DC10 was so unpopular and had so many crashes, airlines were reluctent to purchase

 

 

The unpopularity stems from the fact that it is in essence a DC10 which was a catastrophic design!! I resolutely refused to fly in one which is why I am still alive!! Maintenance was a nightmare to put it mildly.answer this question.Would you fly in an aircraft which the manufacturers knew from the design stage that it would one day crash?vololiberista

That's a bit much I think... the DC-10 carried billions of passengers over its lifetime - sure, it had some terrible crashes, but your life was not in any measurable increased danger by getting on one vs any other airliner statistically. There was a perception that the aircraft was unsafe, but when compared to the records of other airliners, it's on pretty equal footing.Look at the list of incidents here - Turkish 981, American 191, and United 232 are the only extremely bad fatal incidents.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Dou...s_and_accidentsThe root causes of the American and United crashes weren't really the fault of the aircraft anyways - American 191 was improper removal and damage of the engine pylon by maintenance, United 232 was failure to detect a fan blade crack in the number 2 engine during checks (though granted, it was a design flaw that all hydraulic pressure could be lost like that), stuff like Air New Zealand 901 was CFIT/pilot error... There were the series of them early on involving the rear cargo door that were really the only ones that were actually the fault of the design. Turkish 981 was the only one that actually crashed as a result too in those.Also, the US Air Force has used the KC-10 as one of their primary air refueling tankers forever, doubt they'd have done that if they thought it was unsafe.

The unpopularity stems from the fact that it is in essence a DC10 which was a catastrophic design!!

Calling the DC-10 a catastrophic design is a rather unqualified statement. As Ryan said, there were some bad crashes showing some design flaws. But then again, how many A320s crashed within the first 10 years of their service? And yes there were some nasty design flaws there too! And ooh wait, the A330 and A340 are flying on the very same concept... So is the entire Airbus family a catastrophic design and unsafe?It sure isn't...Plus keep in mind that DC-10s were flying in great numbers back in an era when there were far more accidents in general. I don't have any numbers in my head regarding fatal accidents involving 747 Classics for example, but there were lots of those back then too... It was just another era back then regarding flight safety compared to today. There has been a huge amount of improvement over the decades...Regards,Markus

Dont forget a DC-10 holds the record for most flying hours by any aircraft an ex Northwest DC-10 not sure which one but i know its now with World and in storage . Lee Marrow

i must say i loved every one of my flights on the MD11. THe KLM Captain had a very nice chat with me and said that watching KLM fly this bird he could think of a few airlines that wish they bought some of them. I think FEDEX will keep them around for a while, (they still have the 727 till 2015 so thats nearly 30+ years). They have also proved that this is a good aircraft. Having said that there are as you have all pointed out design flaws, especially the wing span. Just shows that planning properly gives the best results.cheers

i must say i loved every one of my flights on the MD11. THe KLM Captain had a very nice chat with me and said that watching KLM fly this bird he could think of a few airlines that wish they bought some of them. I think FEDEX will keep them around for a while, (they still have the 727 till 2015 so thats nearly 30+ years). They have also proved that this is a good aircraft. Having said that there are as you have all pointed out design flaws, especially the wing span. Just shows that planning properly gives the best results.cheers

Route maps had a lot to do with it as well. Far fewer non-stop transcon flights with the hub and spoke model. Shorter flights, smaller airplanes. And as has been said, twins are cheaper to operate and maintain. The MD11 came up against two very formidable competitiors - the 777 (a great airplane) and the 330. Colin Ware

