Douglas DC-8 Jetliner Promo Film - 1958
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- For educational & non commercial purposes only. Really neat promo featuring the DC-8 prototype in action around the Long Beach, CA facility, San Francisco, etc. Be sure to check my channel for the best in VINTAGE & RARE airliner videos!
"The Boxart Den"
World's largest display & collection of FULLY RESTORED rare & collectable model kit box art
boxartden.com
groups.yahoo.co...
/ craviola990
/ mcdonnell220
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
The DC-8 was a beautiful airplane.
Agree
Centurion Rog Still is, but I know what you mean, Wright Flyer, USAF (1968-1972).
I remember in 1960 flying to Florida on a Delta DC-8 from Chicago. The interior of the plane was magnificent!
Delta was first to fly the DC-8, and flew every Douglas airplane from the DC-2 right up to the MD-11.
With all our computers and new tech planes haven't moved on much in 60 years! 1958 would have been a wonderful time to have been rich and travelled. No queues at the famous sites, true first class travel and service.
Beautiful footage! Captures the beautiful lines of this graceful airplane very nicely.
She's a beautiful bird!
I remember seeing cargo versions still flying in the 2000’s granted re powered with 56’s but still!
Although I haven’t seen this plane in person, basing on its design made myself admire more than the 707. The DC-9 was the first plane I’ve been on.
Very cool film... UAL and other airlines flew many of these planes for many years. They even re-fitted the airframes on several planes with more advanced CFM-56 engines to extend the useful service life... Very well built planes...
The CFM56 engines were fitted to the extra-long "Super 60" series (the -62 had only a slight stretch compared the -61 and -63), resulting in the "Super 70."
AWESOME! That is why I worked for DAC in Long Beach.
I had an airline office in the old "bomb shelter" building just south of the black tower on Lakewood Blvd, for years! Great company, great people, spot-on!
My father was a foreman in the Quality Control Dept. approx '64 - '68.
He worked on the 8 and the 9.
DC-8L was the most beautiful beast I've ever loved!
In my view, the DC-8 and the A340 are the most beautiful! I love the MD-11 as it was the finest large airplane I ever flew as a pilot.
@@alexp3752 the triple 7 is a good looking jet as well.
I think I am falling in love, once again!
My dad worked for Panair do Brasil airline in the 1960s he as a AP . When I was a kid I used to board the DC8 and play, while dad was doing mechanical maintenance on it
Crossed the Pacific in these back in the day.
Very beautiful DC-8
My dad and his hole family was there. Because my grandpa worked on this jet
I love this plane was the one we used to fly in 1979 from buenos aires, Argentina right up to New York around 8,5 hours flight. What a plane ifeel safer in a dc 8 than in an airbus. Always in my heart.
I only flew the DC-8 once! From PMI-GEN (OSL today) in aug 1981. It was a SAS/Scanair -33. It was a short one I remember.
Great video thanks.
I wonder if Jerry Goldsmith wrote the music for this. For instance, at 12:22, that's his Star Trek theme.
Fly DC Jets
douglas and md made the most beautiful planes
The B - 17 flying fortress?
Douglas - hold my beer
DC - 8 flying freezer
I disagree. Boeing was stuck with one fuselage length due to the design. Douglas could stretch it 'till the cows came in. Where Douglas screwed up was the wing, and the empty weight. Boeing was able to offer slightly better payload/range numbers, and sold better...and the DC-8 had a far longer service life, some freighters that were re-engined with CFM-56 engines flew well into the 90's, the 707's were gone by 1980, except in Africa..
What was wrong about the wing?
There are still DC8's flying....
+JJ Thomas " Boeing was stuck with one fuselage length due to the design" Actually, part of Boeing's success was their willingness to manufacture "one off", special fuselage length aircraft for specific customers, like the 707-138B for Qantas.
+JJ Thomas
Actually Boeing did the same as Douglas did some years before, when Douglas launched the DC-2. Clearly inspired by the Boeing 247 and improved where necessary. And launched at the right moment. In the thirties Douglas got it all right, in the fifties Boeing did.
Boeing had used a 35 degrees sweep, giving the 707 an economical cruise of Mach 0.83. Douglas had
promised a speed of mach 0.83 with a more modest wing sweep of 30
degrees (means slower landing speed, easier to land) using a special wing shape developed by NACA. After the DC-8 first flight, it can only cruise economically up to Mach 0.79 and the range is shorter than promised. Pan Am was not happy and decided to buy more Boeing 707 instead.
These engines are so dirty! Do not get me wrong, I like DC8. Engines bro, engines.
Jet engines period are smokey and loud. It's the high bypass turbofan that finally made emissions and noise drop. The black smoke is from water-methanol injection creating cooler temps to run the engines harder. This also cools the flame leaving unburned fuel in the exhaust and thus black smoke.
Airborne Express used these monsters into the early 2000s! LOVED those noisy b*stards!
DA FUQ?
No one knows what the fuq you talking about, whack job!
There's a handful of those parked in Roswell Industrial Air Center, Roswell, NM...
Emery Air Freight had a number of the CFM engined DC8's. Very powerful indeed.
The DC-8 was followed by the DC-9 (a program that nearly wrecked the company, and brought about the McDonnell purchase), then the unspeakably-bad DC-10. A flying incinerator.
+MrShobar And then the MD-11 ditched the company altogether.
I know your post was 6 months ago but you state the DC-10 was a flying incinerator. Care to explain or back that up with an actual example. The DC-10 has had fifteen (15 ) fatal crashes in its recorded history. Not one of these crashes was due to an in flight fire. You may be referring to the in flight fire of the Swissair flight 111 near Nova Scotia but that was an MD-11. The on board fire was attributed to a new inflight entertainment system (video screens) that overloaded the electrical system and caused fire to spread in the overhead circuit breaker panel in the cockpit.
But I digress. The 747 on the other hand has had twenty eight (28) fatal crashes recorded. However, none of that proves anything about either aircraft since pilot error accounts for most of the crashes with mechanical failure second, and weather and terror attack trailing last. Both the DC-10 and the 747 were/are fantastic commercial aircraft. As bad as any crash is, 43 crashes combined over nearly fifty years is an incredible safety record considering the billions of passenger miles and millions of combined cycles.
The DC-10 was in many ways superior to the 747 and was preferred by passengers for comfort in many airline surveys.
I worked in aircraft maintenance nearly 30 years as an A&P mechanic. I have worked on the following aircraft:
DC-9 21, DC-9 51, DC-10 30, DC-10 30ER, AIrbus 310, AIrbus 320, Airbus 300, Boeing 747 200 & 300, Fokker 100 and the MD-11.
"The DC-10 was in many ways superior to the 747 and was preferred by passengers for comfort in many airline surveys."
LOL.
Nice technical answer there Shobar. I'm still waiting for some sort of proof the DC-10 was a flying incinerator. I guess LOL is all you got.
Eric Mowrey he wont admit he's wrong. Douglas should have ditched the D.C.10 when they began with the md11, as Boeing abandoned the 747 for the 777.
As much as Douglas models were amazing,the Dc 8 is my favorite, and then the 10s, which are known as the death chamber,Douglas built good looking designs and Boeing made my favorite 727 three engines, like the dc-10s,but Lockheed Martin built the tri-star 3 engine 1011 outstanding plane,so the point the dcs 8-9-10s are amazing looking planes,also the F-15 Eagle fighter jet..
McDonnell and Douglas designed the F-15 and brought the Md-80s also amazing planes..
back then may quieter i flew in one of these too much noise on take off to much runway severe turbulance a terrible terrible landing may bits because its was already old it was in 1985 no comparison with the lockheed L10-11