The History of the Douglas DC-8
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 01. 2021
- This is a reupload of my first Motion History video from January 2020, now with the runtime cut down from my previously rather ambitious 40 minutes to a more reasonable 20 minutes, and with changes to the photos and other material used.
In it, we look at the design revolutions and missed opportunities of the Douglas DC-8, America's second jet airliner, but one that could never quite reclaim the lead the Douglas company once had as the USA's premier aircraft maker.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated CZcamsrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Airline Ratings (and their respective references)
- Wikipedia (and its respective references) - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I grew up in a United Airlines family... We regularly flew from Denver (Stapleton) to Newark, a service United typically flew with DC-8's. I cannot count how many flights I took on 8's...the last one stands out in my memory in 1992. It was a wonderful aircraft to fly on, my absolute favorite. The 8 is a classic and, outside the USAF's KC135 fleet (which was re-engined with the same engines used on the 8) was a more robust airframe than the 707. The Douglass company may have been flawed, but the DC-8 was a gem and will live in my memory forever.
Douglas was so sure of turboprops that they had a design proposal for a DC-7D, developed from the DC-7C, but with R-R Tyne turboprops. I saw the Douglas promotional model for it back in the 70's at a short-lived museum in Anaheim called "Wings and Wheels"...
My dad worked for Delta back in the 70s-90s and so as a kid I flew on lots of DC-8s and 727s, since Delta had tons of both types in service for a long time. I loved them both. The DC-8 is very flexible and in turbulence the wings would flap and the engine nacelles would swing back and forth. If you sat in the very front or back of the cabin you could actually see the fuselage flex a little if the ride was bumpy enough. It had big windows and 60s styling, and of course if you were a boy in the 70s and boarded early the captain would bring you up to the cockpit to show it off. Air travel was actually fun back then. Also, the hell with noise complainers, I like my jets loud!
Also noteworthy is the fact that the DC-8s lasted significantly longer than the 707s thanks to their engine upgrades. Around the turn of the millennium several hundred DC-8s were in regular commercial service, as opposed to just a handful of 707s.
One reason was the 707's landing gear was too short for many engine upgrades. The landing gear was probably Boeing's worst decisions in regard to the 707.
@@neiloflongbeck5705
Well, at least Boeing learnt from their past mistakes. Oh, wait...
@@mikeblatzheim2797 no that was a new mistake.
It's surprising that one of the only DC-8s still flying was never re-engined with the high-bypass CFM engines.
😲
probably because its reliable
@@frempass3309 My surprise was to do with its much higher fuel consumption. Even four-engine jets with high-bypass turbofans are being retired because of fuel consumption.
@@jasongomez5344 that is true I guess but it is used
which one?
Thanks, Ruaridh for a fascinating tale. It's particularly interesting to me because we lived in Long Beach where my dad was Rolls-Royce aero service engineer at the time the Conways were installed in the Series 40 around 1960. He brought home a cassette recording of the control tower conversation at the time the DC-8 broke the sound barrier although, sadly, it's missing these days. We were there for three years after three years in San Diego where he was involved in installing the R-R Avon in an experimental vertical take-off fighter, the Ryan X-13, which never came to anything. Great times in sunny Southern California for a teenage whisked from a very grey 1950s Britain!
The Israelis got a 747 cargo conversion they had done up to Mach 0.99 in a dive. I don’t know why so fast. It was reported in Flight International at the time in the 80’s, it was a wild ride.
I think all your transport presentations are exceptional. I commend your obvious depth of research together with a crisp and concise presentational style. Well done Sir.
Also, Ruairidh hasn't gone for one of those annoying computer animated female voice overs that are common & spoil a lot of videos.
I always liked the look of the dc-8 more than the 707.
Totally agree hence I'm watching
@@IceMan-il7dx My experience was different. I remember an Aeromexico DC-8 with just a plastic bar running the length of the airframe substituting for an armrest. The Big windows were nice but so were the spaces between them, thus often giving your window seat not much of a window. And lastly I remember sweating to death on a Delta DC-8 at Nassau. I learned the DC-8 did not have auxiliary power, despite this being a -71 modified model. And FAs apparently hated it. But that said, who could deny its aesthetic beauty and elegance. I remember when Boeing was forced to widen its dash-80, the result was a 707 with a 1-inch wider fuselage. I always wondered if that extra inch was deliberate. edit: I may be responding to a different post above.
The Convair was better looking than the 707 to
@@anthonyxuereb792 Another one of my favorites. 707 just looked bland.
@Arthur Humphreys I hear you but there are enough diffences to make them appealing to different people and it was the Me262 that set the template well before the 707. All Boeing did was too add two more engines.
Well spoken, researched and extremely interesting to an ageing aviation enthusiast!
The biggest issue for Douglas Aircraft was when Douglas Sr. retired in 1957, there was nobody with any engineering experience on the board. And it has been all downhill since then. The lack of engineers in any positions of power contributed the the DC8 story, The DC10 failures and now the Boeing Max failures.
The DC-8 will always have a special place in my heart. It was the first "big" (4-engine) jet that I flew on during my return home from my very first airplane trip. It was a Delta DC-8, ATL to JFK in '69.
I have liked the McDonnell Douglas DC-8 since I was a teenager. It was a beautiful airplane. ✈️♥️
Great video. When I lived in St Louis around 2000, I would often go by the airport cargo area and look at the UPS -71 and -73 cargo jets. I saw original passenger DC 8s but never flew on one. Great plane, glad it lasted so long.
This channel is gonna explode one day.
My first flight was a Delta DC-8, Detroit-Atlanta-Houston. We flew as high as 42,000ft to clear a storm. We didn't clear the storm! I was 14 in 1972. The aircraft was made in 1961 according to the window markings.
In July of 2020, I visited the memorial of Air Canada Flight 621 for the 50th anniversary of the crash. It's a small park with a plaque that has the names of the victims on it. It was a sobering experience. Also at 12:50 That's the same Turkish Airlines DC-10 involved in the crash of flight 981 in 1974. You can tell by the Reg, TC-JAV.
The reason the Comet was not "accepted" by airlines was a fatal design flaw. The passenger windows were square and created high stress loads at the corners that migrated through the aircraft skin leading to explosive decompression and fatal crashes.
Yes thats right and thanks to the retesting of the air frame in a water tank in a research shed to find the fault...... so other airliners avoided the same fate
Since they had already come to the conclusion that the problems were due to metal fatigue, perhaps also related to the air pressurisation of these newer aircraft types. A lot of the testing was done in a giant water tank. They emersed Comet fuselages in the tank. And in a concentrated manor, replicated the flight stresses an airframe would be subject to over many hours of flying. After careful and detailed study of the airframes they discovered micro cracking around the corners of the passenger windows. Hence for the new Comet series, they changed the design to oval windows and increased the thickness of the fuselage skin. Essentially double skinning. Both the 707 and DC8 had already incorporated this. Ps they also found the micro cracking was exacerbated by imprecise riveting.
Incredibly well researched, love your work, always look forward to a new video, best wishes from Australia.
Thank you for this fantastic documentary on the DC 8. As a Canadian, I’m fascinated by all of the accidents involving this aircraft that has occurred in ownership by Canadian airlines and/or on Canadian soil. I was not aware of the AC flight that burned in Toronto, though the Gander crash was covered extensively in the media, as it there were other crashes around that time because of icing and in the case of the Gander accident, I believe overloading of baggage.
Nose cheek inlets were for cabin climate control purposes, not an APU, as stated @ 14:40.
yes, the APU is usually mounted at the very end of the fuselage so it doesn't make sense to put inlets for it at the front.
@Stephen Graham yes for the unsuspecting!
At 6:35, you meant five hundred _thousand_ dollars less for a 707 compared to a DC-8 rather than just five hundred dollars. The crash history of the DC-8, but really the 707 as well, are a good reminder why a feature of most airports in the 60's and 70's was machines selling life insurance scattered around the halls so the nervous passenger could buy extra insurance just for the flight he was on.
It was still the safest form of travel, even back then. Those insurance companies got rich, selling fear that was statistically unfounded.
@@Z06ified No, passenger trains were still the safest form of travel into the mid-60's. Once more prop planes were retired, more reliable jets were put in service, and air traffic control and radar was upgraded, then air travel became the safest option.
... so remember those vending machines near the ticket counter...paid them no mind tho as I was still young...
It was in effect, a scam. If the plane crashed, the ticket needed to be found.........
@@richardpentelow655 I take it you were not alive when these machines were in use. The machine dispensed a copy of the life insurance policy and a post card. You filled out information on the card and dropped it into the machine. Your policy was effective from the time you filled out the card and paid your money. The owner of the machine(s) had a person who went around every night and collected the cards. There was no "ticket" that needed to be found.
About 14 minutes in the narrator says the inlets for the APU were modified. It had no APU or auxiliary power unit. When it was modified with the CFM56 engines the old freon air conditioning and turbo compressor pressurization systems were removed. The chin scoops below the cockpit were blocked off for these systems. I worked on the DC8 for a number of years at Delta. They were a simple aircraft and were a nice riding airplane since they were heavy. The upgraded engines made them quite a hot rod in performance. Since they had no APU they had to be started at the gate prior to pushback. Trying to push the aircraft out on a slippery snow covered ramp was a challenge. I remember requesting the crew to apply reverse thrust so the tug would move the airplane. At that point with all the snow blowing I was blind, simply a passenger riding along while the airplane pulled the tug from the gate. Thrilling ride.
The DC8 was my favorite. Roomy. Big windows.
QANTAS never used Douglas after the DC3. With the advent of the 707, they remained all Boeing for many years. Ironically QANTAS now has a fleet of 717s for short haul. The 717 is of course the final version of the DC9.
But now we have the final 2.0 extra version of DC9 - ARJ21
Incorrect. It was the final version of the MD-95, a derivate of the MD-80. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas, Boeing renamed it.
One of the craziest hijack happened in September of 1970... A DC-8 from Swissair was flown to the Desert of Jordan (Dawsons Field), also a TWA Boeing 707 was hijacked and flown to said desert! The PFLP then Hijacked a VC10 from BOAC too... the 3 Planes that were now in the nowhere and blown up at the End! First the VC10, the 707 followed soon after the BOAC plane was burning and lastly the Swissair DC-8 exploded and burnt to the ground.
If im correct, all Hostages were alive and returned to their country... The full story is absolutely crazy!
You're doing a fantastic job with these videos. Keep up the great work.
My first ever flight, age 13, was DC-8 CF-TIP.
Me too - a charter from Canada to Europe. I think I was 9. Those were the days they still had good service with china dishes and real food for meals and snacks.
My dad was a weights and balance engineer on the stretch 62 .
We flew an Iberia Airlines DC 8 back in 1973, I was a 13 year old child then but remember the nice cabin and pretty stewardesses. Just like any flight today.
Excellent video, well researched and narrated, enjoyed it and looking forward to more.
Your videos are like old episodes of WINGS! LOVE IT!
The aircraft that exceeded the speed of sound @11:00, was a RR Conway powered DC-8-43, serial # 45623, tail #602 belonging to Canadian Pacific Airlines. The aircraft was loaned to Douglas to test the 4% leading edge extension to remedy the high fuel consumption problem. The aircraft flew on the supersonic flight unpressurized with an crew escape tube built into the floor behind the cockpit. CP had fuel consumption guarantees in its contract with Douglas. Attempts by some employees to have the aircraft sent to the Canadian Aviation museum along with all of that test flight data was turned down by senior management and the aircraft scrapped at the end of its service life. I worked as an Operations Engineer for CP during the museum attempt to save this unique aircraft.
Such a brilliant effort.
I've learned a lot.
Great video as always! I used to see that last UPS DC8 fly overhead on approach every day on my way to work - and then I noticed it was replaced by what I think was a 767. Now I know why!
Excellent video, well researched, presented and narrated. 👍🙂
I have 10 years and thousands of hours in DC-8s. Loved the jet! 71 and 73 series. I felt very confident in the jet. It will always be my "first love" ;-)
This is the best piece I've found on the DC-8 on the internet. Well done.
Your videos are always great ones.
Thanks.
“The comet demonstrated great reliability” yeah, right up until they started coming apart in midair. 🤣
I know right?👍square windows for everyone!!
A sad tale, but the airlines could see the future.
You are correct, although with far fewer parts, the jet engines had a better reliability rate than the latest piston engines. The piston engines were marvels of engineering, but required a ton of maintenance. There were many occasions where the piston engines failed and at a far greater rate than the jet engines. The jet engines also had far less vibration which reduced wear on ancillary systems.
@@PanzerDave yeah I'm a retired A&P and got my start on Radials.Alot of my friends had Warbirds.I saw a show called wings over the world and the title was DeHaveland and they showed them stress testing the Comets fuselage to find out why the fell apart and they always failed at the corners of the window that at that time were square.The only square windows I've seen were on non pressurized Cesnna 410s.
@@model-man7802 Very cool. I've never flown a radial nor worked on one, but it is on the list!
The tests on the Comet are a very interesting study for a number of reasons. Obviously, there is the testing itself and how the pressurization cycles affected the metal, but how they figured out something new is interesting too.
Another masterpiece. Great video.
Superb historical summary! Bravo! 👍👋😃
Fascinating as always, thanks again.
Excellent piece mate.Well informed and engaging,and that comes from an avid DC-8 enthusiast😎👍!
The only time I flew on a DC8 was a Faucett (pictured at 10:12) flight between Cuzco and Lima in 1992. The inside was the original 1960's layout with a (non operational) side galley including a countertop facing the aisle, the cabin interior had a hand painted coat of white gloss paint. On arrival in Lima there was a row of Faucett DC8's, that were the donors for 'spares and repairs', lined up on the edge of the field. Great history video, thanks.
A great video. Thanks for posting.
Keep up the great work, all of these videos are interesting.
at 10:13, the engines on the DC-8 Series 50 are described as "the upgraded JT3D turbojet engine", but which, in fact, were Pratt & Whitney JT3D-3B "turbofan" engines, each producing 18,000 lbs of static thrust (LBST). Very informative video, though. Thanks!
Fantastic video on the DC-8. Would love to hear your take on the MD-11
The worst crash involving a DC-8 would be Nigeria Airways Flight 2120, on July the 11th, 1991.
On that day a NationAir DC-8, registered as C-GMXQ (chartered by Nigeria Airways) was to fly 247 Nigerian pilgrims from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (it was Hajj season at that time) back to Sokoto, Nigeria. However the plane suffered 2 burst tires that caused a fire that resulted in the DC-8-61 crashing just 1km short of Jeddah Airport, with the deaths of 261 passengers & crew.
Subsequent investigations revealed that the 2 tires that burst were underinflated, and the circumstances of the tire failures (that being the blown tire causing the wheel rim to scrape along the runway until the tire itself was set on fire, then the still burning tire in the wheel well causing several systems failures [including the plane’s hydraulics] and weakening the airframe) were ultimately the cause of the crash.
DC3 and DC4 are still flying in Yukon on Show Ice Pilot on Discovery channel. Mayday show too
In 2017 there was still over 300 DC-3's flying all around the world and most of them are probably still flying today, 66 of them have been upgraded with turbine engines and glass Cockpit they're called Basler BT-67. Here is a link to the upgraded DC-3'S:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67
According to a recent Donald Douglas Sr. bio, he was reluctant to push the DC-8 after considering his airline customer’s balance sheets. Heavily in debt after purchasing many DC-6’s, DC-7’s, and Lockheed Constellations.
Your narration work and content is some of the best ive seen in my 58 year being an Avgeek 😁👍🍻
Interesting to note that the great majority of crashes in your video did not result from failure of the aircraft. This has not been the case in recent times with more advanced designs from other manufacturers.
Thank you for your videos.
Great work. Concise....
Amazing that while you mentioned the DH Comet, you don't mention the crashes which cost it the lead it had...
Maybe it's like writing about Shakespeare yet again, when everything possible has already been written about him. Besides, a lot of planes mentioned in this video had checkered pasts, but this is a DC-8 presentation.
The only time that i flew on a DC-8 was from Los Angeles to Vancouver of CP Air, my cousin developed a phobia of Dc- 8's as he had to attend the crash of the Dc-8 series61 wich was on a flight from montreal to Los Angeles via Toronto, this was an Air Canada plane, the horror of seeing and dealing with that horrific crash had never left him, and when he flew to England on a Dc-8 of an airline called worldways to Gatwick, it bought back very unpleasant memories!!
SAS, the last DC-8 customer, is short for Scandinavian Airlines System... (not Scandinavian Air Services). SAS was created from DDL (Det Danske Luftfartselskab of Denmark), ABA (AB Aerotransport of Sweden) and DNL (Det Norske Luftfartselskap of Norway) in August 1946.
Still flying after all these years, that's some testament for its design and build quality, most impressive to say the least
and also impressive are the old jet engines being used as Jason Gomez below pointed out.
Those inlets under the nose are not and have never been for an APU. Before the conversion to CFM engines, those scoops were for ram air turbines that powered the vapor-cycle air conditioning and provided air for pressurization. When the CFM's were installed, the vapor-cycle air conditioners and pressurization equipment were removed and air-cycle machines, using bleed air from the engines, were installed in their place. The ram air scoops were also blocked off with streamlined covers. I have worked on all the 50, 60 and 70 series DC 8's. None of them were ever equipped with APU's. A ground based huffer was used to supply the air to run the starters on the engines.
Leaving a comment for the algorithm, superb video as always.
Nicely done.
Bit of an error at 2:15 . The KC-97 was derived from the Boeing Stratocruiser, not the B-29. Very good video though!
Very interesting and comprehensive
Well researched and presented as usual Ruairidh, thanks for this!
Are you aware that the DC-1 was based around the aerodynamic research carried out by Boeing on the 247? The guy running the university windtunnel in California for Boeing took the raw data to Douglas.
Did it end up in court? Must have, that was how it was back then, Ford fighting the Dodge Brothers, Standard Oil vs the little oil companies, etc. It was hard keeping your staff and engineers happy and in hand, anyone could do you in anytime. Then there were the patent laws and deals to cut with any inventor to keep them contented. Tough business and only the strongest has survived.................Boeing Aircraft, Seattle WA.
@@mohabatkhanmalak1161 not that I'm aware of, but it did make Boeing build their own wind tunnel.
Fascinating! 👍👏
I flew on a Braniff DC-8 Super 62 in 1980 from Brasil to the United States in 1980 to become a YFU exchange student. My second trip on a plane, first time out of the country. Came back to Brazil on a Varig DC-10
Good video. I never got to fly on a DC-8, or a 707 for that matter, but my Dad was an engineer for Sperry back in the day and flew all over for the company. He always said he preferred the DC-8. Its remarkable to me how much the 757 resembles the DC-8. The only one I knew was still flying was the NASA aircraft.
Ruairidh, gonna do the Convair 880 as well? the one everybody forgets etc.
And don't forget the 990 !
@@julosx yes yes fastest etc but the 880 is erm, yeah about that... 😔
Great video!
Very informative, wish I had the chance to fly on one...
I got that chance in 1973 on a charter flight to Greece for a one week vacation that only cost $299 per person (airfare, hotel, and two meals per day included). The plane was one of those stretched versions that carried over 250 passengers seated six across with the one narrow aisle in between. Fully loaded, it used the entire runway to get off the ground four separate times (we had to refuel in Shannon, Ireland on the way over and Mallorca, Spain on the way back). We called the plane "Sardinia" after the pilot pointed out that we were flying over that island and we felt like we were in a sardine tin.
Accurate videos, not like some others who post this kind of stuff. Great work
"Three Chief Engineers" - I don't think "Chief" means what Douglas thought it did.
