Martinair DC-10-30 Tenerife Sur - Amsterdam

[joscyriacv2]

So I've been back to flying the DC-10 after many moons. Yesterday I flew a Northwest flight from Detroit to Atlanta on a -30. Flight was performed on VATSIM with ATC from gate to gate. Had my hands full flying the plane and feeding in the enroute, STAR, RNAV approach coordinates into the INS simultaneously while communicating with the ATC.

Today I flew a Martinair charter flight from Reina Sofia Airport, Tenerife South (GCTS/TFS) to Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam on a DC-10-30. Loaded 327 passengers and 20 tonnes of cargo. Flight was planned on simbrief.com. Navigation was by INS except for the STAR and Instrument Approach. Really enjoyed operating the plane as per the instructions using the FE panel. 
Here are some shots of the flight:



Preflighting at gate F1



Climbing turn after departure



Sun coming out



Cruising off the coast of Morocco



Over Spain


Over the Bay of Biscay


Cute girl

Descending over the Netherlands


Approaching the airport.


Towards the localizer for 18R




Established on ILS approach


Landed and taxiing to gate


We've got company


Majestic

The flight was pretty much uneventful except a few issues on approach. I found out I had a high pitch angle which was making it impossible to see the runway. This was evident in yesterday's flight as well. Yesterday's flight I had loaded the aircraft in such a way as to bring the CG aft. Today I let it be more or less where it was originally to see if this was the problem. Only a slight betterment but still runway was not visible. I don't recall having this issue the last time I was flying the -10s and -30s. That was pre-2017. Anyway i tried to adjust the eyepoint but it wasn't responding to the keyboard commands for eyepoint controls. If anybody has a fix for my issue please share with me. Thank you

Nevertheless, the DC-10 package at HJG is very good stuff. I really enjoy flying the DC-10 and looking forward to flying many such flights.
Thank you

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I found out I had a high pitch angle which was making it impossible to see the runway ....
.... I had loaded the aircraft in such a way as to bring the CG aft

Landing weight and airspeed become critical factors in regard to AI pitch attitude during approach to landing for our DC-10 simulations .... and L-1011's too.

Land too heavy .... and the AI pitch attitude will naturally increase.

Land too slowly/below the recommended/panel calculated V-APP airspeed .... and the AI pitch attitude will naturally increase also.

In the R/W DC-10's (and both L-1011's) demonstrate a higher than average approach to landing deck angle (in comparison to most other types) .... and which is replicated into the performance of these simulations.

An "aft COG" will likely complicate things .... in regard to causing a higher than is desirable AI pitch attitude throughout any approach to landing too.

An improperly distributed payload might result in pitch related approach to landing issues as well.

I generally adjust fuel weight only .... and leave the payload completely untouched

Using our simulations .... the total remaining fuel (which is best calculated prior to departure) should not exceed 20% prior to commencing any approach to landing. During any AP controlled ILS coupled auto-approach to landing .... and with AP Land Mode engaged also .... the AI pitch attitude will vary from around a +3* for starters (from around 18-15 DME prior to landing) .... to a very stable +2* (from around 10-8 DME prior to landing) .... expect some variance in this regard as such is primarily induced by the imperfect manner in which such AP/ILS coupled approaches to landing work in FS.

Flap adjustments "at the right airspeed" are essential too .... otherwise the entire approach to landing profile can be "buggered up" completely.

Prior to commencing any approach to landing though .... click on the panel based V-REF chart .... then re-click it again to generate landing V-REF (automatically calculates by our panels) based on both weight and the intended approach to landing flap setting (usually FLAP 50) .... and ensure this data is then transferred to the ASI gauge in order for the speed bugs to be automatically reset in accordance with the calculated weight/flap elated V-REF. The result should be that all proceeds perfectly well/acceptably.

Based on the above recommendations .... typical DC-10-10/-15 V-APP calculations will be around 140 KTS .... whereas as those for the much heavier DC-10-30/-40 will be around 150 KTS. These speed variations might seem very small .... but .... I can assure everyone that as little as 1 or 2 KTS of variation (and this similarly applies to small percentages of power adjustment/s too) can, and often do, have quite some influence over everything as well. For the first stage of any AP/ILS approach to landing I tend to vary the actual airspeed both above, and below, the calculated V-REF .... until the approach to landing is stabilized .... then maintain the calculated V-APP speed.

It's also advisable .... in FS .... to fly an extended approach (18-20 DME) rather than a a short one. This simply enables the simulation to lock onto, and stabilize upon, the ILS at a much earlier stage of the approach to landing .... making for a much smoother/stable profile throughout the final stages of any approach to landing.

The last factor that also needs to be taken into consideration too is these are 2D (not VC) type panels, so, combined with the slightly higher +2* AI pitch attitude during any approach to landing less scenery ahead of the panel is going to be visible by default (due to the artificial view), but, based on the following test results (flying in accordance with my above recommendations) what is visible is sufficient ....







There "IS" a way to adjust the scenery horizon element of the default FWD PANEL VIEW, but, I don't recommend applying it simply due to its global affect that will then likely result in too much scenery being evident ahead of the panel view for both ground and air perspectives.

Hopefully the above advice will assist you better .... see how you go

Mark

[joscyriacv2]

Well I'll try some changes in my nest flight and see how it goes. Namely, ill leave the payload untouched and fly an extended approach. I've bee maintaining Vapp but I'll give it a closer look and let you know the results.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

"IF" you adhere to the details I've recommended then you should be OK .... in accordance with the imaged views I've provided, BUT AGAIN, weight and airspeed are absolutely critical.

Flying with a full, or reduced, payload keep that total remaining fuel at no more than 20% (per tank) by the time you commence you're approach to landing and you should then be fine.

I presume you're familiar with our forum based DC-10 manual .... the best bed time story currently available for HJG supplied FS

"IF NOT" .... then here's the link to it ....
tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9147/dc10-panel-installation-handling-notes

"SECTIONS 6:06 and 6:06A" within the above linked manual hilite the recommended approach to landing procedures as abridged within my above reply. 2 separate procedures are outlined therein. Both are identical .... save for the fact one's for the AP AUTO APPROACH MODE procedure .... whilst the other's for the AP AUTO APPROACH/AUTO-LAND MODE procedure.


Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Nathan Ford - HJG]

The best bed time story currently available for HJG supplied FS

Still won’t put you to sleep like an airline’s EP (Emergency Procedures) manual will. 🤭😝

Seriously though, Mark has done an amazing job with not just the DC-10 flying guide, but all of the ones available on the forum. Definitely an invaluable tool for any of these aircraft.

Haven’t had too much flying time lately, but when I have, I have been honing my skills on the DC-10. Just love this plane 🥰🥰🥰

Great photo series btw

Nathan 

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Our DC-10 manual is probably the most difficult one I've ever written.

Not because the DC-10 panels/simulations are difficult/complex .... because they're "not"

It's solely due to the fact these panels have "so much functionality incorporated into them" .... all pf which needed to be explained "as simply as was practical" .... and which is what I always endeavour to try'n do.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[hornit - HJG]

Very nice shots and great write up. Enjoy seeing someone use one of my repaints on these kind of flights!

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

YEP .... that's what they they're for .... and all going cheap too/for "FREE"

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

It's funny I still remember the times, when the old FDE of the DC-10s resulted in a nose heavy airplane on landing. Thanks to the efforts of HJG this was successfully corrected. Tried a DC-10-15 on approach by the numbers default payload and 20 % of total fuel but no fuel in centertank 2 ("tank no 4"). The entire runway visible up to shortest final. Touchdown at VREF in the correct attitude. Will send pics when my IMGUR wants to do it.

Kind regards

Walter

[walterleo]

Now Imgur works again:





Enjoy!

Kind regards

Walter

P.S.: I flew once on XA-MEX as PAX from Miami via Cancun to Mexico City. After the landing in MMUN the cowling of the left engine was opened and was dripping hydraulic fluid. We got stranded in Cancun for some 8 hours till a valve was flown in from MMMX. A local mechanic treated that part with a hammer, went to the left engine and presto the external lights were switched on. I told my family lets rush to the airplane, thanks to my real flight training I knew, what that signifies. Behind us, the doors were closed and the engines spooled up. When taxiing out some passengers were still waiting on the tarmac. The captain declared we had to wait for the reparation as the flight controls are purely hydraulic but were fully in order now. But he had to rush the take-off to be still legal arriving in MMMX. "I wish you a pleasant flight!" And the flight was beautiful dogging some thunderstorms approaching MMMX in last light of the day.
So, I feel a special love for XA-MEX!

