Largest Narrow Body

ssflyboy25 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:12 pm

According to wikipedia.org, "The DC-8-63 remains to this day the largest narrowbody subsonic airliner ever built."

true?

tz757300 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:14 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Thread starter):
largest

largest in terms of what?

ssflyboy25 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:24 pm

Sorry...

The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972. The DC-8-63 remains to this day the largest narrowbody subsonic airliner ever built.

tz757300 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:29 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 2):

The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972. The DC-8-63 remains to this day the largest narrowbody subsonic airliner ever built.

That still doesnt help any. Like largest in lenght, width, heigth, engine size...what?

ssflyboy25 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:31 pm

Thats all I got for the quote, but I imagine its in reference to pax capacity.

corey07850 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:38 pm

DC-8-63/73 is, as far as I know, the largest narrowbody ever made... This is in terms of max take-off weight, length, height, and wingspan. I believe the 757-300 comes in second. The 753 can hold more pax though

ssflyboy25 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:44 pm

Why was it discontinued in production?

Someone83 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:51 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 6):
Why was it discontinued in production?

Same reason as Ford no longer produces the T-model.......

brons2 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:53 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 6):
Why was it discontinued in production?

it was surpassed by newer machines. Having 4 fuel-thirsty JT3D didn't help, I'm sure.

the widebodies had far better CASM.

AsstChiefMark · Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:03 pm

What about these?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Gilston

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Kopczak

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Finn Yannick Piskol

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Rodriguez - Iberian Spotters

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marco Toso - SpotIT

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Savvas Petoussis

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tibor Mester

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Lorenzato - SpotIT

corey07850 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:06 pm

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 9):
What about these?

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 5):
DC-8-63/73 is, as far as I know, the largest narrowbody ever made... This is in terms of max take-off weight, length, height, and wingspan. I believe the 757-300 comes in second. The 753 can hold more pax though

Boeingluvr · Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:41 pm

You said "what about these" are you talking about in production or ever? If ever then yes they'd be right when they tell you it's the dc-8. The 753 is also discontinued but as they said comes in second.

N1120A · Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:09 pm

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Thread starter):
According to wikipedia.org, "The DC-8-63 remains to this day the largest narrowbody subsonic airliner ever built."

Physically, that is true.

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 4):
but I imagine its in reference to pax capacity.

Incorrect. The 757-300 has more usable interior space despite being physically smaller and hence greater capacity.

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 6):
Why was it discontinued in production?

Because it burned lots and lots of gas.

levent · Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:22 pm

The Ilyushin Il-62 comes pretty close to the 757-300's length, measuring 53.12 metres. It is a much more impressive machine in my humble opinion...

schooner · Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:23 pm

Interestingly the largest seating capacity single aisle airliners in service are the 2 TCX B757-300s. I believe all the other -300s in service have slightly less seating than the 281 that are fitted in G-JMAA and G-JMAB. Once managed a flight with 300 SOB once crew and infants were taken into consideration.

Cheers.

keesje · Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:45 pm

Some VIP version also are still in use. I think it has good range with the CFM56s.

baroque · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:08 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 7):
Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 6):
Why was it discontinued in production?

Same reason as Ford no longer produces the T-model.......

Not true, many of them were NOT black!

More seriously, once they got new engines, what was especially dated and inefficient on them, apart from size?

tjwgrr · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:51 am

Just for fun.....not a narrow body civilian a/c, and not as long as the DC-8-63, but the B-52H is shown as having max takeoff weight of 488,000 lbs. The DC-8-63 shows max takeoff weight of 355,000 lbs which beats the C-141B (323,100 lbs) and the IL-76D (up to 346,000 lbs.)

