DC8 and 707

[SAAB Driver]

CoPilot Doug brought up a good question concerning the L-1011. I see many operators using the DC8 but other than the Air Force Reserve/Guard, I don't see any 707's being used. Anyone know why that is?

 

[DirtyBeech]

Maybe the stretched 8's with the new fans are more efficient. Just a guess.

 

[Spooky 2]

Your absolutely right. The fact that there never was anything bigger than the B707-320C limited it's desireability to second tier freight haulers. Also, even though there are C135's that have been re-engined, the 707 did not make the cut for the very same reason, the cost of upgrading the engines on a 707 was hard to justify, when you could get more lift out of a DC8, 61 or 63. The DC8 airframe was very rugged and compared to the B707, had a degree of durability not seen in the Boeing airframes of that generation, this according to Boeing engineers themselves.

 

[Dizel8]

There are still some 707's flying cargo, might be one or two pax birds left, but both kinds are mostly found in thirdworld countries.

The DC-8, due to design, was much easier to stretch. The 707 due to the short landing gear would have tail issues.

Since there were quite a few DC-8's in service, UAL was operating quite a few, a company called Gamma Corp, which was mostly ex Douglas employees, designed the pylon modification which could incorporate the CFM's.

The stretched 8 was by far the most popular for the modification, becoming DC8-71 or DC8-72, however, there were a few of the DC8-62's that become -72's. The one was for an arms dealer, another belonged to Aramco and I believe NASA operated one, now with UND I believe.

I guess the short story is, that the 8 just offered more bang for the buck!

Some more info on the Mighty 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-8

 

[SAAB Driver]

I was looking at airliners.net into the size and weights of the aircraft and never considered the length. Is there a standard size pallet in the cargo world? If there is, any info on its size, the load it can take, and how many can fit on a DC-8?

Lastly, with hush kits a requirement of stage III, in 1999, did those aircraft take a hit on fuel burn to achieve the noise compliance?

 

[Spooky 2]

There are still some 707's flying cargo, might be one or two pax birds left, but both kinds are mostly found in thirdworld countries.

The DC-8, due to design, was much easier to stretch. The 707 due to the short landing gear would have tail issues.

Since there were quite a few DC-8's in service, UAL was operating quite a few, a company called Gamma Corp, which was mostly ex Douglas employees, designed the pylon modification which could incorporate the CFM's.

The stretched 8 was by far the most popular for the modification, becoming DC8-71 or DC8-72, however, there were a few of the DC8-62's that become -72's. The one was for an arms dealer, another belonged to Aramco and I believe NASA operated one, now with UND I believe.

The NASA/UND DC8 is sitting out at KMCC (McClellan) undergoing a D check. More patches and protrusions on that aircraft than a porcupine. I understand that a group of former UPS age 60+ guys fly it when it's inservice. Please, lets not hijack this otherwise intersesting string with some age 60 comments.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

There are still some 707's flying cargo, might be one or two pax birds left, but both kinds are mostly found in thirdworld countries.

The DC-8, due to design, was much easier to stretch. The 707 due to the short landing gear would have tail issues.

Since there were quite a few DC-8's in service, UAL was operating quite a few, a company called Gamma Corp, which was mostly ex Douglas employees, designed the pylon modification which could incorporate the CFM's.

The stretched 8 was by far the most popular for the modification, becoming DC8-71 or DC8-72, however, there were a few of the DC8-62's that become -72's. The one was for an arms dealer, another belonged to Aramco and I believe NASA operated one, now with UND I believe.

I guess the short story is, that the 8 just offered more bang for the buck!

Some more info on the Mighty 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-8

Just to clarify a -71 is a -61 with the CFM engines. Same airframe, different powerplant. Same goes for a -73 or -72

 

[Spooky 2]

I was looking at airliners.net into the size and weights of the aircraft and never considered the length. Is there a standard size pallet in the cargo world? If there is, any info on its size, the load it can take, and how many can fit on a DC-8?

Lastly, with hush kits a requirement of stage III, in 1999, did those aircraft take a hit on fuel burn to achieve the noise compliance?

I think the CFM's were Stage 3 out of the box and certainly a lot more fuel efficient than the JT3D's that were originally installed. Don't know about the containers. I think most 3rd world operators simply free load the cargo and strap it down on pallets or cookie sheets as they are sometimes called.

 

[sinkrate]

If it is old, in the air and in commercial service it says 'Douglass Commercial' on the registration. There are still DC-3's, 4's and 6's in the air. There are no Boeing 247's or StratoCruisers in commercial use. There are still several hundred DC-8's in use. There are just a handfull of 707's in civilian use. There are still several hundred DC-9-30's in scheduled use. I don't think there are any 737-100's in scheduled service. The only life limited airframe part in the DC-9-30 is the aft pressure bulkhead at 120,000 cycles. And there is an $800,000 fix for that.

 

[Piper877]

Is the the KC-135 a 707 or DC-8? I always thought it was a 707. I see quite a few at Grissom ARB (GUS) when I drive by on 31.

 

[Dizel8]

I should have said DC8-71 and DC8-73 in other words, the stretch, with a few DC8-72's for good measures.

Also interesting to note, is that some 8s started as say -20's but was reengined with later model engines and became -50's.

The 61 is a stretched series, which retained the original wing, the 62 and 63 both have the long wing, the 62 with the short fuselage.

