Warbird Information Exchange

I don't know for certain warbird1, but my guess would be the last DC-8 as by then (1976) the 707 family (can't speak to the KC-135 model 717, that was long before the MD-95 was given that designator) was air to air heat exchangers via ACMs (air cycle machines) as were (are) AWACS, and, since the 8 was still in production as a commercial project with the original type engines I would guess the 8. The super 8's were aftermarket conversions from JT4''s to CFM-56's.
I also don't know but my guess would be that whoever uses the facilities @ EAFB pays a set fee to the USAF to compensate and offset the costs involved in fuel, ramp space, disposal of waste and haz mat, fire protection, etc. and, just like the profits and debentures page in your annual stock holders report, I bet they balance to the penny.
THANX JD! I didn't know about the 707 pass, that's tweeking their nose isn't it? Must have been a test of range vs. fuel burn, you know how those calculations flights go-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

BDK, I remember reading in flight magazine at least one/two years ago that there have been reported problems of contamination in the air due to the presence of particles from the lubrification of the engine... I can try do dig this out if someone want's it.

And, if I may ask the opinion of people here who certainly have flown alot more than I (and for longer) about air quality... I've speaking with some friends that think air quality has lowered in the cabin since it has been forbiden to smoke on board. What's the opinion here on that (and apologies if it this is out of topic).

best,

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

For a number of years now, people have claimed all sorts of bad things coming from jet engine exhaust up to and including poisons being introduced into the air by spraying carcinogens into the turbine stream. These are usually the same folks who see black helicopters and suspect graffiti is actually secret instructions for some invading army.
As a 45+ year aircraft mechanic/QC Inspector/ and Instructor I've NEVER seen a 'poison tank' on an airplane, except for the potable water tanks (never drink anything made with on board water, you don't know where that tank was last filled and they NEVER remove it during maintenance to clean it out). The exhaust does produce particulates and gasses but at about the same total levels as standing on the corner in any large metropolitan city for 4 hours because it is after all combustion of fossil fuels and all the hydrocarbons involved, and it's pretty much inescapable unless you live in a sealed bubble and be glad jet engines don't burn Utah coal. A very tiny leak of turbine oil can make people ill after it's been heated to 1100 degrees and run throught the ACMs before being sent to the cabin air distribution system, the air that blows out of the overhead gasper vent @ 72 degrees f started out not that many seconds beforehand as 1100 degree 13th stage air in the engine.
Smoking is an evil habit and I think it is my one crowning achievement to have overcome that devil habit over 15 years ago. As far as smoking in a very enclosed area like an airliner cabin, even worse because you can't get away from even he tiniest amount of smoke no matter how fast the pressurization system is changing the cabin air, you still would get off a flight smelling like a full ash tray. As a mechanic and inspector, smoking on airplanes made the inspection process easier @ a check because you could see nicotine streaks around loose fasteners and cracks and write them up from 30 feet away.
I found it odd that for a while AIR FRANCE banned smoking on one side of the cabin but permitted it on the other side of the aisle (!!??!!). AS far as overall air quality, cabin air is wiltingly dry and pretty low in oxygen content as the usual cabin altitude @ 35K is around 7000/8000 feet and about 16% humidity, no wonder that you get off a long flight you are all lagged out and dehydrated.
One thing that degrades the air in the cabin comes from airliners becoming fast inter city busses, the cushions never cool off and you are trapped with 146 other people who may or may not have deadly communicable diseases, several years ago NORTHWEST had to track down everyone on a particular Holiday time flight from Europe to Minneapolis, then track down everyone those people may have had contact with ( in the thousands of people) because four people on that packed flight had undetected tuberculosis.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

OK, Inspector, this was one of the articles I read (from the date it's not this one but focus on the same subject). I don't usually tag Flight International together with the "chemtrails" crowd...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... still.html

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

I just found this thread. Very cool. I love the DC-8. My first flight instructor flew the DC-8 for awhile along with the BAC 111, and then later the 757. He always had a special place in his heart for the DC-8. When I worked ramp control at Pittsburgh, UPS had a DC-8 that they flew every other day along with a private company that hauled frieght and used alot of Convairs, DC-3's, and a few times had the C-133 and the Antonov come in. The UPS DC-8 looked longer. Would the be one of the Super 62's? I think that is what they were called.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