IMO the C-17 is a "widebody"- max gross t/o weight listed at 585,000 lbs

Looks like the B-52 is king of the narrow bodies in terms of max gross t/o weight.

longhauler · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:07 am

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 5):
DC-8-63/73 is, as far as I know, the largest narrowbody ever made... This is in terms of max take-off weight, length, height, and wingspan. I believe the 757-300 comes in second. The 753 can hold more pax though

While only slightly shorter, this beauty is heavier than either the DC-8-60/70 or the B757-300.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence

bmacleod · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:09 am

The 757-300 in terms of passengers is the largest narrow-body. The DC-8-63/73 is still larger in size.

tjwgrr · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:24 am

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 19):
While only slightly shorter, this beauty is heavier than either the DC-8-60/70 or the B757-300

Wow, the Tu-114 had a max gross takeoff weight of nearly 386,000 lbs and the Tu-95MS a max takeoff weight of 414,500 lbs.... impressive!

timz · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 5):
DC-8-63/73 is, as far as I know, the largest narrowbody ever made... This is in terms of max take-off weight, length, height, and wingspan.

The IL62M has more MTOW. Maybe more span, for all I know.

pnwtraveler · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:34 am

DHL is currently the only airline flying a DC8 into YYZ. Flying towards you on approach it is hard to tell it from an A340 until it gets closer and you see it is a narrow body. The bright yellow of DHL sure shows up from a distance as well. I remember when Air Canada Cargo re-engined its DC8's many years ago. The had one fly at the Toronto International Airshow and it was great seeing it banking and making passes out over the lake. The next day we watched the aircraft take off and return to YYZ for the 2nd of the 3 days. The DC8 did a fly by over the field.

rootsair · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:28 am

what about the 707 ?

airplane

FlagshipAZ · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:37 am

The biggest 707, the -320/420 model is still smaller the the DC-8-60s.
Does anybody consider the Concorde and the TU-144 as narrowbodies?
Regards.

PH-TVH · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:44 am

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 24):
what about the 707 ?

airplane wave

that for sure the most beautifull narrow body Big grin

tribird1011 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 23):
DHL is currently the only airline flying a DC8 into YYZ

Not true. UPS brings in one once in a while as well... Smile

legoguy · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 25):
Does anybody consider the Concorde

Yup, as they only had one aisle. Concorde was 62.17m (203ft 9in) and the Boeing 757-300 is 54.47m (178ft 7in).

797charter · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:59 am

.

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 25):
Does anybody consider the Concorde and the TU-144 as narrowbodies?

Why not, - they are indeed very narrow!

.

MD80Nut · Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:59 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 17):
More seriously, once they got new engines, what was especially dated and inefficient on them, apart from size?

The DC-8-60s that received new engines got them in the early to mid 80s, a decade after DC-8 production ended in '72 or '73. The CFMs did improve the airplane's overall efficency quite a bit, but we're talking about an older design and as time has marched on, simple aging and decreasing parts availability has gradually made them less and less economical to operate. That and the introduction of newer more efficent aircraft.

Cheers, Ralph

Viscount724 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:10 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 7):
Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 6):
Why was it discontinued in production?

Same reason as Ford no longer produces the T-model.......

A few more DC-8s could probably have been sold. Many books/articles mention that McDonnell-Douglas prematurely withdrew the DC-8 from the market in 1972 to avoid cannibalizing early DC-10 sales. By the time the last DC-8, a -63 for SAS (photo below), was delivered in May 1972, 26 DC-10s (all -10s) had already been delivered.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michel Gilliand
,

OceansWorld · Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:25 am

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 24):
what about the 707 ?

Just look at the dimensions of the B707-300B...

https://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=87

...and those of the DC-8-61/63.

https://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=194

The DC-8 is almost 11 meters longer and can accommodate 40 more passengers than the B707.

262 DC-8 Super 60s were built, accounting for 47% of the DC-8 production with 88 -61s, 67 -62s and 107 -63s.

Viscount724 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:36 am

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 32):
The DC-8 is almost 11 meters longer and can accommodate 40 more passengers than the B707.

The DC-8-61 and -63 are also about 5 feet longer than the DC-10.

rampart · Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:43 am

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 19):
While only slightly shorter, this beauty is heavier than either the DC-8-60/70 or the B757-300.

