PMDG MD11

[__clod__ 0]

I would say they are L-1011's but its not a great pic. At a push I would say DC-10's. These are easily confused with the MD-11 to the untrained eye!James

[Guest Dave65]

I too cannot wait for this product,I know it will be great:)

[Guest Dave65]

I just came accross this,it sure don't paint a pretty picture of the MD-11.http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...I7ADBR%26sa%3DN

[craig_read 43]

The MD-11 was undoubtedly.. and unquestionably a commercial failure.. Commercial failure has nothing to do with technical merit and shouldn't be confused as such.. Concorde too was a much worse abismal failure.. Sales were predicted to be high and buyers were keen, however noise issues destroyed it.. It operated at a loss initially but later (after BA hiked prices to meet the customers expectations of high ticket prices) made about 750 million throughout its life for BA.. I think BA negotiated a deal and bought the planes outright for a drastically reduced sum.... The MD-11 isn't quite the same.. and certainly not as drastic a failure as Concorde.. the MD-11 had a production life of 10 years and sold about 180 units.. which is pretty bad, considering the very plane it was supposed to replace sold more than double that (the DC-10).. Why? Well from what I've read and partly my own thoughts..1 - The MD-11 mirrored the DC-10 and L-1011.. there really was not a need for another jet in this sector the market was swamped and the MD-11 tri jet image was also seen as "unfashionable".. (Interestingly for the 747-8 there are fears the old retro look may be unfashionable for airlines, however it's getting orders so seems to be flourishing for now)..2 - Other aircraft were going to fill the MD-11 slot and absorbed the potential market.. The most sucessful of these "rivals" being the 777.. selling around 1000 compared to the 350 - 400 for the A340, a plane developed to compete with the 777 but never quite got there (a respectable programme but not a major success story either).. The A330 of course is another rival to the MD-11.. and as been a good programme selling around 500 I think.. maybe more.. 3 - Initially orders were high (ish) for the MD-11, around 300, but this was soon cut after some of these buyers went bust, or were bought out by other airlines that already had deals for other aircraft.4 - After it's safety record was brought into question, MD-11s were phased out of passenger use and this is still going on with a couple waiting for conversion.. Most of them are now freight, I think less than 25 MD-11s still fly passengers now out of the 178 built.. The MD-11 will be respectable as a freighter but won't be remembered for PAX use..Just my thoughts.. However what this has to do with a simulation of it is small.. Concorde simulations sell well, and that's much worse in terms of commercial issues.. I'll buy the MD-11 when it comes out I am sure.. I like the heavies and a tri-jet will be fun to fly about.. especially one made to this level of detail..CheersCraig

[Scott434 12]

>I just came accross this,it sure don't paint a pretty picture>of the MD-11.>Interesting read. I recall reading that the DC-10 was competing heavily with the L-1011 at the time and a number of design and testing shorcuts/deficiencies were decided by McD to beat the L1011 to market. I think the plane's track record verifies those assertions.I also recall refusing to fly on one and sleeping at O'Hare until I could get another flight/aircraft home the next day. I was plain and simply spooked by the aircraft. At the time, I had recently just graduated as a Mechanical Engineer and thought the tail engine design was cumbersome and awkward looking and wondered how the it would affect the handling characteristics. Personally, I don't like or have any interest in this aircraft. I hope I am in the minority and large effort invested by PMDG on this project. My vote would have been a 777.Scott

[mburkhard 23]

>I just came accross this,it sure don't paint a pretty picture>of the MD-11.Be careful with this. Many of these events listed under "accidents" have nothing to do with the MD-11 itself but were caused by external factors or piloting mistakes. I fail to see what a "simple" tail strike (Eva Air) is doing there listed under accidents, and why one would want to blame the MD-11 entirely for that incident. You can do tail strikes with the newest planes too you know, B777 and A340-600...It is clear that the person doing that page was convinced that the MD-11 is unsafe thus the goal was to prove that point. A somewhat lousy way to do journalism.If you do a listing of A320 accidents / incidents you'll get EXACTLY the same picture of that aircraft, you can make it look unsafe without any problem if you wanted to.Regards,Markus

[mburkhard 23]

>I think the plane's track record>verifies those assertions.If you'd look at all the accidents and incidents for example for the A320 listed on one page like the one above you would have to avoid that plane as well, you'll see exactly the same thing.EVERY airliner has the potential to be involved in a fatal accident, and most of them already had one.Don't believe everything you find on the internet... To say the MD-11 is unsafe just because you saw the accidents and incidents listed on one page is a bit unprofessional...Markus

[G7USL 117]

