WI- DC-8 more sucsessful than the B707?

In OTL, most airlines throught that the Boeing 707 was going to be a "stop gap" measure until the wider,more advanced Douglas DC-8 became available
Even Pan American, one of Boeing's best supporters and the 707's launch customer, originally bought more DC-8's than 707's!

Later through Boeing made changes to the 707 and came up with the 707-320 intercontinental. Boeing Surged on from there to become much more successful than Douglas, who eventually merged with the Mcdonnell corporation in 1967.

It also helped that boeing had huge orders from the US air force for the 707's military counterpart were as the DC-8 had none (as far as i know).

What if the DC-8 had been more successful? Maybe it had gotten some military orders or it had been available earlier?
Could a more successful Douglas company hurt Boeing and maybe force it to merge or even be bought out?
Would a more successful Douglas try out turboprops like they were going to do with the DC-7?

Also how would an earlier DC-8 or a less successful 707 impact the De Havilland comet 4? Maybe Vickers could have made the VC-7?

images


images
 
In OTL, most airlines throught that the Boeing 707 was going to be a "stop gap" measure until the wider,more advanced Douglas DC-8 became available
Even Pan American, one of Boeing's best supporters and the 707's launch customer, originally bought more DC-8's than 707's!

Later through Boeing made changes to the 707 and came up with the 707-320 intercontinental. Boeing Surged on from there to become much more successful than Douglas, who eventually merged with the Mcdonnell corporation in 1967.

It also helped that boeing had huge orders from the US air force for the 707's military counterpart were as the DC-8 had none (as far as i know).

What if the DC-8 had been more successful? Maybe it had gotten some military orders or it had been available earlier?
Could a more successful Douglas company hurt Boeing and maybe force it to merge or even be bought out?
Would a more successful Douglas try out turboprops like they were going to do with the DC-7?

Also how would an earlier DC-8 or a less successful 707 impact the De Havilland comet 4? Maybe Vickers could have made the VC-7?

images


images

From what I have read Douglas gave the impression the DC-8 would have 3-2 seating like the DC-9 ended up with. Then they went for 3-3 causing Boeing to redesign the 707 for 3-3 seating. Douglas was the Henry Ford of airliners you could have every design you want from their selection which was one! Boeing would do almost any changes feasible the Airlines wanted. I may be wrong but it was 6-7 years before a stretch version of the 8 was built. By the the 8 was to far behind. In the mid 1960's Pan Am came to Boeing wanting a bigger plane. Over crowding was a problem at some airports. They had unprecedented input on the 747. Mean time Lockheed was building the tri-jet the L-1011. Which was technologically ahead of the 747 the only problem was the chose only one supplier for the engines Rolls Royce who held up the delivery by a year. Allegedly the head of AA went to Douglas asking them to build a completing plane to the L-1011 to get a better price per plane and the DC-10 was built. It was not up to Douglas's usual quality and a lot of people died with that crappy plane. Being a year earlier 10 got the orders and Lockheed left the commercial aircraft business.
 
The 707 was very advanced mostly because Boeing had the B-47 and they learned a lot from that great aircraft.
Boeing showing off the dash 80 in 1954 helped Douglas with the tech for the DC-8. Just like the dehavilland comet showed boeing some vital info (like having square windows was a bad idea!).

One thing is certain, It's better to come second in a new field of aviation because then you can learn from those who went before.

I think having a more successful DC-8 could be possible.
Boeing had lost money on all their previous airliners( the 247,307,377,314) were as douglas was a well known and prestigious brand.

The British national airline B.O.A.C (British overseas airways corporation) had bought Boeing 707's but with Rolls Royce conway engines. Even though they had publicly damned the Conway before when it was being tested for the British VC-7.
Maybe if Boeing had been less successful with the 707 then BOAC may have bought home built Vickers VC-7's and Britain could still make airliners today?
 
One reason Douglas fell behind is they were so busy building the DC-6 and 7. Douglas had not even built a mock up of the 8 when they started to sell them. Douglas started with 3-3 seating which forced Boeing to redesign the Dash 80 to the 720 which matched Douglas's DC8.
 
The 707 was very advanced mostly because Boeing had the B-47 and they learned a lot from that great aircraft.
Boeing showing off the dash 80 in 1954 helped Douglas with the tech for the DC-8. Just like the dehavilland comet showed boeing some vital info (like having square windows was a bad idea!).