You beat me to it. Tu-114 must have been the largest turboprop in wide use. IIRC, it was the largest civil airliner at the time of its service debut in the early '60s. I think it had a brief history of appearance at JFK/Idlewild prior to Aeroflot being banned from US airports. Would have been something to see takeoff!

-Rampart

OceansWorld · Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:43 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 33):
The DC-8-61 and -63 are also about 5 feet longer than the DC-10.

That's right, but I kept my comparison to the narrow-bodies and specifically to the aircraft RootsAir cited !

Viscount724 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting Rampart (Reply 33):
You beat me to it. Tu-114 must have been the largest turboprop in wide use. IIRC, it was the largest civil airliner at the time of its service debut in the early '60s. I think it had a brief history of appearance at JFK/Idlewild prior to Aeroflot being banned from US airports. Would have been something to see takeoff!

I don't think the Tu-114 was ever used by SU in scheduled service to New York although it operated a few flights carrying government officials to UN meetings etc.

It was the type that inaugurated SU's first service to North America, to YUL, sometime in the early 1960s. It was replaced by the IL-62 in 1967 (SVO-YUL was the IL-62's inaugural international route). I believe they commenced service to JFK in 1968, soon after the US and Russia reached an agreement covering air services. (Pan Am began service the same day.) I think Russia stalled until the IL-62 was available as they didn't want to be seen operating a propeller aircraft on such a prestigious, high visibility route with all other carriers using jets on transatlantic routes by then.

Tu-114s used on domestic routes had 8-abreast economy class seating (4-4) but they used a 3-3 configuration with a very wide aisle on international routes.

GeorgeJetson · Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:17 am

With the exception of their wingspan, the DC-8-61 and the converted DC-8-71 aircraft are exactly the same size as the DC-8-63 and DC-8-73 variants. The -63 and -73 models (as well as the shorter-fuselage -62 and -72) have extended wing tips that increased the range of these aircraft. The redesigned engine nacelles on the -62 and -63, with their “ducted fan", reduced drag considerably compared to the previous models. It’s really too bad that not many of these are still flying although they are still common sights in airports like Miami, where Arrow Cargo still operates DC-8-63F freighters. Arrow Panama also has at least one DC-8-62F that's still flying.

Pohakuloa · Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:08 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Not true, many of them were NOT black!

Love the humor in that reference!!!! rotfl

rampart · Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:59 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
I don't think the Tu-114 was ever used by SU in scheduled service to New York although it operated a few flights carrying government officials to UN meetings etc.

That must be what I was thinking. Thanks.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
Tu-114s used on domestic routes had 8-abreast economy class seating (4-4) but they used a 3-3 configuration with a very wide aisle on international routes.

That was my next question. So, did the domestic 4-4 have unusually narrow seats, or is the TU-114 pushing the classification of "narrowbody", and maybe closer to a 767 in diameter?

-Rampart

dl021 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:44 am

Quoting Ssflyboy25 (Reply 2):
The Douglas DC-8 is a four-engined jet airliner, manufactured between 1959 and 1972. The DC-8-63 remains to this day the largest narrowbody subsonic airliner ever built.

I must beg to differ, since the test bird achieved supersonic velocity in a dive during flight testing.

Yeah.....it was measured at the wingtips....but it counts.

Awesome airplane.....victim of poor timing as regards sales. It's longevity as a revenue producing airplane is testament to it's design and construction.

TrijetsRMissed · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:36 pm

It's too bad the CFM's didn't arrive earlier. If they had, sales of the aircraft would have soldiered on. Even so, McDonnell Douglas made a mistake closing the line when they did. It left a big gap in capacity with their aircraft offered (DC-9, DC-10). Airlines had no other choice but to go to Boeing for a 727 before the MD-80 arrived.

