Skip to content Search… Search
- Quick links
- Unanswered topics
- Active topics
- Search
- The team
- Forum
- FAQ
- Quick links
- Unanswered topics
- Active topics
- Search
- The team
- Forum
- FAQ
-
- Civil Aviation
- Travel and Loyalty
- Technical/Operations
- Helicopter / VTOL Discussion Forum
- Aviation Hobby
- Aviation Photography
- Photography Feedback
- Trip Reports
- Military Aviation & Space Flight
- Non-Aviation
- Site Related
- Airliners.net
- Aviation Forums
- Civil Aviation
707 Vs DC-8
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Locked
flydreamliner
Topic Author Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:35 am
This is sparked by another discussion, but I'd like to see what the opinions are. Arguably, these transatlantic ranged jet aircraft really set the age of jet travel into motion, they competed head to head, the question is, which was better. In one corner, the favorite, From Seattle, Boeing 707-320B Length: 152ft, 11in. Wingspan: 145ft, 9 in. MTOW: 336,000lb Cruise: 607 mph Range: 6,160 statute miles Engines: 4X Pratt and Whitney JT3D Turbofans, 18,000lbs/each Passengers: 144 in a mixed class layout. In the other corner, the Challenger from Long Beach, Douglas DC-8-62 Length: 157ft, 5in. Wingspan: 142ft, 5 in. MTOW: 325,000lb. Cruise: 578mph Range: 5,991 statute miles Engines: 4X Pratt and Whitney JT3D Turbofans, 19,000lbs each Passengers: 144 in mixed class layout. It should also be noted the Douglas DC-8 was stretched in the DC-8-61 was stretched to 189ft long, and could seat 189 in mixed class. Later, DC-8's were refitted with high bypass CFM turbofans with 22,000lbs of thrust. Top
kyair
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:51 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:05 am
I believe both were in response to a request from Pan Am. Pan Am did operate both, but didn't the 707 enter service first? Also, wasn't the DC-8 delayed for some reason? Edit: I'm surprised at how much faster the 707 was - no doubt saved a bit of time on an Atlantic crossing.[Edited 2006-04-13 20:06:30] Top
N867BX
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:19 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:12 am
The 60 series DC8 was probably better than any 707, however, while Douglas was busy perfecting the DC8, Boeing was busy building the 747. The DC8 was a little too late to be much of a threat to Boeing. Top
CruzinAltitude
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 5:02 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:26 am
This may be a bit off topic, but it had to be said. . .
| Quoting N867BX (Reply 2):The DC8 was a little too late to be much of a threat to Boeing. |
Many on this forum would say that history is going to be repeating itself in the very near future.
Top
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:26 am
The stats show that these two are really close contendors for sure. But on a subjective note, I just think that the DC-8 has nicer lines and a more pleasing design. Especially the stretched versions with the CFMs. Too bad there aren't any passenger versions with CFMs left, just the cargo jobbies. Actually... were any passenger versions EVER refitted with CFMs? Side note: the A346 reminds me more of the DC-8-71 than the 707-320, but I don't know why, just seems proportionally similar. Anyone else think so? Top
starstream707
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:01 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:26 am
The 707 entered service first. Top
flydreamliner
Topic Author Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:34 am
The first 707s entered service around a year ahead of the DC-8s. Douglas continually updated DC-8, while Boeing started work on 727, Douglas, for their part did move on to DC-9 and DC-10. The DHC Comet entered service well ahead of both of these, with its engines mounted in the inner wings, it was a unique design, but it was not built robustly enough, and the pressurization caused metal failures, which killed numerous people. The failure of Comet set both 707 and DC-8 back, as both re-strengthened their aircraft and redesigned around thicker aluminum. Top
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:41 am
Don't forget that the Comet 4 fixed all those pressurization problems (it had to do with the windows) and it continued on for many years, finally with Dan-Air. It's unfortunate that the Avro Jetliner out of Malton, ON never got the TCA contract it was supposed to get because it flew before the Comet, making it the first jet airliner. You could probably have a comparison of the Comet VS the Jetliner. Top
tbnist03
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:23 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:44 am
| Quoting Irobertson (Reply 4):Side note: the A346 reminds me more of the DC-8-71 than the 707-320, but I don't know why, just seems proportionally similar. Anyone else think so? |
I can see the similarities, with the obvious differences in nose structure.
View Large View Medium Photo © Folkert Lindhout | View Large View Medium Photo © Sebastian Negele |
View Large View Medium Photo © JetPix | View Large View Medium Photo © Mark A Harris |
Top
stirling
Posts: 3896
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:46 am
Yes, United and Delta both operated CFM powered DC8 fleets. Top
gr8slvrflt
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 10:53 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:56 am
Many airlines were sceptical of Boeing's commitment to commercial airliners after their less than stellar success with the 247, Stratoliner, and Stratocruiser. Douglas was the undisputed world leader in airliners (which is why they delayed in taking the risk of developing a jetliner). Boeing was more willing to produce custom versions for it's customers (such as the short-bodied -138 for Qantas and the hotrod -227 for Braniff) whereas Douglas stayed with one fuselage length until the Super Sixty series ten years into the program. Both Delta and United operated large numbers of CFM-equipped Stretch Eights (maybe Air Canada, too?). I believe it was the 707's greater wing sweep which prevented Boeing from eventually offering a significant stretch in that airframe. Top
xbraniffone
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:12 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:01 am
This may be off the topic, but it's a question about DC8 vs 707. What is the reason that more DC8's are being flown present day as freighters and one hardly ever sees 707's? (In the states, that is) Top
airfrnt
Posts: 2192
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:08 am
It's the same factors that influence orders today. Who comes to market first, with the best product and with the blue chip carriers. Boeing launched with Pan Am which was in a class all it's own at the time. Boeing knew how to spin things, and really hype the "Jet." By the time the DC-8 really came into service the 707 had really already won the battle. Just look at new planes being introduced now. The same thing is happening. Top
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:11 am
Hi! Just my small contribution to this matter regarding these two excelent airliners. The Boeing 707 had no doubt better sales than the DC-8, but in the end the DC-8 is paying back...we still have a load of DC-8's flying around and the 707 is becoming more and more rare. I still had the chance to fly the 707 and I can tell that plane "rocked and rolled"!!! Excelent performance specially on take-off's and the sight of those P&W engines on the wing when the plane was in the air was absolutelly fantastic! View Large View Medium
Photo © Leopold Behrens I think tough that the DC-8 was very elegant on the ground. The fact that the front wheel was a bit small to the rest of the undercarriage gave an agressive look to the plane. I enjoyed better to see the "diesel" versions of both 707/DC-8 with turbojet, but the DC-8-61 and 63 were very distinct! View Large View Medium
Photo © Peter de Groot View Large View Medium
Photo © Frank Schaefer I still eye-ball when I can have a chance to see one of those airliners!!! The last time was November 2003 at PHX when I saw the Honeywell Boeing 720! View Large View Medium
Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr. Regards Top
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:13 am
| Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 10):Both Delta and United operated large numbers of CFM-equipped Stretch Eights (maybe Air Canada, too?). |
Air Canada Cargo did for sure, but I think the stretch pax versions were the older engines. But I'm not 100% sure of that, I could be wrong. Top
OB1783P
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:49 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:39 am
The 707 was gorgeous. And it was, to my eyes, very sexy, from the spiked heel like aerial antenna to the phallic-with-claws engine plus mount. Even more importantly, it was perhaps the last airliner with perfectly spaced windows, with no "missing" windows. View Large View Medium
Photo © George Gayuski The DC-8 looked very strong, very exciting. But it had ugly "nostrils" and weird, cheap looking "gills." Some of the engines on the DC-8 looked downright scary, like big beer cans, and the thrust reversers of some DC-8s looked truly alarming. View Large View Medium
Photo © Allan Rossmore I am happy I flew on both. I flew from Paris to Nice on an Air France 707, from Paris to Abidjan on an UTA DC-8, and from Paris to SFO via Bangor on a Transamerica DC-8. Top
zippyjet
Posts: 5220
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:41 am
Some ironies of the two classic birds:
- It seemed back in the day at least in the USA that more airlines flew DC-8s domestically whereas the 707 seemed to have the glamour and flew trans Atlantic.
- UA, DL, National, and especially Eastern were virtually DC 8 fleets.
- Once the 720 (I feel a mini-me version of the 707) things balanced out. Eastern, United, Northwest, Western to name a few embraced the 720s and they complemented their larger DC 8 fleets.
- Back in the day, it seemed the 707s cabin was 60s space/jet age modern whereas the DC 8 was reminiscent of the fading propliners. (Early 8s with the Palomar seats and Curtains. In retrospect, I miss the classic early 8 cabins and wish I had more flights on them. BTW are there any early 8s sill in service with the classic Palomar seats and curtains?
- As mentioned, Pan Am was one of the few airlines who operated both 8s and 707s concurrently. As a matter of fact, the Beatles landed at JFK (then Idolwild) in a Pan Am 707 and flew back to London out of MIA on a Pan Am DC 8!
Today, its interesting that the DC 8s outlasted the 707s as freighters and charters. View Large View Medium
Photo © Ellis M. ChernoffView Large View Medium
Photo © Peter de Groot Top
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:54 am
The DC 8 model 62 didn't fly until 1966. The first to fly it was SAS. The first DC 8 was the model 10 which went to UA. The 10's and 30's didn't have the range that Douglas said they did. Ask Donal Nyrop, chief of NW in the early 60's. NW bought 5, had four delivered, and sold em to National. NW then bought the new 707, the 320C, a convertable with fans. The 320B was good plane but had a 3 1/2 year head start on the DC 8-62. There was also the DC8 model 55. safe Top
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:15 am
| Quoting Xbraniffone (Reply 11): What is the reason that more DC8's are being flown present day as freighters and one hardly ever sees 707's? (In the states, that is) |
| Quoting CV990 (Reply 13): . The Boeing 707 had no doubt better sales than the DC-8, but in the end the DC-8 is paying back...we still have a load of DC-8's flying around and the 707 is becoming more and more rare |
The USAF has all the 707's these days. Many, many more of them then there are DC-8's left flying... at least in the form of spare parts used to keep the KC fleet airborne.[Edited 2006-04-14 01:17:09] Top
RayChuang
Posts: 8163
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:34 am
The thing that extended the life of the DC-8 was the Cammacorp upgrade program for the DC-8
Super Sixty series that replaced the original JT3D's with the far more quiet and fuel-efficient CFM56. That allowed the DC-8 to operated in airliner service into the 1990's and is why it also became a popular freighter airplane (I believe that UPS has no current plans to retired their CFM56-powered DC-8 freighters). Top
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:07 am
The 707 outsold the DC-8 three to one. The 320B/C must be compared with the DC-8-50 series, not the Super 62. Comparing the Super 61/63 Stretch 8's with or without the upgraded hi-bypass CFM56 engines, to a 707-320B/C is almost like comparing a DC-9-80 to a Convair 880, after all they both only seat five across. But the DC-8, even the short bodied planes outlasted the 707's because they were stouter built airplanes, and therefore lasted longer. While Pan Am ordered both the DC-8-32 and the 707-121/321, the DC-8's were never re-ordered. Of the 25 aircraft ordered, I think only 20 or 21 were actually delivered to Pan Am, the rest going to subsidiaries, Panagra and Panair do Brasil. Pan Am's pilots referred to the Eight as the DC-Late because it would not maintain the cruising speed of the 707. The Pan Am 707-321 JT-4 powered airplane outperformed the Eight, and while Pan Am ordered numerous fan powered 707-321B's and 321C's, the Eights were all sold off by 1968. The DC-8, however, was a very stable airplane, while the 707 ended up needing a larger tail and additional rear fin to cure its Dutch roll and yaw problems. The DC-8 was stretched while the 707 could not be, because of the height of the fuselage off the ground. In order to extend the 707, it would have needed a 757 type gear. But on the other hand, the 757 is a sort of a stretched 707 with new wings, gear, and nose, and Boeing more 757's than 707's, and the 737 fuselage definitely is rooted in the 707. I preferred the DC-8 because of the early stability in the 707, and as a kid, I had a "weak stomach." I got sick only once on an airplane, my first ride in a jet, a TW 707 from STL to MIA, over 45 years ago. Later on as a frequent flyer in the 1970's, I preferred both the 707 and DC-8 to the 727 primarily because of comfort, as both airplanes were operated domestically in the USA with plenty of pitch in coach, 36 inches plus on AA, UA, and TW. Both were great airplanes. The DC-8 is around today because it was stretched and because of its much more modern engines. There was at least one 707 converted to CFM-56 power and another that was equipped with MD-88 JT8-219's, which improved its economics, but the 707 was designed for speed, and it was just not economical to convert the power as the airframes were just too old, and the wing design was not very efficient. q Top
starstream707
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:01 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:22 pm
I've heard that the 737 is designed for a life of 50,000 cycles. Anyone have the numbers on DC-8 and 707 cycles? Because I would think metal fatigue would play a huge role in the life of an aircraft. Top
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Both were great airliners to fly on. The distinct way the sound of the Pratts on the 707 was memorable. I'll never forget the sound of the way the compressed air "from the bottle" made its' way to start the engines on the DC-8's. In flight, I sincerly believe the 8 was more elegant to witness. The 757 has some of the same elegance. The Douglas guys built airplanes with a lot of utility in them. Maybe not the least expensive to fly, but you more than got you moneys worth in the long haul. That is why NW still has 9's, UPS flies a bunch of stretch 8's and Fed-ex has a fleet of DC/MD10's, and my money says that they will all be flying still years from now. Top
dallas74
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:09 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:10 pm
