Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's  
User currently offlineGroundpoint9er From United States of America, joined Nov 2013, 3 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As an avid aviation buff and huge flight simmer (nearly 100 aircraft in my library), I would really appreciate some help from one or more of the many experts in our community. Recently, I've been flying the DC-8-43 and am really enjoying it. This was was one of the old DC-8's used by CP Air back in the 60's and 70's. According to their 1966 timetable , they were using these aircraft to fly nonstop between Vancouver and Tokyo Haneda. Yesterday, I tried to replicate the HND/YVR flight in fsx. With very little tailwind, I made the flight with full tanks and a somewhat reduced payload (maybe 75% of capacity). The trip took 9:36 and left me with about 11,000 pounds of remaining fuel. I used a consistent Mach .76 for the entire trip. First question: Do these numbers sound accurate at all?? The bigger question is: What type of Mach number might be required for a westbound trip - particularly against winter headwinds? I'm assuming that a greater reduction of payload will be required, but what about speed?? Somewhere near Mach .72, perhaps???? Thanks so much for your assistance in advance. You all are very much appreciated! And of course, thanks airliners.net for making all this possible!

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6873 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

CP didn't have any -50s in 1966?

HNL-YYZ isn't quite as far-- it started 1967.


User currently offlineGroundpoint9er From United States of America, joined Nov 2013, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not as I could tell. Believe it was a -43 back then. I had already thought of that. CP Air introduced the stretched DC-8's the following year, I believe. Thanks!!!

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Mach .76 and Mach .72 sound very slow for a DC-8.

Quoting timz (Reply 1):
CP didn't have any -50s in 1966?

CP operated three 50-series DC-8s, 2 of their own and 1 leased for a year.

CF-CPM, a -53 delivered May 1966, retired 1982.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralf Manteufel



CF-CPT, a -55F combi, ex-Panagra/Braniff, acquired November 1967, sold 1978.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Krepp Photography



CF-CPN, a -51, leased from Trans International for a year October 1966 to October 1967. That was the original prototype DC-8, "Ship One", that made the first flight in May 1958. Later converted to a -51, refurbished and sold in 1961. Operated by several carriers over the next 20+ years. DL had it for 10 years after the CP lease.



User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 810 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting Groundpoint9er (Thread starter):
Somewhere near Mach .72, perhaps????

That might harm you, because you spend more time getting pushed backwards.


User currently offlineNatflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3739 times:

It's been a long time, but I flew -55s and -63s. Definitely M.80 back then, we figured average burn for the -63s at 14,200lbs pr hr, don't really recall the -55, probably around 13,500lbs/ hr.

User currently offlineGroundpoint9er From United States of America, joined Nov 2013, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks so much to everyone who replied tonight! You've all been very helpful!!!!!!! What a valuable resource you all are!!!

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4660 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 5):


It's been a long time, but I flew -55s and -63s. Definitely M.80 back then, we figured average burn for the -63s at 14,200lbs pr hr, don't really recall the -55, probably around 13,500lbs/ hr.

What a great Aircraft the DC8 was but those fuel flows are amazing and not much different than a 777 carrying twice the number of people and tons more cargo.


However the triple is boring..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
However the triple is boring..

Compared to the DC-8, most definitely. I imagine, however, that the Captains flying the -8 back in the day were thinking, "The DC-8 is boring. Now give me a DC-4. That was real flying". 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Now give me a DC-4. That was real flying". 

No, it was more like "give me a -6. That was real enough flying. Damned -4 would work you to death especially in ice or turbulence.   



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 9):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Now give me a DC-4. That was real flying". 

No, it was more like "give me a -6. That was real enough flying. Damned -4 would work you to death especially in ice or turbulence.

Heh. No fancy FADEC or FBW in those days eh? 

On a related note, I'm reading "Beyond Lion Rock - The History of Cathay Pacific" right now. Holy crap, that was some hairy flying. Both founders flew over The Hump (The Himalayas) during WWII, one of them over 500 times. This required flying at 18000 feet in a DC-3. Once Cathay was founded they would do HKG-BKK-SIN and back in two days, also in a DC-3. Thirty hours of flying in two days with only one crew!

There are stories of throwing out cargo, plus anything heavy and "unneeded" like seat belts (!) to save weight when they had an engine failure on climbout. And through it all, the stewardesses would serve tea and sandwiches, plus wash all the dishes in Darwin on the way to Sydney. To quote one of these, "we were too busy to be scared".



