Date: 27 Jan 97 02:45:55 From: email@example.com (Stephen Westin ) Organization: Ford Motor Company References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.239@ohare.Chicago.COM> firstname.lastname@example.org (Merlin Dorfman) writes: > A couple of weeks ago in this newsgroup there was a thread about the > number of (early) DC-10s in service as compared to few if any L-1011s. > A similar comment might be made about 707s and Dc-8s. It has been > a long time since I've seen a 707 (707-airframe TACAMOs and Joint STARS, > yes, and a double-take at an A340 at DFW last year, but not an airline > 707). But I frequently see DC-8s, in cargo service with new engines. > Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service > up to 30 years later while the 707s are not? My take on this is that the DC-8 was, due to tail/landing gear configuration, amenable to stretching while the 707 was not. So there never was a Boeing equivalent to DC-8-6x. Some airlines deemed it worthwhile to re-engine the stretched '8s with CFM-56's, which improved fuel economy and noise performance and extended their useful life. The 707 re-engine program was dropped for lack of interest, though KC-135's got the new engines. I believe that 707's have trouble meeting airport noise requirements, so have been dropped from major airline fleets. -- -Stephen H. Westin email@example.com The information and opinions in this message are mine, not Ford's.