[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
717 My butt! That's a DC9/80/82/88/90.....!
Boeing builds airplanes, Douglas builds character!
If the truth were to be known, I'd bet the original 717 was really the KC135!
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please expound on the bolded sentence above and explain your reasoning for those of us who haven't flown either Boeings or Douglas aircraft and compare and contrast the two companies how they differ in there approach to building planes and how they fly?
-Matthew
[/ QUOTE ]
It's kind of a back and forth thing between pilots and their preferences of which manufacturer they like.
A favorite of the Boeing crowd, is "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". The retort is the one I mentioned.
Boeing types joke of the “suitcase handles” as one of the ways to actuate the trim on a Douglas airplane was a pair of handles on the console that looked just like the handle on a large suitcase. And the DC8, DC10, and DC9/MD80 series all used exactly the same handles. Same with the wheel that manually controlled pressurization.
There are distinct differences in the approach each manufacturer takes in how they build airplanes.
One of the unique features of Douglas, later McDonnell-Douglas was the use of cables. Miles of the, all over the airplane. A joke about the KC10 (heavier version of the DC10-30CF) was that all three clocks were driven by motors up in the top of the tail with little bitty cables running all the way down to the clock faces in the cockpit! Although on the KC10, all the flight controls were hydraulic, as are most big airplanes now. The slats had a couple of big hydraulic cylinders in the center of the wing, that rotated big drums which in turn pulled a lot of cables that went out to the slats for extension/retraction. And that airplane had a LOT of slats. Wing root to wing tip! The flaps however were fully hydraulic from cylinders on the flaps themselves.
The MD88/90 which I flew for Delta Air Lines actually had mechanical flight controls. The rudder was powered, and on the MD90 the elevator. But the ailerons were strictly mechanical from the yoke to tabs on the control surfaces, as well as the elevators on the MD88. (FWIW the KC135 was the same, ailerons and elevator strictly manual with a powered rudder...but most later Boeings had hydraulic flight controls)
That spawned the joke that "DC" stood for "Direct Cable" or "Douglas Cable".
Boeing had more of a mix of hydraulic, mechanical, and direct. I used to joke that Boeing had a electric motor drive a hydraulic pump to wind up a cable just to open the gear doors! And the backup was a hamster in a little revolving cage!
Then there's Lockheed. Never flew them but some Air Force buddies dubbed it the "hydraulic clock" as hydraulics seemed to run just about everything on the C141. Or so they said. Maybe on of those “T-tailed, hump backed, four engine bug sucker, pilots can speak more to that!)
I also flew the C7 Caribou, which is a DeHaviland DH4. That was a whole different breed of cat! Final approach was 51 knots. Could land in 300 feet if you had to. Take off in 700 at max gross weight. It too had all manual flight controls, plus some other really oddball stuff! Great airplane though!
All in all I really didn't have a preference. Each was different, each unique. Mostly preferences grew out of how long you flew a particular brand. The old KC135 was probably the most reliable as all you needed once you got airborne to fly to a point in space and offload fuel was a battery! (assuming at least two engines were running too!) It was truly a great military plane. Designed to accomplish that singular mission of refueling SAC bombers on their way to drop nukes on the commies! Straight from the world according to Curtis E. LeMay! A truly simple, bulletproof airplane. I think it was the first large jet capable of lifting twice it’s own weight. Even if you did have to burn water to do it! That spawned a bunch of sayings. “It turned fuel and water into noise and smoke” and “Built when Boeing thought man could burn water!”
As for the 717 comment. There was the 707,727,737 all the way up to the 777. Missing was the 717. Since the KC135 was developed and built about the same time as the 707, but as strictly a military airplane, I was told supposedly by someone who knew that the KC135 was the “missing” 717. Don’t know if this is true or folklore.
Now you probably wish you’d never asked! Hope all the rambling hasn't bored you...I love to talk (write) about flying!
