Dandy_don From United States of America, joined May 2000, 202 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3875 times:
It seems that the 707 beat the dc8 into service but at the end of the day which do you think was the better plane? I know there are still dc8s in service as freighters. Does that mean that the 8 was better built, more economical, more dependable?
Not trying to start a Douglas v. Boeing war!
Anyone know what the final sales numbers were for these planes?
Capitol8s From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3792 times:
As a former flight attendant for Capitol Internatonal Airways. I flew aboard alot of versions of the DC8 which included the -54. -61, -62, -63 and -73
The -63, -73 were my favoites as they were long range and the interior had lots of galley and closet space....The DC8s had its drawbacks such as no APU, you had to rely on GPU wherever we went, flying the hadj during the late 70s was no fun especially when there was no GPU available at Kano.
for the most part our pilots always had high marks for the DC8...it truly was a classic airplane.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3749 times:
Donald Nyrop didn't think so. NW had five DC8's in the very early sixies and then turned around and bought five Boeing 707-320B's. The DC8 could not fly SEA-TOKYO NS going west. The plane had to stop in ANC for fuel like the prop planes before it. After NW received the 707's, they sold the DC8's.
Nyrop was president of NW from the fifties to the mid seventies and NW ALWAYS made money with him at the helm. He was tight and ruled with an iron fist. The carriers could use someone like him today.
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Tbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
IMissPiedmont is right on target! It was all timing and need. The DC-8 followed the 707. For better or worse, we'll never know, but sales figures do talk. I am an avowed and loyal fan of Boeing products (especially any version of the 747 and 727/737), but there was something about the ride of the "8" that felt more solid and smoother. Sort of like an expensive car that purrs along, but you know you've got dependable power.
Now it's a moot point. Boeing owns McDonnell-Douglas, although the "8's" were built in the days of Douglas prior to McDonnell's takeover. Simply look at the 717 - it's a modified DC-9 design. I guess that's the amalgamation of two great design and building teams. Get it together Boeing, and knock the world's socks off again! You can do it!
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3393 times:
Much truth spoken about timing. However, one thing is for sure... The DC-8 has endured the rigours of life on the line better than the 707. Whilst the freighter and CFM conversion issues were also in part associated with timing (and capacity in the case of the -63F/-73F conversions) and these have contributed to the DC-8s longevity, the DC-8 has been demonstrated to be a more robust airframe, requiring significantly less aging aircraft modifications than the 707 to keep it airworthy - in fact, this has broadly held true with all MDCs, like the DC-9 which has generally required less mods to keep it up there than has the broadly equivalent 737-200s. We always used to think of Boeings like Fords - reliably and gets the job done, but maybe not quite as well engineeered screwed together as MDCs (although admittedly some would argue MDC over-engineered some of their a/c designs).
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8025 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
One thing that kind of hurt the DC-8 was the fact its cruising speed was a bit lower than that of the 707, not a good idea on long transatlantic flights. But the DC-8 Super Sixty series did get a new lease on life when the Cammacorp CFM56 conversion kits became available.
737doctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3002 times:
Having performed maintenance on both, I must echo Skymonster's point about the DC-8 having a more robust airframe. You can talk about timing all you want, but the Douglas was far superior structurally. It was built like a tank; if you wanted to invest the time and money, you could actually zero time the airframe. If it was still economical for US cargo carriers to maintain the 707 (which it isn't due to the stringent requirements of the aging aircraft inspection program), they would still be flying them, whereas numerous cargo carriers still fly the DC-8 today and plan to do so for quite some time. This doesn't even take into account the CFM conversions which only made the eight more attractive to would-be cargo operators.
OB1783P From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
You are right Dandy Don. Although the 707 had some advantages over its DC competitor, the 707 left the scene much earlier.
I can think of two factors that haven't been brought up yet.
The 707 could not be stretched as the DC-8 was, because the 707 was closer to the ground, and a stretched 707 would have experienced taiil strikes on take off. So I've read several times.
But even more importantly, the 707 was somewhat sacrificed in favor of the 747. It seems almost incredible now, when we have such a range of jets, but in the early seventies, all the glamour 707 customers, and some DC-8 customers too, went for the 747. For some of them, like PAA, it was too much and too early, and it was the beginning of the end.
If Boeing and PAA hadn't gone ahead with the 747, the 707 would have kept selling longer, stretched or not.
Now my silly question, since the 707 - 727 - 737 - 757 evolution was so smooth, is there any part, even trivial, of the 757 or 737NG, that was the same part of the 707?
Another thought, if Douglas had kept along with Boeing, there would be a DC-14 today!
I've flown thousands of miles and I can tell you it's a lot safer than crossing the street!
Douglas7Seas From United States of America, joined May 2004, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2534 times:
I prefer the 707. Having flown on the 707-320 from LAX to Hethrow (sp?) I found it pretty comfortable. I did the DC8-63 several times from CA to Okinawa and the Philipines. Found it kind of cramped. But these were chartered cargo a/c (TransAmerica and Flying Tigers). The 707 made a rapid exit from service with the advent of new a/c and the desire of the USAF to buy as many as possible to keep the KC-135 fleet in the air. Check out the remants at Davis-Montham.
Tan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
While the 707 led the way in revolutionizing air travel, and the DC-8 complimented that dramatic change..IMHO the DC-8 had a lot more utility built into it. That is why they are still flying as freighters.
I believe you will find the same(to a degree) of the DC-10's/MD-11's.Lots of ability to be modified for new uses as demands change.
The 707 (KC-135) will soldier on for a while..I do believe that the end is probably within 12-15 yrs for the military versions.