The DC-8 61/63/71/73 was a far superior freighter to the 707 because of the stretched cabin. The 707-320F could hold 13 - 88" x 125" main deck pallets. Maximum Payload was 88,000 lbs. The DC-8 61/63/71/73 can hold 18 - 88" x 125" main deck pallets. Maximum Payload is 108,000 lbs. As older noiser aircraft were being phased out the DC-8 was a good choice to be retro-fit with new engines especially for freighter service due to its superior economics. Eventuall the DC-8 is going to give way to the 757F which can carry 15 main deck pallets with a payload of 90,000 lbs. The two man crew and two engines improves the economics beyond a DC-8. Both planes are excellent. It is too bad you don't see any more 707's in commerical freighter service here in the USA any longer. Top
dc8jet
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:40 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:19 pm
In addition to Delta and United other airlines that operated CFM powered DC-8s for passenger flights were Transamerica, Trans International, Kenya Airways, Minerve, Air Sweden, Translift,Aire D'Evasions, Condor, Icelandair, Point Mulhouse, Overseas National and LAP. All of the Air Canada aircraft were freighters. Top
charvett
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri May 04, 2001 1:31 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:01 pm
Well, my favorite transport has always been the 707... BUT ... about the DC-8... My father is a retired pilot from VIASA of Venezuela. As far, I obviously know more from the DC-8 than from the Boeing as the Douglas airliner was their flagship jet. He still has all the original manuals and bulletins! They called them "El Coloso" (The Big One). It was a fine machine, expensive (more than the 707) I heard them say; and a very sturdy aircraft. A mechanic told my father at Long Beach that if they double the maintenancr cycles it will fly forever (!!) So... was very popular with crews... but public sometimes were not as enthusiastic; specially about the cabin. As I heard my father said once; think it was related to the cabin windows. Something about the spacing as per passenger seats. Windows were big, but more spaced as some sort of titanium reinforced single-piece plates formed them; thus the space. It was a Douglas engineer who suggested that. My father told me the name, but it was long ago and now escapes me. Do that was also a low popularity factor? I really doubt, but I think it might look better if the windows were just a little closer. I need to ask him again for that but I do remember he told this was part about the sturdiness of the pressurized fuselage. Structural components, ribs and skin panels were thicker than Boeing's. I still hear more stories about DC-8's when my father's buddies and fellow companions meet at home (by now,all of them are retired or quit before VIASA went belly up). View Large View Medium
Photo © Bob Garrard View Large View Medium
Photo © George W. Hamlin Top
MrMcCoy
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:17 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:29 pm
This is a very interesting thread for debate, and it really surprised me to see it posted today. Why? Because my company is actively working on deciding between the super 60’s and the 703 for US-to-Pacific freight ops for a startup in the mid-USA. Coming from the side of “current” value vs. initial value, the DC-8-62/63F series is still very popular and in active revenue freight service. A DC-8-63F fresh on heavy checks, RVSM certified for use in a Part 121 carrier is worth roughly $3.5mil. Inversely, a Boeing 707-300C/F in the same condition is worth about $2.5mil. Why? We’ve dialed it into two (2) major reasons – the first being Stage III. There’s a few 707-300 Stage III’s flying, but not many. Only two (2) uninstalled Stage III hushkits remain for the 703 from Burbank Aero’s former operations, and they aren’t cheap to install. FTA is the only approved installation center for these two (2) remaining kits. The DC-8F’s on the other hand have dozens and dozens of Stage III-compliant birds in the air, and when a bird comes out of service, it’s a little cheaper to either harvest the kit or (if the life-limited parts still have enough time on them) the engines themselves. The DC-8F Stage III hushkits installed on a majority of the -8’s flying compare unfavorably to Burbank Aero’s 703 Stage III hushkit due to an additional 3% rate of fuel consumption with the -8 kits. All in all, the DC-8 is a better all-around freighter because she can carry more freight. Let’s not forget that Boeing is still manufacturing DC-8 parts for the birds still currently flying too. The startup we are currently working on is keen on both aircraft, but after sitting down with the suits, it became clear that the DC-8 was a shoo-in for this role. Top
flydreamliner
Topic Author Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:09 pm
It's seems like you aren't alone in feeling that way, look how many freighter fleets fly the DC-8. Top
columba
Posts: 5301
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:43 pm
Oh my god another Boeing vs. Douglas discusion here on a.net, you are opening a can of worms here
No, really a great topic
Both belong to my favorite airliners of all time. I would guess it was true was said above that Douglas came to late. Boeing offered a larger variety of aircraft with the 707,727,737 and 747 while Douglas for a long time only offered their different versions of the DC 9 and DC 8. The DC 10 came later and was a financial overkill for them regarding the fact that Lockheed also entered the civilan market again with L1011. Top
christao17
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:04 pm
Great topic - a.net at its best.
