|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Oct 1, 2018 23:16:06 GMT
A new enjoyable mini-documentary from Mustard, this time about the DC-10, its success, legendary status, primacy, as well as the model's troubled beginnings. Just in time, and relevant at this point, for HJG's latest masterpiece. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 4, 2018 17:47:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Oct 4, 2018 18:45:21 GMT
Interesting to see in that video what really sounded the death knell for trijets in general: the "Is there a secret drinker at the back" advert for the Airbus A300, with a photo of a DC-10's tail section...
George
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 4, 2018 21:19:34 GMT
That got my attention too .... namely because that tail section feature the basic AIR NZ livery of the Dc-10 era .... if one´s awar o the fact and looks closely.
Mark C
BOG/CO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 22:26:37 GMT
Funny thing is that DC-10 had reputation as dangerous plane yet many many many real world pilots told me that DC-10 is safer and handles better than MD-11. They said that DC-10 has better aerodynamics than MD-11. In other words, they say that MD-11 is more dangerous to pilot than DC-10 is. They said if they had choice between DC-10 and MD-11, they would pick the former and avoid the latter.
Regards,
Aharon
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 5, 2018 2:11:03 GMT
It´s wrong to call the DC-10 "a dangerous plane" .... since it was ill-informed and irresponsible media hype following the AA accident at Chicago, during 1979, that really left a tarnished (and possibly indellible) impresion of these aircraft in some of the public mind around the world, but which, as was later proven, was quite unfounded and the aircrafts almost 6 week grounding equally unjustified too .... and which, more than anything else, really impacted the aircrafts commercial success. To this extent it´s been said that the DC-10 was the "first good aircraft to be shot down by bad press".It´s true though that prior to 1974 a known (to both MDC and GD) design flaw existed in the aircrafts port side, rear fuselage, mail hold door locking mechanism .... and which was never adequately resolved "prior to" the DC-10´s entry to commercial service. It took a major incident, to an AA DC-10-10 during June1972, followed by the later catastrophic loss of some 347 lives in the TK accident during March 1974, to publicly expose this early defficiency. It could probably be said that the FAA was equally culpable following the 1972 incident .... since they could have, and possibly should have, mandated (per airworthiness directive) that MDC "fix" the issue immediately before allwing the type to continue flying anywhere .... but .... a "gentlemens agreement" was formulated instead so as to avoid potentially disadvantging the DC-10 at such a critical stage of the aircrafts early marketing. MDC did in fact resolve this defficiency prior to 1974, but, due to a monumental administrative blunder 3 DC-10-10´s (produced in speculation of an ANA order which fell in favour of L-1011´s) were never modified. 2 of these aircraft eventually went to LAKER .... and the other went to TK .... and it became the aircraft that was lost outside Paris during 1974 and for the very same reasons the 1972 incident had occurred. The 1979 AA accident was eventually proven to have been caused by "non-standard maintenance procedures" being employed by AA .... and by both CO and UA at that time .... and which unwittingly had potential to damage/weaken engine pylon bulkheads and fastners as occurred to the AA aircraft lost at Chicago. The DC-10 was most certainly flawed when it first entered service during 1972, but, from 1974 it evolved become a very sound aircraft .... and one that impressed many of its operators and which was also loved by some of the crews whom flew it. Years later some of those crews actually migrated to other airlines in order stay on DC-10´s rather than accepting upgrades to more advanced aircraft types. I think it should also be rationalized too that during the 1970´s there were more DC-10´s flying than B747´s and L-1011´s .... therefore and "statistically speaking" .... in the event of any major accident occurring to a wide body aircraft there existed a greater probability for such to involve DC-10´s than other wide body types. That "DOES NOT" make the DC-10 a bad, unsafe, or even dangerous aircraft .... but .... the media do often tend to "sensationalize" .... and by far the majority of the uneducated public are influenced and informed/misinformed by the media .... and which os how how fallacies start to be born  I think this more-or-less puts everything into its proper perspective  I similarly wouldn´t regard the MD-11 as being a dangerous aircraft either. It "IS" known that it wasn´t as good an aircraft as it was intended to be .... for PAX type operations (due to drag impositions which caused it to fall short of its projected/marketed range capabilities), but, it "DID" become a "SUPERB" freighter. Under some operating conditions it also apparently needs to be flown slightly faster during the approach to landing than other aircraft of comparable size and weight due to its smaller elevator area, but, that doesn´t make it any more dangerous than another aircraft type. In fact don´t think it´s even right, or fair, to imply that any aircraft is "dangerous" .... since any aircraft can become dangerous if not flown or maintained properly. Pilots and engineers are also "human" .... they can, and do, sometimes make mistakes .... like anyone else can too but with sometimes catastrophic results .... and this, accept it or not, has been a significant and fundamental causal factor among air accidents worldwide since the birth of aviation. Mark C BOG/CO |
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Dec 4, 2018 22:11:27 GMT
I remember reading somewhere that MDC did in fact resolve the range issue of the MD-11, a while after launching the type, making the aircraft's range identical to that promised by MDC at the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 5, 2018 20:40:19 GMT
I'm not sure that they actually did .... at least not to the extent of the MD-11 actually being able to meet its originally projected range/payload guaruntees.
The MD-11 project was looking very good/promising (order book-wise) during the late 1980's and as a DC-10-30 replacement, but, upon its entry to service airlines (such as THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL) ran into problems with it in regard the aircraft not meeting its intended range due to drag related issues .... THAI in particular found the aircraft could operate Bankok/Auckland direct, but, only with a fuel burn that was more than 17% in excess of MDC's projections for the type. EVA, GARUDA, JAL, and KOREAN all ran into similar issues too.
MDC did work to try'n reduce the drag (and even offered an ER version as well) .... but .... it was too little and too late for many the civil operators .... which , disappointed with the aircraft, opted to either part out their MD-11 fleets earlier than anticipated and/or cancel orders and options.
Whilst the MD-11 never replaced the DC-10 among civil operators it did become a superb freighter once converted .... as most that were built have been since.
Mark C
BOG/CO
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Dec 6, 2018 0:12:31 GMT
The majority of the problem with the MD-11 was the engines. Both GE & Pratt greatly over-promised on what the new versions of their engines to power the plane would deliver. In fact, it was a massive shortfall with the PW4460 having fuel burn of up to 8.4 percent higher than their contracted specs, and the CF6-80C2D1F being as much as 5.3 percent above their contracted limit. While the plane itself was about 1% above the drag limit, this was mainly attributed to General Dyanmics who had delivered the fuselage barrels that had required significant rework because they didn't meet specs. MacDac withheld contract payments to all 3 suppliers in the wake of these discoveries during testing until "get well" programs had been completed.
Within 5 years, and via 6 Performance Improvement Plan phases, MacDac successfully got the MD-11 to meet its originally promised 7000 mile range with 298 passengers onboard. All-told, the PIP program produced an 8 percent improvement in performance and increased the MTOW of the plane from 618,000 to 625,000 pounds with only limited increases in empty weight so the airplane actually gained payload capability along the way. All but a small number of the modifications were fully retrofit-able to the fleet, so there were only a few early airframes that never met the performance capabilities. Meanwhile, the engine manufacturers were able to recoup some of their shortfalls and achieved a 3 percent reduction in fuel consumption, a savings of approx. $300,000 per year in fuel per airplane (in 1990 dollars).
The problem was, Airbus's A340 and Boeing's 777 didn't have the same serious problems and as a result, MacDac lost orders quickly because other aircraft were soon to be available with the same or better performance so those who didn't need the planes immediately chose to go elsewhere instead of wait for the problems to be resolved.
The book Douglas Jetliners by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner is an excellent resource for information about the development of the entire Douglas and McDonnell Douglas jetliner fleet from the DC-8 through the MD-11, MD-90, and MD-95. It's where I got the above information.
|
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Dec 6, 2018 0:13:33 GMT
MDC did work to try'n reduce the drag (and even offered an ER version as well) .... but .... it was too little and too late for many the civil operators That must be it, I was living under the impression MDC "totally fixed" it, but it was still too late. Wikipedia states: In 1990, McDonnell Douglas, along with Pratt & Whitney and General Electric began a modification program known as the Performance Improvement Program (PIP) to improve the aircraft's weight, fuel capacity, engine performance and aerodynamics. McDonnell Douglas worked with NASA's Langley Research Center to study aerodynamic improvements. The PIP lasted until 1995 and recovered the range for the aircraft. However, by this point sales of the MD-11 had already been significantly impacted. In 1995, American Airlines sold their 19 MD-11s to FedEx, as the PIP program was not sufficient for the aircraft to fly the DFW-Hong Kong route.So that's a little confusing, have they recovered the promised range completely, but which was still not enough for American's DFW-Hong Kong route, or was the improved range not enough for American's DFW-Hong Kong route because it was still not actually identical to the one promised? Reminds me of CV-990's speed. The exact same thing happened. They promised the plane could achieve *this amazing speed*, which the plane proved incapable of doing initially. Then they improved the design, bringing the cruising speed closer to the promised one, but still not quite reaching it. |
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Dec 6, 2018 0:17:50 GMT
We replied nearly simultaneously Chris, great piece of info, cheers for that! Told ya, the back of my mind kept telling me the MD-11 was more or less "fully" healed.
|
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Dec 7, 2018 14:20:41 GMT
Yeah, that's a bit of a misstatement. The DFW - HKG route is almost 7100nm if it's pure Great Circle. With navigation realities, it's more of a 7200-7300nm route. The MD-11ER can fly the trip fairly easily, but by the point it came out in 1992/3, American had already decided to go a different route. It wasn't until they brought the 777-300ERs online that they were able to make the trip reliably.
|
|
