DLKAPA
Topic Author
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:49 pm

So could this be the reason why there are so many more DC-8's than 707s flying in civil service in the US today?

FAR 91.410 Special MX program requirements.
No person may operate [...] Beyong applicable flight cycle implementation time specified below, or May 25, 2001, whichever occurs later, unless repair assessment guidelines applicable to the fuselage pressure boundary that have been a pproved by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office, or office of the Transport Airplane Directorate, having cognizance over the type certificate for the affected airplane are incorporated within its inspection program:
(3)For all models of the Boeing 707, the flight cycle implementation is 15,000 flights.
(8)For all models of the McDonnel Douglas DC-8, the flight cycle implementation time is 30,000 flights.

So if I'm to understand this correctly, the DC-8 can fly twice as long before needing a re-skinning? Makes sense that cargo operators in the US would prefer it over the 707 if that's the case.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:58 pm

Douglas built airplanes like tanks that fill niches really well... look at how many DC-10s are out there compared with L1011s... or, heck, DC-3s out there compared with every other airplane of its class/timeframe put together.

And yes, thats my technical reply. Its also why CRJs aren't good at anything. They weren't built by Douglas.

[Edited 2006-10-31 05:59:35]
 
ShowerOfSparks
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:22 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:06 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Thread starter):
So could this be the reason why there are so many more DC-8's than 707s flying in civil service in the US today?

Nope, the reason you don't see so many 707's flying these days as has been discussed numerous times before is that the US Air Force bought much of the 707 fleet as it was retired from airline service in order to provide spare parts for the KC-135 fleet. Tail parts were needed and the engines and pylons were used for the upgrade to KC-135E program.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:25 pm

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 1):
Douglas built airplanes like tanks that fill niches really well... look at how many DC-10s are out there compared with L1011s... or, heck, DC-3s out there compared with every other airplane of its class/timeframe put together.

Agree, there's something about all the original Douglas and McDonnell-Douglas types that has generally given them a longer lifespan with fewer major maintenance issues than than comparable Boeing types. I'm not an expert but I've read numerous articles mentioning that the DC-8 has had far fewer problems with corrosion and resulting repairs than the 707. I think the same holds true for other Douglas types like the DC-9 and DC-10..

The other major reason for the DC-8's longevity was its original design which made it easy to stretch the fuselage by 37 feet to create the -61 and -63 models. That made them very attractive as freighters after their passenger days were over, with signficantly larger cargo volume than the largest 707-320 and about the same operating costs.

If NW had inherited a couple of hundred 737-200s from their various predecessors and merger partners instead of the same number of DC-9s, I doubt many of the 737s would still be in service, unlike the 100 plus DC-9s they're still flying reliably and probably will be for another few years, many of which are older than their pilots.

Although I liked the 707 and flew on quite a few, the DC-8 has always been my favorite jet type. A real classic.
 
LuckyEddie
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:42 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:57 pm

Reasons:
1) As in post one it is better built and the airframes are lasting longer without major structural maintenance requirements.
2) Douglas designed the aircraft to be stretched. Most importantly the landing gear was long enough to give the tail clearance required. The stretched versions are much better for the parcel carriers than the 707.
3) Probably with the above reasons in mind, 110 DC-8s were re-engined with CFM-56 engines (interestingly this was the first application of this now famous engine). This turned the stretched DC-8s into awesome freighters with excellent performance, fuel consumption and reduced noise.

The 707 had no chance.


Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 2):
Nope, the reason you don't see so many 707's flying these days as has been discussed numerous times before is that the US Air Force bought much of the 707 fleet as it was retired from airline service in order to provide spare parts for the KC-135 fleet. Tail parts were needed and the engines and pylons were used for the upgrade to KC-135E program.

Sorry I can't agree with this. The US airforce would only have bought all these aircraft if they were cheap. If they had been good enough and airlines wanted them, they would have bought them.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:39 pm

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 4):
Sorry I can't agree with this. The US airforce would only have bought all these aircraft if they were cheap. If they had been good enough and airlines wanted them, they would have bought them.

So the several hundred that the USAF bought and took out of service had nothing to do with the relative lack of 707s in the air today? The USAF bought them because they needed parts for their C-135 fleet, and no other airframes would do. They paid what they needed to pay to get them. It's not like they could have used DC-8s for spare parts....
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:25 am

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 4):
Sorry I can't agree with this. The US airforce would only have bought all these aircraft if they were cheap. If they had been good enough and airlines wanted them, they would have bought them.

