DC-8-10 range question

[JumboShrimp]

How is it possible that the figure for range on Wikipedia is not even in the same ballpark as AWS

AWS range: 2070nm
Wikipedia range: 3760nm

I could see some assumptions providing different results, but this difference just makes no sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8

Based on AWS range graph, DC-8-10 can't carry a single kg of weight more than 3400nm
https://www.airwaysim.com/game/Aircraft/Payload/342/463/690/

[Talentz]

Lol, it's wiki. Give me 5min, iI'll make the-10 have 7000nm range. 

Srsly though, it looks like the messed up on the variants. It's common when there are many variants and conversions. How a -10 can have 3400nm? Convert it to a - 20.


Talentz

[Sami]

Jane's aircraft database quotes the following:

Estimated max range in still air, no reserves:    
Srs 10    3,734 n miles (6,920 km; 4,300 miles)
Srs 20    4,159 n miles (7,710 km; 4,790 miles)
Srs 30 (JT4A-11)    5,184 n miles (9,605 km; 5,970 miles)
Srs 40    5,279 n miles (9,817 km; 6,100 miles)
Srs 50 (JT3D-3B)    6,078 n miles (11,260 km; 7,000 miles)
Super 61, zero payload    6,209 n miles (11,500 km; 7,150 miles)
Super 62, zero payload    7,381 n miles (13,675 km; 8,500 miles)
Super 63, zero payload    6,686 n miles (12,390 km; 7,700 miles)

(and when looking at the actual charts for payload of models that are given those, the "max range" here means max fuel range, not max payload range)


(but the data is a bit sparse on the earliest models and the DC-8 line with 100 different variants is generally speaking quite a mess)

[Oscjo290]

Jane's aircraft database quotes the following:
(and when looking at the actual charts for payload of models that are given those, the "max range" here means max fuel range, not max payload range)


(but the data is a bit sparse on the earliest models and the DC-8 line with 100 different variants is generally speaking quite a mess)

But dosent this.mean that the 2070 range quoted on dc-8-10 is very wrong?

[Sami]

But dosent this.mean that the 2070 range quoted on dc-8-10 is very wrong?

Please see again what I wrote/quoted there. (MAX range)

[Tha_Ape]

And... Ferry range in AWS is 3420nm.

Vs your own source, 3734nm.

[Sami]

And... Ferry range in AWS is 3420nm.

Vs your own source, 3734nm.

Again please see what I quoted     

Max range, No reserves.. = Have to have some allovance to alternates etc.

(I hate when the range values are so ambiguous from the source data (i.e. just one value given and that not directly relevant to real operations either [no reserves]). In a visit to the archives I found even the detailed payload-range charts for Comet 4A so finding the same for early DC-8s shouldn't be a big problem.. But it seems to be)

[DanDan]

Again please see what I quoted     

Max range, No reserves.. = Have to have some allovance to alternates etc.

(I hate when the range values are so ambiguous from the source data (i.e. just one value given and that not directly relevant to real operations either [no reserves]). In a visit to the archives I found even the detailed payload-range charts for Comet 4A so finding the same for early DC-8s shouldn't be a big problem.. But it seems to be)

Thank you for your time and consideration of all these topics. And yes... data on the topic is really terrible, since all kind of values are floating around.

I must have been like 5, we were flying on an MD83 to the canary islands, and in the "SkyLines magazine" they had this "our fleet" page, where they stated the range of the aircraft, and they also had a list of all the destinations with distances and approximate flight times. And the stated range was lower than the stated distance between vienna and the canary islands  ... I did get quite worried that we would crash because of too little fuel and checked the lifevest below the seat more than once!

[JumboShrimp]

So where we would find the common point is the Wiki range of 3760nm is a ferry range with no reserve = AWS ferry range of 3420nm with reserve of 340nm.

Still seems strange that this aircraft would even be constructed, since it is useless for transatlantic flights and limited (to about 100 pax) on transcontinental flights)

[groundbum2]

the comments in AWS on the DC-8-10 state it was aimed at the US domestic market...

Simon

[Tuckernut]

I flew the DC-8-51 and -62 for many years.  This first version, the -10, was so lacking that Douglas created a -12, -20, -30 and -40.  This version of the -10 does not even have transcon range.  Must be an error.

[spiff23]

So where we would find the common point is the Wiki range of 3760nm is a ferry range with no reserve = AWS ferry range of 3420nm with reserve of 340nm.

Still seems strange that this aircraft would even be constructed, since it is useless for transatlantic flights and limited (to about 100 pax) on transcontinental flights)

Keep in mind that the planes in the 1960s-1970s had economy seat pitch of something in the range of 35-38 inches and there were first and economy class lounges (along with a roast the "stewardess" carved at you seat  . It would not at all be unrealistic if an early D.C.-8 only had 100 seats because it also cost the equivalent of about $3,000 in today's $ to fly across the country in economy.

I've noted before, but the other thing on the D.C.-8s is that the variants 10-50 were not new builds rather options achieved via switching to new and better engines that were rapidly developed in the early 1960s.  I think the -60s were first variant with a stretched frame.

Not sure this link works, but if not bing Dc-8 seating charts.  This united plane had said lounges and if I counted right 52F and 48Y
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/vintage_classic_airliners/United%20DC8.jpg

This is a decent site with pictures.  Doesn't help with the range question, but does cover the fact that different variants were the same frame with different engines.  So in essence those first-10s weren't junked after 5 years, rather they were re-engined and flown as -50s into the 1970s.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/dc-8_facts.htm

[Zobelle]

Keep in mind that the planes in the 1960s-1970s had economy seat pitch of something in the range of 35-38 inches and there were first and economy class lounges (along with a roast the "stewardess" carved at you seat  . It would not at all be unrealistic if an early D.C.-8 only had 100 seats because it also cost the equivalent of about $3,000 in today's $ to fly across the country in economy.

I've noted before, but the other thing on the D.C.-8s is that the variants 10-50 were not new builds rather options achieved via switching to new and better engines that were rapidly developed in the early 1960s.  I think the -60s were first variant with a stretched frame.

Not sure this link works, but if not bing Dc-8 seating charts.  This united plane had said lounges and if I counted right 52F and 48Y
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/vintage_classic_airliners/United%20DC8.jpg

So you propose conversion options from -10.

And in AWS you’ll never get $3,000 for a transcon in Y. Lol.

[spiff23]

So you propose conversion options from -10.

And in AWS you’ll never get $3,000 for a transcon in Y. Lol.

I would propose some type of conversion option for a decent amount of $.  I researched and posted the last long game cycle when the queue for D.C.-8-10s stretched to almost 1970  .   It would help alleviate the madness!

$3,000 in today's dollars was about $350 in 1960...so maybe on the high side, but definitely a big splurge to fly vs today.

[Zobelle]

I would propose some type of conversion option for a decent amount of $.  I researched and posted the last long game cycle when the queue for D.C.-8-10s stretched to almost 1970  .   It would help alleviate the madness!

Hopefully not the cost of a D check, changing engines or refreshing a cabin does not take 80-100 days.

[JumboShrimp]

So you propose conversion options from -10.

Some of these conversion options have been added in recent update.

[Talentz]

Mm more like almost all. Not sure what else is missed?

Updates affecting all games

    Added new DC-8 conversion options:
        DC-8-10: Can be converted to DC-8-20 and DC-8-51
        DC-8-20: Can be converted to DC-8-51
        DC-8-31: Can be converted to DC-8-32 and DC-8-33
        DC-8-32: Can be converted to DC-8-33 and DC-8-53
        DC-8-33: Can be converted to DC-8-53
        DC-8-41: Can be converted to DC-8-42 and DC-8-43
        DC-8-42: Can be converted to DC-8-43
        DC-8-52: Can be converted to DC-8-54AF and DC-8-54CF

    Added new B707 conversion option:
        B707-120: Can be converted to B707-120B

    Added new Convair conversion option:
        CV-340: Can be converted to CV-440

    Added new Caravelle conversion options:
        SE-210 Caravelle I: Can be converted to SE-210 Caravelle III
        SE-210 Caravelle IA: Can be converted to SE-210 Caravelle III
        SE-210 Caravelle III: Can be converted to SE-210 Caravelle VI-N

(These conversion options are modeled after what has been done in real life; may be incomplete compared to what manufacturer could have done or has offered)

Talentz

[Zobelle]

Seems interesting.

It seems though that these conversion options are excessively time consuming if not expensive.

[Talentz]

Depends on how you view it. How worthless will your DC81 be in mid/late 60s? Now you can make use of them (assuming their owned). You don't have too worry too much about taking late delivery of early variants because they can be convert, for a price. The time of conversion means vary little in terms of retaining a useful jet for longer.

If anything, it makes going Boeing a tough call considering your DC8 can go to -51 for max usefulness. Thus, holding you over till the Super Sixies come along. Giving you flexibility to stay DC8 from late 50s till the arrival of the WBs


Talentz

[deovrat]

Depends on how you view it. How worthless will your DC81 be in mid/late 60s? Now you can make use of them (assuming their owned). You don't have too worry too much about taking late delivery of early variants because they can be convert, for a price. The time of conversion means vary little in terms of retaining a useful jet for longer.

If anything, it makes going Boeing a tough call considering your DC8 can go to -51 for max usefulness. Thus, holding you over till the Super Sixies come along. Giving you flexibility to stay DC8 from late 50s till the arrival of the WBs


Talentz

Is a double conversion possible? e.g. DC8-31 > DC8-33 > DC8-53?