I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic (2025)

I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic (1)

On August 21, 1961, pilot William Magruder, copilot Paul Patten, flight engineer Joseph Tomich, and flight test engineer Richard H. Edwards took Douglas DC-8-43 no. N9604Z for a test flight at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The aircraft exceeded Mach 1—the only intentional supersonic flight by an airliner other than the Concorde and the Tu-144. Bill Wasserzieher interviewed Richard Edwards in May 2007.

BW: Tell me about the supersonic DC-8 flight.

RHE: That was Bill Magruder’s idea. Very smart—get it out there, show the airplane can survive this and not fall apart. Boeing will never try it [with the 707] because they don’t want to be second. I’m sorry if that affects anybody but that’s just the way it was. We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered. But the recovery was a little scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did, because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet. That’s an unofficial supersonic record, payload record, and of course an altitude record for a commercial transport. I think it took about 10 years for the SSTs to beat that.

BW: Magruder won the Society for Experimental Test Pilots award, the Iven Kincheloe.

RHE: Yes, he also gave a speech on the Mach 1 dive, and warned pilots that a similar problem might happen to them. He was well known in the industry and very articulate, well educated, with a lot of new ideas. I think Douglas would have liked him to stay, but he made the decision to go to Lockheed.

BW: How much planning went into the flight?

RHE: They had to determine the pushover load factor, the dive angle, to be sure they got to Mach 1.01 at a rather high altitude, so the airspeed wouldn’t be that high up there. [The speed of sound at altitude] is not 700 miles per hour: it’s a lot less. The aerodynamics department, I think under Roger Shaufele, prepared a set of charts. The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s much more accurate to use airspeed. So every thousand feet I would read off to Bill the airspeed [he needed] at the next altitude. As we were coming down, I was talking almost all the time because at a descent rate of 500 feet per second, every two seconds we were 1,000 feet lower. Looking out the window—which I stopped doing—it looked like it was straight down.

We took off at Long Beach and flew to Edwards. We only had fuel for a half-hour flight once we got there, because we wanted to be light, to climb. The night before, at Long Beach, somebody had dinged the slots [devices under the wing leading edges that improved low-speed lift], and they didn’t work. We took off with flaps up, which is kind of a no-no because at takeoff thrust, you can’t control the airplane if it loses an engine with flaps up—there’s an interlock on the rudder.

BW: Was it a tug or something that dinged up the slots?

RHE: I’m not sure. It was something that happened in maintenance. The question was: Do we go or not? Bill said, “Well, we can take off with no flaps and the airplane will be all right—if we don’t lose an engine.”

BW: Amazing the number of times people with tugs moving airplanes have managed to do that.

RHE: I did it myself, calibrating the flaps. We’d go down in two-degree increments and hand-mark the dials in the cockpit so the pilot would know where the flaps [settings] are. The crew chief told me to put the flaps down. Nobody saw the crew [work] stand out there, and we dinged [a flap]. Fortunately, the crew chief was a nice guy and took the blame: He said he should have looked.

BW: What did [going supersonic] feel like?

RHE: Well, really, the sensation was not there at Mach 1.01. At .96 Mach it buffeted for a while….

BW: So there was a little bit of a wall….

RHE: Yeah, and a little above .96 it went away, and it came back as we slowed down to .96. The thing that impressed me the most was the dark, black sky. I’d never seen anything like that. I’m sure our military pilots are familiar with it. I had mounted some cameras in the middle of the airplane, shooting out each window. I wanted to catch the [F-100 and F-104] chase airplanes out there, but I never saw the chase airplanes in the pictures. But it did show the ailerons flapping up as the shock wave left—I think it was about .97 Mach. They went up about five degrees, I think—both sides, fortunately.

BW: What did it feel like to walk on the ground again after you set down?

RHE: We were all smiles. We weren’t frightened, but we were more or less happy that we had got there. Initially, on all the flight tests we’d shoot for maximum design Mach number on each new design, which was .95 Mach. We’d normally overshoot a little so we’d be sure we would get it, so we got up to .97 quite a few times. And Bill said, “Well, if we can get up to .97, we can get up to 1.01. That’s not so far away.”

BW: You must have felt like you were a part of aviation history, a little like an early astronaut.

RHE: A little bit. [Douglas Aircraft Company president] Jackson McGowen came down and met us at the executive lunch room, the first time I’d ever been in there, and bought us all lunch. So we were kind of pleased with that. And John Londelius, VP of Flight Test, gave us each a $1,000 bonus, so that was rather nice. That was back when a thousand dollars was worth a thousand dollars.

N9604Z was delivered to Canadian Pacific Air Lines, where it served for nearly 19 years. In 1980, it was sold for scrap.

Aviation historian Bill Wasserzieher interviewed Douglas employees for the Douglas White Oaks Trust project, which comprises some 50 oral histories.

I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic (2)

/

I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic (3)

/

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic (2025)

FAQs

Did the DC-8 go supersonic? ›

The flight was to collect data on a new leading edge design for the wing, and, while doing so, the DC-8 became the first civilian jet – and the first jet airliner – to make a supersonic flight. The aircraft was DC-8-43 registered as CF-CPG, later delivered to Canadian Pacific Air Lines.

What is supersonic flight answers? ›

A supersonic aircraft is an aircraft capable of supersonic flight, that is, flying faster than the speed of sound.

Are DC-8 still flying in 2024? ›

As of May 2024, according to data from ATDB.aero, there appear to be three DC-8s still flying. Until a few weeks ago, there were at least four - if one counts NASA's Flying Laboratory (a highly modified Douglas DC-8 jetliner as a flying science laboratory). That aircraft flew for the last time in May 2024.

What is the max speed of the DC-8? ›

DC-8-70 - Max cruising speed 887km/h (479kt), economical cruising speed 850km/h (459kt). Range with max payload (Super 73) 8950km (4830nm). DC-8-61 - Operating empty 67,538kg (148,897lb), max takeoff 147,415kg (325,000lb). DC-8-62 - Operating empty 64,366kg (141,903lb), max takeoff 151,950kg (335,000lb).

Can the DC-8 go Mach 1? ›

Edwards took Douglas DC-8-43 no. N9604Z for a test flight at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The aircraft exceeded Mach 1—the only intentional supersonic flight by an airliner other than the Concorde and the Tu-144.

Was the DC-8 better than the 707? ›

Each had four engines – as was the norm of that era – and both were approximately the same length and could carry a similar number of passengers. The DC-8's wingspan was 12ft (4m) wider than the 707 while the cruise speed was almost identical at 483kts for the former and one knot faster for the latter.

Why is supersonic flight illegal? ›

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sets regulations relating to United States airspace. Current rules prohibit commercial airplanes from flying at supersonic speeds over land because of the noise levels associated with sonic booms and the negative impacts to humans and animals.

Why don t we fly supersonic? ›

One major reason why supersonic planes are no longer a facet of modern air travel is the deafening boom the jets create as they cross the sound barrier. Due to the thunderous noise, Concorde was only allowed to fly faster than the speed of sound over water, a regulation still in place for supersonic flights today.

Are supersonic jets real? ›

There have been only two civil supersonic planes: the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144 and the British-French Concorde, which flew for the last time in October 2003, more than two decades ago.

Are there any DC-9 still flying? ›

As of August 2022, 250 aircraft remain in service: 31 DC-9s (freighter), 116 MD-80s (mainly freighter), and 103 Boeing 717s (passenger), while the MD-90 was retired without freighter conversion.

How many DC 8s still fly? ›

The company produced 556 DC-8 aircraft until 1972, and as of last year only five DC-8s remained in service by commercial carriers in Peru and the Republic of the Congo. In the US, DC-8s are no longer in commercial service.

How far can a DC-8 fly? ›

Aircraft Description

The aircraft, built in 1969 and acquired by NASA in 1985, is 157 feet long with a 148-foot wingspan. With a range of 5,400 nautical miles (6,200 statute miles), the aircraft can fly at altitudes from 1,000 to 42,000 feet for up to 12 hours, although most science missions average 6 to 10 hours.

Does McDonnell Douglas still exist? ›

The Douglas Aircraft Company was an American aerospace and defense company based in Southern California. Founded in 1921 by Donald Wills Douglas Sr., it merged with McDonnell Aircraft in 1967 to form McDonnell Douglas, where it operated as a division. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997.

Why did McDonnell Douglas fail? ›

Most companies fail when customers do not buy their products. Douglas failed because customers did buy its products. Douglas fell with a successful innovative product, the DC-9, and an order backlog in excess of $3 billion and growing, enough work to keep its production lines humming for years.

When did UPS retire the DC-8? ›

In 2009, UPS Airlines retired its entire fleet of DC-8 aircraft; at the time, its 44 aircraft represented nearly half of the active DC-8 fleet flying worldwide.

Has a propeller plane ever gone supersonic? ›

To date, the closest a prop-driven aircraft has come to breaking the sound barrier was in 1944, when a Spitfire in a dive reached Mach 0.92—much controversy surrounds this and other claims, so take it with a grain of salt.

What prop plane went supersonic? ›

Although The Guinness Book of World Records recorded the XF-84H as the fastest propeller-driven aircraft ever built, with a design top speed of 670 mph (1,080 km/h) (Mach 0.9) and 623 mph (1,003 km/h) (Mach 0.83) during tests, this claim has been disputed.

Can the Blue Angels go supersonic? ›

Sonic booms occur when an aircraft surpasses the speed of sound. At a Blue Angels air show, there should never be a sonic boom, as we are not authorized to exceed the speed of sound at a show.

Did F86 ever break the sound barrier? ›

The F-86 may have been the first aircraft to break the sound barrier. Although it was designed as a subsonic aircraft, it is capable of breaking the sound barrier in a dive. Unofficially, George Welch broke the sound barrier while in a dive on the first test flight on 1 October, 1947.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Kimberely Baumbach CPA

Last Updated:

Views: 5944

Rating: 4 / 5 (61 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Kimberely Baumbach CPA

Birthday: 1996-01-14

Address: 8381 Boyce Course, Imeldachester, ND 74681

Phone: +3571286597580

Job: Product Banking Analyst

Hobby: Cosplaying, Inline skating, Amateur radio, Baton twirling, Mountaineering, Flying, Archery

Introduction: My name is Kimberely Baumbach CPA, I am a gorgeous, bright, charming, encouraging, zealous, lively, good person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.