Fortunately, the rest of us have facts to keep us straight.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-135e.htm

USAF acquired about 250 for the KC-135E program. This does not include 17 more that were acquired for the E-8 program.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:36 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Thread starter):
So if I'm to understand this correctly, the DC-8 can fly twice as long before needing a re-skinning? Makes sense that cargo operators in the US would prefer it over the 707 if that's the case.

It is not that they need to be re-skinned; a repair assessment has to be made. This is a tedious process for the older ariframes that have numerous repairs on them. The repair has to be documented, shape, size, thickness, material type, repair type (external or flush) etc. This is for airplanes designed under the fail safe concept, airplanes with damage tolerance have another requirement. A damage tolerance assesment may be required for those older repairs.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:43 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Thread starter):
So if I'm to understand this correctly, the DC-8 can fly twice as long before needing a re-skinning? Makes sense that cargo operators in the US would prefer it over the 707 if that's the case.

Even if the Airforce hadn't prematurely ended the career of the 707 by parting them out (I still remember seeing rows and rows of them in Tucson), let's do some simple math.

Assuming four hops a day, all year long, that would put the check time for the 707 at just over a decade. At two hops a day, it would be two decades. Suddenly it doesn't seem as important a factor when you consider that many airplanes end up being retired when their Deltas come up.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:51 am

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 1):
Its also why CRJs aren't good at anything

Way to insult your own jet  Wink

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 4):
Sorry I can't agree with this. The US airforce would only have bought all these aircraft if they were cheap. If they had been good enough and airlines wanted them, they would have bought them.

They were cheap, and it was at a time when the airlines were ditching them and a mass purchase of them was possible. I'm sure if they didn't buy them all up, many of them would have soldiered on in other capacities. 250+ 707's is a pretty large fleet.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:59 am

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 1):
Douglas built airplanes like tanks that fill niches really well... look at how many DC-10s are out there compared with L1011s... or, heck, DC-3s out there compared with every other airplane of its class/timeframe put together.

I've often wondered if Douglas would have focused on making an air frame to go head to head with the Boeing 757 that could have been their salvation for a few more years rather than re-shoeing the DC-9 and then just giving the DC-10 such a big make-over (MD-11). The 757 is by and large a twin-jet version of the 707 with a slightly more versatile and yes stronger fuselage of a 707 with newer larger twin engines rather than the quad set. Could Douglas have taken the DC-8 a step further and had loyal air carriers like Delta go for it instead of the 757 by the early 1980s?
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
akelley728
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:17 am

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 4):
Sorry I can't agree with this. The US airforce would only have bought all these aircraft if they were cheap. If they had been good enough and airlines wanted them, they would have bought them.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
USAF acquired about 250 for the KC-135E program. This does not include 17 more that were acquired for the E-8 program.

The pictures speak for themselves:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Newton
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Newton



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Orlando Sotomayor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages

 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:26 am

As was stated before, the 707 design was not a flexible one. It could not be stretched without a massive redesign, and the era of a two man cockpit was just coming of age.

In my opinion, the 757 is the logical successor to the 707. Everything you would ever want improved on the original design is basically found in the newer jet. Even the longevity has been extended - some of the oldest 757's are still flying.

An ironic point to me - the 757 is being discovered as the perfect trans-Atlantic vehicle for certain routes, nearly 50 years after its predecessor pioneered routes across the pond.

The DC-8, however, was a design that was MEANT to be stretched and extended and changed. The ultimate "transformer" passenger plane, new wings, stretched fuselages, and new engines, a DC-8-73 bears little resemblance to a DC-8-10 except in name.

Both were/are great airplanes and deserve to be remembered as the great leaps in technology that they were!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
TomTurner
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:14 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:36 am

I am not an expert by any means, but we are really comparing the life of the programs' deriviatives while not counting the USAF/military.

It is accepted that Douglas built very rugged aircraft and the 707 did not allow for all the re-engine options or stretches of the DC-8, but its not as if there are an especially lot (I don't think) original fuselage length, early-"ish" engine DC-8s flying around as compared to 707s really.

Tom
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:41 am

Quoting TomTurner (Reply 13):
I am not an expert by any means, but we are really comparing the life of the programs' deriviatives while not counting the USAF/military.

