DC8 and 707

[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!

 

[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.