PLEASE..Where are the photos of the MD-11????

[MarkRey 16]

I always feel so sorry the md11 was eclipsed by more economical heavies - such a beautiful and unique airframe is deserving of more than mainly cargo ops.regards,Markhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1024mb/X700pro256

[Bill Grabowski 0]

Mauricio, Well, it's not exactly a "show my yours and I'll show you mine" kind of deal. We still have a little work to do before we're ready to "shock and awe" you (I hope).Bill

[Brian Doney 127]

Basten,I certainly remember discussing just that, at FSNordic :).I am sure that both Bill and Michael are more than a little preoccupied with the -11 right now, my comments were meant more in jest.I look forward to seeing where this project has gone since then, wish both Bill and Michael success with it, and as for the 717, one can hope, can't he ? :)

[Guest mfelicio]

>Mauricio, >>Well, it's not exactly a "show my yours and I'll show you>mine" kind of deal. We still have a little work to do before>we're ready to "shock and awe" you (I hope).>>BillOk Bill. No problem.I

[razorseal 0]

hahashow me yours, i'll show u mine :naughty: :Dso yeah, why was the md11 not a popular plane? I mean like why were other planes like 7x7/airbuses favored instead of the md11?

[Bill Grabowski 0]

>so yeah, why was the md11 not a popular plane? I mean like why>were other planes like 7x7/airbuses favored instead of the>md11?Emir,The reasons are many, I think, starting with the fact that the MD-11 didn't initially meet its range targets. This disappointed one airline that bought the airplane, American - who sold all their MD-11's- and Singapore, who cancelled their orders. By the time MD, GE, and P&W fixed the problem, the bad press for the MD-11 was already out there. Also, not in order of importance, are these reasons:1. Three engines, not two.2. Declining prospects of the Commercial Division of McDonnell-Douglas, and airlines not wanting to jump on a sinking ship.3. Several unfortunate accidents with complete hull losses, including the fire on Swissair 111. 4. Several reported incidences of pitch instability due to small horizontal stabilizers/elevators compared to DC-10. (The Michael Crichton book "Turbulence", is based on the MD-11. An interesting read)I think these are the highlights. These tend to cloud the very real benefits of this very interesting and beautiful airplane. There are no bad pictures of an MD-11. It's very photogenic.Bill

[Guest keiron]

Is the MD-11 simple to fly like the 747.777.767.757.737 with the LNAV and VNAV or is it something completley different but easy enough to pick up?Infact i wouldnt mind getting hold of some manuals to get up to scratch before this bad boy gets released....

[Guest Basten_TFF754]

It's pretty much the same deal. Although the systems have different names. In this case: LNAV = NAV and VNAV = PROFILE. ______________________________[a href=http://www.ifdg.net]--iFDG website!--[/a]FLY DC JETS!

[razorseal 0]

>>so yeah, why was the md11 not a popular plane? I mean like>why>>were other planes like 7x7/airbuses favored instead of the>>md11?>>Emir,>>The reasons are many, I think, starting with the fact that the>MD-11 didn't initially meet its range targets. This>disappointed one airline that bought the airplane, American ->who sold all their MD-11's- and Singapore, who cancelled their>orders. By the time MD, GE, and P&W fixed the problem, the bad>press for the MD-11 was already out there. >>Also, not in order of importance, are these reasons:>>1. Three engines, not two.>2. Declining prospects of the Commercial Division of>McDonnell-Douglas, and airlines not wanting to jump on a>sinking ship.>3. Several unfortunate accidents with complete hull losses,>including the fire on Swissair 111. >4. Several reported incidences of pitch instability due to>small horizontal stabilizers/elevators compared to DC-10. (The>Michael Crichton book "Turbulence", is based on the MD-11. An>interesting read)>>I think these are the highlights. These tend to cloud the very>real benefits of this very interesting and beautiful airplane.>There are no bad pictures of an MD-11. It's very photogenic.>>Bill>>>Ouch, I cant see any benefits from that plane then... probably cheap to buy compared to other airplanes of it's class though

[mburkhard 23]

