DC-8 63
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: DC-8 63
The 63 had a much improved wing over the earlier 61 series. Not an easy plane to land smoothly consistently but one of the great aircraft of the era. The 73 with the CFM engines was a real power house but with the engines only 24 inches off the ground it had limited cross wind limits before the engines scrapped on landing. A few had both engines on one side damaged in a gusty landing. Sluggish in roll with the flaps down.
Regards
Regards
-
Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2398
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: DC-8 63
Remember in early 80’s watching AC ‘63 series landing in YYT with the gusty winds when I was there. Were those 63 type still pax or freight then can’t recall. The ‘73 was strictly for freight was it not. AC also had L1011 and B747 those days as well I thought.
Re: DC-8 63
The -63 was a wonderful airplane to fly; compared to a 727, it was a sports car compared to a dump truck!
The only negative characteristic was a pitch-up when extending landing flap. If one needed to add power at the same time, it was two hands and a lot of muscle to keep the nose from rising with bad results!
It was not that difficult to land; much easier than the 727 for instance, which stopped flying when the power was pulled. The -63 could be flared like a normal airplane, producing a "nice" landing. The -63 was not all that draggy, the improved wing and pylons were much cleaner than the -61.
I recall one landing in a -63 in YYT on the short runway. Typical Newfie weather; it was blowing hard! Landed and turned off at the mid-point with no effort.
The other thing about the -63 with the better wing and more power, was that it climbed to altitude better.
The -61 (superdog) out of Miami for instance would require patience to get to the altitude the charts claimed was optimum. the last couple of thousand feet were climb 200, level and accelerate, than climb another 200; repeat as required!
The -63 would just truck on up to altitude and cruise!
We had six different dash numbers with three different cockpits, three different engines, different wings, different fuel schedules etc. We flew them all with no issue. Later on, with some other types, Transport required "Differences" courses for minor variances in fleets.
At one point, there was a discussion about pod strikes on landing. With 39 DC-8's in the fleet, (12-63) there was just about one strike per month spread over all variants. (41, 43, 53, 54, 61, 63)
I was doing some Safety Work at the time which involved reviewing such things.
I looked at every pod strike over three years. Not one involved striking a pod on the windward side; every single incident involved a downwind engine.
Pilots were afraid of pod strikes, were landing in a crab, resulting in quite a fast swing. The aircraft would rock over and hit the pod on the downwind side.
The key was to land a bit wing down, or kick the airplane straight before touchdown.
One fun thing about the DC-8 was no speed brakes, resulting in the necessity to use reverse in flight instead. Spectacular rates of descent were possible.
Lots of fun when ATC required a slam dunk on downwind; quite common on freighter flights! We tried to avoid it on passenger flights, but sometimes the Devil made us do it!
I was party to one practice emergency descent on a ferry flight in a -63.
With ATC advised, we did the procedure starting from 390. It took two minutes to lose 30,000 feet, during which time we travelled exactly 6 DME; a 45 degree descent; average 15,000 feet per minute including the slow down and level off!
The point being made (it was Line Indoc) was that it was not a frantic situation; just close the throttles, select reverse (idle only) and point the nose down. It was difficult to achieve the desired speed; so much pitch down required, but it was actually very calm, just hanging in the shoulder harness watching the earth get bigger!
The other airplane i know of that used reverse for Emergency Descent was the Concorde; it achieved 30,000 feet per minute!
The -63 like all DC-8's was a strong reliable airplane; some are still flying, unlike the 707 which guzzled fuel and maintenance; less than half the airframe life of the Douglas Airplane. The 707 also burnt more fuel burn per seat or ton mile.
I would love to fly one again!!
The only negative characteristic was a pitch-up when extending landing flap. If one needed to add power at the same time, it was two hands and a lot of muscle to keep the nose from rising with bad results!
It was not that difficult to land; much easier than the 727 for instance, which stopped flying when the power was pulled. The -63 could be flared like a normal airplane, producing a "nice" landing. The -63 was not all that draggy, the improved wing and pylons were much cleaner than the -61.
