take a look.

Amazing!Look at the wing flex in this one...

thats a great one as well. its amazing to see how much give the wings have.

wow judging by the wingflex they must have been almost running on fumes when arriving! Probably came in from Anchorage or the looooong flight from LAX

See how that FedEx MD-11 is pitching up and down? It's from that wee little horizontal stablizier... what a terrible design flaw.I love flying this plane in a simulator, but would be terrified to have to land it "for real" in winds like that... those MD-11 drivers have real cojones.

what a terrible design flaw

I doubt it, it was a perfect landing, wasn't it? Crosswinds are a fact of life in Corpus Christi, most Navy pilots get their wings here (not all). My problem is on days with winds right down the runway or no winds. I've got no practice in those conditions.

I think he may have meant a bad "Re-design" flaw? There were changes to the MD-11's tail to give it better range and speed. To get what they wanted they had to reduce the size of the tail. So by reducing the horizontal stab it reduces the pitch authority and stabilization in general I guess, which has been one of the leading topics in some near crashes and I believe was the main thing under investigation or talked about in the Tokyo crash. FedEx has I think more MD-11's than any other 1 company and they have had a few close calls documented I guess due to this change.That being said, out of 200 built and having 180 still hitting the skies every day is a pretty good track record I would think for any aircraft.By the way, my memory isn't that good to resite that info, I got most of it from this video I've had bookmarked for a long time :(

See how that FedEx MD-11 is pitching up and down? It's from that wee little horizontal stablizier... what a terrible design flaw.I love flying this plane in a simulator, but would be terrified to have to land it "for real" in winds like that... those MD-11 drivers have real cojones.

That "wee little" stabilizer isn't undersized, nor does it represent a design flaw. Unfortunately the Narita crash last year caused a resurgence of the too-small stabilizer claims. The stabilizer was reduced in size relative to the dc-10 due to the longer lever arm (longer fusealge) as well as the added trim tanks located therein. The aircraft may have its particular traits, but that doesn't make it unique in the industry in any sense. The 744F seen in the first video is clearly showing constant and sometimes major control inputs, but this doesn't represent a shortcoming either.

Exactly, large pitch changes are not unusual in a highly variable wind environment. The proof is his finesse in putting in on first one main then the other without slaming on the nose in the face of the gust loads. I thought it was very nicely done.

If the aircraft was not pitching up and down, that would maybe indicate the stabiliser was too small. The fact that it is, from control inputs by the pilot, demonstrates that it has plenty of control authority still left at approach speed. It is certainly not unusual to be pitching up and down in a tricky landing with a wind gradient, as you need to keep adjusting the speed by tweaking the pitch as you descend through the wind gradient. In such circumstances, you keep a lot of speed on, to be sure you maintain adequate flying speed if the wind drops, so playing around with the pitch to keep the speed as stable as you can is not at all unusual since with so much inertia, you need quite a big input to make a change.The redesign from the DC-10's larger horizontal stabiliser was partly a necessity because it actually had too much authority, which damaged the airframes of one or two DC-10s by over-stressing them. If recall correctly, I think the main spar on a DC-10 was fractured because of that issue.Al

here is a video to prove that all can pitch in heavy winds.

Sometimes you don't need hardly any runway at all lolhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57EJohn Ellison

Sometimes you don't need hardly any runway at all lolhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57EJohn Ellison

Haha, that's awesome. I've seen helicopters need more area than that. It almost reminds me of watching how little rwy a huge (near empty) C5 Galaxy needs to take off.

Guys, I made my comment about the stabilizer because of this article:http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

Guys, I made my comment about the stabilizer because of this article:http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

I think I've seen that link a hundred times, it's funny that no one seems to mention the 737 rudder hardover issue anymore....