Concorde too was a>much worse abismal failure.. Sales were predicted to be high>and buyers were keen, however noise issues destroyed it.. It>operated at a loss initially but later (after BA hiked prices>to meet the customers expectations of high ticket prices) made>about 750 million throughout its life for BA.. I think BA>negotiated a deal and bought the planes outright for a>drastically reduced sum.... >CraigCraig I rather resent your comments re; Concorde.Every single commercial Concorde flight made a more that handsome profit, as born out by former Captain Mike Bannister.The reason Concorde was scrapped was because;(a) It was made in the UK and France and some Americans for a long time didn't want it because of that.(:( When B.A. got too greedy they wanted a scapegoat to blame.© The aircraft was built before the world was ready to buy it.Abysmal failure is a bit strong.............. never.Many regarded the chance to fly in it with great pride and honour.Concorde marked the pinnacle of British design and capabilityMy opinions only.

[craig_read 43]

The whole "are tri jets good" discussion is an interesting one.. not knowing all the facts here but in the DC-10 and L-1011 days, it would probably have been due to engine thrust inadequacies for aircraft of this size... 3 is cheaper than 4 (then it was anyway, now it's not, it's more 3 is too many)... Although, even then there were downsides... firstly where do you put this third engine?When mounting that third engine, where on earth do you put it? Sticking it back there was really the only place and it is very difficult and cumbersome to get it there.. It needs a huge substantial structure to carry the stresses, and all the fuel, electrical and hydraulic services.... What about maintenance, how do you reach the third engine up there? You can't use a step ladder like those on the wings. The lack of a good place to put a third engine to generate the thrust is probably one of the reasons engines are much more efficient today.. We wanted the distance and economy but not the 3rd engine...The mounting of engines hung on wings, means different engines can be attached more easily, giving more competition in the engine design area. I believe the MD-11 had 2 engine options, but only one was ever taken up, the RR engined options were never even built. More competion means a better deal! The space and weight constraints on engines for the tail on the MD-11 mean engine changes or upgrades are much more complicated if even possible at all.. You couldn't just pop a new different engine up there.. it would need to be very similar.. and upgrading the other two and leaving that one alone would probably leave you with an imbalance.. In comparison it's much less of a job to change engines hung on wings..... The structure to carry the load is there.. they unbolt and rebolt on.. They can be bigger.. different weights might mean changes to the design and a shift in the CoG but.. all in all it's not even half the headache, and these twins and quads are built with tolerances for engine weight, thrust etc.... HENCE 2 or 3 engine options aren't uncommon on twin or quad airliners these days.. (Although I think the 737NG only ever had the 1 option.. for GEs.. an exception in the rule I think)..This is why in the modern situation, the MD-11 3 engine design is a bit nuts, but it's what they knew with their sucess from the DC-10... The 777 had 2, the A340 went for the cheaper option of 4 (missing out developmental costs on engines but then sacrificing some fuel burn and efficiency costs) but these were hung on the wings, easier access and the tolerant design opened the doors for changing them later on if necessary. There are of course advantages to having 4 engines over 2, ETOPS can be bypassed for the 4 and 3 engine jets as they have the redundancy.. But these days reliability is not an issue for modern twin engine jets with probabilities of dual failure literally millions to 1, or is it? There has however been one incident where a twin lost all engines and had to glide 60 miles.. and A330 I believe, although this may well have been pilot error in failing to notice a fuel leak.. (the aircraft landed safely by the way).. Is there a market for a tri-jet? Or even was there when the MD-11 was conceived? The answer was and is still no.. I imagine MD only even considered it as they have the DC-10 to work from, easier than designing from scratch.. BUT the MD-11 was a make or break.. like most airliner projects.. they literally bet the company on the success and the fact they sold 178 and still had the sucess of other models to ride on is the ONLY reason they are still here (Airbus is feeling this with their A380.. a programme going the way of the MD-11.. but.. I think it will recover in time).... Airbus or Boeing wouldn't even think about it today.. you mention it in a board meeting and you'd be laughed at.. it's twin or quad jets all the way... And with the 777 engine technology (of which a single engine now has more thrust than ALL the B-52 engines put together) and the additional work being done in this sector, like the brand new advanced 787 engines.... I think we'll see more and more large twins..PHEW.. I wrote too much.. hope this isn't too off topic.. but I find this sort of thing fascinating! :) Like I said.. as far as PMDG is concerned.. I want to give the MD-11 a go.. CheersCraig

[craig_read 43]