The point many of us are trying to make is that the 707s commercial life was cut short when 250+ viable and flying airframes were bought up for scrap. USAF didn't have much choice, as to them, it was cheaper than having many of the parts manufactured anew. That's not to say the airframes didn't have commercial value...
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
TomTurner
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:14 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:51 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 14):
The point many of us are trying to make is that the 707s commercial life was cut short when 250+ viable and flying airframes were bought up for scrap. USAF didn't have much choice, as to them, it was cheaper than having many of the parts manufactured anew. That's not to say the airframes didn't have commercial value...

Oh, yes, I agree completely...

More responding to the initial suggestion/question that the 707 was not around, while contemporary DC-8s might be, due to durability related issues..  Smile

Tom
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:58 am

So the B720 was it considered for spare parts to the USAF?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:05 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
In my opinion, the 757 is the logical successor to the 707. Everything you would ever want improved on the original design is basically found in the newer jet.

Not to be "nit-pickety," but Boeing designed the 757 as a "modernized" 727. However, the 757 having commonality with the 727, and the 727 having a 60-70% commonality with the 707, I guess you can say that the 757 has roots to the 707.
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 17):
Not to be "nit-pickety," but Boeing designed the 757 as a "modernized" 727. However, the 757 having commonality with the 727, and the 727 having a 60-70% commonality with the 707, I guess you can say that the 757 has roots to the 707.

In the fleet line-up of most carriers you could say the 757 was the logical successor, but as far as "metal" commonality it really was more closely related to the 707. It looks as if Boeing has timed the real replacement to the 757 to coincide when many operators look to start replacing their fleets of 757s in mass.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
User avatar
N707PA
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 11:01 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 12):
In my opinion, the 757 is the logical successor to the 707. Everything you would ever want improved on the original design is basically found in the newer jet.

Except for range.
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:56 am

Quoting N707PA (Reply 19):
Except for range.

The logical 175-200 PAX a/c Boeing comes up with to replace the 757 will probably have that greater range that carriers like CO and DL are looking for to better serve these more moderately sized Europe markets from JFK and ATL, but at 787 efficiency.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 16):
So the B720 was it considered for spare parts to the USAF?

Well... considering the KC-135's(aka 717) were built from 720 airframe. It would have been the logical step except the biggest thing they wanted from the 707 airframes was the motors. That was the biggest jump from a KC-135A to an E. With minor mods to the tail i beleive also.

Its too bad no one ever took a 707 and mounted CFM56's on it (ala KC-135R's).  Smile
KPAE via KBVY
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:56 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 21):
Well... considering the KC-135's(aka 717) were built from 720 airframe. It would have been the logical step except the biggest thing they wanted from the 707 airframes was the motors. That was the biggest jump from a KC-135A to an E. With minor mods to the tail i beleive also.

This is not true.
  • The 367-80 formed the basis for the 707 and C-135
  • The C-135 was almost directly derived from the 367-80, and flew in 1956
  • After having substantially modified the 367-80 plans to form the 707 (6" wider), the 707 flew in 1958
  • The 720 (originally 707-720) was a simple shrink of the 707
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:42 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 22):
This is not true.

Oops... someone smack me. Holy crap... i had a total mind melt. After all the time i have spent around 135's i can't beleive myself.

I mean't -80... not 720. My mind was... well... nevermind. Thanks for the wakeup call.
KPAE via KBVY
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:56 am

Quote:
In my opinion, the 757 is the logical successor to the 707. Everything you would ever want improved on the original design is basically found in the newer jet.

Not to be "nit-pickety," but Boeing designed the 757 as a "modernized" 727. However, the 757 having commonality with the 727, and the 727 having a 60-70% commonality with the 707, I guess you can say that the 757 has roots to the 707.

Actually, I think we're all correct in this matter - the 727 was designed to be a 707 compliment, but today the 757 takes on roles that both planes were designed for, namely trans-Atlantic runs AND domestic routes.

Now if Boeing could have designed a 757LR for CO, it might still be in production!! But then again, that might be the domain of the new 787.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
ShowerOfSparks
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:22 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:01 am

Quoting Beech19 (Reply 21):
Its too bad no one ever took a 707 and mounted CFM56's on it

Boeing did build one as a 707-700 and tested it but it was deemed a competitor to the 757 so it did not go into regular production. Shame really it looked really good. That airframe was refitted to -320 configuration and sold to Morocco.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:25 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 6):
USAF acquired about 250 for the KC-135E program. This does not include 17 more that were acquired for the E-8

If you subtract those 267 airframes from the 1010 civilian 707s built, that leaves 743 airframes not taken by the military, which is still more than the number of DC-8s built (556). This doesn't justify the claim that the reason there are more DC-8s flying now is that the military snapped up all the 707s.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:34 am

Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 25):
Boeing did build one as a 707-700 and tested it but it was deemed a competitor to the 757 so it did not go into regular production. Shame really it looked really good. That airframe was refitted to -320 configuration and sold to Morocc

 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:39 am

Quoting ShowerOfSparks (Reply 25):
Boeing did build one as a 707-700 and tested it but it was deemed a competitor to the 757 so it did not go into regular production. Shame really it looked really good. That airframe was refitted to -320 configuration and sold to Morocco.

