UPS To Ax ALL DC8s
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: Subterranea
The story goes that when UPS decided on the 757's, Boeing made it a condition of the deal that when the DC-8's were to be retired from their fleet that they would be turned over to Boeing to be scrapped.
The B757F has high payload-range restrictions compared to the DC-8-62F (and -63/-73F). The B757F carries just over 35 tons for approximately 4 flight hours whereas the DC-8-62F carries 42 tons for over 7.5 flight hours. Additionally, the higher lease rates of the B757 make its overall operating costs more expensive than the DC-8's.
I read in a report some time ago that for the B757 to equate the total operating cost of the -62F, the fuel price would have to increase to $2.50 per USG. Perhaps the "8" may still have a future when biofuels catch on?
Instead of scrapping the "8" -60/-70 series, Boeing should put at least one of each in the Museum of Flight and preserve them well.
Green-dot
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: EU
35 tons for 4 hours...
From Boeing website:
Up to 15 containers or pallets, each measuring 88 by 125 inches (223 by 317 centimeters) at the base, can be accommodated on the main deck of the 757F. Total main-deck container volume is 6,600 cubic feet (187 cubic meters) and the two lower holds of the airplane provide 1,830 cubic feet (51.8 cubic meters) for bulk loading. These provide a combined maximum revenue payload capability of 87,700 pounds (39,780 kilograms) including container weight. When carrying the maximum load, the 757F has a range of about 2,900 nautical miles (5,371 kilometers).
That makes it 725 knots/hr!
From Boeing website:
Up to 15 containers or pallets, each measuring 88 by 125 inches (223 by 317 centimeters) at the base, can be accommodated on the main deck of the 757F. Total main-deck container volume is 6,600 cubic feet (187 cubic meters) and the two lower holds of the airplane provide 1,830 cubic feet (51.8 cubic meters) for bulk loading. These provide a combined maximum revenue payload capability of 87,700 pounds (39,780 kilograms) including container weight. When carrying the maximum load, the 757F has a range of about 2,900 nautical miles (5,371 kilometers).
That makes it 725 knots/hr!
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Up to 15 containers or pallets
Let's face it folks, the 757 is just a two-engined 707.
But worse!
But worse!
Been there, done that, have T shirt...etc
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
Not really fair to compare the 757 to the DC8 or 707 for that matter, it is in a totally different weight and payload category.
What would be more realistic and interesting would be to compare both older generation Aircraft to the 767-300F.
What would be more realistic and interesting would be to compare both older generation Aircraft to the 767-300F.
Joined: Sep 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 956
Likes: 68
From: away from home
Well our B757 (freighter built by Boeing, not converted) has a max payload of 39 tons and change (15 pallets). With fuel on top of that (about 24 tons), we´ll go about 5,5 hrs, landing with about 4 tons.
Not to far from the DC-8-55F if I recall correctly, same number of pallets, OEW about 140k lbs(if memory serves,many a loadsheed handwritten...) payload 100k lbs (45 tons) and fuel 85k for a MTOW of 325k lbs. That would have meant a range of about 5,5 hrs burning about 13,500 pr. hr and landing with 10,000 lbs.
Numbers are not too different really.
Not to far from the DC-8-55F if I recall correctly, same number of pallets, OEW about 140k lbs(if memory serves,many a loadsheed handwritten...) payload 100k lbs (45 tons) and fuel 85k for a MTOW of 325k lbs. That would have meant a range of about 5,5 hrs burning about 13,500 pr. hr and landing with 10,000 lbs.
Numbers are not too different really.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 14
From: Europe
Green-dot
I've seen 2.50 USD/USG figure more than 10 years ago and that was 62/63F vs 72/73F, have you seen the same material by any chance?
DC8 is maintenance extensive airplane comparing to next generation (like 757) and if you want to maintain it properly you would not be competitive on the market which is almost solely driven by $/kg/nm.
There is always a good reason why this or that aircraft model was phased out from so called "developed countries" fleets. Africa is a different story.
I've seen 2.50 USD/USG figure more than 10 years ago and that was 62/63F vs 72/73F, have you seen the same material by any chance?
DC8 is maintenance extensive airplane comparing to next generation (like 757) and if you want to maintain it properly you would not be competitive on the market which is almost solely driven by $/kg/nm.