Dave.. RE-QUOTE> Concorde too was a>>much worse abismal failure.. Sales were predicted to be high>>and buyers were keen, however noise issues destroyed it.. It>>operated at a loss initially but later (after BA hiked>prices>>to meet the customers expectations of high ticket prices)>made>>about 750 million throughout its life for BA.. I think BA>>negotiated a deal and bought the planes outright for a>>drastically reduced sum.... >Craig>>Craig I rather resent your comments re; Concorde.>>Every single commercial Concorde flight made a more that>handsome profit, as born out by former Captain Mike>Bannister.>>The reason Concorde was scrapped was because;>>(a) It was made in the UK and France and some Americans for a>long time didn't want it because of that.>>(:( When B.A. got too greedy they wanted a scapegoat to>blame.>>© The aircraft was built before the world was ready to buy>it.>>Abysmal failure is a bit strong.............. never.>Many regarded the chance to fly in it with great pride and>honour.>>Concorde marked the pinnacle of British design and capability>>My opinions only.>I totally agree with you entirely.. in fact I imagine we think exactly the same thing.. Commercially.. Concorde was a horrific failure.. it barely made any money. I think BA were the only operator to ever make money from it.. Air France were operating it at a loss throughout I believe (I could be wrong).. There are of course obvious reasons for this.. It's really a bespoke and rare airplane.. as a result parts etc are going to be incredibly over priced as they are not mass produced etc... Supply chains are also probably long..Yes the US didn't want it.. they used all manner of excuses to stop it flying trans-atlantic.. and the noise issue was one of these.. This scared carriers.. as what was the point in this plane if they couldn't use it for these routes!?HOWEVER.. it does not detract from the incredible feat of engineering it was.. AND.. what was learned from it.. If I could list all the things that the development of Concorde made possible we'd be here for a LONG TIME.. as far as aircraft go.. it was and probably still is the most impressive airliner EVER built.. The data alone collected and analysed from it's development is worth a fortune.. and when it comes to the time when supersonic airliners are required.. WE.. will be WAY ahead.. :)What I mean by failure.. has NOTHING to do with the engineering that went into the plane.. it is a COMMERCIAL only thing.. Concorde is like Beta Max (although on a MUCH higher scale).. way ahead of it's time.. technically superior in so many ways.. but just lost out commercially.. THAT.. is all..I hope I didn't offend you.. I actually agree with everything you said.. I am talking PURELY from a commercial stand point.. CheersCraigOh.. and PS.. I'm British and proud of Concorde myself :)

[craig_read 43]

Markus,Agreed.. a lot of the so called "incidents" were not really that bad.. But comparing 178 planes and the number of accidents to the ratio for the A320.. the MD-11 still doesn't come out anywhere near as favourably.. There was however some general engineering concensus.. that the MD-11 was not as good as it could have been in terms of handling.. Aparently quite light on the controls which gave pilots a tendancy to over control it.. hence some bumpy landings.. Some accounts from real world MD-11 pilots mention the difficulty in triming for landings they've had and the push pull they have to do with the yoke to get a soft touchdown..Without flying myself I have no idea how much of an issue the light controls really were, or how much is hype.. although it is documented.... the engineering stuff is definitely there..CheersCraig

[mburkhard 23]

Craig,of course the A320 comparison is not the best in terms of production numbers. By the way there were 200 MD-11 built, not 178 as you say. My point was it is pretty cheap to list ALL accidents and incidents with a very brief description and then question an airliner's safety, regardless of how many aircraft were built. With that you can make the MD-11 look unsafe, the A320, the B747-400, whatever you want.There are indeed some "special" things to the MD-11 handling wise, but every airplane has those, and they are known and trained for.Flight controls are very special indeed, there are several stability systems in place. But still I prefer to land an MD-11 in gusty crosswind over any FBW Airbus with their tendency for "pilot induced oscillation".Regards,Markus

[Guest Dave65]

I love the MD-11,I noticed after I posted this,looking at other aircraft on that site show a picture not unlike the MD-11.The MD-11 is still flying all over,I think Fed Ex has some 58 still in service if I remember correctly,along with I think 40 DC-10s,I have always liked these aircraft..

[Guest Dave65]

>Craig,>>of course the A320 comparison is not the best in terms of>production numbers. By the way there were 200 MD-11 built, not>178 as you say. >>My point was it is pretty cheap to list ALL accidents and>incidents with a very brief description and then question an>airliner's safety, regardless of how many aircraft were built.>With that you can make the MD-11 look unsafe, the A320, the>B747-400, whatever you want.>>There are indeed some "special" things to the MD-11 handling>wise, but every airplane has those, and they are known and>trained for.>Flight controls are very special indeed, there are several>stability systems in place. But still I prefer to land an>MD-11 in gusty crosswind over any FBW Airbus with their>tendency for "pilot induced oscillation".>>Regards,>MarkusAnd then he said he has never flown an MD-11..

[Guest calamarr]

This whole discussion about the quirks of the MD-11 has boosted my interest in this aircraft, it looks very interesting to fly :D