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

Date:         19 Feb 97 02:46:26 
From: (Don Stokes)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <>,
Dave Lee  <> wrote:
>When launched, the DC-8 was said to have a certain performance
>characteristic and fuel consumption.  Upone delivery the airlines were
>disappointed to find that the stated performance and fuel consumption was
>incorrect, and that the range of the plane was much less than stated on
>the spec sheet.

That's something the early 707-100s were also accused of.

>The DC-8 suffered in long-range performance compared to the 707 due to its
>having a less swept back wing angle than the 707.

Er, quite a number of airlines picked the DC-8 for its range; the 707 and
DC-8 leapfrogged each other a bit on the range front:

			Seats	Range
	Year	Model	(Max)	(St Mi)	Engine	Comment
	1958	707-120	  181	3000 	JT3C-6
	1959	DC-8-10	  179	3800	JT3C-6
	1959	707-320	  189	4500	JT4A-3	Wing improvements
	1960	DC-8-50	  179	4800 	JT3D-3B
	1963	707-320B  202	5000	JT3D-3
	1967	DC-8-62	  189	5500	JT3D-7	Major airframe changes
	1968	DC-8-63	  252	5000	JT3D-7	S-t-r-e-t-c-h!

	1970	747-100	 ~400	5000	JT9D
	1972	DC-10-30 ~250	6000+	CF6-6	With extra tankage

The DC-8 was fundamentally better range-wise (although not as fast) than
the 707-100, but not quite as good as the 707-320.  Douglas only had one
basic airframe up until 1967, and just changed the engines.  Boeing made
some significant wing improvements on the -320, rammed home by finally
putting some decent engines on the -320B.

it often seems to me that Douglas were always just a wee bit better than
Boeing at building a wee bit more into a basic airframe, and then
exploiting it later when engines became available, or a need demanded.
Boeing on the other hand always seemed a wee bit better at modifying an
airframe to achieve a given need.

Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386