| Quoting Milesrich (Reply 20):and the 737 fuselage definitely is rooted in the 707 |
Somewhere I read there was a joke among aerospace engineers that Boeing just had a big fuselage-making machine (kind of like a sausage grinder?) and it just pumped out the same fuselage but in different lengths depending on what plane (707, 720, 727, 737) was being made. UA was just in the proces of phasing out the remaining DC8s when I worked with them and they were a great plane. As a passenger, I loved the huge windows. In fact, that's something about the 787 I'm looking forward to. I never have had the opportunity to fly a 707 but hope that someday I will.
| Quoting Columba (Reply 28):Oh my god another Boeing vs. Douglas discusion |
First it was B v. D, now B. v A. Whatever happened to C? Top
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:38 pm
Hi! Very interesting what MrMcCoy said! Now the question is worth to asked, why then the Stage III convertion on the 707's was much more expensive than the DC-8 one? Is that because the 707 declined so fast in mid 80's??? Looks to me also that a reason for the 707 to decline ( and Zippyjet mentioned that ) was the fact that it flew much more internatonally and intercontinentally than the DC-8 in a point, we had huge fleets of DC-8's flying domestically with United, Delta..some like Braniff and National, also we can't forget JAL, but the huge 707 fleets most flew very long distance routes, like PAN AM, Air France, Lufthansa, BOAC/latter BA, VARIG, Air India...a nice case study example should be TWA, because although they had a huge fleet the splitted in domestic and intercontinental versions. But the true fact is that the DC-8 can actually still be a money maker to those that want to start to fly cargo like MrMcCoy said! regards Top
ClassicLover
Posts: 6453
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:50 pm
The 707 and a whole host of other aircraft from the era (Convair 880/990, Vickers VC10, Douglas DC8) would have all had longer careers with the airlines had the oil crisis of the early and late 1970s not happened. Especially with the VC10 and Convairs, they only saw 10 to 15 years of mainline service before retirement. Compare that to other aircraft like 757s, 767s... Such a shame, because all of the aircraft were special - if only they didn't need so much fuel
Top
irobertson
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:35 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:20 pm
I find it odd how a few of you see a lot of similarity between the 707 and the 757 because I just can't see it at all. Even though they're both made by Boeing, I've always felt that the 757-200 and especially the -300 looks like a CFM-powered DC-8-6x or -7x, missing two engines. The only major differences to me are the lack of nostrils and slightly different cockpit window configuration on the 757. Otherwise, they seem to be quite similar in many respects. I'm very happy to hear how the DC-8s in flying condition out there just might have many more years left of use. I only saw one AC Cargo DC-8 as a child and I hope to see another DC-8 before they're all gone. It's just too bad there aren't any pax versions left flying in north america... Top
columba
Posts: 5301
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:24 pm
| Quoting Irobertson (Reply 32):find it odd how a few of you see a lot of similarity between the 707 and the 757 |
They share the same fuselage cross section. In order to get a common type rating with the 767 they need to change to change the cockpit section otherwise the 757 also would have the 707 styled nose section. Top
Gr8Circle
Posts: 2679
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:44 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:32 pm
The 707had perfectly spaced windows....you never found yourself on a seat without a proper window aligned with your seat... Although I never flew on a DC-8, the windows seemed too spaced out.... Top
hangarrat
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:24 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:35 am
Can anybody post a list of regos for 707s still flying (or registered) in the US? I know there are at least two, Travolta's and the Lowa Ltd. flying tour bus. There was one involved in a civil/military tanker project and another registered to the same company flew from Texas to Brazil a few months ago.
