The complete preserved Douglas DC-8 list. From passenger DC-8s to Science research aircraft 

Super video with lots of memories. Thanks for putting it together

I think I flew on at least one in the early 80's with Braniff, but not completely sure as I was about 8 then.

I don't think I ever got to fly one one, if I did I was too young to remember. They look like funa aircraft. although, the -60 and -70 models look long enough to have separate zip codes :D

The unfortunate march of technology sometimes

Boeing greatly benefited from the SAC order of over 700 KC-135s which heavily subsidised the subsequent development of the 707 with its DC-8 6-abreast rather than the model 367-80 of 5. Douglas didn't initially go jet, but after a few years realised it had to. Boeing's USAF subsidy also in the end left the funds for the 747 development. Whilst Boeing agreed customer specific versions of the 707 for Qantas and Braniff, Douglas refused to, sticking mainly with engine upgrades up to the series 50 with its manifestations of 54/55. In the end early post Cold War, Boeing took over McDonnel Douglas, to diversify with McDD military jets history in a reducing military market. The final irony was, fairly quickly, the McDonnel Douglas management team were put in charge of Boeing. Many have views on the later outcome of this reverse takeover.

@@bfc3057 All good information. The 747 is a bit more of a story however; Boeing tried to get the contract for the heavy lift cargo plane the USAF wanted in the mid 1960's, but that went to Lockheed with their C-5 design. Boeing took the design work that had been done, modified it, and actually designed TWO new airplanes: The 747 (which was designed as a cargo airplane, not a passenger plane; That's why it has the short upper deck, which allows a nose door for long items) and the 2707. The 2707 was largely funded by the government as the US supersonic transport, or SST. Boeing's rationale was that these two airplanes would have many of the same systems and landing gear. Their thought was that as soon as these were produced, subsonic transports would be obsolete and have only scrap value. The 747 however, since it was designed from the beginning to be a cargo aircraft, would have value in the freight and logistics industry, and an airline that bought 747's could keep their parts inventory since many of these spare parts could be used on their new 2707's. Thus the government paid for the 747's development in a roundabout way.

​​​​​@@Flies2FLLNo 2707 was ever completed - there were none in service. I'm aware of the 747 competition against the Lockheed C-5A Galaxy. Lockheed had early 1960s defeated the Boeing C-135A Stratolifter KC-135A derivative as a strategic lifter with its C-141A having rear ramp access with high wing engine clearance. The 747 lost the 2nd strategic airlifter competition, it didnt subsidise anything, it found an alternative purpose. Juan Tripp saw its potential as an airliner. The overwhelming majority of 747s were passenger aircraft. Even the Combis didnt have a lift nose. The C-5A was developed from the C-141A and also benefited from lowered front ramp access as well as rear. The 747F had neither. The Galaxy was a double deck with bunks upstairs. I first saw inside a Galaxy in May 1978 when used for airlifting UNIFIL troops to Lebanon. So "Interim" that 46 years later the UN troops are still in Lebanon. The funding for the 747 heavily came from the heavy SAC subsidy of the 707 via the KC-135. There was very little commonality between the 747 and 2707. Even Boeing doesn't dispute that. The 2707 was doomed to failure from the start by its initial swing wings and Mach 3 expectations that required new alloys for the fuselage/wings. The rest of the issues also doomed the more within-reach Concorde. In the late 50s/1960s, the 707 revolutionised air travel for the highly affluent, the 747 revolutionised it for everybody. The DC-8 is an airliner still loved by many, that had production prematurely ended in 1972 because the 63 was competing against McDD's own DC-10. Fortunately still a few around and this gentleman has honoured us with his very enjoyable video about the mighty 8.

