longevity
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Murica.
Age: 45
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
longevity
I read an article somewhere (might have been Air International, but I'm not sure) that said that Douglas built aircraft, like the DC-8, had a much longer service life when compared to the 707 for example.
They brought up the point that more 707s had been built, but there were now more DC-8s still in service. The article came to the conclusion that Douglas\MD just built the aircraft better than e.g. Boeing.
Any thoughts out there about this?
(of course they had lots of arguments I haven't mentioned here)
They brought up the point that more 707s had been built, but there were now more DC-8s still in service. The article came to the conclusion that Douglas\MD just built the aircraft better than e.g. Boeing.
Any thoughts out there about this?
(of course they had lots of arguments I haven't mentioned here)
Someone once told me that Mr Douglas built a bloody strong wing and sat the fuselage on top. Mr Boeing built a fuselage and mounted the wings on either side.
That made the aircraft built by Mr Douglas much stronger and would certainly explain the longevity of the DC-3.
The DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7 are still involved in the rather stressful business of firebombing and the DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10 will still be going strong for many years yet.
That made the aircraft built by Mr Douglas much stronger and would certainly explain the longevity of the DC-3.
The DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7 are still involved in the rather stressful business of firebombing and the DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10 will still be going strong for many years yet.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go to Roswell New Mexico and see them cutting up the scores of Boeing aircraft to go into the melting pot.
Not a DC or MD to be seen anywhere, I guess they're all too busy working.
Not a DC or MD to be seen anywhere, I guess they're all too busy working.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The survival of DC-8s had more to do with their being re-engined with CFM56s than any structural superiority over the 707. A few CFM56-engined 707s were eventually built for the military, but none were retrofitted.
The DC-8 also had the advantage of being stretched, the 707 gear was too short to allow for this.
A more pertinent comparison would be how many DC-8s with original engines are still active versus the 707. And I'll wager the last DC-9 retires long before the last 737-200.
Edited to say that, having remembered Airborne's large fleet of cargo DC-9s, I am now not so sure about my previous statement
.
The DC-8 also had the advantage of being stretched, the 707 gear was too short to allow for this.
A more pertinent comparison would be how many DC-8s with original engines are still active versus the 707. And I'll wager the last DC-9 retires long before the last 737-200.
Edited to say that, having remembered Airborne's large fleet of cargo DC-9s, I am now not so sure about my previous statement
.
Last edited by PaperTiger; 21st Jun 2004 at 18:49.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No disputing it - McDD DID make stronger aircraft than Boeing.
Even a cursory examination in the construction of say a Dc-9 compared to a 737 will show that (and cause alarm when you look at the 737! SCARY!)
I always found it interesting to examine CLOSELY inflight photographs of Boeing and McDD aircraft. Nearly ALL Boeing aircraft show "wind wrinkling" along the fuselage, especially just aft of the cockpit and entrance (the B-52, whilst off topic here, is a PRIME example, although it is to be seen without too much difficulty on 737's), whereas an McDD does NOT (triple ply skinning, with finger jointing cleats internally, plus glued, AND rivetted)
The B777 seems an exception, but then again, by all accounts, it IS an McDD designed aircraft anyway!
I will forever remember reading the "crash comics" of a australian airline that had DC-9's and 737's. The DC-9 incident page 99% of the time showed non-structural incidents, like sever turbulence etc. The 737 incident pages were rather more alarming - engine bearer bolts shearing, radome nosecap cracking and separation, rudder overbalance in flight, runaway stabilisor, trim jack failure etc etc etc etc ad nauseum. It certainly did give you a feeling of "Aw hell".
I was brought up a Douglas Lover (DC-3 and DC-9), and nothing will change that. Douglas has it's faults, but Boeing more-so!
It was a SAD SAD day the day Boeing opened it's big wide mouth and swallowed up McDD... I shed a tear, and knew the end of great aircraft was gone.
In reply to Old Smokey - yes, you are correct! McDD aircraft are EAGERLY taken up ex-airline service by the military (the DC-10 is VERY hurriedly rejuvented to KC-10 - once the Dc-10 "problem" was identified and sorted, the military couldn\'t get enough of them!), freight companies, and even as executive transports.
The only reason PERHAPS the 737-200 will last longer than the DC-9 is because the unit cost is MUCH lower, and there were MANY THOUSANDS more made.
It\'s all a study of relativity. Comparing the longevity versus the AVAILABILITY of a Boeing versus McDD is like comparing apples and oranges.
If I was a passenger about to board a flight, and saw a 737-200 (or 300 for that matter) waiting, I would turn tail and RUN AWAY very fast! I wouldn\'t set foot on one that was about to be airborne for the life of me!
Biased? YOU BET!
Even a cursory examination in the construction of say a Dc-9 compared to a 737 will show that (and cause alarm when you look at the 737! SCARY!)
I always found it interesting to examine CLOSELY inflight photographs of Boeing and McDD aircraft. Nearly ALL Boeing aircraft show "wind wrinkling" along the fuselage, especially just aft of the cockpit and entrance (the B-52, whilst off topic here, is a PRIME example, although it is to be seen without too much difficulty on 737's), whereas an McDD does NOT (triple ply skinning, with finger jointing cleats internally, plus glued, AND rivetted)
The B777 seems an exception, but then again, by all accounts, it IS an McDD designed aircraft anyway!
I will forever remember reading the "crash comics" of a australian airline that had DC-9's and 737's. The DC-9 incident page 99% of the time showed non-structural incidents, like sever turbulence etc. The 737 incident pages were rather more alarming - engine bearer bolts shearing, radome nosecap cracking and separation, rudder overbalance in flight, runaway stabilisor, trim jack failure etc etc etc etc ad nauseum. It certainly did give you a feeling of "Aw hell".
I was brought up a Douglas Lover (DC-3 and DC-9), and nothing will change that. Douglas has it's faults, but Boeing more-so!
It was a SAD SAD day the day Boeing opened it's big wide mouth and swallowed up McDD... I shed a tear, and knew the end of great aircraft was gone.
In reply to Old Smokey - yes, you are correct! McDD aircraft are EAGERLY taken up ex-airline service by the military (the DC-10 is VERY hurriedly rejuvented to KC-10 - once the Dc-10 "problem" was identified and sorted, the military couldn\'t get enough of them!), freight companies, and even as executive transports.
The only reason PERHAPS the 737-200 will last longer than the DC-9 is because the unit cost is MUCH lower, and there were MANY THOUSANDS more made.
It\'s all a study of relativity. Comparing the longevity versus the AVAILABILITY of a Boeing versus McDD is like comparing apples and oranges.
If I was a passenger about to board a flight, and saw a 737-200 (or 300 for that matter) waiting, I would turn tail and RUN AWAY very fast! I wouldn\'t set foot on one that was about to be airborne for the life of me!
Biased? YOU BET!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never flew the DC8, but have a lot of experience in the older 707 models.
Hmmm,
Crown skin cracks, straps on for 2500 cycles, then re-skinning.
Wing re-skinning.
Skin lap corrosion.
Yet the DC8 seemed to require little of this nonsence, if at all.
A rather robust machine.
Hmmm,
Crown skin cracks, straps on for 2500 cycles, then re-skinning.
Wing re-skinning.
Skin lap corrosion.
Yet the DC8 seemed to require little of this nonsence, if at all.
A rather robust machine.