One thing is certain, It's better to come second in a new field of aviation because then you can learn from those who went before.

I think having a more successful DC-8 could be possible.
Boeing had lost money on all their previous airliners( the 247,307,377,314) were as douglas was a well known and prestigious brand.

The British national airline B.O.A.C (British overseas airways corporation) had bought Boeing 707's but with Rolls Royce conway engines. Even though they had publicly damned the Conway before when it was being tested for the British VC-7.
Maybe if Boeing had been less successful with the 707 then BOAC may have bought home built Vickers VC-7's and Britain could still make airliners today?

In discussions like this it bothers me that Comet showed Boeing the dangers of pressurized airplanes when Boeing had been making them since 1938. Below is a partial list all of which flew before the Comet:

Boeing 307 (1938 - the first pressurized airliner to enter commercial service)
Lockheed Constellation (1943 - the first pressurized airliner in wide service)
Avro Tudor (1946 - first British pressurized airliner)
de Havilland Comet (British, Comet 1 1949 - the first jetliner, Comet 4 1958 - resolving the Comet 1 problems)
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization#History

Also a lot of B-17s and B-29s. If I remember right part of the Comets problems were not the designs but manufacturing short cuts.
 
In discussions like this it bothers me that Comet showed Boeing the dangers of pressurized airplanes when Boeing had been making them since 1938. Below is a partial list all of which flew before the Comet:

Boeing 307 (1938 - the first pressurized airliner to enter commercial service)
Lockheed Constellation (1943 - the first pressurized airliner in wide service)
Avro Tudor (1946 - first British pressurized airliner)
de Havilland Comet (British, Comet 1 1949 - the first jetliner, Comet 4 1958 - resolving the Comet 1 problems)
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_pressurization#History

Also a lot of B-17s and B-29s. If I remember right part of the Comets problems were not the designs but manufacturing short cuts.

The B-17 wasn't a pressurised design. de Havilland also ignored to an extent the lessons of a century or so of manufacturing pressure vessels - the design elements that led to the structural failures should not have been there in the form they were.
 
Pressurized bombers weren't flying multiple trips a day, unlike jet-liners.

I don't remember all the details, but I'm pretty sure the Comet people knew perfectly well how to do pressurized bombers - but passenger planes with windows and higher cycle rates were unappreciately more difficult to design.
 
In discussions like this it bothers me that Comet showed Boeing the dangers of pressurized airplanes when Boeing had been making them since 1938.
IIRC it wasn't so much the pressurisation as pressurisation combined with jet engines which meant faster ascents and descents which put more pressure on the fuselage in a shorter timeframe and a larger number of cycles. As the first jet airliner in widespread commercial service it unfortunately became the learning example, first mover advantage/disadvantage and all that. As I've said previously the real shame of it all was that if they had only stuck to the design plans the faults that caused the crashes would have been avoided.
 
Two things hampered the DC-8:

1. It flew slower than the 707-320B.
2. The early versions of the plane had less passenger capacity than the 707-320B.

I think if the DC-8 had built something like the DC-8-62 earlier, they would have sold a lot more planes--the range of the DC-8-62 (at full load) of 5,200 nautical miles was very long range for its day.
 
Boeing convinced the USAF to pay for the first batch of 707s, which were called KC-135 tankers.
Then Boding made dozens of minor changes when they started building 707 civil airliners (wider fuselage, etc.).
With every successive design, Boeing has only sold a few dozen (or a few hundred) of the first generation (e.g. 747-100) before eliminating the worst bugs and introducing the -200 or -300 series, which sell by the thousands.
 
The B-17 wasn't a pressurised design. de Havilland also ignored to an extent the lessons of a century or so of manufacturing pressure vessels - the design elements that led to the structural failures should not have been there in the form they were.

On the B-17 I should have looked it up but with a service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,850 m) I thought they did.
 
Pressurized bombers weren't flying multiple trips a day, unlike jet-liners.

I don't remember all the details, but I'm pretty sure the Comet people knew perfectly well how to do pressurized bombers - but passenger planes with windows and higher cycle rates were unappreciately more difficult to design.

Boeing turned the pressurized B-29, 2 each, into the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser passenger plane. The Comet was not the savior of pressurized air craft they helped but cutting corners financially is what doomed the Comet. The cycle rates were not that high when the Comets crashed.
 
Top