I don't think the DC-8 would have cannibalized sales of the DC-10, they flew different missions. UA flew each side by side for nearly 20 years. But the real mistake was not developing a modernized DC-8 twin by the late 70's. Perhaps the 757 would have had company.

cschleic · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:47 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
More seriously, once they got new engines, what was especially dated and inefficient on them, apart from size?

Three crew flight deck vs. two on the 757. Plus, fuel and maintenance on four vs. two engines. Older structure that required more maintenance. Probably longer take off roll than others which limited its choices of airports.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 40):
I don't think the DC-8 would have cannibalized sales of the DC-10, they flew different missions. UA flew each side by side for nearly 20 years

Interesting point. I once flew an SFO-SEA round trip. One leg on a DC-8, the other on a DC-10. My last ride on one was ORD - IAD in 1991, not long before they retired them. They sure had a lot of doors on them. And those funny little baggage pods that were loaded from the bottom.

cf6ppe · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:53 pm

I couldn't decide which parts the above replys to quote, so I'm just going to state a few DC-8-61/63 facts that I remember from my association with the "big fans" as they were called at the time.

At the time that many of these fine airframes were new, the Viet Nam operations were on-going. Many of these frames were operated under MAC (Military Airlift Command) Charter contracts in what was then considered high density configurations of 227 seats, and 248 and 252 seats (all coach).

The range payload trade offs for the 227 seat configurations provided a range of 3,000 nm with appropriate reserves while the 248/252 seat configurations provided a range of 2,500 nm with appropriate reserves.

GeorgeJetson · Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:54 pm

Quoting DL021 (Reply 39):
I must beg to differ, since the test bird achieved supersonic velocity in a dive during flight testing.

You are correct that a DC-8 did break the sound barrier (see http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm ) and in fact was the first civilian jet to do so (not the Concorde, nor the Tupolev Tu-144 SST). However, it was a DC-8-43 with Rolls Royce Conway engines, destined for Canadian Pacific that did this amazing feat, not a Pratt & Whitney-powered DC-8-63.

TrijetsRMissed · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:03 pm

Quoting Cschleic (Reply 41):
Interesting point. I once flew an SFO-SEA round trip. One leg on a DC-8, the other on a DC-10.

Those were the days... But nonetheless, I believe they could have co-existed, even if they flew on the same route from time to time. Much like the 763 and 752 have been for the last 15-20 years.

ebj1248650 · Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:32 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
Some VIP version also are still in use. I think it has good range with the CFM56s.

The DC-8-70 series got very impressive range and fuel economy was outstanding ... in its day. The newer airliners are obviously more fuel efficient but there was a pretty big demand for the CFM56 powered DC-8s when they first became available.

eraugrad02 · Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:58 am

What narrow body is currently the longest in production today? The A321 or 737-900ER?

cageyjames · Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 46):
What narrow body is currently the longest in production today? The A321 or 737-900ER?

A321 is longer. 146 ft versus 138 ft

GeorgeJetson · Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:49 am

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 40):
What narrow body is currently the longest in production today? The A321 or 737-900ER?

Quoting Cageyjames (Reply 47):
A321 is longer. 146 ft versus 138 ft

WRONG!!! Try the Tupolev Tu-204 and Tu-214 [which look like a bad copy of a Boeing 757-200] (with a fuselage length of 151 feet and 3 inches) are the longest narrow bodies in production today, although their production run is nothing to brag about!

As for the narrow body with the longest production today, why the Boeing 737 of course!

cageyjames · Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:24 am

Quoting GeorgeJetson (Reply 48):
WRONG!!! Try the Tupolev Tu-204 and Tu-214 [which look like a bad copy of a Boeing 757-200] (with a fuselage length of 151 feet and 3 inches) are the longest narrow bodies in production today, although their production run is nothing to brag about!

WRONG? How was anything wrong with what I said? The A321 is longer than the 739ER. The fact that the Tu-204/214 are longer is irrelevant when someone asks if the A321 is longer than the 739ER. sarcastic

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net