Re: DC-8s in service; no 707s?

Date:         03 Feb 97 03:16:35 
From:         rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In <airliners.1997.365@ohare.Chicago.COM> National Aero Safety
<nataero@wwisp.com> writes:
>Louis A. Ramsay wrote:
>> In <airliners.1997.287@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Richard Isakson"
>> <rwi@whidbey.com> writes:
>> >>      Is there a reason that the DC-8 airframes are still in service
>> >> up to 30 years later while the 707s are not?

>Isn't it also a factor that the Douglas DC-8's being the superior
>product, are less prone to corrosion that the Draconian Boeing 707's?
>All kidding aside, it is my understanding that Douglas put more effort
>into corrosion protection.  The DC-8 is also a newer design.

My first DC-8 ride was in 1959.  The 707 wasn't all that much earlier.
I remember being told years ago that the 707 wing is prone to cracking,
and good for only about 30,000 hours, while the DC-8 is overbuilt, and
many have exceeded 100,000 hours.

When UPS was in the midst of buying re-engined DC-8's, they looked at
what it would take to fly them for another 20 years.  They modernized
the avionics.  They also certified and installed a new autopilot -
unprecedented in a transport category jet.

It doesn't make sense to re-engine a plane with limited hours life -
unless you are the USAF, with limited utilization.

WRT DC8-70 series, I believe it is the CFM-34, and not CFM-56.
RD