convair 880

Here is a quick history of ship 13:

convair 880 990 Restoration

Regards,

Art S.

 

To this day I'm kicking myself for having passed up what would have been my only opportunity to fly an 880.

In the summer of 1973 I was going to fly home from Columbus (OH) to Miami, and I had a choice of two Delta flights that were, for some strange reason, scheduled only about 30 minutes apart. One was on an 880 and the other on a DC-9. I chose the latter, probably because it was a newer airplane. My flight was the first to leave and I could see the 880 parked at its gate as we taxiied out.

And less than 6 months later, Delta phased out its last 880.....

 

My memories of 880 matters brings forth the demise of the aircraft when it was competing with the Boeing 720 for United Aircraft orders. United was within 15 minutes of signing an order for 880's when UAL president Patterson got a call from Bill Allen , pres. of Boeing , that they could guarantee a lighter weight for the 720 that guaranteed performance within the proposal (lighter weight J-57's). Patterson cancelled discussions with Convair and bought 25 720's thus essentially killing the 880 program and launching a very successful 720 and 720B.

 

I flew on a Delta 880. I spoke to a pilot in Chicago who flew the 990 with the carrots on the wings. It would not go supersonic.

 

I was told that the 880 was a bit of a dog, too. The Whitcomb bodies on the 990 didn't work to cure all the transonic drag like they were touted to do, either.

 

The DC-8 had a much longer fatigue life and the 707 had a landing gear that was too short for a stretch.

 

Still, wasn't it the fastest of the Boeing, Douglas and Convair?

 

I heard a rumor that a factor was that the US Air Force bought up many of the used 707s for parts and to be converted to J-STARS aircraft (or something like that).

 

I think that it may have been until the 720B came along.

 

I have heard that it is but the guy to ask is Lou 747. I know that it has been cruised at .88-89...pushed.

 

I'm not sure if the 880 was any faster than a 707 or DC-8, but the 990 (particularly in the "A" version) was almost certainly faster.

But it is generally conceded that the 747 is the fastest of all the modern subsonic jet transports.

 

The DC8 did have a far longer airframe fatigue life. I seem to recall someone say it was "no life limit".

The re-engining of the DC8 is a bit more convoluted. The CFM program was originally developed for the 707 with Boeing's direct participation. The certification program was taken to the point of FAA approval then Boeing pulled the plug. Getting to this point there had been a battle inside Boeing on offering the re-engine or push those buyers into the 757 that was under development. One airline exec told me that they were pitched by a senior Boeing official for the re-engine then after he left the regular Boeing salesmen came in and said forget the re-engine, not going to happen, sing up for the 757.

When the 707 program stopped GE then started to look around for what else they could apply all this development to and the DC8 60 series was the answer.

The re-engine 707 sort of occurred. US Air Force had some converted but since it was a military program it could not be used to make a civilian conversion.

Jeff

 

Actually, the later 707's were stretched relative to the earlier versions, but not nearly as much as the DC-8. However, the fact that the 707 wasn't stretched to the extent that the DC-8 was, certainly doesn't mean it didn't grow.

I flew the TWA 331 BAH and as I recall if it were light loaded on fuel it could theoretically carry nearly two early 707's as cargo, assuming of course that the two aircraft were ground up into little pieces so that they would fit. In other words, it could take off with a very impressive payload.

Of course, the most thrilling take offs were in the 131 "water wagons". They used huge electric pumps to inject water into the engines in order to increase the mass airflow and hence the thrust. They made a lot of noise, huge amounts of black smoke, and kept us all in close contact with God because very few people failed to say a small prayer when starting the take off roll. A failure of the water system was NOT something anyone looked forward to. Those were the days. We even had some flight attendants younger than 60 years old!

 

I didn't say it but the stretched 60 series DC-8 is what I was thinking of. The 707 could not not be stretched beyond the 300 series because of tail strike on rotation problems. Compared to the DC-8, the 707 was a more of an exotic piece of machinery aimed at high performance and it did it at the expense of longevity. Higher strength lower weight alloys, low drag/high speed shape, everything was pushed to the higher limits. It did a good job as long as it lasted...that was shorter than the DC-8. Boeing didn't do everything right on the 707 but it did most things very well.
The ADI (Anti Detonation Injection) tank was in the wheel well keel beam and held 450 gallons of distilled water if I remember and all of it was used on talk off. It had the effect of decreasing compressor blade clearance between the tips and the shroud and it also allowed greater fuel flow without the preignition and flame creep in the burner cans.

 

Water injection into gas turbines does some pretty amazing things.

As mentioned above, not only does the water add to the mass flow rate, because it gets centrifuged to the outside of the cases they get cooler and that decreases tip clearances so the compressor gets more efficient. Almost as important as this is the effect of cooling the air ahead of and inside the compressor. This make the compressor think it is turning faster (turbine designers use the term "corrected speed") and this is a square root of the temperature function. So what happens is that with a higher corrected speed the compressor passes even more air (in addition to the water mass), and it increases the pressure ratio so more mass can pass through the rest of engine.

Only downside is that it takes a lot of water to do all that, but it's worth it for short periods of time.

 

Is the pilots name Ron, an ex AA retired pilot??? Ron told me the same thing. The 990 was slow and took forever to get off the ground requiring alot of runway. Maybe supersonic in a dive!! I saw the Denver Port of Call and NASA 990's out at Pinal Air Park years ago when the AA Sp's were being finished. Only saw one 880 fly back in the 1980's down in Miami. It was hauling freight up from Central America and was as loud as hell.....That whole corner of MIA is gone now!! Water injected engines...that was the good old smokey days of flying..

 

That was the slickest thing Boeing ever did....Scrap all the fanjet 707's for the USAF and get top dollar for the parts. The CFM program was a no win for Boeing so it was stopped.

 

Last name is Miller.

He is in the Chicago area.

former USNR FJ-4 and Scooter aviator who flew out of NAS Glenview in the late 50's - late 60's.