Talk:Douglas DC-8/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comments

Generally a good history of the DC-8, but with one obvious error: the DC-8 has a narrower fuselage than the B-707; the 707 (and its shorter brother, the Boeing 720) supported 6-across coach seating (3 + 3) , whereas the DC-8 only supported 5-across (2 + 3). Military C-135 variants of the 707 still fly (most as KC-135 tankers, but others in such surveillance roles as E-3 Sentry (AWACS), E-8 Joint STARS, RC-135 Cobra Ball and Rivet Joint, and others). The DC-8-61 and -63 series found a second home and still fly as freighters, being used by carriers such as UPS and ASTAR (DHL). A side-by-side comparison of the two aircraft will confirm the DC-8's narrower fuselage (which makes sense, since the 707 was originally designed to be a flying fuel tank).

Douglas used a fuselage cross section similar to the DC-8 for its DC-9 and MD-80/90 aircraft, many of which still carry passengers in 2 + 3 seating arrangements. Similarly, Boeing kept a cross section similar to the 707/720 for its other early narrow-bodies, the 727 and 737. They also use a 3 + 3 seating arrangement.

---

Outstanding article on the DC-8. Who ever wrote the above message never flew on a DC-8. The passenger version does have six across seating just like the 707/727/737. The DC-8 and DC-9 do not share the same cross section.

Ironically the comment about the 707 being wider due to being "designed to be a flying fuel tank" is also wrong. The prototype 707, the "Dash 80", and the KC-135 have a narrower cross section than the 707 and DC-8. It was because of the DC-8 cross section being wider that caused Boeing to widen the 707 which added cost to the program and delayed its intial entry into airline service allowing Douglas to catch up.

---

Quoting Francillon's book:

"... the DC-8 had a fuselage diameter of sufficient width to accomodate six-abreast economy class seating as against the Boeing's five-abreast layout. Fortunately for Douglas, the airlines endorsed the wider DC-8."

There is a very good series of web pages from NASA that describe the development of aviation technology. This one refers to the six-abreast seating of the DC-8:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-3.htm

I have sources indicating that the 707 external fuselage diameter is 148 inches, the KC-135 is 144 inches, and the 367-80 is 132 inches. Since the DC-8 has a non-circular "double-bubble" cross section, its diameter is not directly comparable, but cabin width is equivalent to the 707.

Ironically, Douglas was later in the awkward position of justifying the "superiority" of the five-abreast seating of its MD-80 vs. the six-abreast seating of the 737.

Largest narrowbody

What is the larger single aisle? 753? Technically, Concorde is heavier and longer than DC-8

Well, the DC-8-63 is longer (57.12 m vs 54.47 m), has a greater wingspan (45.23 m vs 38.05 m), has a greater operating empty weight (75,500 kg vs 64,590 kg) and has a greater max takeoff weight (162,025kg vs 122,470kg), so it beats the 757-300 on all fronts. Concorde does however beat it with greater length, OEW and MTOW. I'm changing the comment at the beginning to reflect this fact.--Nick Moss 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Production numbers

The amounts of produced units are not coherent between the text and the list at the end of the article. In the text, it is mentionned that the production of the DC-8 10/20/30/40/50 reached respectively 28+34+57+32+88 units, in the list further down 2+59+52+29+162 units. Which ones are correct? Vonvon 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slots or slats on DC-8-12

Francillon and several other sources on the internet say that it's slots not slats that were added to the inner wing of the DC-8-12. Dabarkey 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hrs and cycles

I saw a statement on www.airliners.net that some DC-8s got +100.000 hrs on them, what´s the highest # of hours and cycles for an individual DC-8? Thanks Alexmcfire

Other names of the DC-8

I've just found out that the DC-8 was also known as the "McDonnell Douglas DC-8". Shouldn't we put this info into the page? --202.95.200.12 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's unofficial or just wrong. The DC-8 was produced by Douglas some 10 years before the McDonnell & Douglas merger. OK, what's your source? -Fnlayson 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just found a minor error or, at least, imprecise editing. The DC-8A and B were the original model names, replaced with series 10 and 20 only when the series 30 came out.