As for Igloo size, I believe the standard Igloo fits on the 707. Cannot remember the number of Igloos on the short 8, but IIRC, the long had 18 positions.

The KC-135, AFAIK, is not a 707 per se, the fuselage is not quite as wide. I guess I was right for once, here is some infop on the 135: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135

Another good site for the 8: http://www.dc8.org/index.php

 

[Piper877]

I should have said DC8-71 and DC8-73 in other words, the stretch, with a few DC8-72's for good measures.

Also interesting to note, is that some 8s started as say -20's but was reengined with later model engines and became -50's.

The 61 is a stretched series, which retained the original wing, the 62 and 63 both have the long wing, the 62 with the short fuselage.

As for Igloo size, I believe the standard Igloo fits on the 707. Cannot remember the number of Igloos on the short 8, but IIRC, the long had 18 positions.

The KC-135, AFAIK, is not a 707 per se, the fuselage is not quite as wide. I guess I was right for once, here is some infop on the 135: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135

Fascinating...a Boeing 367-80. Learn something new every day. Thanks for the link. I was also curious about the engines on those things. I didn't know that the KC767 had been scrapped in favor of upgrades to the 135 and KC10.

 

[AC560]

I think most 3rd world operators simply free load the cargo and strap it down on pallets or cookie sheets as they are sometimes called.

DC-8 generally uses what is called an A-Container. It is either a structural (UPS mostly) or a 125x88 cookie sheet which is stacked 88" high in the center and tiers down the sides to match contour of the plane.

Good plane for flying envelopes, A-Containers suck the balls for heavy weight freight though as standard skid sizes don't really lend themselves to an A-Container. A lot of places would use frames (basically a cheap welded together tube frame to show the contour) over the cookie sheets because even though you think it would be easy to measure you would be surprised how many containers got plane side and wouldn't fit.

The DC-8 and the 767-200 are two of the worst heavyweight cargo planes imho (coming from the heavy weight operations perspective).

 

[Draginass]

Is the the KC-135 a 707 or DC-8? I always thought it was a 707. I see quite a few at Grissom ARB (GUS) when I drive by on 31.

Neither. A KC-135 is actually a B-720. The B-707 had different fuselage and wing dimensions. Same type rating, however.

 

[Spooky 2]

Next time your through KSAT take a look across from the main terminal. There is small MRO operation over there that seems to specialize in B707's. An amazing collection of tramp airliners pass through this place on any given week.

 

[freightdogfred]

Yea it's a real $hitty airframe....Hauls 100,000 lbs across the North Atlantic non stop.

 

[80for80]

Yea it's a real $hitty airframe....Hauls 100,000 lbs across the North Atlantic non stop.

I heard that Emery used to fly their DC-8s overseas.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

Neither. A KC-135 is actually a B-720. The B-707 had different fuselage and wing dimensions. Same type rating, however.

The KC-135 also never had a flight engineer. It had a Nav until the late 90's. There are still some tanker navs but they are around because there is no place else for them to go. 99% of tanker sorties go w/o navs.

 

[FearlessFreep]

KC-135:

The KC-135 is actually a Boeing 717, this is what was EXACTLY printed on the dataplate of the aircraft, at least when I was in the USAF, I doubt that they changed it. So when Boeing updated and re-marketed the MD-80 and called it a 717 they were actually using a designation that had already been utilized, albeit not well known. FYI, from my understanding the new 717 (updated MD-80) is a fantastic aircraft but not well accepted by the industry.

From my understanding the KC-135 has more in common with the 367-80, than with the 707. The 135 does not have an Engineer's station, the 707/720 does, the fuselage cross section is I believe the same as the Dash 80, the 707 is substantially wider.

Another interesting tidbit that I heard was that there was 90% parts compatibility between the 707 airframe and the 727!

From everything that I heard through the years the reason that the Diesel Eight is still in wide service and the 707 is not is because of a number of different reasons:

707 was more difficult & expensive to hush kit or re-engine.

There were significant corrosion problems in the fuel tanks and the wing root area.

The airframe of the 707 was specifically life limited, while the DC-8 is based on condition.

General efficiency. I remember a maintenance guy telling me a story about being out in South America or Florida. On the ramp was a 707 & a DC-8. He was fueling them for a flight to the same destination. He said that the 707 had 13 freight positions and the -8 had 18. He loaded 120,000# of fuel on the 707 and 95,000# on the -8.

I guess that would about sum it up.

This all of course is just what I have heard, by it all sounds plausible.

Emery conducted substantial overseas operations with their -8s.

The 70 series Diesel Eights are incredible machines, the -73's (longer wings) were my favorite. They fly like trucks and you really have to be careful in planning your descent as they do not like to come down. With no speed brakes you would either have to use the landing gear or if absolutely necessary you could pull # 2 & 3 engines into reverse inflight & past the interlocks! Pretty impressive, though considering the age of the aircraft and that there were pylon cracks developing it is not a good practice.

 

[tomgoodman]

Marketing ploy

The way I heard it, Boeing was planning to simply give the shorter-range version of its 707 a different "dash number", but United didn't want to explain to its BOD why they had chosen the DC-8 and now wanted some 707s after all. So Boeing replied: "Did we say 707? Oh no, this is a completely new airplane--it's--umm--the 720...yeah, that's it!