707 Vs DC8

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

of course it could have something to do with the usaf buying buttloads of 707/720s off the used market when they were doing the kc-135 e mods.....

The KC-135 and the 707 are not the same airplane. The USAF bought up some 707s for the E-8s, but the 707 and KC-135 are mutually exclusive. -135 drivers get 707/720 type ratings but the respective airplanes have different fuslelages, have drastically different systems, and the -135 never had an FE.

 

[B767Inst]

The KC-135 and the 707 are not the same airplane. The USAF bought up some 707s for the E-8s, but the 707 and KC-135 are mutually exclusive. -135 drivers get 707/720 type ratings but the respective airplanes have different fuslelages, have drastically different systems, and the -135 never had an FE.

OK..I guess I'll get to be the first to disagree with your post. The Air Force did buy a large number of 707's to use for parts on the -135 fleet. Specifically the JT3D turbo fan engines. And as to the second part of your post, as a previously qualified -135 F.E., I take umbrage. The Air Force used FE's on WC-135, VC-135, and some EC-135's.

 

[GittinFatter]

I spent just shy of 3000 hours as a DC-8 engineer. It truely is a remarkable machine but rather unrefined. I have never flown the 707 or DC-8 as a pilot, but the folks that have flown both, much prefer flying the boeing.I guess its smooth easy to fly plane, whereas the DC-8 is a big mack truck!

 

[afpa]

Just to clarify, you can still use inflight reverse on the inboards on the DC-8.

 

[GogglesPisano]

. The 707 or early 737 weren't built as tough. The early Boeing had skin problems.

Joe Patroni would disagree.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Diesel Eight!

Tough old bird. From my understandings the 707's also have some corrosion issues and from what I have heard a life-limited airframe, the -8 does not.

A 61/71 & 63/73 -8 is a pretty big aircraft. All of those models are categorized as "heavies" (> 300,000 # MGTOW) With the CFM-56's mounted they are very efficient. I don't think that UPS is planning to retire theirs any time soon. If I remember correctly UPS is currently operating the largest fleet of -8's. From my understanding they have all been updated with glass cockpits - EADI, EHSI, FMS

 

[1800 RVR]

If I remember correctly UPS is currently operating the largest fleet of -8's. From my understanding they have all been updated with glass cockpits - EADI, EHSI, FMS

No FMS on ours. We still use the good ole' INS.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

OK..I guess I'll get to be the first to disagree with your post. The Air Force did buy a large number of 707's to use for parts on the -135 fleet. Specifically the JT3D turbo fan engines. And as to the second part of your post, as a previously qualified -135 F.E., I take umbrage. The Air Force used FE's on WC-135, VC-135, and some EC-135's.

Yeah, I agree with what you said above. I was trying to make the distinction that the 707 and Kc-135 are not the same plane. I was not aware that the USAF bought 707s to use as spare parts for the -135 fleet. But you cannot buy a used 707 and turn it into a KC-135.

 

[b707guy]

While I understand your position, B767Inst, no umbrage should be taken regarding the comment that C-135s never had FEs. You've been there, so you know what L'il J said is semi-correct in that the aircraft never had a dedicated FE panel. It's not exactly common knowledge that various AF commands did and still do use a PFE on the 135s. Don't get me wrong - I always appreciated the reduced workload as a pilot with W&B, performance and with the overhead panel for pressurization and electrics in those cases, and the only complaint, if you want to call it that, is that it could get a bit awkward at times with the FE reaching over the throttles to handle to fuel panel. And you can't say that the fold-away jumpseat was exactly first rate. It wasn't even really rated for crash loads. The plane was designed to be operated in wartime with two pilots, a nav, and a boom operator.

Back to the topic, Waldom and HeavyJet's comments hit the nail on the head regarding the landing gear. And while I still miss flying the 707 and the C-135, I've sure come to appreciate the bulletproof but Rube Goldberg design philosophy of the DC-8. It's a great freighter.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

While I understand your position, B767Inst, no umbrage should be taken regarding the comment that C-135s never had FEs. You've been there, so you know what L'il J said is semi-correct in that the aircraft never had a dedicated FE panel. It's not exactly common knowledge that various AF commands did and still do use a PFE on the 135s. Don't get me wrong - I always appreciated the reduced workload as a pilot with W&B, performance and with the overhead panel for pressurization and electrics in those cases, and the only complaint, if you want to call it that, is that it could get a bit awkward at times with the FE reaching over the throttles to handle to fuel panel. And you can't say that the fold-away jumpseat was exactly first rate. It wasn't even really rated for crash loads. The plane was designed to be operated in wartime with two pilots, a nav, and a boom operator.

Back to the topic, Waldom and HeavyJet's comments hit the nail on the head regarding the landing gear. And while I still miss flying the 707 and the C-135, I've sure come to appreciate the bulletproof but Rube Goldberg design philosophy of the DC-8. It's a great freighter.

God that is a beautifule -8 in the background....