AvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1046 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3958 times:
Approximately how many DC-8 and 707 aircraft are still in use worldwide? I know there are a couple of passenger 707s still kicking, and thats about it. But as far as the cargo side goes it would seem anecdotally at least that the DC-8 is far more common than the 707. Is this correct? and if so what might the reasons behind it be? Larger production run? DC-8 is easier to maintain? Thoughts, opinions, abuse? Put it all in this thread if you want to.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3924 times:
I dont have any info about 707s and/or DC8s still in pax service, but the DC8 is still in operation for cargo carriers simply because the aircraft made one hell of freigher and for various reasons was a better cargo aircraft than the 707.
Most of the DC8s still around are Super 60 series aircraft, the upgraded and streched version of the DC8 that was introduced in the late 1960s, these aircraft are larger than the original DC8s and 707s and became quite popular with cargo carriers....many DC8 Super 60s were converted from pax configuration; when the first generation widebodies were introduced in the 1970s, many airlines dropped the Super DC8 from their fleets when the aircraft were still quite young (they just went out of style, so to speak) and began their second lives hauling cargo. Also, the DC8 Super 60 re-engine project (CFM56 engines were installed) whereby the aircraft became Super 70 models added years of useful life to the type due to better fuel economy.
727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3903 times:
Another reason for more DC8s in cargo service is that, the 707 remained popular as a pax carrier in developing nations. There were also a large number of 707s purchased by the USAF to maintain the KC135 fleet.
"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
Boxsmasher From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
Also, the reason you were able to initialy stretch the DC8 is because it sits much higher up, on taller gear, allowing you to stretch the fuselage. Otherwise, like on the 707, if the fuselage were stretched you would bang the tail on every takeoff rotation. This is great foresight on Douglas's part. Stretching a 707 is not possible for that reason alone.
JJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
Cargo DC-8s in general has less restrictions in terms of maintenance cicles, if comparable with B707. Because of this, to maintain a B707 on the fleet costs more because the airline has to stop aircraft for maintenance before if would stop a DC-8.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 27623 posts, RR: 74
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3168 times:
One reason that is invalid is production run. Boeing made nearly twice as many 707s than Douglas made DC-8s, however, the DC-8s have lasted longer. Also, there is a CFM56 conversion for the 707 (many KC-135s have had it done). The DC-8 does have better takeoff performance and in its stretch form is a much, much larger aircraft. Makes one wonder, given its performance and range, why not have a cargo version of the 753 (the only narrowbody bigger than the DC-8) to keep the line alive and replace DC-8s
[Edited 2004-10-27 06:09:22]
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss