Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:31 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):
Can you tell me what the big yellow lever between the flap handle and the #4 throttle is ?
I don't think the DC8 had spoilers / speed brakes.

That IS the spoiler handle - ground spoilers that is. You armed the spoilers by pulling the handle out. On the early airplanes the ground spoilers deployed when the nose strut was compressed on landing, on the -54 on up it was main wheel spin up. You are correct, the spoilers were NOT speed brakes. With the gear down the outboard spoilers were lateral control assisting the inboard/outboard ailerons. On landing all 10 spoilers (I think it was 10; it's been 30 years since I've flown the beast) extended to become ground spoilers.

The speed brake was in-flight reverse thrust on the inboard engines, up to MCT (Max Continuous Thrust) Worked great but we always made a PA before using because it shook like a Mexican Space Shuttle!

The DC-8 was my first jet and I have about 5,000 hours total DC-8 time - 1,200 as F/E, 3,000 as F/O and 850 hours as captain in Series -33, -51 through -55, -61, -62, -63 and -73. What can I say, she was built like a battleship, had the cockpit ergonomics of a World War II submarine and handled like a 1959 Cadillac without power steering or power brakes. I have many amusing DC-8 anecdotes and I am a self appointed expert on this pioneer of the jet age if anyone should ask!

Sample DC-8 trivia -Look Ma, No windshield wipers! - engine bleed air blasted the water off the glass. Not uncommon on aircraft of this era, the Convair 880/990 and C-141 used this system also. The Rain Removal lever, available on both sides of the cockpit was the same part number and actual part as the tail wheel lock lever on the DC-3. True story!

Russ Farris

[Edited 2015-01-21 20:50:42]
 
Max Q
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:55 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 50):
That IS the spoiler handle - ground spoilers that is. You armed the spoilers by pulling the handle out. On the early airplanes the ground spoilers deployed when the nose strut was compressed on landing, on the -54 on up it was main wheel spin up. You are correct, the spoilers were NOT speed brakes. With the gear down the outboard spoilers were lateral control assisting the inboard/outboard ailerons. On landing all 10 spoilers (I think it was 10; it's been 30 years since I've flown the beast) extended to become ground spoilers.

The speed brake was in-flight reverse thrust on the inboard engines, up to MCT (Max Continuous Thrust) Worked great but we always made a PA before using because it shook like a Mexican Space Shuttle!

The DC-8 was my first jet and I have about 5,000 hours total DC-8 time - 1,200 as F/E, 3,000 as F/O and 850 hours as captain in Series -33, -51 through -55, -61, -62, -63 and -73. What can I say, she was built like a battleship, had the cockpit ergonomics of a World War II submarine and handled like a 1959 Cadillac without power steering or power brakes. I have many amusing DC-8 anecdotes and I am a self appointed expert on this pioneer of the jet age if anyone should ask!

Sample DC-8 trivia -Look Ma, No windshield wipers! - engine bleed air blasted the water off the glass. Not uncommon on aircraft of this era, the Convair 880/990 and C-141 used this system also. The Rain Removal lever, available on both sides of the cockpit was the same part number and actual part as the tail wheel lock lever on the DC-3. True story!

What a great and detailed reply, thanks for that and for the enlightenment !


Ok, I have another DC8 question for you. Is is true that none of the DC8 models had slats or leading edge devices of any kind ?


I believe they had slots ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
factsonly
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:31 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 34):

I'm trying to find some photos or drawings of the DC-8-61/63 massive galleys that SAS and other carriers had in their aircraft, but I haven't had any luck so far.

I have several colleagues who were FAs on the Scanair DC-8-63, and they talk about the huge galleys, where meal containers were stacked triple-deep and there was duty free stashed absolutely everywhere.

Does anyone have a hot tip on where one can find such drawings or any photos? I contacted SAS Technical at OSL, but they didn't have any blueprints of the DC-8 anymore, they said.

You may find this interesting, a PANAM or TWA competitive review of SAS DC8 and B747 service:

http://jonproctor.net/sas-tran-atlantic-service-1971/

[Edited 2015-01-22 00:32:38]
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:03 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 51):
Ok, I have another DC8 question for you. Is is true that none of the DC8 models had slats or leading edge devices of any kind ?


I believe they had slots ?

The first Series -10s delivered to Delta and United had no leading edge devices. After about the first year of service they were cycled back through Douglas for several modifications - installation of JT4 engines, removal of the water injection system required by the previous JT3s, a 4% leading edge extension to reduce drag at high Mach and the installation of the slot system, one each inboard of the four pylons to reduce approach speed by 10 knots. They opened at about flaps 10. Approach speed for the DC-8 were very similar to the 321 I fly today - around 140 knots.

More DC-8 trivia - The Blow Away Jet system. An early concern was FOD ingestion on the ground. DAC engineers came up with the Blow Away Jet, a high pressure stream of bleed air aimed to the front from under the engine to destroy that vortex you sometimes see on a wet ramp leading into the engine intake. Mr. F/E pushed a lighted blue button to shutdown the system at the beginning of the take-off roll. I think the 70 series did away with that nonsense among other things.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 53):



Interestingly enough when the 62 and 63 variants were produced, they did away with the leading edge slots. The slots were sealed and fuel capacity was increased. There were other mods for aerodynamic improvement, not the least of which was the change to the undercut engine pylons.

I had the opportunity to ride on the Delta 61s many times, but only had one trip on a 63. It was a MAC charter from FRA to McGuire AFB. I rode in the very last row. There was considerable engine buffet as the rear fuselage extended into the blast pattern from the engines. Also there was a distinct feeling of dropping as the aircraft rotated, due to the long moment arm from the landing gear to the rear of the plane. Not unlike the Tower of Terror at Disney World.

The DC-8 was my favorite aircraft. There was so much lift even at low speed, the plane seemed to settle rather than strike the runway on landing. There was no smoother ride than over the wing in a DC-8.
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:38 pm

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 54):
Interestingly enough when the 62 and 63 variants were produced, they did away with the leading edge slots. The slots were sealed and fuel capacity was increased. There were other mods for aerodynamic improvement, not the least of which was the change to the undercut engine pylons.

Sorry, that's totally incorrect information. The slots remained operational throughout the DC-8s entire service life. The -62/-63 changes were wingtip extensions and the cutback pylons. Most of the fuel increase in the -62/-63 came from the addition of a forward center tank.

Russ Farris

[Edited 2015-01-22 06:49:37]
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting factsonly (Reply 52):

You may find this interesting, a PANAM or TWA competitive review of SAS DC8 and B747 service:

Very impressive service. I do remember that SAS was queried a few times by IATA about their service, and getting close to offering "too much" service, more than what they allowed. And 7 F/As on a DC-8-55!!!

The DC-8 will always be a "favourite" of mine. My Dad flew them as a S/O when introduced to TCA, then F/O then Captain. So I have his manuals from 1961, 1970 and 1982. It used to bother him to no end that I was always digging in his books ... so when I was 13, he had a set of DC-8 manuals issued to me from AC. At the time they flew the -43, -53, -54JT, -61 and -63.

Like a typical aviation geek, I knew those books from cover to cover.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
superjeff
Posts: 1414
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Question for a possible retired (by now i would assume) UA person: I remember flying back and forth to college (from HNL to MSY - usually UA HNL-LAX, then DL LAX-MSY) in the mid 1960's on DC8's (all of which had the Palomar seats - I'm that old). Delta had converted their earliest to fanjets by then, but United hadn't. they marketed the DC8's as DC-8 Mark IV - I assume the Mark IV appelation means that the airplanes had been modified with the JT4 engines and slats, but can anybody out there tell me what the Mark IV really was?

thanks,

jeff
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:54 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 57):
I assume the Mark IV appelation means that the airplanes had been modified with the JT4 engines and slats, but can anybody out there tell me what the Mark IV really was?

The Mark IVs were the DC-8-52s. Or the -11/-21s converted to -51s.

[Edited 2015-01-22 07:56:42]
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
fxra
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 1999 1:03 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:19 pm

I always liked the DC-8's. I'm not sure if it was my first DC-8 flight (probably not), but my most memroable was a family vacay trip ATL-LAS. About halfway we lost an engine and stopped in DFW. I vaguely remember asking dad why were were stopping, we had three more engines! Being non revs (the paying relatives were immediately confirmed on another DL flight DFW-LAS or interlined), the trip to LAS became a bit of an adventure from this point. A jog through the DFW airport to an LAX bound L-1011, then a quick run to the then hourly LAX-LAS 737 (classic) trip. IN another sign of it being the old days, they didn't even close the cockpit door. (of course the first cass cabin were employee non-revs).

My last DC-8 flight was end of 2008 (maybe early 2009) between SDF and ATL on a UPS jumpseat. Sitting sideways watching the engineer.

Also some interesting trivia, Air Canada (I think) looked into upgrading to a two man cockpit. The FO seat was modified with rails so he could slide back to the engineers panel. Didn't work out obviously but that airplane eventually found it's way to UPS.
Visualize Whirled Peas
 
LH707330
Posts: 2440
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:31 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 42):
I recall the company telling us that the DC-8-71s were getting 25% better fuel economy than what the -61s got.

I wonder how they computed that. I recall reading in Boeing documentation about the CFM56 707s that they would get a 14% savings, and it was essentially the same mod. Perhaps the 25% came after flight tests.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:48 pm

Quoting fxra (Reply 59):
Also some interesting trivia, Air Canada (I think) looked into upgrading to a two man cockpit. The FO seat was modified with rails so he could slide back to the engineers panel. Didn't work out obviously but that airplane eventually found it's way to UPS.

The Trans-Canada Air Lines DC-8 cockpit has drawn a lot of questions on here. I think the thread is now gone, but I explained that when the DC-8 was first being pitched to TCA, Douglas accepted the proposal of a two-man cockpit. TCA had done that in the past, and TCA/AC since ... they have redesigned cockpits. (TCA/AC's Viscounts, Vanguards and DC-4Ms all had two man cockpits, where the manufacturer initially specified three.)

The F/O's seat was on rails right back to abeam the S/O's panel, and a lot of instrumentation and controls from the S/O's panel were placed under the instruments of both the CA and the F/O. Needless to say the DOT would not approve this, but the location of the controls stuck .. right to the last DC-8-63 built for AC. It made it hard to sell the aircraft later., as those cockpits were unlike any other!

But more than once, someone when realizing I flew for AC, asked about the DC-8 cockpit.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5723
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:48 pm

I flew the DC-8 3 times; the first two flights were BOS-ORY and back in 1989 on a charter flight (I have forgotten the airline.) At that time it was the cheapest way to get to Europe; I was going to see my 2 sisters, one living in France (who I helped move from Paris to Allouville-Belfosse) and one living in Germany. I was very disappointed to end up seated in a window seat next to a blank wall on the return flight. I do not remember which engines it had. The other flight was in the mid 90's on a UA Super 70 series; I do not remember the route; I was traveling for business. My information on the DC-8, and why it so outlasted the 707, was twofold; one, that it was built so tough (which undoubtedly entailed a weight penalty, but in the era of cheap fuel that was not that much of an issue) and the other was that because of the longer landing gear and better tail clearance it was able to be stretched, which would have been much more of a problem for the 707 (and Boeing built the 747 instead of stretching the 707, anyway.) The other issue was that MD sponsored the CFM re-engining, while Boeing declined because they were more interested in selling 757's. But it is unlikely that many operators would have re-engined the 707 because there were no stretch versions; I believe only stretched DC-8's got re-engined. The other thing I have read is that the high-speed high-altitude aerodynamics of the 707 were superior to the DC-8, primarily because of Boeing's foresight during the war; they were making money hand over fist and decided to invest in their own high-speed wind tunnel (all the manufacturers shared use of the NACA high-speed wind tunnel; none of them had their own at that point) while they had the money. This gave them a significant boost over Douglas in the 50s, in addition to their experience with the B-47 and B-52.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:43 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 60):
I wonder how they computed that. I recall reading in Boeing documentation about the CFM56 707s that they would get a 14% savings, and it was essentially the same mod. Perhaps the 25% came after flight tests.

I think the greater capacity of the DC-8-60 series made it a more viable conversion than the B707 series. Although the USAF has converted numerous C-135 aircraft to the CFM series.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
MrBuzzcut
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:25 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:46 am

I feel lucky that I got to fly quite a few legs as a passenger on the DC-8, both 60 and 70 series Combi aircraft operated by ATI between HNL and AWK from 2007 to 2009. Nice, smooth ride every time, plenty of leg room, and the pilots, FE, flight attendants and mechanic on board every ATI flight were always awsome, friendly people even with the 0430 departures from Hickam.

Now they're operating the 757 combi on that route, I hear it's a good plane too but I did love hearing those engines spool up even when I wasn't on the flight leaving AWK. Gotta love the classics.
 
fanofjets
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 3:29 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):
Can you tell me what the big yellow lever between the flap handle and the #4 throttle is ?
I don't think the DC8 had spoilers / speed brakes.

Actually, Douglas fitted fighter-style speed brakes just behind the wing root to the prototype. The device was not effective and was subsequently deleted.

One Web site I like is that of Fred Cox, a true DC-8 fan:
http://www.dc-8jet.com/
The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 
afcjets
Posts: 3684
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:10 am

What was the DC8 range compared to the 707 and did they ever fly between the US and Asia?

[Edited 2015-01-22 20:15:23]
 
afcjets
Posts: 3684
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
Although in a completely different category, one current aircraft that always reminds me of the DC-8 is the Embraer 190. Both have a slight nose-down stance on the ground and both have very similar proportions. Even the E190s windows are similarly shaped (althouigh much smaller than the big DC-8 windows). If the E190 had 4 engines and no winglets it would look like a miniature DC-8 (10 through 50 series).

I always thought the E190s had a very retro look to them and now I know why!
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:38 am

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 66):
What was the DC8 range compared to the 707 and did they ever fly between the US and Asia?

They were pretty comparable, with a slight edge to the 707 early on. But the DC-8-62 had almost 20% greater range than the 707-320B and for a number of years was the longest ranged jet transport. I did LGW-SFO many times with a full payload in the -62 and never stopped for fuel. I think the longest flight time was almost 12 hours.

Japan Airlines flew DC-8s from the West Coast to Japan for over two decades. Phillipine Airlines also I believe. Northwest flew them to Asia in the early '60s but changed to 707s. The DC-8s were sold to National.

Russ Farris
 
Max Q
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:39 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 53):
The first Series -10s delivered to Delta and United had no leading edge devices. After about the first year of service they were cycled back through Douglas for several modifications - installation of JT4 engines, removal of the water injection system required by the previous JT3s, a 4% leading edge extension to reduce drag at high Mach and the installation of the slot system, one each inboard of the four pylons to reduce approach speed by 10 knots. They opened at about flaps 10. Approach speed for the DC-8 were very similar to the 321 I fly today - around 140 knots.

More DC-8 trivia - The Blow Away Jet system. An early concern was FOD ingestion on the ground. DAC engineers came up with the Blow Away Jet, a high pressure stream of bleed air aimed to the front from under the engine to destroy that vortex you sometimes see on a wet ramp leading into the engine intake. Mr. F/E pushed a lighted blue button to shutdown the system at the beginning of the take-off roll. I think the 70 series did away with that nonsense among other things.

Fascinating, thanks for the Information.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
Scooter01
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:00 am

Great topic, brings back a lot of memories.

Like decending into Dorval once back in the last century:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 50):
The speed brake was in-flight reverse thrust on the inboard engines, up to MCT (Max Continuous Thrust) Worked great but we always made a PA before using because it shook like a Mexican Space Shuttle

Also found an old thread about this here

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:44 pm

SAS flew the

Douglas DC-8-33

Douglas DC-8-55

Douglas DC-8-62

Douglas DC-8-63


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jan Olav Martinsen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jan Olav Martinsen


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vito Cedrini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Söderström


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erik Frikke
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett - Photovation Images



Last DC8 ever built:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell Nilsson

 
User avatar
Tomassjc
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:38 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:49 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 50):
The speed brake was in-flight reverse thrust on the inboard engines, up to MCT (Max Continuous Thrust) Worked great but we always made a PA before using because it shook like a Mexican Space Shuttle!

I remember this vividly on my last DC-8 ride!, non reving SFO-HNL on UA in Oct 1989. Because of bad weather back east the day before, that day's flights (All DC-10s IIRC) were full of customers who had misconnected the previous day. Not only were there several of nonrevs, there were dozens of revenue passengers on standby. Not a chance in hell of getting out, until it was announced that they were going to run an extra section, and they would do there best to accomodate everybody. The aircraft was brought over from the maintenance base. To my delighted surprise it was a DC-8-71! I scored one of the last seats.

Our approach into HNL was rather high, and it was announced from the flight deck that the "engines would be used to help with our decent" and to be prepared for a little "rock and roll". I was seated next to an older woman from DTW, who admitted that she was a nervous flyer. I assured her that it was going to be just fine. She grabbed my arm and dug in during the procedure. I swear I still have the scars today!

What a memorable flight!

Tomas SJC
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward -Leonardo DaVinci
 
LH707330
Posts: 2440
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:52 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62):
The other issue was that MD sponsored the CFM re-engining, while Boeing declined because they were more interested in selling 757's. But it is unlikely that many operators would have re-engined the 707 because there were no stretch versions; I believe only stretched DC-8's got re-engined.

Boeing was certainly interested in selling the CFM56 ones, the airlines just didn't bite because the capacity was too low.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 63):
I think the greater capacity of the DC-8-60 series made it a more viable conversion than the B707 series. Although the USAF has converted numerous C-135 aircraft to the CFM series.

Certainly, but that doesn't explain the 10% fuel burn delta projections.

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 66):
What was the DC8 range compared to the 707 and did they ever fly between the US and Asia?
Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 68):
They were pretty comparable, with a slight edge to the 707 early on. But the DC-8-62 had almost 20% greater range than the 707-320B and for a number of years was the longest ranged jet transport. I did LGW-SFO many times with a full payload in the -62 and never stopped for fuel. I think the longest flight time was almost 12 hours.

20%? That seems a big high. The -62 had an extra thousand gallons of fuel (~5%) and similar weights as the 320B advanced. Where did the 20% come from?
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:42 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 73):
20%? That seems a big high. The -62 had an extra thousand gallons of fuel (~5%) and similar weights as the 320B advanced. Where did the 20% come from?

Jane's 1970-71, but I made a mistake and referenced the non-fan -320, big difference! You are right, thanks for the correction!
The -320B and the -62 were very close, with the -62 being a little longer legged I believe.

Russ Farris
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:06 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 60):

Quoting mayor (Reply 42):
I recall the company telling us that the DC-8-71s were getting 25% better fuel economy than what the -61s got.

I wonder how they computed that. I recall reading in Boeing documentation about the CFM56 707s that they would get a 14% savings, and it was essentially the same mod. Perhaps the 25% came after flight tests.

I should have reworded that.......what the company told us was that the conversions were getting 25% better fuel economy THAN THEY EXPECTED.......not better than the -61s.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:33 pm

I no longer have all my records but in the period 1978-1980 I flew as a pax in both FC and coach at least 3 dozen or more segments on Braniff's El Interamericano service IIRC all operated by the -62 series that I think we're ordered by Panagra shortly before getting acquired by Braniff. I can no longer remember which specific DC8's and colors I got. I would usually head down from the east coast bank I worked at (international division) to Miami and from ther puddle jump around for the next 2 weeks usually with 1 or 2 day stops to visit customers and prospects in Panama, Quito, Guayaquil, Santiago, Asunción, Bs. Aires and of course Lima. Lima was the hublet of the El Interamericano operation and very busy between midnight and 2 am. Very comfortable and long plane. The flex was always impressive.
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6540
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting fanofjets (Reply 65):
Actually, Douglas fitted fighter-style speed brakes just behind the wing root to the prototype. The device was not effective and was subsequently deleted.

I read that the DC-8 Chief Test Pilot said they were about as effective as throwing a napkin out the window. They deflected downwards
 
superjeff
Posts: 1414
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 58):
Quoting superjeff (Reply 57):
I assume the Mark IV appelation means that the airplanes had been modified with the JT4 engines and slats, but can anybody out there tell me what the Mark IV really was?

The Mark IVs were the DC-8-52s. Or the -11/-21s converted to -51s.

[Edite

Thanks for your response. But wasn't the 50-series fanjet? The "Mark IV" had the old non-fan engines.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:57 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 68):
Japan Airlines flew DC-8s from the West Coast to Japan for over two decades. Phillipine Airlines also I believe. Northwest flew them to Asia in the early '60s but changed to 707s. The DC-8s were sold to National.

CP Air operated DC-8s Vancouver-Tokyo-Hong Kong from 1962 (possibly late 1961, replaced Bristol Britannia) until December 1973 when they were replaced on those routes by the 747-200.
 
User avatar
saleya22r
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:13 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:58 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 71):

SAS flew the

Douglas DC-8-33

Douglas DC-8-55

Douglas DC-8-62

Douglas DC-8-63

What was their longest route? Probably CPH-LAX? I flew CPH-ANC on their legendary transpolar route as a teen -it felt like a very long flight then but when I checked it now it's "only" 3760 NM. CPH- LAX is 4887 NM. I also flew CPH-ZRH BGI with them once in the seventies, ZRH-BGI = 3942 NM.
 
User avatar
saleya22r
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:13 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:00 am

In late 1972, the Finnish tour operator Spear Tours acquired two DC-8-32 aircraft (serial numbers 45602 & 45606) and started their own charter airline Spear Air. They flew Finns cheaply to the south. In fact too cheaply as they went bankrupt in May 1974. One of their more exotic routes was HEL-BEY. Some of the captains had been WWII aces. On board "tax free" moonshine booze was sold. An interesting but bizarre episode of Finnish aviation history. At the end when they were already running out of money the fuel had to be paid in cash (allegedly dropped in a bag from the cockpit). In May -74 when operations ceased and the pax were stranded in Beirut and Nicosia, they were finally flown from there in Finnair's DC-8-62. On the way back, the plane had landed in IST and was allegedly held there for several hours by the authorities as Spearair had unfinished business there as well. The then CEO of Finnair had to intervene before they could refuel and take off.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spearair/Douglas-DC-8-32/0232561/L/
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:03 am

Quoting saleya22r (Reply 80):
What was their longest route? Probably CPH-LAX? I flew CPH-ANC on their legendary transpolar route as a teen -it felt like a very long flight then but when I checked it now it's "only" 3760 NM. CPH- LAX is 4887 NM. I also flew CPH-ZRH BGI with them once in the seventies, ZRH-BGI = 3942 NM.

They flew to New York, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Nairobi and Bangkok aswell. I'm guessing that most of them departed from Copenhagen. I beleave Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro would be the longest routes then .

Sao Paulo from Copenhagen is 5602 nm
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:22 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62):
My information on the DC-8, and why it so outlasted the 707, was twofold; one, that it was built so tough (which undoubtedly entailed a weight penalty, but in the era of cheap fuel that was not that much of an issue) and the other was that because of the longer landing gear and better tail clearance it was able to be stretched, which would have been much more of a problem for the 707 (and Boeing built the 747 instead of stretching the 707, anyway.) The other issue was that MD sponsored the CFM re-engining, while Boeing declined because they were more interested in selling 757's.

I recall reading a third reason why the re-engining didn't happen on the civilian 707's. The Air Force was very interested in buying up as many civilian 707's as possible for spare parts for their C-135 and C-137 fleets. For that matter, I recall that being the primary reason why we didn't see nearly as many pax 707's converted to freighters as we did with DC-8's.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 73):
Boeing was certainly interested in selling the CFM56 ones, the airlines just didn't bite because the capacity was too low.

I thought I heard that Boeing wasn't willing to participate in the CFM56 re-engine program specifically because they were more interested in pushing the 757 and 767? Whatever I heard is almost certainly 3rd or 4th hand info, so you may well be right. Is there anyone around who was directly involved with the program who can shed some light on it?
ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
 
User avatar
saleya22r
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:13 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 82):
Sao Paulo from Copenhagen is 5602 nm

But it wasn't non stop? -62 had a range of about 5200 NM with full payload (Wiki)
To Bangkok they had a technical stop(at least flying west) in Tashkent USSR. They were allowed to use Soviet airspace but had to have a Soviet navigator on board. Pax stayed on board in Tashkent. Police boarded the plane to check the all the passports IIRC.
 
factsonly
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 68):
I did LGW-SFO many times with a full payload in the -62 and never stopped for fuel. I think the longest flight time was almost 12 hours.

This shows the difference between the smaller long range -62 and the larger heavier -63.

During the infamous worldwide DC10 grounding in 1980, KLM replaced its non-stop DC10-30 service on AMS-LAX with DC8-63 aircraft, but as a result had to stop in YMX for fuel, as a fully laden DC8-63 could not operated AMS-LAX non-stop.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Felix Goetting

 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting warden145 (Reply 83):
I recall reading a third reason why the re-engining didn't happen on the civilian 707's. The Air Force was very interested in buying up as many civilian 707's as possible for spare parts for their C-135 and C-137 fleets. For that matter, I recall that being the primary reason why we didn't see nearly as many pax 707's converted to freighters as we did with DC-8's.

Yes, I believe that is fairly correct. I seem to recall from AA and TWA annual reports in the early/mid 80's that frames were sold to the USAF. Seems that one time taking off out of TUS, flying over Davis-Monthan I saw a bunch of old TWA 707 parked. I'm not 100% sure that is where it was..so don't hold me to it.

But yes I am pretty sure a number of the TWA & AA 707s, all 300's I think, went to the USAF.
 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:53 am

http://www.dc-8jet.com/ual-dc8-fleet-info1.htm


Not sure if anyone above inserted this link..but some interesting stuff in it about all of UA's DC-8's.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2440
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:04 am

Quoting warden145 (Reply 83):
I thought I heard that Boeing wasn't willing to participate in the CFM56 re-engine program specifically because they were more interested in pushing the 757 and 767? Whatever I heard is almost certainly 3rd or 4th hand info, so you may well be right. Is there anyone around who was directly involved with the program who can shed some light on it?

Looks like Boeing didn't want Cammacorp doing the 707s in 1982 (link 1), but I have some Boeing sources from 1979-1980, all of them confirm Boeing's effort to push the conversion, e.g. "Boeing News" Vol. 38, No. 40, from October 25, 1979:

Quote:


A week from tomorrow will be rollout day for a new 707 that Brian Davis believes will convince a lot of airlines around the world of the advantages of re-engining their 707s with quieter, more fuel-efficient and more powerful jets.
...
Discussions of the re-engining are presently under way with several airlines, Davis said.
...
Forbes McRae, 707-700 program manager, said the conversion will be limited to current Advanced 320B and C models. There are no plans to offer the 707-700 as a brand-new airplane.
...
Approximately 500 of the Advanced 320 airliners are in service around the world, according to BCAC sales support engineer Floyd Baldwin.
...
"We expect," Davis said, "that the re-engining will be attractive to airlines that have a requirement for the long, thin route and are very sensitive to capital investment and airplane-mile costs." By "long, thin route," Davis said he meant flights of intercontinental length where widebody capacity is not needed. "There has been a lot of interest regarding extending the life of the 707," Davis said.
...
With 160 passengers and their baggage in one mixed-class configuration, the CFM56-powered 707 would have a 5,250-nautical-mile range, 10-percent greater than the 4,750-nautical-mile range of the 707 with its original JT3D engines."

Other articles, including ones from flight testing on Jan 31, 1980, indicated that everything was going well for the program and that they were planning to have initial testing done by April 15th.

Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 86):
Quoting warden145 (Reply 83):
I recall reading a third reason why the re-engining didn't happen on the civilian 707's. The Air Force was very interested in buying up as many civilian 707's as possible for spare parts for their C-135 and C-137 fleets. For that matter, I recall that being the primary reason why we didn't see nearly as many pax 707's converted to freighters as we did with DC-8's.

Yes, I believe that is fairly correct. I seem to recall from AA and TWA annual reports in the early/mid 80's that frames were sold to the USAF. Seems that one time taking off out of TUS, flying over Davis-Monthan I saw a bunch of old TWA 707 parked. I'm not 100% sure that is where it was..so don't hold me to it.

But yes I am pretty sure a number of the TWA & AA 707s, all 300's I think, went to the USAF.

Yes, the resale on the 707s was higher due to the military interest in re-engining the KC-135As with the fans and turning them into KC-135Es. There were a number of them with weird turbocompressor configurations because they just bolted on what was in stock that day.

To sum up the above, it looks to me like the DC-8-70s beat the 707-700 for two reasons:
1. The stretch-8s had higher capacity and thus were a more valuable asset because they would recoup the sunk costs sooner in revenue service (very few -62s were converted)
2. Demand for the 707 engines, pylons, and other parts was high because of USAF KC-135 re-engining, so it was probably more lucrative to part them out

Returning to the DC-8-70 range discussion:

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 5):
Funny Story to that, a Pilot once told me that the ´60´s with the conversion were good enough to follow a 747SP around the world and still have the legs to carry on after the (PW powered) 747SP needed a fuel stop!I have no idea if that is true

I dug up another article on the topic, you're right! The caveat is that they were investigating putting an extra 5,000 gallons in. (link 2)
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 60):
Quoting mayor (Reply 42):
I recall the company telling us that the DC-8-71s were getting 25% better fuel economy than what the -61s got.

I wonder how they computed that. I recall reading in Boeing documentation about the CFM56 707s that they would get a 14% savings, and it was essentially the same mod. Perhaps the 25% came after flight tests.

Yes, that looked to be an early projection in 1980 (link 1). In 1982, they were saying 15-17% (link 2), which jives with the Boeing numbers.

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 74):
Jane's 1970-71, but I made a mistake and referenced the non-fan -320, big difference! You are right, thanks for the correction!
The -320B and the -62 were very close, with the -62 being a little longer legged I believe.

That makes sense. The JT3D fans were 13% more efficient than the straight-pipes, and the CFM56 another 14%. If the CFMs gave a 10% range boost, figure the same for the initial conversion and you get your 20%.


Link 1: http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%202417.PDF
Link 2: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1980/1980%20-%203266.html

Edit: The forum gave me a 403, so the formatting got messed up  Sad

[Edited 2015-01-26 23:05:29]
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
Although in a completely different category, one current aircraft that always reminds me of the DC-8 is the Embraer 190. Both have a slight nose-down stance on the ground and both have very similar proportions. Even the E190s windows are similarly shaped (althouigh much smaller than the big DC-8 windows). If the E190 had 4 engines and no winglets it would look like a miniature DC-8 (10 through 50 series).

That is interesting, because a 757 some what reminds me of a DC-8.
 
Airspeed772
Topic Author
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:54 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:46 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 89):

True both Designs reminds me of DC-8.
Airspeed772
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:07 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 89):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16):
Although in a completely different category, one current aircraft that always reminds me of the DC-8 is the Embraer 190. Both have a slight nose-down stance on the ground and both have very similar proportions. Even the E190s windows are similarly shaped (althouigh much smaller than the big DC-8 windows). If the E190 had 4 engines and no winglets it would look like a miniature DC-8 (10 through 50 series).

That is interesting, because a 757 some what reminds me of a DC-8.

The 757 has never reminded me of the DC-8. The very different cockpit profile, the level stance on the ground, and the much smaller and more numerous windows are notable differences.
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:35 am

Hey guys

I have an entire United Air Lines DC-8 flight manual that looks current through mid 1972.

I'm not a techie but if anyone wants any info it's all in there and I'd be happy to look up any stats you may want and try to copy appropriate page for you.

covers all models and sections on JT3D-1,-3,-3B, 7

sections on t
takeoff, landing, irreg , emergency, landing, limits etc

Best

Bobby
 
ABQopsHP
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:47 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:49 am

I was too little to remember much about my DC-8 flight. I was 4 at the time, we flew HNL-Travis AFB on a MAC charter. I remember it was BN (Braniff International) red on top/yellowish orange bottom. I also remember the windows being HUGE, we sat just ahead of the wing on the rt side. I also have a faint image in my head of the sun coming up as we past the CA coast.

JD in CRP
ABQ ops, Cactus 202 requesting you order 5 Green Chile Chicken stew for us to p/u on arrival. ;)
 
Max Q
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:45 am

So was an APU installed with the Cammacorp conversion ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:58 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 94):
So was an APU installed with the Cammacorp conversion ?

Not on the DL ones, although I wish they had.........those new engines were pretty hard to get started with an airstart.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
737tdi
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:05 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:44 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 95):
Not on the DL ones, although I wish they had.........those new engines were pretty hard to get started with an airstart.

With a lot of years working DC8 overhaul I can only name one DC8 that had an APU (that I worked on). Not to say there were no others. The DC8-72 for ARAMCO was overhauled at Dee Howard around 1998 and I was the Supervisor on that aircraft. It did have an APU and aux. tanks. It had an operative vertical bag container loading system.

I basically cut my teeth as a mechanic on the DC8, I worked as a mech. and a supervisor on UPS, ABX, Burlington, Flying Tigers, and ATI. Did many test flights, experimental. You guys do know your DC8s but if you haven't worked or flown on them you are in the dark.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8905
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:31 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 96):
The DC8-72 for ARAMCO was overhauled at Dee Howard around 1998 and I was the Supervisor on that aircraft. It did have an APU and aux. tanks.

Interesting, where was the APU (and its exhaust) located ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:20 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 97):
Interesting, where was the APU (and its exhaust) located ?

I think very few DC-8s ever got an APU, I personally never saw one. Here's a good link detailing the Series 70 and APU installation details.

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc870-conv-dc-flt-mag.htm
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

RE: The DC-8 Family

Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:32 am

Could a non-stretched DC-8 twinjet been developed with RB211's or PW2037s? Add a few aerodynamic improvements and perhaps the 757 would have had a little competition in the mid '80s.   
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos