DC-10 Twin-Jet .... The Original Concept

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

As most are aware .... the DC-10 evolved from a late 1960's AA requirement for a twin-engined wide body jetliner but which ultimately evolved into a tri-jet configuration ....

www.airlineratings.com/news/mcdonnell-douglas-missed-big-twin-disappeared/

Think this (or a similar scaled-down) MDC concept resurfaced again during the mid-to-late 1970's (as the McDONNELL-DOUGLASS ATMR/"Advanced Technology Medium Range" project) but which never went got beyond the drawing board. I do remember articles about this particular proposition appearing in FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL during the late 1970's.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[George Carty - HJG]

I'm interested in how competitive a DC-10 derived twinjet would have been with the Airbus A300 and A310: it would likely have been less efficient (due to less sophisticated aerodynamics: no supercritical wing for example) but also likely somewhat cheaper.

Any thoughts?

George

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

"Not sure" but I think the A300B (despite the fact it didn't get off to a very encouraging start .... range I think and in regard to the early versions was it's impairment) and later A310 probably killed it .... and the even later B767-200 performed even better anyway or so I was told.

Probably partly the reason why MDC went the tri-jet way despite AA's twin-jet proposal.

Read something recently to the effect that the A300B's wing was actually partly based upon that for the TRIDENT.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[christrott]

I think the role of union rules is always underappreciated in a lot of this as well. It wasn't really mentioned in the article, but until the late 1970's, the US airlines all had rules in their contracts that essentially prevented long range twin operations. Between the need for an FE on aircraft over a certain size or range capability, and needing at least 3 engines on anything going significantly overwater (both by union rule and regulation), it greatly limited what the airlines could actually buy in the US. It was a major factor for where Douglas (and soon MDC) went. It's also why Boeing didn't launch the 767 until much later. Because of MDC and Lockheed and their own 747 and 737 market dominance, Boeing didn't need to compete in that market, so they didn't. And they effectively destroyed both the A300, DC-10, and L.1011 all in one go because they could wait.

As for the 767-200 - the problem was that without ETOPS, there was a massively wasted amount of performance. There simply weren't enough seats and cargo to be truly profitable on the majority of routes it flew because they were too short. Because of this, Boeing brought out the -300 fairly quickly to allow the 767 to be not only economical on the shorter, high density routes, but take advantage of the few long-range routes it could fly more efficiently. With ETOPS, 767 sales really took off because now they could fill those long, mid-capacity routes that didn't really have a good aircraft to fill them with the retirement of the DC-8 and 707.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I'd actually forgotten about ETOPS and which didn't exist until around mid 80's .... and which prior to then restricted the routes twin-jets were permitted to operate (especially in regard to overwater sectors) despite their actual range capabilities.

Kind of take ETOPS for granted today and without thinking retrospectively to the 70's.

Mark C
AKL/NZ