View Large View Medium Photo © Ben Wang | View Large View Medium Photo © Andy Vanderheyden |
View Large View Medium Photo © Michael W. Rosa | View Large View Medium Photo © Tim Perkins |
Beyond these, are there any 707s still flying in the states? Top
fanofjets
Posts: 2056
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2000 2:26 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:51 am
This thread brings back many memories of having flown many miles around the world on both planes throughout my childhood. It also brings up some matters I was reading about just this morning. I'll weigh in with the following observations. Childhood obserations. Though I personally like the 707 a little better, as a child I loved both. The old-style "Penthouse" interior of the 707 was truly magical, especially those dome ceiling lights that dimmed to a deep blue during the night.
View Large View Medium Photo © Stefan Ottosson | View Large View Medium Photo © Mike Genovese |
However, the DC-8's larger windows were much easier for a small child to look out of, as stated in an earlier post.
| Quoting Christao17 (Reply 29):As a passenger, I loved the huge windows. In fact, that's something about the 787 I'm looking forward to. |
This arrangement was perfect for the original interior arrangements, but when airlines started to decrease seat pitch, one of those nice big windows often ended up facing your seatback or that of the passenger in front of you. Though the 707 was in many ways a pioneer, the design
did benefit from developments in other jetliner designs. First were the lessons learned from the De Havilland DH.106 Comet:
| Quoting Irobertson (Reply 7):Don't forget that the Comet 4 fixed all those pressurization problems (it had to do with the windows) and it continued on for many years, finally with Dan-Air. In addition, in response to Douglas's DC-8, the 707 emerged witn a six-abreast fuselage; otherwise, the 707 may have met the same fate as the Convair 880 and 990. |
View Large View Medium Photo © Tom Turner - NYCAviation | View Large View Medium Photo © Julio Ribeiro |
Speaking of pioneers, I too regret the Avro Jetliner never came to be. Though I was criticized for mentioning this in another thread, I'm glad at least one other A.netter shares my admiration for the Canadian design
:
| Quote:It's unfortunate that the Avro Jetliner out of Malton, ON never got the TCA contract it was supposed to get because it flew before the Comet, making it the first jet airliner. You could probably have a comparison of the Comet VS the Jetliner. |
View Large View Medium Photo © Pierre Lacombe | View Large View Medium Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP |
In the beginning, it was Boeing that outsold Douglas in part because of its willingness to offer airlines custom versions of its 707, witness the -138 short-bodied 707 for QANTAS. View Large View Medium
Photo © Mel Lawrence However, it was the DC-8 that ended up being the more versatile of the two:
| Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 10):I believe it was the 707's greater wing sweep which prevented Boeing from eventually offering a significant stretch in that airframe. |
Actually it was more due to the height of the landing gear....
| Quoting Milesrich (Reply 20):The DC-8 was stretched while the 707 could not be, because of the height of the fuselage off the ground. In order to extend the 707, it would have needed a 757 type gear. |
Boeing first realized this problem when it proposed the model 707-620 (and later -820) as a stretch to the -320, in response to the Super 60 series - because of the Boeing's shorter main gear, there would have been danger of tail scraping in the event of overrotation. The issue of the short main gear cropped up again in the early 1980s, when boeing realized that the existing arrangement could not accommodate the CFM-56 turbofans Cammacorp was offering for the DC-8 series. Oopsiedaisies!
And finally,
| Quoting Zippyjet (Reply 16):BTW are there any early 8s sill in service with the classic Palomar seats and curtains? |
Alas, no passenger DC-8s grace the skies. The few survivors (rather, pieces thereof) with the classic Palomar seats have been grounded.
View Large View Medium Photo © Michael Carter | View Large View Medium Photo © Michael Carter |
View Large View Medium Photo © Islam Chen | View Large View Medium Photo © Joseph K.K. Lee |
It gets worse...
View Large View Medium Photo © James Richard Covington | View Large View Medium Photo © James Richard Covington |
View Large View Medium Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team | View Large View Medium Photo © Andreas Graf-ZAP |
However, here's a very nice business aircraft:
View Large View Medium Photo © A J Best | View Large View Medium Photo © Andrea Mugni - SpotIT |
Top
hangarrat
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:24 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:25 am
Decided to answer my own question. Here's a list of 707s with valid regos from the FAA. N707MQ N707KN N21AZ N80AZ N707HE N88ZL N706PC N145SP N8434 N2NF N404PA N454PC N707AR N707GE N45RT N707LG N4465C N4465D Top
FAT5DEP
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:26 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:34 am
In February 1955 Boeing was awarded a contract for 21 KC-135's. Before that, Boeing and Douglas were in the running for a military version of the 707 and DC-8. As a result of this decision, Boeing was able to recover a large amount of its start-up costs. If Douglas had won the contract they would have received $100 million to help offset development costs. None the less, in October of 1955, orders were placed from PA and UA and the DC-8 was built as a private venture. Douglas had booked a total of 99 DC-8's from 8 customers by the end of 1955. All in all, 556 DC-8's were built and 110 of those were converted to 70 series in the early 1980's. Although Stage 4 requirements may be its biggest threat in the pending future, water tank tests indicate that the DC-8 could safely fly 140,000 cycles. Also, on August 21, 1961 a DC-8-43 broke the speed of sound at Edwards AFB. At the time it was the only airliner to reach supersonic speed. That would have been a fun ride! On a personal note, my dad spent many years in the right seat and at the flight engineer's desk of UA's DC-8's. The DC-8 is my favorite plane (sounds like I'm in first grade at show and tell) because of its longevity, durability and because it looks downright awesome to me. The 753 and the A346 do remind me alot of the DC-8-71/73. Long fuselage and big engines. Great topic!! Top
Areopagus
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:36 am
| Quoting Charvett (Reply 25):As I heard my father said once; think it was related to the cabin windows. Something about the spacing as per passenger seats. Windows were big, but more spaced as some sort of titanium reinforced single-piece plates formed them; thus the space. It was a Douglas engineer who suggested that. |
Your story is corroborated by an article I read in a magazine (Airliners?) from around last summer, although I don't recall the reinforcement being titanium. They made a rip-stop structure so an explosive decompression would not bring the plane down. This was a response to the Comet disasters, according to the article.
| Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):The failure of Comet set both 707 and DC-8 back, as both re-strengthened their aircraft and redesigned around thicker aluminum. |
Since the 367-80 prototype of the 707 was flying before the Comet report came out, permit me to doubt that the 707 design was influenced by it. Boeing had its own experience base with airliner-sized jet aircraft.
| Quoting Christao17 (Reply 29):First it was B v. D, now B. v A. Whatever happened to C? |
Convair stopped building airliners in the 60s, and Canadair was bought by Bombardier.
| Quoting Milesrich (Reply 20):The 707 outsold the DC-8 three to one. |
#707s delivered: 1010 #DC-8s delivered: 556 Top
MrMcCoy
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:17 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:23 am
| Quoting CV990 (Reply 30):Now the question is worth to asked, why then the Stage III convertion on the 707's was much more expensive than the DC-8 one? Is that because the 707 declined so fast in mid 80's??? |
No. 707 Stage III engine kits were produced long before Burbank Aero got into the business. The big difference is the *quality* of the Stage III hushkits produced by Burbank was NO ADDITIONAL FUEL BURN. Most of the hushkits currently flying on the DC-8 and 707 JT3D-7's produce an additional 3% fuel burn due to changes made inside the actual engine. Burbank's hushkit is an external modification. The question it seems you are trying to ask is "Why did the 707 eventually overtake the DC-8 in the aftermarket of the 1980s?" Simple. The DC-8's Super Sixty (and 70) were much more versatile and could carry more freight!
| Quoting Areopagus (Reply 39):#707s delivered: 1010 #DC-8s delivered: 556 |
Want a more interesting statistic? #707s delivered: 1010 #707s still in service: 91 (not incl. military) #DC-8s delivered: 556 #DC-8s still in service: 125 While Douglas' strategy of improving the DC-8 wasn't a contract winner in the 60's and 70's, it did eventually put a significant ding in the viability of the 707's vs. the DC-8's in after-market commercial use. Top
zippyjet
Posts: 5220
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:18 am
| Quoting Milesrich (Reply 20): I preferred the DC-8 because of the early stability in the 707, and as a kid, I had a "weak stomach." I got sick only once on an airplane, my first ride in a jet, a TW 707 from STL to MIA, over 45 years ago. Later on as a frequent flyer in the 1970's, I preferred both the 707 and DC-8 |
Did you get to fly on the DC-8 classics? The ones with the original Palomar seats and curtains? If you got to fly in both 8 passenger cabins, which did you prefer the classic or the generic cabins of the 60 series? Top
iRISH251
Posts: 1372
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:56 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:21 am
I have read in the past that one of the reasons Boeing did not go ahead with a CFM56 programme for the 707 was that this would have affected prospects for its new 757 and 767 products. As mentioned by others, Boeing Military purchased large numbers of 707s and 720s - most of the 707s being pax-only models - to yield up JT-3D turbofans for the USAF's KC-135E programme and this played a part also in hastening the disappearance of the 707 from service with second- and third-level users. Top
starstream707
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:01 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 am
On that FAA list of reg. 707s still in use, how many in service are Stage III? When does Stage IV come into effect?
