707 vs DC8 - Airliners.net (2024)

As originally conceived, the DC-8 had more range than the early 707 model, the -100 series. It was not until the 707-320 series came along that the 707 was a real contender to the DC-8 in that respect.

However, the 707 had a higher cruising speed, due mainly to the fact that the wing sweep was 5 degrees greater.

Those who have experience with the DC-8 can attest to the integrity of the basic structure and the metal work. That is one reason for the DC-8's longevity. Another is the availability of higher-capacity stretch models, now used extensively for cargo.

Some commentators say that the DC-8 stretch came just a year or two too late -- too close to the 747, and if it had appeared earlier, could have racked up better sales, even from 707 operators.

One of the reasons you don't see 707's flying today is that the USAF bought as many of them as they could to part them out to keep it's KC-135 flying, I belive that the E model update includer refiting the tail surfaces and engines from 707's. If the military hadn't done that I think there would be a lot more 707's freighting today.

Here's an interesting thought......

Boeing shut down the civillian 707 line in 78' although military versions where produced until 1991. What if Boeing had offered an all freight version powered by the CFM-56 engine in say 1982 or 1983. Would Boeing have been able to sell a significant number or any? Would they have been able to make some sales to FED-EX or UPS who where really just starting to gather steam at that point. It is an interesting what if.

I used to like the DC-8 better than the 707 because of its large windows. But later that became a handicap. When airlines tightened up on seat pitch, seat rows were no longer lined up with the windows. You could request a window seat on a DC-8 and end up sitting by the wall, with the windows being blocked by seat backs. With the 707, this was not as much of a problem, as windows were smaller and there was much less wall area between them. I think that's the reason that most airliners have smaller 707-type windows today, so that changing the seat pitch doesn't pose these problems.

Bob Bradley
Richmond, VA

In fact, the first commercial jet to cross the Atlantic on a scheduled flight was a Comet4, owned by BOAC. It took off from London, and flew to NY via Gander.
This happened on Oktober the fourth, so 22 days ahead of the first commercial flight of the B707 by Pan AM.
Again, a European manufacturer beated the Americans!(please no war Europe-US)
The Comet was ahead of his time, and maybe to rushed (the Comet 1 had several weaknesses) but still, it was the most beautifull jet ever, together with the Dassault Caravelle.

Tino

In my opinion, it is true that you do see more DC-8's flying today rather than Boeing 707's. The main reason this is true has to do with the engine's.

If any of you have ever heard a B-707 or KC-135 takeoff, you know how extremely loud the event is. The DC-8 was able to hold larger, quieter enginges while the 707 is not able to hold these enginges.

Why? The DC-8's wing is a lot higher off of the ground than a 707's which allows the large engine enough room between the wing and the ground. They tried to develop longer landing gear for the 707 but they were unsuccessful. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

-Night_Flight-

Gopal wrote:
-------------------------------
Boeing built the 747 for Panam. Was PANAM a govt owned airline?

Pan Am was a privately-held corporation, although they took the attitude (especially under Juan Trippe) that they were a 'chosen instrument' of US
civil aviation.

Quite frankly, many of their employees took a haughty and snotty attitude as well.

We probably shouldn't forget that the KC-135 wasn't the airforces choice for a tanker.. Boeing lost that contest to Lockheed.

But Curtiss Lamay needed tankers for SAC's B-52's then so the Airforce kept buing tankers from Boeing as an 'Interm' aircraft untill Lockheed got it's tanker flying...

Anybody know what happened to Lockheeds tanker???

I seem to recall seeing KC-135s and AWACS fitted with the larger/quieter engines. There was a comp-any at San Antonio, Texas (SAT) that was trying to retrofit 707s with newer, fuel-friendly engines. They had one test-bed aircraft that was flown routinely -if my memory serves correctly- to airshows and the like. The name of this conversion began with a "Q". Their flight center at SAT had at least four 707s on hand, including ex-Sudan and ex-Ladaco 707s.

That's all I know.