The Supers were all identified as '70 series' aircraft all from -61's or -63's so they are -71 or -73 depending on who the original operator was and the size, number, and location of fuel tanks in the wings. There are 8 tanks, and 10 tank models out there to this day making their operators money. With the various tank arrangements to be a DC-8 F.E. you almost had to have apprenticed as an Engineer on a BALDWIN steam locomotive to move fuel around for burn and balance. Find a picture of an 8's F.E. panel and look @ the levers and switches involved in pushing gas around, that would be most of the bottom half of the facing panel for the F.E. 8 dial , 8 tanks, 10 dials, 10 tanks. The 8 tankers actually have more fuel capacity and range, the 10 tanks were for weight and balance considerations on shorter fuselages or customer unique requirements UAL operated 61's to Hawai`i for max body count and medium range out of SEA or SFO (see below). Due to transfer plumbing configuration, fuel is loaded in reverse of how it will be burned, and fuel is always moved to the outboard tanks then the engines for balance and to prevent 'wing flapping'. (kinda like a really big CESSNA 310)

Some 8's were built with very thick fuselage skins so that later, if the operator wanted to, they could cut out and install a standard Douglas MCD which came as a kit from MDC. DELTA learned to be a bit more careful when chosing candidates to turn into box haulers, they started converting one only to discover after cutting into it, that it was a standard 'thin skin' pax only model and it became too distorted to salvage or save. at least the rotables bins got fuller @ DELTA. The 61/71 & 63/73 freighters require mandatory straight taxi to the gate of around 200 feet so the fuselage will 'unwind' otherwise you can get the MCD open, but maybe not get it shut. Several years ago, an EMERY 55 series freighter out of PDX took off with the MCD unlocked, it flew around the Portland area for about 45 minutes with the door flapping up and down, made a cautionary landing back @ PDX. the door was given a visual inspection, a functional test open, shut, latch, open, shut latch. determined to good to go and the aircraft was redispatched on it's trip, ther's news footage video of it probably on youtube (that's Y'ALLTUBE for our friends in the South)

DAC did build a very very few -62's for UAL and JAL for really long but thin routes (Chicago to Tokyo over the pole). These were standard length 50 series fuselages mated to 10 tank wings from the 61 series. Of the few of these one or two became SUPER 72's but the market didn't develop because the stretch 8 could carry 16 cans over the same distances. (a stretch 8 is about 11 feet longer than a DC-10)
The extra tanks on a 10 tanker were actually the inboardmost leading edges between the fuselage and engines 2 or 3, bolted to the front spars these 'slipper' tanks held around 10K pounds of fuel each and couldn't be distinguished from a standard leading edge because all the transfer plumbing was inside the wings.

And keep this fact in mind, there are only three mass produced, commercial jet airframes that intentionally were taken through Mach 1, the CONCORDE, the TU-144, and a TRANS CANADA DC-8 50 with R/R CONWAYS, and it was verified by a USAF F-104 chase plane on a test flight to EAFB from Santa Monica.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Though not intentional, there was another "supersonic" excursion. A friend of mine was an USAF KC-135 tanker pilot in Gulf War 1 during Desert Storm. He told me that another KC-135 was flying over Iraq and got an urgent call about either a SAM or MiG coming after them, I can't remember. Apparently this came as a surprise, as there was no fighter support nearby. The pilot of that 135 immediately put the airplane into a massive high speed dive to avoid getting shot down. During the dive, the airplane went supersonic, as indicated on the airspeed indicator in the cockpit. It was an older version of the 135 with the older style "turbojet" engines, not the modern CFM fan types. IIRC, I think it was either an "A" or "E" model 135. Who knew the KC-135 was a supersonic aircraft?

and rumors persist that golfer Arnold Palmers CITATION X has gone supersonic a couple of times..................the DC-8 flight was intentional and very well planned. it wasn't a war emergency or accidental whim, the details are on one of the DC-8 either websites or historical sites as well as several books.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-