Talk:Douglas DC-8

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Generally a good history of the DC-8, but with one obvious error: the DC-8 has a narrower fuselage than the B-707; the 707 (and its shorter brother, the Boeing 720) supported 6-across coach seating (3 + 3) , whereas the DC-8 only supported 5-across (2 + 3). Military C-135 variants of the 707 still fly (most as KC-135 tankers, but others in such surveillance roles as E-3 Sentry (AWACS), E-8 Joint STARS, RC-135 Cobra Ball and Rivet Joint, and others). The DC-8-61 and -63 series found a second home and still fly as freighters, being used by carriers such as UPS and ASTAR (DHL). A side-by-side comparison of the two aircraft will confirm the DC-8's narrower fuselage (which makes sense, since the 707 was originally designed to be a flying fuel tank).

Douglas used a fuselage cross section similar to the DC-8 for its DC-9 and MD-80/90 aircraft, many of which still carry passengers in 2 + 3 seating arrangements. Similarly, Boeing kept a cross section similar to the 707/720 for its other early narrow-bodies, the 727 and 737. They also use a 3 + 3 seating arrangement.

Outstanding article on the DC-8. Who ever wrote the above message never flew on a DC-8. The passenger version does have six across seating just like the 707/727/737. The DC-8 and DC-9 do not share the same cross section.

Ironically the comment about the 707 being wider due to being "designed to be a flying fuel tank" is also wrong. The prototype 707, the "Dash 80", and the KC-135 have a narrower cross section than the 707 and DC-8. It was because of the DC-8 cross section being wider that caused Boeing to widen the 707 which added cost to the program and delayed its intial entry into airline service allowing Douglas to catch up.

Quoting Francillon's book:

"... the DC-8 had a fuselage diameter of sufficient width to accomodate six-abreast economy class seating as against the Boeing's five-abreast layout. Fortunately for Douglas, the airlines endorsed the wider DC-8."

There is a very good series of web pages from NASA that describe the development of aviation technology. This one refers to the six-abreast seating of the DC-8:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-3.htm

I have sources indicating that the 707 external fuselage diameter is 148 inches, the KC-135 is 144 inches, and the 367-80 is 132 inches. Since the DC-8 has a non-circular "double-bubble" cross section, its diameter is not directly comparable, but cabin width is equivalent to the 707.

Ironically, Douglas was later in the awkward position of justifying the "superiority" of the five-abreast seating of its MD-80 vs. the six-abreast seating of the 737.

Largest narrowbody

What is the larger single aisle? 753? Technically, Concorde is heavier and longer than DC-8

Well, the DC-8-63 is longer (57.12 m vs 54.47 m), has a greater wingspan (45.23 m vs 38.05 m), has a greater operating empty weight (75,500 kg vs 64,590 kg) and has a greater max takeoff weight (162,025kg vs 122,470kg), so it beats the 757-300 on all fronts. Concorde does however beat it with greater length, OEW and MTOW. I'm changing the comment at the beginning to reflect this fact.--Nick Moss 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production numbers

The amounts of produced units are not coherent between the text and the list at the end of the article. In the text, it is mentionned that the production of the DC-8 10/20/30/40/50 reached respectively 28+34+57+32+88 units, in the list further down 2+59+52+29+162 units. Which ones are correct? Vonvon 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slots or slats on DC-8-12

Francillon and several other sources on the internet say that it's slots not slats that were added to the inner wing of the DC-8-12. Dabarkey 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrs and cycles

I saw a statement on www.airliners.net that some DC-8s got +100.000 hrs on them, what´s the highest # of hours and cycles for an individual DC-8? Thanks Alexmcfire

Scientology

Isn't this the plane / spaceship in the stories of Scientology? Perhaps that should be added to the trivia. Steamrunner 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]