tester" 990 (recently laid up after
completetion of the most recent round of tests) is the only 990 I know
for sure to be still airworthy.
Other candidates are N8357C, ex Denver Ports Of Call and Spantax EC-BZO.
According to Jon Proctor (a recognised authority on the Cv880/990 - see
his excellent book on these specific airliners) who has spoken direct to
the owner of N8357C, David Tokoph - who insists that the aircraft
remains airworthy. Since it last flew back in '91 I imagine it needs
some work. David was apparently willing to donate this aircraft to any
"non-profit making" cause i.e. a museum - but I don't know if this offer
still holds. Anyone Stateside know ?
Spantax's EC-BZO was apparently donated to the air museum "Cuatro
Vientos Museo Del Aire" in Madrid about the time the rest of Spantax's
990's were broken up (91-94). However, it remains stored at a remote
corner of Palma airport (Majorca), apparently in excellent condition.
The fact that it's remained here and not been ferried to Madrid
presumably indicates it isn't airworthy - anyone know ?
The derelict hulk of EC-BQQ can also be found at Palma.
Simon Ellwood
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Steve Lacker
Filip De Vos wrote:
>
>> : is the only plane made in the last 40 years that one can
> : say had any sex appeal. (The previous winner was the super connie).
>
> One word: Concorde.
In another post, I mentioned the CV-990 Coronado as being one of my
favorite looking airliners, and asked if any were still flying. After I
sent that post, I remembered that NASA had once used one to test Shuttle
landing gear performance, and found photos of it on the Dryden web page:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PhotoServer/LSRA/index.html
(Wow! those aft-fan GE turbofans are as smoky as J-57s)
To answer my own question, it appears at least one is still flyable-
some photos on that index page are from as late as '95. I don't know why
I think the CV 990 is so sharp looking. Maybe its the anti-shock
blisters on the trailing edge (which were a kludge to get it to meet its
advertized performance, but still look futuristic), or just the
generally clean lines on a small 4-engine airliner.