Talk:Douglas DC-8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Problem with data table

There seems to be a problem with the Maximum Takeoff/Landing Weight data in the table near the bottom. There should be two sets of numbers under each aircraft model since maximum takeoff weight and maximum landing weights are different.

Also, the number for the DC-8-32 in the first column appears to be the Maximum Takeoff Weight while the numbes shown in the remaining columns for the other models looks like the Maximum Landing Weight.

Someone may wish to correct this (I don't know how to edit Wikipedia). --Viscount724 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DC-6 and DC-7

The DC7 never became the successor of the DC6. They were built at the same time, and the DC7 line was terminated several years before the DC6. The 7 was a noisy unreliable fuel guzzler, and orders soon dried up. Like all monsters 7s became freighters, to try and recoup some of the buy price.60.241.214.176 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Extra specifications

We dont normally list specifications for more than one type but in some airline articles the table is extended to cover notable variants. What is not normal practice is to add detailed information and a second specification table on every variant above what is normally covered. Such non-standard information was added by User:Marc Lacoste and this was challenged and they were asked to come to the talk page, the user has decided to edit war rather than start a discussion so I have started it for them so they can gain a consensus for the non-standard additions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend only list the main series variants in one Specs table, such as -10, -20, ... -50, -60, and -70. Specs for each versions, such as -61, 62, 63, is too much detail, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I often edit specs because refs are often confused. I did the previous major edit using flight archives but that only covered early variants. I was satisfied to use the acap (often the most detailed OEM specs for airliners) for later series, as important as the early ones. I agree there is a lot of variants. But how do you select the main ones? IMHO the -10/20/30 are the same JT3/4 turbojet powered with paper MTOW below 315,000 lb, the -40/50 are the same but turbofan powered and reaching 325,000 lb, the -61 are a major stretch, the -62 a moderate stretch but with a 350,000 lb, the -63 combines both; the -71/72/73 CFM56 variants of the 61/62/63 with longer range. Freighters versions obfuscate further the table. It's pretty difficult to resume each within one column. Freighters could be leaved out and I can combine both tables with 5 major variants but it would be borderline WP:OR. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

like User:Marc Lacoste/sandbox/Douglas DC-8

ans it's possible to add freighters specs on the same table

As has been explained we only give the specification for a representative variants and you were trying to add far to much information. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I made this specs table for the representative variants in my sandbox, I'll place it in the article. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I like what you did, Marc... table looks great and I like how the minor variant differences are simply handled within a cell. -Rolypolyman (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it useful.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes to the article include [1] removing reference to the 2016 Flight International World Airline Census with the 2015 edition, apparently because the 2015 edition is online, and adding a link to a French Google books page to a different issue of McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920, even though this isn't the edition that has been used for a reference and only gives snippet view, which is useless for verification. These changes do not appear constructive.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 census was a mistake, corrected. I've added the link to the google books page (french because i'm in france and it's google automatic domain, doesn't change the book) because i used it to fact check the -63 production : it was "Forty-three (41)" and to fact-check I verified in google books. Given it was useful for fact-checking, I wanted to retain the google books url for further reference. You just have to search an info in the book to use it, e.g. [2]. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And now the 2016 Flight reference has been removed with the excuse that it is unused. This needs more discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't removed it, I removed it from the bibliography because it is used only in 1 ref. Why using harvard ref when there is no need? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes as they dont appear to be constructive, particularly the removal of perfectly valid references. We dont have any requirements for sources to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

They don't need to be online but if a verbatim is available and facilitates fact-checking, no need to not use them. Why did you replace the "citation needed" since the Flight article on Cammacorp provided the info? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Apology for that I have added them back. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to add "verbatim" sources, I presume you mean ones you can look at, as long as the source is reliable it doesnt have to be online. If you are concerned what they actually say then you can ask either whoever added it in the first place or the aircraft project whose members have an extensive library of sources. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

no requirement but it's not forbidden to add the online copy url either. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Metric system in specifications table

Someone removed the metric system numbers from the specifications table .. is only in feet and lbs and i clearly renember it was in meters/feet before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.17.163 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It was the by-product of a revamping of the table, not simply someone removing the metric numbers. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

On 24 Feb 2016 I changed the previous table with different inaccessible refs for a single Flight 1961 ref for consistency and verifiability. As it lacked the Super 60/70s series, I added the ACAP ref with them on 25 Sep 2016, but the table was then too large to keep conversions (I regret that, I'm a metric user). I managed to condense the table in 5 columns (by size/engine type) to be able to add metric conversions. You can see different iterations in User:Marc Lacoste/sandbox/Douglas DC-8. I think it works pretty well, but having conversions is still pretty ugly. Having a Met/Imp switch like Airbus, Dassault or Gulfstream would be neat! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

main photo change

• 
  current Air Jamaica, OK but usual approach photo (original engines)
• 
  proposed SAS, clean config but flying right (original engines)
• 
  proposed NASA, clean config, better shows the aircraft layout (re-engine)
• 
  proposed NASA, from top, better shows the aircraft layout but a little from behind (re-engine)

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree we could do better than the Jamaica but sorry I dont like any of those suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Beyond personal taste, do you think any of those could better show the aircraft general configuration? I think the NASA clean config from below better illustrates the quadjet layout.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the NASA images my only concern would be the new engines, but that said a lot of the larger 8s were re-engined so I dont object to you changing it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)