@@bfc3057 Let me count the ways that you are WRONG. -First of all, Boeing used the TECHNOLOGY from the heavy lifter design on the 747; The two designs were totally different. Since the government paid for their efforts at the concept stage, they indirectly paid for the initial 747 design work. 2. No kidding, there was never a 2707 prototype. A mockup was made for the press and wound up in a junkyard in Titusville, Flori-Duh, but that's it. What I said about the two designs is 100% correct. 3. YES the 747 was designed as a freighter. The nose door was optional, but because it added weight, passenger variants generally did not have it. I flew 747-200's for Kalitta Air, we had two nose loaders. Both were converted passenger planes from Air China. You did NOT want to open that door unless you had to because it was very complex and prone to jamming, which would cause hours of delays. Now, In the mid 1960's, American Airlines asked for an airplane with twin aisles and two engines that could take a full load of passengers and their bags from New York to Los Angeles in the winter, when the prevailing winds were against them. Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonalds (whoops, Freudian slip; I was thinking McDonnell Douglas but the clown Ronald McDonald came to mind....) all put forth designs. All three told AA that a twin design wasn't possible with contemporary engines, which were essentially the GE TF-39 military engine, which turned into the CF6. So McRonald Donnell (whoops, there I go again, sorry! 🤡) and Lockheed produced three engine proposals, but Boeing came up with their 747 based upon what I have told you before: A cargo plane that can carry passengers initially but can be converted easily in true cargo plane and still have value. And the bonus for Boeing was that the SST program that "Tricky Dick" eventually killed paid for part of the 747's development. See how that works? (can you tell that I am a Boeing guy?)

@@Flies2FLL you write a load of diversionary statements for their own sake but don't say how I'm wrong. Writing in block capitals, using emocions and saying "so I know what I'm talking about", quoting working for airlines as an unrelated validation doesn't say you're a Boeing guy - it says you're about 15 or you write like you're about 15. Your comments are becoming more tenuous and patronising with each press of the send button. Wikipedia has a lot to answer for. The idea of the 747 having any real commonality with the 2707 will come as news to anybody that knows anything meaningful about them. You've switched from commonality to funding. Try drive an M48 up into a 747 freighter. MAC didn't want a strategic airlifter that still had value, they wanted one that was effective. Have a lovely evening or whatever time of the day it is wherever you are..

I didn't know that about the hijacking. Learn something new everyday. Only cockpit I have ever been in flight was a P-3 Orion, and there was 10 of us crammed in their including the flight crew, but that was another lifetime

Thak you for that information. I suspected that my information wasn''t complete, but nothing lead me to know about that aircraft

@@AirlinerHistory I have found the registration, it’s an odd case since it never flew for the airline. It’s sad because it’s like the plane is awaiting delivery to an airline that will never accept it. Tail number 5Y-RCA

I'm jealous! I can't remember if I ever flew on any DC-8s

I would have loved to have seen the Aurora's from the air, that would have been too cool. This plane was built in 1969, and I don't see any mentions of it being the first built stretched DC-8, but the fact ti was flying for NASA until spring of this yers is simply amazing

Last time I was on one was 2003, it was a Northwest jet taking me from Atlanta to Minneapolis, so I could change planes their to fly to Oahu. Pilot didn't bother waiting for the tug and backed himself, and us out of the parking spot and went over to the de-icing station before takeoff.

Can never tell in advance what will be saved and what will be broken up. Boeing has had more luck presering its prototypes than Douglas or McDonnel Douglas ever has.

Granted, the two in Africa I only know about becuase two of my three sources have them as active, but the latest pictures I have of them are from 2022.

I have a video on the Connie that's in the museum hanger. I have let Signature Aviation know exactly how I feel for their money grab. I just wish more could be done. Hopefully the FAA settles this in the Museum's favor

That jet is mentioned near the end of the video, along with two that operate for a cargo line in Africa

@@AirlinerHistory I missed that somehow. Thank you.

@@user-zd1wo5ir5y no worries. It happens to the best of us. I had another video recently where I claimed an A321 was a 757, so even I miss stuff

On second thought, there is a blister on the lower fuselage

My guess would be antenna, or as you said maybe ECM pods. I'd have to do some digging to find out.

Yeah, I know. I pinned a comment to know my mistake. Sigh even I mess up sometimes

You're right I should have caught that. That's a easy difference to spot and I didn't. oh well

Excellent video with lovely photos, minor error easy to happen

Here is Part 1 of the 707 series of videos ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jkug4dzpp6Y.html

Yep, my mistake. I acknowledged that in a pinned comment

fair point, however I can't afford a narrator, so you and I are stuck with me :p