DC8 and 707

[AC560]

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

When IB used to fly them out of ORD they rarely made it without stopping in Gander, even EI had to stop on occasionally if they were heavy.

Weight isn't generally much of an issue when you can't fully utilize the cube of the aircraft because of the dimensions on the ULD's. I can't think of many operators that weight out before they cube out going to Europe on their freighters (density finds its way to the bellies of the passenger flights, crap goes on the freighters).

Could be the greatest plane to fly and make tons of $$$ for the small package guys. On the heavyweight side though there wasn't a lot of love for them.

 

[727gm]

updated and re-marketed the MD-80 and called it a 717 .

The Mcdonnell-Douglas marketing designation was the MD-95. (saw the first flight) The actual type per Douglas was the DC-9-95. THEN Boeing marketing stole the number off of their Model 717 Stratotanker and re-used it the newly-aquired program.

 

[727gm]

Neither. A KC-135 is actually a B-720.

The 720 was a civil aircraft, basically a short-range 707 with a different wing. KC-135, as stated elsewhere, is a B717.

 

[Publishers]

You might want to compare the maintenance costs of the aging aircraft maintenance program of Boeing versus Douglas and see why more did not last. In addition, the DC8 series outperfomed the Boeing on almost all fronts. The only version that was a bit differnet were the DC8-61's that United had because of this strange container system they installed in the bellies. In the -62, you had an aircraft that could go farther with more.
Just take a look at who still flies the -8 and it is testimony to the airframe design. Many of us thing that the airframe could have been re-engined again into a 2 engine design and been a great aircraft. Unfortunately Douglas scrapped all the tooling.