Chief Cubed
@@Vokabre would still be less chiefs than Douglas had.
it sno cheiefe, it is CHEF, The ere cooking INside the airplanesl not In the airporte BIG DOFFERENCES!
@@ilovecops5499 wtf are you talking about? Cooking?
@@9HighFlyer9 I was wondering the same, but they seemed so happy and excited I thought it would be churlish to criticize.
You, sir make the Best documentary videos on CZcams.
i like the idea of having a Boeing 757 fuselage with the DC-8's range and cheek inlets
enjoyed that thanks!
Good video, I love aviation related stuff.
That’s great check out this dc-8 in ktm
czcams.com/video/ftDk1Goji90/video.html
I remember flying Swissair to Zurich in 1971 on a DC-8. I think our return flight was on Air Canada
Fun fact: This plane is the reason why the 1988-89 49ers were undefeated on the road. The coach promised the team they would charter that plane for their away games.....but only if they won the previous one. As a result the team had a better record away from San Francisco than at Candlstick🤣😂🤣
My first plane trip was on a CP AIR DC 8 from HKG to YVR with a stopover in Tokyo.
Those DC-8's are pretty darn smoootthh..!
The Canadian Pacific in the thumbnail brings back some fond memories.
my father worked in the paint shop and strangely my first car ended up being painted cp orange. memories
Orange is beautiful. I can still remember the ads! My Dad flew DC-8’s for Canadian Pacific!
@@michellemerry3592 did your dad ever mention this story to you? www.mentalfloss.com/article/58517/first-commercial-jet-break-sound-barrier-was-not-concorde
No mention of the Avro Canada 'Jetliner'. The aircraft that defined the term and owner of the first North American Airliner recorded flight
Remember that Americans ignore the accomplishments of the rest of the world: consider how many think the US invented the motor car, radar and jet enginge.
Because this wasn’t a video about that plane, it’s a video on the DC-8.
He also didn’t mention the Ford Tri-Motor! How dare he!
why'd you flash a picture od the Dawson field highjacking but then not talk about it
48 😱 you deep drive these doc's
Enjoyed!
Weren't these based on one of Lord Zenu's starships?
The DC-8 Also know as The cut price 707 or the middle Child of early quad jets
707 fan
The 707 is the perpetual second child, by your own standards, as the Comet came first, and was a quad-jet..
Enjoy the video. I am too young to have flown on this generation of aircraft; however I certainly remember watching them come in for a landing at JFK when I visited my aunt who lived on the ocean. Those old aircraft were extremely loud. Modern airplanes, which are often much bigger, are nowhere near as loud. They practically whisper by comparison
Yes they are quiet and more fuel efficient but they are so slow !! 🇬🇧
@@stewy62 are you insane? Modern Turbofan engines are no slower, and often faster, then older turbo jets.
@@kevinbarry71 name me a passenger plane faster than a VC-10 ?
@@stewy62 747, define slow please. How much slower is 787, 777, or that? Fantasy land
@@kevinbarry71 the 777 is one of the faster modern airliners but slower than a 707, have a read of this alum.mit.edu/slice/why-hasnt-commercial-air-travel-gotten-any-faster-1960s
I like the DC-8-62 Stretch jet, which I flew from JFK to Geneva, Switzerland.
I enjoyed flying on DC-8's. They had plenty of room, gobs of power and really pushed you back in the seat on takeoff.
Tons of room for fat lesbians 👅
In 2020, I noticed another DC-8-73 CF still going for a freight carrier in Peru registerd OB-2059 P. I spotted it several times on FlightRadar24 flying within South America and even making a transatlantic flight once departing from Italy (don't know what was its destination).
Flying Tiger DC-8-73's never had an APU installed. The nose inlets pointed out were for the air conditioning pacs.
I only got to fly on a DC -8 once in 1976 it was a charter plane from San Francisco to Ohio. I enjoyed the flight very much.
Bad management in so many ways!
Appreciate the research great documentary
16:36 I can never imagine the thought and feeling of BOAC 911's passangers, as they passed by the wreckage of Canadian Pacific 402, while minutes later, they're also facing the same fate.. 😓
This is an interesting video but it might have been better named "Why the 707 was better than the DC8".
I have flown the DC 8-54,55,61,62,63,71,73 over 16 years. The airplane was transformed with the CFM 56 conversion. The thrust of the CFM was the equivalent of the original airplane with 5 engines while the fuel burn was 25% less. You incorrectly described the intakes(the smile) on the nose as being the intakes for the APU, the 8 had no APU except for early CFM conversions. Those were the intakes for the turbocompressors on the original 8 and the PACKS on the CFM conversion. The CFM conversion made the airplane fuel economical, comfortable(the PACKS) and the thrust reversers were effective. The 8 could carry 101000 lbs of cargo and go .84M. I would suggest you look at when the 707s were parked and how much longer the 8 flew profitably. The 07 couldn't hold a candle to the 8 when it came to performance.
No good deed goes unpunished. If DeHavilland had not shared their learning about sharp cornered windows with the Americans, the revised Comet would have been much more successful.
The loss of the Comets and finding the cause of the problem shocked the entire aircraft industry worldwide.
Boeing had admited that they would have the same till then unknown metal fatigue issues if they were the first.
The second generation comet was smaller then the 707/DC8 so it was less economical for airlines to operate.
And to be fair Boeing gave DeHaviland the research of swept wings and pilon mounted engines in return.
Wrong! My father a test pilot in that era later showed me copy of paper work indicating Boeing knew of the potential problem and that jet airliners blowing up was bad for business and offered to share their "rip stop" skin design. Britts said "no thanks" Met an old RAF Spit pilot and he told me they were so anxious to beat the Yanks into airlines postwar, they pulled him out of combat to train their guys for BOAC while our guys were still getting shot down. Oh well, can't really blame them . U.S. pretty well screwed the whole empire thing and Churchill knew it .FDR had him by the balls.......Capt. Mike SAT gotta love the game
@@dawnboyd1753 Boeing had more experience of pressure huls but only for bombers.
You forget that the B29 only had a partly pressurised hul and the cockpit had also squar windows. Also the Bombers only flew once aday and weren't suposed to outlive more then 20 combat sorties.
The Comet had way more windows and flew several times aday with a higher hull pressure so the the fatigue problem bite them in the ass.
Correct is your assesment of rushing into production. They used older proven and cheaper manufacturing methods to get the comet into service.
@@obelic71 The Comet additionally had thinner skins than industry standard in effort to reduce weight. That just lowered the resistance to the window fatique. Seldom mentioned.
@@KB4QAA In the early days of jet engines all jet aircraft had thinner skins and weight was reduces as much as possible to increase speed (fighters) and cargo capacity. The most testpilots died in that revolutionair booming era of aircraft enginering.
The Pioneer jet airliner the Comet had a low power 20KN thrust 2nd generation radial compressor jetengine in 1949.
They came to close to the enginering edge and passed it without knowing and found out the hard way that metal fatigue was a bigger issue then previously thought.
The first mass produced airliner The 707 had already a 3th generation axial compressor with 76KN thrust in 1957.
The lessons of the Comet were learned and implemented in the entire aircraft industry.
Even Boeing engineers said if they had build a jetliner in 49 they also could have had the same problem.
Boeing developed the rip strips so that a panel rips of and not a a structual part.
If the Comet did not had fatigue problems it would have been made obsolete by the 707.
It says enough that the last flying original 707 in passenger airline service ( Iran )went in retirement in 2020. and stil there are charters/reighters/military versions flying with the CFM56
The Comet was withdrawn from passenger service in the early 80s and the last military withdrawn in 1997.
Flew in one these as a nine year old from Sydney Australia to Auckland New Zealand.
Ive been around for most of the lifespan of the DC8, but have never flown on one. DC9 many times, even a DC3, but no DC8. Always wanted to fly in one of the super stretch versions when I was a kid.
I've flown on the CP-Air "supersonic" DC-8....