The use of McDonnell Douglas DC-8 term is frequently used. On the other hand, I've seen "Boeing MD-80" in print. Ouch! The DC-8 was still being manufactured after the merger. I haven't looked up references to determine what an official name is. Archtrain 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not mentioning DC-8A and DC-8B in the article before was just an omission. Linking to a page that has a sample of the book is not really how that should be referenced. The Cite Book template or something in that format is the way to go. But I've used that book for a reference elsewhere. Update: Added reference. -Fnlayson 18:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The section: "For Boeing, this was a golden opportunity: an aircraft built to provide air-to-air refueling capacity for strategic bombers could be turned into a commercial transport with very little extra effort. Boeing could now plan on building a commercial jetliner — which might or might not sell — but either way the Air Force would pay for most of the development cost." May be incorrect. My understanding is that Boeing took a gamble on the original production of the prototype, by funding it internally. Although much of the technology came from the government funded jet bomber program, no government funds were used directly in producing the "Dash 80" prototype. --Kevin Murray 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• The 707 was a bigger version of the KC-135 (and its variants), which was a growth version of the -80. The fuselage got wider on each of these. Boeing had some help later with the KC-135, but not early. That should still be referenced though (and most of article). -Fnlayson 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ORBIS International

Jeff, I found this article, ORBIS International, which has links to Commons pics of the DC-10 (but no -8 pics). I think we can place a shortened version of the current item under (Former) Operators, then retire the Trivia section! - BillCJ 05:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I moved it. But I had to make a Former operators section to do that. Is that what you meant? -Fnlayson 05:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. I wasn't asking you to do it for me, btw, just asking what you thought. But thanks for doing it anyhow! We'll see how long it is before someone tries to add the Xenu as a former operator! - BillCJ 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I figured I'd do why it was hot/fresh. Don't give 'em ideas. ;) -Fnlayson 05:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Xenu Credits

I added that this was manufactured by Xenu, since his galactic confederacy first produced them 75 million years ago, they'd have credit as the original designers right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.169.137 (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard/Scientology BS, he just copied a DC-8 without paying royalties to Douglas. --Denniss (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, why does the article on Xenu treat it as a fact? There needs to be a consensus between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.178.198 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology fanboys over there, realists here. --Denniss (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you! Scientology is 100% true, otherwise why would it have a wikipedia article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.180 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So is the Mafia so what's your point ? --Denniss (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That there is a religion called "Scientolgy" is true. That there was a Xenu who built DC-8s with propellors (!) that flew in space 75 million years ago is not provable fact, but a religious assertion. That can't go here. Even from a "fictional" viewpoint, DC-8s don't have propellors, and don't fli through space. That makes it a "fictional look-a-like", and we don't cover that in aircraft articles. Next! OK, a DH Comet, powered by steam paddle wheels, built by the GEJFJNE in 400 million BC? Uh, no! Next! - BillCJ (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents

The article is missing a section of this name, unlike equivalent pages for other significant aircraft types. Any special reason why? Refer to List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft to find DC-8 accidents which have wiki articles which could be linked to. EatYerGreens (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just think nobody has created it yet and not being a current type does not suffer from the aircraft two hours late yesterday additions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK added a list of notable accidents and incidents as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Investment

The article claims that Donald Douglas invested $450 million of his own money in the development of the DC-8. This seems a little high considering the value of money at the time. Is there a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.210.75 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it says the 367-80 cost $120M, sounds questionable. That's a couple billion in today's money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Background

While clearly not as important as the Scientology connection, was still somewhat surprised to see half of the background section devoted to the DH Comet (well not really, this is Wiki after all). Is there any verifiable connection that the square window fatigue problem in the Comet actually led to design changes in the DC-8? Seems like it would be pretty good design practice to avoid square or nearly square corners in the first place. 192.158.61.172 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's background on commercial jet airliners. I cut out an unneeded sentence or two though. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Seems Biased

The entire article is written in a perspective glorifying Douglas, while bashing Boeing. An edit would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.97.140 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not not a forum. Further discussion does not help to improve this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Isn't this the plane / spaceship in the stories of Scientology? Perhaps that should be added to the trivia. Steamrunner 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, I had wondered why this isn't listed yet. --Conrad Kilroy 08:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Triva sections would be several pages long if every movie, TV show, etc that showed something that "looked like" a real airplane were listed. It has to have notable. See Aircraft page content Popular culture section, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia and Wikipedia:Trivia -Fnlayson 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

oh boo hoo, "it would be several pages long", yeah too bad theres only TWO trivia notes in this article, and besides, i think its a pretty good mention, especially for trivia. Heck, some articles have 50 trivia notes. each interesting in its own right. If you want to delete it because the Douglas Dc-8 only "resembles" the ones in L. Ron Hubbards religion, then that should be mentioned in the trivia...that it "resembles" it. However, the words L. Ron HUbbard uses were "they look EXACTLY like Douglas DC-8's" a little different from "resemble" but im willing to compromise. - anonymous

• I've already explained this and provided policy links explaining it. Someone else could come along and say the spacecraft looks like a 707 or something just as easily. Besides, this is covered on the main body of the Scientology, & Xenu pages already. -Fnlayson 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur. - BillCJ 06:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Does anyone find it odd that an advanced civilization capable of designing spacecraft able to travel interstallar distances hadn't invented the widebody? I mean, wouldn't somthing designed by areally advanced society look more modern, like maybe an A380? Now THAT would have been ahead of it's time! - BillCJ 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this certian civilisation is too poor to build their own spaceships and have to go digging through ancient junkyards?

Just a thought.170.215.105.75 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a "Religious Signifigance" section in this article, I'm not sure why it was removed. --RucasHost 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Again this is look a like stuff and not allowed per WP:original research. -Fnlayson 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not original research. This isn't some wikipedians noticing a similarity, this is the religious texts (I'm being generous here) stating the space planes look like DC-8s ("except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't"). All somebody needs to do is find the quote in existing scientology literature and find a suitable online reference to satisfy WP:Verifiability. Spod mandel (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But it's a look-a-like, which is not allowed by WP Aircraft project. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • According to the WPAircraft project, "Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research." I don't think that religious texts should constitute original research. If there was a quote from Scientological texts that could be referenced, then it would not be original research. The issue of fictional likenesses is probably the bigger one. The planes used by Xenu in Scientology were described as "exactly like DC-8's." This could be construed as a fictional likeness, but I think that it is noteworthy enough to deserve at least a mention in the article (with of course, proper referencing of sources).64.203.157.133 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • They couldn't be DC-8s as the DC-8 is not space worthy among other differences. Therefore, it is a look-a-like and OR. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • "They couldn't be DC-8s as the DC-8 is not space worthy among other differences". That's just like saying "God couldn't have created Adam from dust, because that defies the laws of physics". The religious texts say they look EXACTLY like DC-8's. Whether this is possible due to the laws of physics is not relevant, because it is religion. What you are BASICALLY saying is "scientology is wrong", which is probably true (if you look into the damn religion, yes, it IS fucking wrong, and just a money grab), but since by law it is a religion, it would be prejudiced to say such things!216.209.113.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • First; it seems hypocritical to base your argument on a prejudice you obviously share, second; your argument is a Red Herring, the laws of physics have nothing to do with the ommission of scientology texts from the article. The reason that refrences in scientology texts are ommitted is because the texts say they LOOK exactly like DC-8s, and according to wikipedia policy, and WPAircraft project policy, "Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research." Even if we don't consider scientology texts to be fictional, the crafts in question are still look-a-likes, not actual DC-8s, because the crafts are space-worthy, rocket-propelled and they precede actual DC-8s by millions of years. Even if the stories are true, then we would still be talking about two completly diffrent, if virtually identical crafts. Saying they are the same is like saying a paintball gun is the same as the real weapon it is built to resemble. F-451 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Interesting analogy. However, wouldn't that paintball gun at least have a "see also" link to the real weapon it is meant to imitate? Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Uh, no. If Huubard's work were truly fiction, then you would have a better case. However, it's proponents are claiming that it was real, but made millions of years before the real DC-8. Therefore, it could not have been meant to imitate the DC-8! Also, Hubbard decribed the DC-8 as having propellors, leading me to believe he wasn't talking about the actual DC-8 that we know, but probably something he thought would follow the DC-7. It might be good to find the dates in which he first mentioned this DC-8 look-a-like; it might well have preceded the real one's design release by a few years. So, either the Xenu craft was based on the DC-8,and is therefore fictional, or it existed millions of years before, and therefore has no relationship to the real DC-8 other than a resemblance, and is therefore still just a look-a-like. Either way, it doesn't belong here. - BillCJ (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rather, the design of the DC-8 was influenced by the spacecraft. Remember the whole point of this story is that we are affected by these events to this day. 67.91.189.225 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hijackings

The hijackings I'm adding comes from the website http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=SEH&lang=&page=1 .AOCJedi (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The entries still need to be notable incidents. Basically was there a fatality, significant aircraft damage, or something unusual? See WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)