| Quoting HangarRat (Reply 37):Here's a list of 707s with valid regos from the FAA. N707MQ N707KN N21AZ N80AZ N707HE N88ZL - We all know this one! N706PC N145SP N8434 N2NF N404PA - This is the MIT ship. N454PC N707AR - I couldn't find anything on what this Omega Air bird is up to. N707GE N45RT N707LG N4465C N4465D |
Did you get N707JT? Also the Burbank 707 was just broken up recently. Top
MrMcCoy
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:17 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:34 am
Yes, the Burbank bird was the Stage III Quiet Skies 707. She was scrapped. Top
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:33 am
When I made the comment that the 707 outsold the Eight Three to One, I was referring to the DC-8-10/20/30/40/50, not the super Sixty series. The Super Sixty Series aircraft did not really have a Boeing Counterpart. And I believe less than 290 "regular 8's were built, compared to over 900 707's for civilian use. Top
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:45 am
Hi! Well the windows of the 707 were perfectly spaced yeah....but the windows of the the DC-8 were HUUUUGE!!!! I could call those windows almost "vista windows" like those of some executive DC-3's!!!! Of course we are not talking the same, but the DC-8 had great windows indeed! regards Top
dl021
Posts: 10840
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:43 am
| Quoting Milesrich (Reply 20):But on the other hand, the 757 is a sort of a stretched 707 with new wings, gear, and nose, and Boeing more 757's than 707's, and the 737 fuselage definitely is rooted in the 707. I preferred the DC-8 because of the early stability in the 707, and as a kid, I had a "weak stomach." |
Y'know...I never really thought about it but I hated flying on 707's (or as I called them "the one with the needle on the tail" because I knew I was going to get sick. I always was much happier on the DC-8, and then the 747 when it came out......and now I'm adding two plus two and finally getting 4. I never really questioned it, but this is exactly why it felt less comfortable....it was definitely less stable than the DC-8 in which I never felt uncomfortable unless someone was smoking next to me (another story). Top
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:39 am
| Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 10):I believe it was the 707's greater wing sweep which prevented Boeing from eventually offering a significant stretch in that airframe. |
No, it was the door sill height that doomed further 707 stretches. Story is that Boeing didn't know how high to make the door sills above the ground, so they went out and measured a DC-7 and used that value. Douglas used a higher door sill, which gave them taller gear. As a result, the 707 was fuselage rotation angle limited and couldn't be stretched beyond the -320. With that said, keep in mind that the 707-138 has a 20" forward stretch compared to the original spec and the 707-120 and -220 had a 60"+40" (forward+aft) stretch beyond that. The -320 and -420 was stretched a further 120" up front beyond the -120. Its just that the -320 and -420 couldn't be stretched to match the DC-8-61 and -63. Top
767er
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 2:24 pm RE: 707 Vs DC-8
Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:30 am
I flew on Air New Zealands DC8 in 1978 and yes the windows were huge! There was no IFE, curtains instead of shades,etc Problem was the seats did always line up with the windows. Those were the days when the there was a seat map at check in and they peeled your seat number off the chart and placed it on your BP - seems so old fashioned now doesn't it? Top Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending Go Locked
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: AC4500, AdEd, adipasqu, alasizon, ANA787, ausinTex, chibears, CHOWahoo, Colinaerospace, ec84, Figure8757, flight152, FlyingBob808,
Google Adsense [Bot], hieutenant, Joeblow, joshuatsuji, lammified, Lynch44, MavyWavyATR, MIflyer12, nascarnut, onwFan, PSU.DTW.SCE, Q, qf789, rida79, Runway28L, S0Y, sfoflyguy, Spiderguy252, Tayo826, transswede, UA735WL, UAEflyer, UALifer, uptothemoon, VS11, washingtonflyer and 141 guests
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
-
- Civil Aviation
- Travel and Loyalty
- Technical/Operations
- Helicopter / VTOL Discussion Forum
- Aviation Hobby
- Aviation Photography
- Photography Feedback
- Trip Reports
- Military Aviation & Space Flight
- Non-Aviation
- Site Related
- Airliners.net
- Aviation Forums
- Civil Aviation
× X