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFoxHunter From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

I have flown the DC8-21, -31, -32, -33, -51, -54, -55, -61, -63, and -73. I recall the -21, -51 both had a MTOW of 275,000 lbs. All -51s were originally -21s . I did not fly the -43s but believe they held the same fuel as the -33 but used a RR engine. The -21,-31,-32,-33, all had non-fan JT4A engines, made a lot of noise, burned a lot of fuel. I recall the rule of thumb was to burn 30,000 lbs the first hour. The standard cruise speed was M.82, later slowed down to M.80 after fuel prices went up. Before the Arab oil embargo in 73-74 I recall the airlines paid 4 to 11cents a gallon for jet fuel. At max weight the DC8 could not get higher than FL280 or FL290. The little windows on each side of the cockpit had the official name of eyebrow windows. The flight crews called them Boeing Windows because you could always see Boeings higher than you through them.

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4660 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2915 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):

Compared to the DC-8, most definitely. I imagine, however, that the Captains flying the -8 back in the day were thinking, "The DC-8 is boring. Now give me a DC-4. That was real flying".

Great post and you're right, that's the way I feel about the B727.

Quoting FoxHunter (Reply 11):
I recall the rule of thumb was to burn 30,000 lbs the first hour.

Seriously ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2870 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):

Compared to the DC-8, most definitely. I imagine, however, that the Captains flying the -8 back in the day were thinking, "The DC-8 is boring. Now give me a DC-4. That was real flying".

Great post and you're right, that's the way I feel about the B727.

It is interesting how some aircraft are felt by almost everyone who flew them (and many who didn't) to be "pilot's airplanes", in other words great to fly either through flying characteristics and/or system and cockpit design. I'd certainly count the DC-8, the 727 and the L-1011 among these. However, not the 747 or the 707 or the A300. Many do love the DC-9/MD-80,



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFoxHunter From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Yes, seriously, 30,000 the first hour.

User currently offlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6873 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Quoting FoxHunter (Reply 11):
All -51s were originally -21s

Offhand guess: nobody converted -21s to -51s. Don't think UA did, don't think EA did... probably NA didn't?

Quoting FoxHunter (Reply 11):
I recall the rule of thumb was to burn 30,000 lbs the first hour [on JT4A DC-8s].

Rule of thumb for the other hours was... 16000 lb?


User currently offlineFoxHunter From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

I stand corrected on the conversion statement of the DC8-21 to DC-8-51. The DC-8-51 I flew came out of the factory as a -51. Since the weights were the same as the -21 I had understood they were converted. The -51 I flew was delivered to Delta and then operated by Sterling Philippines in 8/77 as RP-C345.

The rule of thumb on fuel burn on the non fan -21s and -30s was 30,000 first hour, may have been 20,0000 second hour, and may have been 16,000 after that. The fuel burn was terrible on all the non fans. Since the max weight of the -21 was about 40,000 lbs less than the 30s the numbers may have been a bit better.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4660 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting FoxHunter (Reply 14):
Yes, seriously, 30,000 the first hour.

That's quite a burn, more than an early B747 but makes sense with the non fan models.
I envy your experience's FH, they must have been outstanding.


Best wishes,


Max.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fuel Burn For MD-83? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 03:37:17 by racsome
Fuel Burn Difference Between The A346 And 742/3/4? posted Wed Dec 30 2009 08:27:16 by EA772LR
RR Recovers Trent Fuel Burn Margin For 787 posted Sun Apr 5 2009 06:16:37 by Rheinbote
Source For Fuel Burn Information posted Mon Oct 20 2008 11:33:33 by ACdreamliner
New Engines For Concorde - Fuel Burn / Range? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 23:36:55 by A342
Fuel Burn For Taxiing Aircraft posted Tue Jan 3 2006 17:59:23 by Rampoperator
Adjustments For Fuel Burn posted Tue Oct 4 2005 16:36:56 by Tockeyhockey
Fuel Burn For 737-300? posted Sun Jan 16 2005 13:01:38 by Konstantinos
Fuel Burn On Dc-9-30s posted Thu Nov 28 2002 07:42:40 by Dc863
787 Fuel Burn Targets posted Fri Oct 4 2013 06:55:53 by justloveplanes

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format