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Este librea tambien mi gustar mucho/I've always like that livery a lot myself.

The classic 1970's gold and black is/was quite striking .... as was their successive livery, of the 80's, featuring the different Mexican cape tapestry designs applied to each individual aircraft of their fleet ....



Pity they/MX collapsed during more recent times.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

Its really a pity, that one of the oldest airlines of our world went down under strange circumstances: After 89 years of service, Mexicana announced on August 27 that it would suspend all operations at noon CDT the following day on August 28, 2010.[


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n

www.milenio.com/negocios/mexicana-de-aviacion-historia-de-la-primera-aerolinea-nacional

BUT:
There is hope of a revival:

"Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Mexico has sought to revive the airline due to lack of flights caused by the pandemic. The airline's representatives have meet with the SCT and Interior Ministry Olga Sánchez Cordero for this purpose.[42] Chances of the airline's revival has increased following the recent suspension and financial struggles of low-cost carrier Interjet since December 2020.[43] Miguel Ángel Yúdico Colín, secretary general of an aviation national union organization, has stated that investors will show interest in investing and operating once the business plan has been finalized. It is also expected to occupy the slots left by Interjet if it were to cease operations.[43]"

For the actual Mexican President Lopez Obrador is clear, that the then owner of MEXICANA Gastón Azcárraga Andrade (also owner of the biggest TV Net of Mexico) orchestrated the bankruptcy. This man is still then fugitive i.e. living in all luxury in the USA.

Kind regards

Walter

P.S.:

The B 727-200 ADV in the last paint with MEXICANA:

[joscyriacv2]

Well, doesn't Mexico already have a flag carrier? i.e., Aeromexico. Maybe the government should focus on that rather than starting a second airline.

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

doesn't Mexico already have a flag carrier?

It does, and always has, but, prior to August 2010 both AEROMEXICO and MEXICANA operated domestic and international services.

In some countries that's become an accepted practice in order to try'n restrict potential for any one particular operator from gaining an absolute monopoly .... other than keeping operators honest too. Similar has been practiced in Colombia, and on the Australian domestic front (ANSETT and TAA) prior to 2006 .... and even in NZ we've allowed QANTAS/JETSTAR to operate domestic services in direct competition with AIR NZ (something which grew out of ANSETT NZ from 1987, which evolved into QANTAS NZ during 2000 and then collapsed during 2001, and was then re-establisged as QANTAS JET CONNECT during 2001).

In the case of MEXICANA and AEROMEXICO .... I think the 2 were actually merged during 1996, but, continued operating as separate entities .... with some MX services even being operated as AM code share flights.

As Walter mentioned .... having been formed during 1921 (what a great pity it never survived to celebrate it's centenary which would have been this year) MEXICANA was not only one of the worlds oldest airlines (after AVIANCA, KLM, and QANTAS), but also, one of the longest continuously branded airlines in the world too.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[walterleo]

Hi friends:

Today the idea of flag carrier as one per country disappeared:

"Today, it is any international airline with a strong connection to its home country or that represents its home country internationally, regardless of whether it is government-owned.[2][3]

Flag carriers may also be known as such due to laws requiring aircraft or ships to display the state flag of the country of their registry.[4] For example, under the law of the United States, a U.S. flag air carrier is any airline that holds a certificate under Section 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (i.e., any U.S.-based airline operating internationally),[5] "

see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_carrier

Mexico is a country of nearly 130 Mio of people and a north south and east west extension nearly the same as continental USA and a more ragged terrain so air transport had since the Mexican Revolution an ever-increasing role and the US tourists backed the rise of at least two airlines.
MEXICANA was much older than AEROMEXICO (founded 1934). Both airlines went through various nationalisations and privatisations, AEROMEXICO is now owned 49 % by DELTA and negotiations are going on to sell still more parts to DELTA. MEXICANA was owned ca. 40 years by PANAM. In the years 70 MEXICANA was "the miracle airline" overtaking in many aspects AEROMEXICO.
1982 it was partially nationalised and beginning 1990 sold to privat investors not linked to aviation. The downfall resulted from various strategic plunders of these many times changing privat owners destroying the fame of MEXICANA, to offer far the best quality of service of all flights to and from and within Mexico.

Kind regards

Walter