Groundpoint9er
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:11 pm

Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:47 pm

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!
 
timz
Posts: 6100
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:16 am

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

HNL-YYZ isn't quite as far-- it started 1967.
 
Groundpoint9er
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:11 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:25 am

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!!!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:48 am

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.

 
LH707330
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:18 am

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

That might harm you, because you spend more time getting pushed backwards.
 
Natflyer
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:21 am

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.
 
Groundpoint9er
Topic Author
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:11 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:51 am

Thanks so much to everyone who replied tonight! You've all been very helpful!!!!!!! What a valuable resource you all are!!!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:41 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:14 am

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." - John Ringo
 
ImperialEagle
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:17 pm

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:42 pm

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." - John Ringo
 
FoxHunter
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:17 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:56 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:37 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:08 am

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." - John Ringo
 
FoxHunter
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:17 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:13 pm

Yes, seriously, 30,000 the first hour.
 
timz
Posts: 6100
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:25 pm

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?
 
FoxHunter
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:17 am

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:14 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Fuel Burn And Endurance For Older DC-8's

Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:57 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests