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
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
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.