Stretching airliners
Re the might deisel 8, Super 80 series
there were three models
61, 62, 63
The 61 was for US domestic and had 4 CFM 56s replacing the old coal burners
the 62 was a lesser stretch by some way and had an extended wing as well as the CFM56s and had a very long range for the day -Moscow-Tokyo, LHR-BKK
the 63 had the long fuselage and bigger wing so it had the capcity increase but not the extreme range-it could still do TATL easily enough though
Although not a stellar success I think they were certainly not a stretch too far and both the long and shorter bodies were nice looking aircraft, a lot of both types ended their days as freighters and were very successful until yet another fuel price crisis caught up with them.
Stretches too far in my mind are
737 900, commercial success but apparently a dog to fly and needs very long runway compared tot he 757 it often replaced
Md 90 which really does look like a sort of civilian F104 , all body and no wings
737-300, if you start out with a long single aisle fuselage then stretching it doesnt do much for looks or versatile performance
And for the future-|I cannot see myself up the back on a 777-9X or whatever it is called this week
there were three models
61, 62, 63
The 61 was for US domestic and had 4 CFM 56s replacing the old coal burners
the 62 was a lesser stretch by some way and had an extended wing as well as the CFM56s and had a very long range for the day -Moscow-Tokyo, LHR-BKK
the 63 had the long fuselage and bigger wing so it had the capcity increase but not the extreme range-it could still do TATL easily enough though
Although not a stellar success I think they were certainly not a stretch too far and both the long and shorter bodies were nice looking aircraft, a lot of both types ended their days as freighters and were very successful until yet another fuel price crisis caught up with them.
Stretches too far in my mind are
737 900, commercial success but apparently a dog to fly and needs very long runway compared tot he 757 it often replaced
Md 90 which really does look like a sort of civilian F104 , all body and no wings
737-300, if you start out with a long single aisle fuselage then stretching it doesnt do much for looks or versatile performance
And for the future-|I cannot see myself up the back on a 777-9X or whatever it is called this week
The DC8-63 wasn't a stretch, it was a re-engined DC8-62, I think you're thinking of the DC8-72 & DC8-73 which were stretches of the latter
There were 3 60 series DC8 variants. Firstly the 61, fully stretched but with same power/aerodynamics as 50 series. Effectively high density/medium range. Series 62 was only mildly stretched but had power/wing enhancements for ultra long range. The 63 married full stretch with new wing - high capacity AND long range. All used P&W first generation by pass jets.
The 71/72/73 were 61/62/63 re-engined with GE CF56 high by pass turbofans.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe they ever managed to stick a fan engine on a B707, the wings are significantly closer to the ground ... They had enough difficulties sticking a fan engine on a B737 with the engine's flat bottom.
Apparently the plan was for a propeller DC8 ... right up until the point when they saw the B707 being developed with jet engines.
Apparently the plan was for a propeller DC8 ... right up until the point when they saw the B707 being developed with jet engines.
Thread Starter
As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, the prop DC-8 had nothing at all in common with the DC-8 that eventually flew. It was to be developed from this oddity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-42_Mixmaster
I may say, I've never heard of a prop DC-8 until today.
I may say, I've never heard of a prop DC-8 until today.
I don't believe they ever managed to stick a fan engine on a B707, the wings are significantly closer to the ground ...
IIRC the problem with fan engined 737 requiring the oval nacelle arises because the 73 was designed with low ground clearance to simplify loading/handling at remote/ill-equipped outstations.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall being told that Douglas took two damaged DC-9/MD-whatever prototypes, which had been damaged such that there was about one complete airframe left between the two, and "frankensteined" them into one functional airframe. (One of the damaged airframes was the one that had the tail come off during a performance landing test)
The resulting airframe was later used as the UHB testbed.
The resulting airframe was later used as the UHB testbed.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,600
Received 277 Likes
on
153 Posts
Around 500 KC-135s were re-engined with CFM-56s as well - while not a direct 707 derivative it is certainly a very close relative!
Several 747-200Bs were sent back to Everett to have the -300's stretched upper-deck fitted. 10% more seats for 2% more weight.
KLM were a big operator, also JAL and UTA. They remained -200s on the type cert, not -300, and were very confusing for spotters...
KLM were a big operator, also JAL and UTA. They remained -200s on the type cert, not -300, and were very confusing for spotters...
However the rebuilding, known as the 747-200SUD (stretched upper deck) just cost too much to do. The repositioning of the flight controls coming back from the flight deck was a major part of the issue. I believe Boeing eventually lost a lot of money on the programme, so they didn't offer it any more.
I seem to recall being told that Douglas took two damaged DC-9/MD-whatever prototypes, which had been damaged such that there was about one complete airframe left between the two, and "frankensteined" them into one functional airframe. (One of the damaged airframes was the one that had the tail come off during a performance landing test)
The resulting airframe was later used as the UHB testbed.
The resulting airframe was later used as the UHB testbed.
Not a particularly lucky development programme !!!
Thread Starter
I recollect that Boeing said they would go ahead with the 747-200SUD if they got enough orders, but they were so pleased with KLM's order, they decided to go ahead anyway. Then practically no one else wanted it.
re the dc 8 super 60 series
the 61 was the longest ever airliner stretch up until then
basically a 50 series with a super stretch
the 62 was a small stretch over the 50 with many upgrades to wing and engines/nacelles with a HGW
the 63 was the 61 fuselage with all the 62 enchantments and HGW's
the 70 series was to Re engine any of the super 60 series with CFM56
the 61 series being a big mod to the wing/pylon area
the 61 was the longest ever airliner stretch up until then
basically a 50 series with a super stretch
the 62 was a small stretch over the 50 with many upgrades to wing and engines/nacelles with a HGW
the 63 was the 61 fuselage with all the 62 enchantments and HGW's
the 70 series was to Re engine any of the super 60 series with CFM56
the 61 series being a big mod to the wing/pylon area
Not a stretch, but a shrunk: the first Fokker 70 prototype was constructed by cutting some sections from an exisiting F100 aircraft. This was back in the DASA-days, which preceded the demise of Fokker.
Thorough as these Germans were, they wanted to cut, shorten, re-attach and re-calibrate the electrical wires in accordance with the reduction in fuselage length. Fokker engineers suggested that it might be easier to simply create a big loop in the existing wires...
Thorough as these Germans were, they wanted to cut, shorten, re-attach and re-calibrate the electrical wires in accordance with the reduction in fuselage length. Fokker engineers suggested that it might be easier to simply create a big loop in the existing wires...
When it had finished being the prototype 146-100, it was sliced up, had bits inserted and was fastened back together again to make the prototype 146-300.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de...t8rKVeICqTU3qM:
I understand the repairs took just a few weeks.
Rog 747
You are of course quite right correcting my earlier post on the great DC8 stretches. Of course the stretch and wing improvements produced the 60 series and the CFMs were a later enhancement making it the 70 series
You are of course quite right correcting my earlier post on the great DC8 stretches. Of course the stretch and wing improvements produced the 60 series and the CFMs were a later enhancement making it the 70 series