I recall one landing in a -63 in YYT on the short runway. Typical Newfie weather; it was blowing hard! Landed and turned off at the mid-point with no effort.
The other thing about the -63 with the better wing and more power, was that it climbed to altitude better.
The -61 (superdog) out of Miami for instance would require patience to get to the altitude the charts claimed was optimum. the last couple of thousand feet were climb 200, level and accelerate, than climb another 200; repeat as required!
The -63 would just truck on up to altitude and cruise!
We had six different dash numbers with three different cockpits, three different engines, different wings, different fuel schedules etc. We flew them all with no issue. Later on, with some other types, Transport required "Differences" courses for minor variances in fleets.
At one point, there was a discussion about pod strikes on landing. With 39 DC-8's in the fleet, (12-63) there was just about one strike per month spread over all variants. (41, 43, 53, 54, 61, 63)
I was doing some Safety Work at the time which involved reviewing such things.
I looked at every pod strike over three years. Not one involved striking a pod on the windward side; every single incident involved a downwind engine.
Pilots were afraid of pod strikes, were landing in a crab, resulting in quite a fast swing. The aircraft would rock over and hit the pod on the downwind side.
The key was to land a bit wing down, or kick the airplane straight before touchdown.
One fun thing about the DC-8 was no speed brakes, resulting in the necessity to use reverse in flight instead. Spectacular rates of descent were possible.
Lots of fun when ATC required a slam dunk on downwind; quite common on freighter flights! We tried to avoid it on passenger flights, but sometimes the Devil made us do it!
I was party to one practice emergency descent on a ferry flight in a -63.
With ATC advised, we did the procedure starting from 390. It took two minutes to lose 30,000 feet, during which time we travelled exactly 6 DME; a 45 degree descent; average 15,000 feet per minute including the slow down and level off!
The point being made (it was Line Indoc) was that it was not a frantic situation; just close the throttles, select reverse (idle only) and point the nose down. It was difficult to achieve the desired speed; so much pitch down required, but it was actually very calm, just hanging in the shoulder harness watching the earth get bigger!
The other airplane i know of that used reverse for Emergency Descent was the Concorde; it achieved 30,000 feet per minute!
The -63 like all DC-8's was a strong reliable airplane; some are still flying, unlike the 707 which guzzled fuel and maintenance; less than half the airframe life of the Douglas Airplane. The 707 also burnt more fuel burn per seat or ton mile.
I would love to fly one again!!
-
Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2398
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: DC-8 63
FADEC
Dare say you remember the b/c approach rwy 34 YYT with a good NW 40-50kt winds coming over the “ signal hill “ NDB. I watched a few DC-8 and ‘27 doing that approach while we were holding short, gotta say from my observation those guys( perhaps gals as well) could handle those beasts, I don’t ever remember seeing any real thump, smash and bang arrivals. Got to know a couple of B727 SO as they hung out at Christians on George Street. Any way times long ago and far away - 35-36 yrs .
Dare say you remember the b/c approach rwy 34 YYT with a good NW 40-50kt winds coming over the “ signal hill “ NDB. I watched a few DC-8 and ‘27 doing that approach while we were holding short, gotta say from my observation those guys( perhaps gals as well) could handle those beasts, I don’t ever remember seeing any real thump, smash and bang arrivals. Got to know a couple of B727 SO as they hung out at Christians on George Street. Any way times long ago and far away - 35-36 yrs .
Re: DC-8 63
Pops was probably on of those SO's. He sat sideways on the '27, DC8 freighter and the Tristar. love hearing all the stories!!Old fella wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:27 pm FADEC
Dare say you remember the b/c approach rwy 34 YYT with a good NW 40-50kt winds coming over the “ signal hill “ NDB. I watched a few DC-8 and ‘27 doing that approach while we were holding short, gotta say from my observation those guys( perhaps gals as well) could handle those beasts, I don’t ever remember seeing any real thump, smash and bang arrivals. Got to know a couple of B727 SO as they hung out at Christians on George Street. Any way times long ago and far away - 35-36 yrs .