>Is the MD-11 simple to fly like the 747.777.767.757.737 with>the LNAV and VNAV or is it something completley different but>easy enough to pick up?>>Infact i wouldnt mind getting hold of some manuals to get up>to scratch before this bad boy gets released....If you mean simple to fly regarding its systems and avionics then the answer is yes. The flight deck is incredibly sophisticated and is in the same league as A340 and B777 (lacking only the FBW controls).Of course its completely different to pilot than Airbus and Boeing but once you've learned the Douglas way you'll find it quite nice to fly. In my humble opinion the flight deck concept is much less confusing and more straight forward than the Airbus concept.Now if you mean simple to fly in terms of manual flight then things look different. Comparing to the types I have expirience with (A332, A320, B744, MD80 - no type rating on those, just countless simulator hours) the MD-11 actually is the trickiest of all. When Douglas stretched the DC-10 they maintained the same wing and reduced the stabiliser size (as mentioned by Bill). Those three factors lead to a rather unstable aerodynamic concept. Douglas invented some complex systems like LSAS (a longitudinal stability system) and a CWS system to ease manual flight. Those helped a lot but couldn't get the same stability found on the B747 for example. That doesn't mean the airplane is impossible to fly, but lets just say you shouldn't transfer from a Seneca directly to the MD-11 :) After all your Vapp is around 160kts...Personally however I still prefer to hand-fly an MD-11 rather than that over-sensitive Airbus FBW vector input with that fancy little joystick. Even the most experienced Airbus pilots admit that this kind of envelope protected steering input can cause you major pains during approaches with heavy gusting winds.So while the MD-11 is challenging to fly other airplanes have their problem areas as well.About the manuals, I guess you'll have a state-of-the-art PMDG manual coming with the airplane as it did with the B744. And I'm pretty sure you'll also see tutorials coming with the release.Regards,Markus

[mburkhard 23]

>Ouch, I cant see any benefits from that plane then... probably>cheap to buy compared to other airplanes of it's class thoughBut there were. At the time of first flight (give or take a year) there was only one direct competitor, the A340-300. Compared to that very aircraft the MD-11 had a higher passenger load and also important much more cargo volume and weight it could transport below the passenger deck. Those two factors were real benefits at that time. But as Bill mentioned, the main problem were the teething problems the airplane had when it was delivered to the airlines. Performance and range was not as good as promised and massive cancellations followed. Later all those problems were fixed but it was already too late. Airlines had gone for the A343 or waited for the B772. Of course when the B772ER came out the MD-11 had NO chance to compete against that aircraft...Throwing an airplane onto the market that can't deliver what its supposed to is dangerous. Same as with Douglas that very thing happened to Saab and its Saab 2000. Douglas is gone, Saab is gone...Regards,Markus

[Chaos81 110]

Markus, would you say that the MD is more similar to say, an A340 then a B777? It seems, and this is only from watching the ITVV MD-11 video and using the PSS Airbuses, that they are vary similar.I'm sure there are alot of differences, but the overheads seems similar in operation, how the autopilot is used seems similar, and the FMC/FMS/FMGS, whatever you want to call it, seems similar as well.As I said, I'm sure there are MANY difference, but in my brief experience with them they seem similar.On another note, I can't wait for the MD-11. I think I'm more excited over this release then I was over the 747 release because of the differences between the MD and Boeing way of doing things.

[mburkhard 23]

Mike,You might have a point there regarding the overhead panels. Compared to the B777 the MD-11's overhead is much more automated, similar to an airbus yes. For example on a normal flight you'll never ever touch the fuel panel where as on a B777 you'd have to turn the pumps on manually. But it is difficult talking about similarities... I mean after all the basic principle is the same with Boeing, MDD and Airbus...The autopilot is in a way similar to Airbus (you have knobs to push AND pull like on Airbus) however in another way they are not the same at all. The MD-11 has no A/T switch, no second AP master switch to connect for an autoland, those things are kind of integrated.So I can't give you a final answer to your questions. There are many differences, many similarities to both Airbus and Boeing. That of course starts right at the terms of things... luckily all aircraft have an APU :) However where Airbus has an Upper ECAM, Boeing has an Upper EICAS and Douglas has an EAD... Or MCP/FCP/FCU? All do the same thing... The list goes on and on :)Markus

[macpac22 0]

quick question..What number is the engine situated in the tail? Engine 1, 2 or 3? And also where is that engines fuel tank located?

[Guest Basten_TFF754]

That would be engine number 2. Each engine is normally supplied with fuel from its respective main tank. The main tanks are kept full by fuel from the auxiliary tanks and tail tank.Here is a overview of the fuel tanks:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/149819.gifRegards,______________________________Basten Heidema[a href=http://www.ifdg.net]--iFDG website!--[/a]FLY DC JETS!