Gr8slvrflt From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1613 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4135 times:
The -10s were the original turbojet engined versions with water-injection used by, among others United and Delta. The -20s had higher powered engines and were first used by Eastern. The -30s were the original intercontinental models ordered by Pan Am and many foreign carriers. The -40s had Rolls Royce Conway engines and were used primarily by Air Canada and Canadian Pacific. The -50s had Pratt & Whitney bypass engines. All the above had the same size fuselage.
The -61 was a greatly stretched 50. The -62 only had a moderate stretch but had modified wings, pylons, and nacelles. The -63 combined the longer frame of the -61 with the aerodynamic improvements of the -62. The -71, -72 and -73 are CFM56 re-engined versions of the corresponding -60s.
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4111 times:
I'll try to give a fairly simple explanation:
Series 11/21 - Domestic version of the DC-8 and the first ones to be built
P&W turbojet engines.
Series 32/33 - Overwater versions of the 11/21 series, they could longer
routes and I think they had more powerfull P&W engines
Series 40 - Overwater version with RR Conway engines. The diference to yr.
eye was that the front part of the RR Conway engines had a
smaller air intake than the P&W engine.
Series 50 - Same dimension that the other early series of the DC-8 but with
Series 55AF/F - All cargo version of the 50 series without windows.
Series 61 - Streched DC-8 with turbofan engines like the 50 series.
Series 62 - Shorter version of the 61, but bigger than the 10/20/30/40/50's
with new nacelles in the engines and with the biggest range in
the DC-8 family
Series 62F/AF - All cargo or with side-cargo-door version.
Series 63 - Same size as the 61 but with same type of engines and nacelles of
Series 63PF - Special version built for Eastern with some features of the cargo
63 ones but built as a passenger airplane. In case of convertion
it was less expensive
Series 71 - A 61 version with new CFM's. This version was harder to convert
because of the engines it used before, they needed to make
changes in the wing structure.
Series 72 - A 62 series with CFM's
Series 73 - A 63 series with CFM's
Between the 71 and 73 it's really hard to see a difference outside, the only way is to check out the history of the plane and find out.
I hope this helps. I know that you can be more refined but my description is like a easy-reference book.
Broke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3933 times:
Actually there are 2 visual differences between a DC-8-71 and a DC-8-73. One is very difficult to see at a distance and the other is a little more obvious.
The first difference is that the DC-8-73 has a 6' longer wing span and all of that is on the other wing panel near the tip. On the ground you can compare the two and see the difference, but at a distance that would be a trick to see.
The other visual difference between the two models is on the engine nose cowls. The DC-8-73 has 2 vortex generators (or strakes) at about the 10:00 and 2:00 positions and the DC-8-71 does not.
The DC-8-72 has the same wing span as the -73 and it also has the vortex generators, but it is 20' shorter than either the -71 or the -73.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
**The first difference is that the DC-8-73 has a 6' longer wing span and all of that is on the other wing panel near the tip. On the ground you can compare the two and see the difference, but at a distance that would be a trick to see.**
UPSfueler From United States of America, joined May 2003, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3719 times:
Alls I know is that when I fueled for UPS in Rockford(RFD) I used to hate fueling them. Its a pain in the butt to park behind the wing and drag out your fuel hoses 30 feet then lug them up metal stairs, then connect the hose to the port.