To be fair, many of the military 707s have CFM56s. Not to mention all of those KC-135Rs.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 26):
If you subtract those 267 airframes from the 1010 civilian 707s built, that leaves 743 airframes not taken by the military, which is still more than the number of DC-8s built (556). This doesn't justify the claim that the reason there are more DC-8s flying now is that the military snapped up all the 707s.

Well, are E-3s (68), E-6s (quantity?), and C-137s (2) counted in that total of 1010?

Anyhow, how many DC-8s are flying out of the original 556? That's what we should be looking at.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 24):
Now if Boeing could have designed a 757LR for CO, it might still be in production!! But then again, that might be the domain of the new 787.

That would have been sweet. Maybe see 747SP ranges  smile .

P.S. ...love your username, long live the PA 747-121s!
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 28):
Well, are E-3s (68), E-6s (quantity?), and C-137s (2) counted in that total of 1010?

Evidently not. Reference.com says, "Production of the passenger 707 ended in 1978. In total, 1,010 707s were built for civil use. The military versions remained in production until 1991." Wikipedia says there were 1032 707s and 720s built for civilian use.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 28):
Anyhow, how many DC-8s are flying out of the original 556?

Just under 200 as of 2002 (compared to 80 707s), according to Wikipedia's DC-8 page.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18971
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 10):
Could Douglas have taken the DC-8 a step further and had loyal air carriers like Delta go for it instead of the 757 by the early 1980s?

Various DC-8 histories mention that Douglas could have sold more DC-8s and had interested customers, but they didn't want to cannibalize early DC-10 sales so they decided to terminate production in 1972, The final and most capable DC-8s (excluding re-engined -70 series), the -61/-62/-63, thus had a very short 6-year production run, 1966 to 1972.

Photos of the last of the 556 DC-8s below, delivered to SAS May 12, 1972 and with SK and their charter subsidiary Scanair until 1988. Then converted to a freighter and operated for Emery Worldwide until they ceased operations in 2001. I believe it has been stored since then. Registration is still active.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell Nilsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Plomitzer



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Simmons - Orlando-Tampa Aviation Photography

 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:45 am

Design critiera for both the 707 and the DC8 are...

707, 40,000 airframe hours
DC8, 100,000 airframe hours.

Early 707's suffered from extensive skin cracking on upper wing skins and the fuselage crown, above both the forward and aft entry doors.

Heavier skin and more doublers were used on later models, specifically the -320B advanced cowl model.

I should know, I flew both earlier and later versions, years ago.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:51 am




Quoting 411A (Reply 32):
I should know, I flew both earlier and later versions, years ago.

Do you mean you also flew DC-8s? I've been wondering which of the two has a more intuitive, straightforward systems layout. Not that either of them could be described as such, of course....just wondering which is more straightforward from the pilot's perspective.


2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm

No, 2H4, I flew only the B707, both short and long body models, straightpipe and fan powered.

However, those that I have spoken with who have flown both the 707 and DC8, seem to prefer the DC8.

As one said, years ago..."a DC8 is like a Cadillac, the 707 more like a Buick."
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 34):
B707, both short and long body models, straightpipe and fan powered.

I was going to ask how were the strait-pipes, I always wanted to see them in action and here how they performed, but then you replied;

Quoting 411A (Reply 34):
"a DC8 is like a Cadillac, the 707 more like a Buick."

I guess since a Buick is an old person's car, a 707 must be similiar  silly  .
 
mohavewolfpup
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:52 pm

RE: DC-8 Vs 707 Today

Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:49 am

are there surviving 707's that are still flown in the US or mothballed for a mueseum? i'm kinda worried that these have been reduced to trash status and cast off to junk yards compared to a B17,B29, etc. Would be cool to see one in a museum fully restored or one even flying regularly here in the us (not outside of it in mexico or anywhere)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests