cargo 707 vs DC 8

[jsoceanlord]

you never see cargo 707's anymore - but you see DC-8's.

at first i figured that it was because of noise - but it might be because the stretch 8 has more cargo space.

(I'm not sure what my point is - not everything has to have a point all the time)

 

[pilotyip]

Landing gear

Landing gear on the 707 was short and could not be extended, therefore no strech 707 were ever built, the DC-8 had long landing gear so the fuselage could be streched and still be able to achieve te proper angle for take off and landing. So the DC-8 survives, the 707 is all but gone. Source of info Book on history of the DC-8. It flew like a heavy rock, except I think a rock was more manuverable

 

[FearlessFreep]

Couple of other things that may be a factor, some of which is just what I have heard from other people.

Supposedly the 707 has/had corrosion problems in the wing/fuselage juncture from what I have been told. Additionally I have heard that they had a finite airframe time. This is kind of interesting as there is a parts commonality of 90%
between the 727 and the 707. I dont think that the 727 was effected with the same problems.

The 707's for the most part were never outfitted with hush kits. Stage II was the best that they could do so after Stage II was phased out in most parts of the world 707's were relegated to operating in remote parts of the world (Africa). I did see at one point in time a project to hush kit a 707 in SAT.

The 707 was/is not that efficent. Told a story by a guy that was servicing them in South America that he was fueling a DC-8 & a 707 both bound for MIA. The 707 took 120,000 pounds of fuel and the DC-8 95,000. The DC-8 had about 4 more positions (cargo containers) for cargo. An interesting comparision.

The DC-8 (Diesel Eight) was stretched and the Sixty & Seventy series aircraft are "heavies" w/ MGTOW in excess of 300,000 #.

The Seventy series were re-engined with CFM-56's. They really are great & the aircraft just scoots with those engines and they are very fuel efficent.

The 'eight is built like a brick sh*thouse and from my understanding is not life limited. There are aircraft out there well in excess of 100,000 hours on the airframe. That's over 11 years of time airborne.

Take Care, Good Luck & Fly Safe!

 

[Publishers]

aircraft

Best aircraft wins over time

Better Payload
Farther
Faster
Less maintenance issues

Aging aircraft killed the 707

Not true that 707 not hushed to Stage III

 

[sleepy]

Funny, the USAF found a way to re-engine the 707 with the CFM-56, it's called the KC-135. I flew the DC-8 for a year (62, 63 and 71 series). It was a great aircraft, and didn't handle like a brick. I wish I was still flying them.

 

[C601]

DC-8

Another reason the DC-8 still flies today is that you can get away without closing the Cargo door in flight and still make it home in 1 piece ...dont think so ?


click here lol http://hometown.aol.com/c601/