Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 27 Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1434 times:
The JTPO at Douglas Aircraft wasn't formed until 1952.
(JTPO=Jet Transport Project Office)
Impetus was the forthcoming USAF requirement for a jet-powered tanker.
At this time DAC had an order backlog of nearly 300 DC-6 and DC-7 aircraft.
The first flight of the DC-7 was still one year away.
Even as late as 1952, DAC had no idea of what shape or form their jet-powered DC-8 would take. So it's hard for me to believe, that a jet aircraft of any kind was being developed as early as 1948; no matter what the ALPA says.
At the time in question, DAC was busy with the DC-4 and DC-6.
So I think the writer of this article either transposed the "9" for a "6", or just finished an enormous bowl of Jamaica's finest. Either way, jet-powered aircraft 1948 were nothing but a glimmer in Donald's eye.
Trivia. When Pan American ordered 25 DC-8s (and only 20 707s)Boeing went apeshit. Pan Am told Boeing that the wider cabin of the DC-8 allowed 6-abreast seating over the 707 (which shared the cross section of the KC-135, wider still than that of the prototype 367-80, but not as wide as the Douglas.)Boeing went back to the drawing board and came out with a cabin 5cm wider than the DC-8. This design modification has remained in place now for well over 50 years.
The decline of Douglas Aircraft can be traced back to it's not getting a piece of the USAF order, therefore shouldering the jet development costs on it's own. Boeing on the other hand had a fat order from the USAF which went a long way in offsetting some of the enormous R&D costs. Arguably, the DC-8 was a much more versatile and more rugged aircraft, with examples flying still today, while comparable examples of 707s, CV-880s, VC10s and Comets are all but gone from the civilian skys
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
Quoting Dl757md (Thread starter): Did Douglas begin discussions, as ALPA claims, on the DC-9 as early as 1948, fully fifteen years before the official launch of the project?
In July 1947 Douglas proposed the TS119, labeled DC-9, as a DC-3 replacement. The design was similar in layour and size to the CV-240, though it only carried 28 pax.
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1086 times:
Quoting Rwy32R (Reply 5): Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 4):
In July 1947 Douglas proposed the TS119
Correction:The program was named TS1119
Yep, that's called a typo....sorry, but thanks for the heads up! But, at least you and I have read a book now and then and don't jump to wrong conclusions!
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1057 times:
Quoting CV580Freak (Reply 3): Testimony to above, current civilian fleets operating
B707 = 74
DC8 - 150
You are operating with imperfect information. The reason there are more DC-8s flying in civilian fleets is that during the 1980s, USAF basically acquired as many available 707s as they could to provide parts for their vast C-135/C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8 fleets. Some of those airliners in fact, became E-8s.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Dl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1555 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 995 times:
Thanks for the info and clarification guys!
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 6): at least you and I have read a book now and then and don't jump to wrong conclusions!
Just curious. Was that directed at me? Hope not because I was not drawing conlcusions at all, rather I was searching for clarification on something I couldn't justify in my mind.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 982 times:
Maybe it was really the DC 5, a twin.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Where have you been Safe....doesn't matter, good to see you back.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 7): The reason there are more DC-8s flying in civilian fleets is that during the 1980s, USAF basically acquired as many available 707s as they could to provide parts for their vast C-135/C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8 fleets. Some of those airliners in fact, became E-8s.
That is very true.
So one has to wonder, if the USAF hadn't undertaken the retrofit program, would the 707 be as common today as the DC-8?
When considering Boeing out-produced Douglas, 1830* to 556, the fact remains simply; Douglas built one hell of an aircraft.
*1010-707/720 series commercial and military aircraft
820-717/KC135 military platform aircraft
Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 4): In July 1947 Douglas proposed the TS119, labeled DC-9, as a DC-3 replacement. The design was similar in layour and size to the CV-240, though it only carried 28 pax.
I vaguely remember that.....
At that time anyone in commercial aircraft manufacturing was trying their hand at a replacement for ubiquitous DC-3.....even Douglas.
Douglas however, being the innovator, and having set the standard with the DC-3, chose instead to develop what became universally considered a thoroughbred of the Piston-era; the DC-6....
Wise decision, since all the competing designs to replace the DC-3 ultimately diluted the market; whereas with the DC-6, they had that market virtually all to themselves. (Although Lockheed gave them a good run with the Constellation)
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 910 times:
Quoting Dl757md (Reply 8): Just curious. Was that directed at me? Hope not because I was not drawing conlcusions at all, rather I was searching for clarification on something I couldn't justify in my mind.
No, it was not directed at you...but to those who immediatly assumed that there was no such DC9 or that it was the current a/c.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1555 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, 
From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1033 posts, 
From France, joined Aug 2005, 46 posts, 
Correction:The program was named TS1119 
Printer friendly format 
