[ATTACH]
If you added the DC-8, you'd find it slightly narrower than the 707, and the KC-135 was slightly narrower still. That was the result of a game of "one-upmanship" that Boeing and Douglas played when designing their jetliners in the '50s. Of course, the 707 width carried through to the 727, 737 and 757 and is still in use today.
The Stratocruiser is interesting... Boeing grafted a larger part fuselage above part B-29 fuselage for a 'figure eight' cross section. Was a two-decker, sort of, with a stairway and a cocktail lounge in the lower area. It was pressurized.
It appears that you are showing the original 707 upper fuselage without the crease at the deck line. It was the same as the KC-135 to begin with but when Douglas displayed the DC-8 with much more width than the 707 they began to attract more customers than the 707. This triggered a change at Boeing to add more diameter to the 707. Tooling was set and we had parts already on line . We had drawing releases from which we were working. Bill Allen ordered engineering to redesign the 707 upper fuselage to gain seating to match the DC-8. The VP of engineering balked and openly resisted Allen because he claimed an increase in drag and the loss of money to change. Allen prevailed and we scrambled for a while to change things. The increase in diameter didn't widen the deck so it caused a crease line at the deck. The rest is history and so was the VP of engineering, he went to Douglas.
Thanks, Bob... didn't know the story... read somewhere that Boeing widened it to compete... I think it was actually 1 inch wider than the DC-8 after the change.
I went is a 720 as a kid, SAA used them domestic, I believe it was 3+2 seating. Ill also bet the stratocuriser seating had way more width than the 707.
Boeing originally intended a 132-inch cabin width which is what the 367-80 prototype was built to. When the airlines insisted on 6-abreast seating, they went to 142-inch, which was presented to the airlines and used on the C-135 series. When Douglas went to 144 inches, Boeing realized they had to beat that so they changed it to 145 inches, which is what we're still flying today on the latest 737s.
I didn't realize the DC-3 had sort of flat sides... I knew the DC-1 and 2 had obvious flat sides, but the 3 looks round to me.
You're right, the DC-1 and -2 were narrower (designed for 2-abreast) and flatter than the -3 (designed for 3-abreast). I think the 777 was the first Boeing jet with a perfectly round fuselage from the nose on back?
I think that I have written this before but I'll cover it again. The president of AAL wanted to increase the passenger load of the DC-1, and -2 by adding more seats abreast. That required spreading the cross section that was done by what appears to be a conic curve to increase width. This generated the Douglas D-ST when C.R Smith suggested that the added width allowed for sleeping berths on " long" flights. Hence, the Douglas Sleeper Transport, DST. Then when the adde volume became apparent to him, Smith opted to make the DST into a more profitable day transport with many more seats, hence, the DC-3. View attachment 2655361
The DC-1 and DC-2 I screwed up again so please forgive me. Approaching 93 doesn't help sorting out the cyber stuff sometimes.
DC-1 of TWA landing at Newark 1934. I don't know why my files in the desk top sometimes don't allow posting. I have a painting of the DC-1 approaching Newark that posted and a DC-2 over Java that did not attach. The UAL version of the DST did post and the C-47 over Market Garden ( a military DC-3) also posted so at least some of the progression did show. It is an interesting history and I have known many who have flown all versions. I have flown a DC-3 but of no importance, except that it's a friendly airplane.
The DC-3 was designed for 3-abreast seating (as opposed to the DC-2, which was 2-abreast). I once walked through a DC-3 that had been converted to 4-abreast, and those seats were really narrow!
