UPS To Ax ALL DC8s
 

UPS will be axing all of their DC8s come this May 31, 2009.

How many are still flying ?.

Was it something like 44 airframes ?

I think they are the largest operator on the planet .............. Its a shame to see these absolutely beautiful aircraft go.

UPS DC8s
 

I wonder how many will end up on the Ghanain register?
Or in the Gulf (Arabian) region?
Or with Johnsons Air/HeavyLift?

Or all three???

I may be wrong, but I heard somewhere that they are all owned or contractually obligated to Boeing in exchange for a good price on the B-757PF 's that UPS bought. Therefore the will not be operated by anyone else, rather they will be scrapped when UPS is done with them. Hope it's not true. One of my glider instructors was in International Sales at Douglas Aircraft Division of McD, and said that UPS once approached Douglas for a price for 60 new-build 70-series DC-8 Freighters. A price and schedule proposal was to be worked-up but it was discovered that the facilities manager in Long Beach had sold the DC-8 production tooling for scrap, ending the possibility of more 8's. He was supposedly fired on the spot. UPS then approached Boeing for B-757 freighters, and got a deal, with "terms".

First jet I ever flew in my life was a UPS DC-8.

That was over 20 years ago but seems like yesterday..Time flies.:sad:

A beautiful airplane, I remember as a kid, watching them come off of the LGB production line in the sixties.

I too have heard of the Boeing deal - to receive them in trade and chop them up in order to get them off of the market, while making room for new freighter demand. Built like iron, they were affectionately known as "pieces of eight".

It is an awesome a/c to fly. I suppose if UPS parks them, the only airlines left operating a "fleet" size operation will be us (Astar) and ATI. It will be interesting to see how much longer the Mighty Diesel will be able to take to the skies. I fear not for long...

I flew the DC-8 as passenger and cargo airplane in the 1980s...
Must say that it was a decent airplane (although I was a Boeing guy)...
Did not like the DC8-50 and -61. Flew these very little.
But the 62/63 and 73 were great machines with decent payload.
The 71 was ok - but only as passenger airplane.
xxx
The story our friend 727gm mentions above is quite correct.
However it was not for building additional DC-8.
It was to convert more 60 series into 70 series with CFM nacelles-engines.
MacDac hoped by stopping DC8-70F production to sell more DC-10F...
xxx
:8
Happy contrails

I like Boeings as well, B. But Mr. Douglas built his a/c like tanks. That's why it is so similar to driving a tank, dont'cha know. :E

UPS acquired 3-4 of my airlines -63s and converted to -73s. Now this was in the early eighties more than 25 years ago. I believe all those airplanes are still flying. I understand UPS did considerable cockpit upgrades.

I flew the DC-8 (55,63,71) as F/O for 4 years. One great airplane. I hope a couple get preserved in museums.

My understanding was that the proposal WAS for new-build DC-8's. The 70-series were not built by Douglas, but were ALL conversions of existing 60-series aircraft by Cammacorp of El Segundo, and some converted under license by Delta; and given a series designation by Douglas, sort of an incestuous relationship. I doubt that Douglas would turn down a 60-new-aircraft order. The tooling at Long Beach would be for actual new aircraft builds, fuselages, wings, tails, etc.

anyone got any nice pics of them pleez

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Photo Search Results | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sad to hear it.
I really love to see these old gals out and about.
They still look so rakish and tough.
I guess that at the end of the day, the economics just don't favor their continued use.

Well if they really are in need of retirement, or expensive to operate etc.. how come they won't sell them onto the open market?

Could it be that they are possibly still quite competitive?

Those CFM engines have so much excess thrust available that when the PF calls for "climb thrust", the engineer pushes the throttles forward, rather than pulling them aft to a lower thrust setting like the ol' 727.

Sorry, not true.
The DC-8 tooling was purposely scrapped by Douglas so that a re-engined airplane would not be in competition with the DC-10.

A known fact amongst former Douglas execs.
And yes, my Dad was one of them.
For 33 years.

I suspect (although cannot be sure) that all UPS DC-8 aircraft will have the data plate removed and be scrapped.
A shame, because it is a fine well engineered aircraft.
Top-notch in nearly every respect.
Build quality on a par with the L1011.

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. Maybe some UPS folks can shed some light on this part of the tale.

Boeing wants to sell nice new aircraft they dont make as much money keeping up nice old aircraft

Would be ashame to scrap them. Just as an example, comparing the DC-8-62F with the B757F (not to mention the -73F which is larger/heavier but with a reduction of 30% in fuel burn compared to the -62F).

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

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!

Let's face it folks, the 757 is just a two-engined 707.
But worse!

Seem to remember only 12 for the 707...but it will fly further.
Been there, done that, have T shirt...etc

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.

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.:ok:

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.

Can anyone compare the 763F to the DC8 73 F ? !

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.

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.

'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.


-

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.

I suspect not all that many.
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.

There is another problem: 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. Again CPCP, aging aircraft programmes and some ADs making them not viable for "developed" countries operations, but with some sort of creative approach and buddies in Kinshasa CAA some people still can make money out of it.

True , then they go and buy another one with a couple of years to run and park that one at the next C or D check

Supply will dry out soon, I'm not sufficiently familiar with DC8 but I believe D-check is anyway within 8 to 12 years limit and not so many of them done in past years.

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.