There is always a good reason why this or that aircraft model was phased out from so called "developed countries" fleets. Africa is a different story.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 14
From: Europe
Why we should compare 73F to 763F? 763F is almost 80% more volume than 73F and aircargo is sold on volumetric payload basis. 73F can carry only 40 volumetric tons, while 763F is around 75 volumetric tons.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Planet Earth
If you aviation geniuses have it all figured out that an old decrepit DC-8 / 707of whatever model / vintage is any better than a 757 F economically , then perhaps you should put an application in to AIG , Citi , UBS , or any of these other institutions that could use your accounting skills. I`m sure you could convince both Boeing and Airbus to restart up the line...Quit living in the past. Nostalgia doesn`t pay , economics do. These a/c belong in a museum.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
'Pterodactyls' DC8s , 722 , 732 , 742 etc
A friend of mine runs a fleet of B722 and 732 cargo aircraft in Asia and he never sleeps during the week , they're constantly going AoG from minor avionic / instrument and electrical snags .
Cheap to buy , parts not too badly priced now as the market is flooded with spares but trying to stick to a schedule , what a nightmare !
If you need 2 aircraft you buy 3 and have one as a back up and maintenance spare
Agree with the other posters , these older generation jets aren't economic for high utilisation scheduled cargo ops. For ad hoc charter or other ops where the utilisation is low and the aircraft is waiting on the ground a lot the lower capital costs make sense and they are still good in that role.
-
Cheap to buy , parts not too badly priced now as the market is flooded with spares but trying to stick to a schedule , what a nightmare !
If you need 2 aircraft you buy 3 and have one as a back up and maintenance spare
Agree with the other posters , these older generation jets aren't economic for high utilisation scheduled cargo ops. For ad hoc charter or other ops where the utilisation is low and the aircraft is waiting on the ground a lot the lower capital costs make sense and they are still good in that role.
-
Last edited by aseanaero; 30th April 2009 at 02:41.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
I had not realised the 763 had that much more volumetric capacity.However the 73F gross weight is fairly close to the 763 and the fuel capacity is nearly identical.
It is certainly a closer comparison than the the 75F and illustrates the efficiency of the (more) modern design.
Make no mistake, I am a great admirer of the DC8 in general and very impressed with its longevity, even before the CFM 56 retrofit it was a long range machine, with the new fans it rightfully gained an extended new lease on life with its stunning performance.
I wonder how many 707's would be around if it had the taller gear of the -8
allowing a similar retrofit, the USAF reengined their tankers but the civilian market just didnt seem to like it.
It is certainly a closer comparison than the the 75F and illustrates the efficiency of the (more) modern design.
Make no mistake, I am a great admirer of the DC8 in general and very impressed with its longevity, even before the CFM 56 retrofit it was a long range machine, with the new fans it rightfully gained an extended new lease on life with its stunning performance.
I wonder how many 707's would be around if it had the taller gear of the -8
allowing a similar retrofit, the USAF reengined their tankers but the civilian market just didnt seem to like it.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
I wonder how many 707's would be around if it had the taller gear of the -8
allowing a similar retrofit, the USAF reengined their tankers but the civilian market just didnt seem to like it.
allowing a similar retrofit, the USAF reengined their tankers but the civilian market just didnt seem to like it.
The early build quality of the 707 (especially the -320 straightpipe model) was not all that good, due to skin fatigue cracking issues.
Later models were better built.
I suspect the DC-8 was better still.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 14
From: Europe
Agree with the other posters , these older generation jets aren't economic for high utilisation scheduled cargo ops. For ad hoc charter or other ops where the utilisation is low and the aircraft is waiting on the ground a lot the lower capital costs make sense and they are still good in that role.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
C & D checks, landing gear, many components are calender-driven on old machines, so if you are on low utilisation, maintenance costs per hour becoming very high, I think most remaining operators of those old aircraft are not considering to do next D check, just scrap or park the airframe.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 312
Likes: 3
From: Earth
According to the Dutch aviation news site (Luchtvaartnieuws: dagelijks actueel luchtvaartnieuws) the DC8 operated the last commercial flight for UPS on 12/05/2009 from Philadelphia to Louisville.
