Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alpa Claims Input On DC-9 In 1948?  
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

http://cf.alpa.org/internet/safetytimeline/Labor1940s.htm

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?

Dl757Md


757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6871 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

I never heard of a 1948 proposal for a "DC-9"-- but if there was such a proposal it must have had nothing in common with the later DC-9.

User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2213 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



Delete this User
User currently offlineCV580Freak From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2197 times:

Testimony to above, current civilian fleets operating

B707 = 74
DC8 - 150



One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2056 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.

See:

Great Airliners: MDC DC-9
by Terry Waddington

[Edited 2005-09-11 16:07:13]

User currently offlineRwy32R From France, joined Aug 2005, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1948 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 4):
In July 1947 Douglas proposed the TS119

 old Correction:The program was named TS1119

Specifications:
Wing span : 101ft
Overall length : 75ft 8in
Overall weight : 25ft 4 in
Fuselage diameter : 9ft 8in
MTOW : 30,000 lbs
MLW : 29,000 lbs
Empty weight : 19594 lbs
Capacity : 28 passengers and cargo
Payload : 7,000 lbs

Same source:
Great Airliners: MDC DC-9
by Terry Waddington


User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1865 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!



dtwclipper


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1836 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
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1774 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.

Dl757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

Maybe it was really the DC 5, a twin.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineStirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1733 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)



Delete this User
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1689 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
8 Abreast In Y On DC-10 posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:15:35 by Coyoteguy
Why Are The 747-777 On Domestic In Japan? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 02:01:00 by Montenegro
SkyValue Takes On Southwest In The Chicago Area posted Mon Nov 27 2006 09:19:02 by QXatFAT
Rules On Investment In US Based Airlines posted Wed Nov 22 2006 20:47:55 by Qwame
Flying On AA In BWI posted Mon Oct 30 2006 21:19:31 by SJUSXM
YQT-YYZ On AC In 1991 posted Tue Oct 3 2006 05:34:38 by FighterPilot
Connecting On Southwest In Orlando Question posted Sun Sep 24 2006 05:43:21 by Iowaman
Knives On Planes In Peru posted Fri Sep 22 2006 05:12:40 by Aviationwiz
Can Anyone Tell Me What Plane I Flew On?! DC-8 ATI posted Tue Aug 29 2006 19:08:03 by Gh123
JL772 On Ground In PDX posted Fri Aug 11 2006 21:29:15 by Tugpilot