Its lack of popularity is mostly down to the fact that it is a tri-jet. They are not as economical as twins, simple as that. It was a last-gasp attempt by MD to modernise the DC-10, in an attempt to offer a viable alternative to the new twin long range jets that Boeing and Airbus had produced. For a while MD did consider making a twin jet version of the DC-10, but went for the MD-11 instead. That decision was probably what sealed its fate, and the fate of MD too.Airlines prefer the economic advantages of the newer twins (which is also why the Airbus A340 is not as popular as it might be, but the A340 does have the advantage of not having to adhere to ETOPS rulings, so it does have some applications where it is a viable choice). And so when airlines acquired those new long range twins, and ETOPS became a reality, the MD-11s that were with the airlines got sold off cheaply to freight companies. Despite the tri-jet's less economical performance, freight companies were happy to take advantage of that situation, since the relatively low acquisition cost of all those surplus MD-11s could be offset against their higher running costs for a certain amount of years. That is why DC-10s, Tristars and B727s have ended their days with much the same fate, eventually to disappear, although in the case of the 727, its disappearance is also partially due to the fact that there is no economical way to fit a quieter high bypass turbofan in the number 2 engine slot in the fuselage without a major redesign (which Boeing did briefly consider).Aside from the increased maintenance of an extra engine, and the fact that having three engines means they burn more fuel, tri-jets also have a few restrictions placed on them at airports because of that third engine up on the tail, which is of course a lot higher up off the ground than the engines on most other aircraft, so the noise from it travels further and is more likely to get complaints from residents who live near airports.There were (and indeed still are) some problems with the redesign of the DC-10 into its MD-11 incarnation, notably the fact that the original (larger) horizontal stabiliser was a bit too powerful and actually resulted in putting so much force on a prototype that the main spar was overstressed and damaged. As a result of that, the MD-11 was given a smaller horizontal stabiliser, and some have suggested that it is now too small and therefore not adequate for full pitch authority in certain circumstances, although you will certainly get people who will claim otherwise, so it is more of an opinion than a solid fact, and the jury is still out on who is correct. Nevertheless, the fact that it can be tricky to land has led to it gaining the somewhat unkind nickname of 'the Scud', a reference to that weapon's employment by Iraq in the first Gulf War, the implication being that like the Scud missile, you never know exactly where the MD-11 is going to land. However the truth is probably more a case of it simply not being the easiest aircraft to fly, rather than one which is very hard to fly, as its detractors would claim.In short, its a good aircraft, but it was simply born too late.Al

Al,very intersting but about ETOPS this is very complicated ...this is no more ETOPS but EROPS and soon LROPS and there is ICAO standards, JAR/EASA ops standard, FAA standards, CAA,CAR standards and many more at least as any countries operating under "ETOPS" flights that can be desert, sea, moutain, ice or whatever you can imagine. the main concern for authorities is nothing than fire not water that s mean that even quadrijet operators got rules even if not the FAA as i already stated in Canada the 744 were operated under 180' rules as any twinjet.the new rules FAA is on the way will be too for 4,3 or 2 engines jet carrying passengers. under the last ETOPS/EROPS the MD11 was good for payload as any other aircrafts (including twin or quad) when payload was pax is was under the same rules as twin and of course depending operators ETOPS/EROPS certificates issued. this is for the MD11 under N- reg.boeing is issuing 747-400 manuals with ETOPS/EROPS datas because again in some countries the 180 min is still / already the rules even under a quadrijets.so the A340 will be soon too concerned about EROPS/ ETOPS /LROPS operations and that means some new stuff inside belly to be certified as none quadri was made under those rules ....see youPhil

Yup, all that is true, and I was not intending what I wrote to be a comprehensive appraisal of twin ops rulings, but more of a quick mention of how it affected things. Don't forget that although twin rulings has changed, and continue to change, we were discussing why the airlines did not fall in love with the MD-11 and ditched it for more modern twins, and to understand that, we have to think about what the rules were at the time fleet rationalisation and purchasing decisions were made, and not what they have become today. As I said previously, the MD-11's biggest sin was to be born too late.Al

Yup, all that is true, and I was not intending what I wrote to be a comprehensive appraisal of twin ops rulings, but more of a quick mention of how it affected things. Don't forget that although twin rulings has changed, and continue to change, we were discussing why the airlines did not fall in love with the MD-11 and ditched it for more modern twins, and to understand that, we have to think about what the rules were at the time fleet rationalisation and purchasing decisions were made, and not what they have become today. As I said previously, the MD-11's biggest sin was to be born too late.Al

AL,you re right but in the same time this hull came not too late at least for some freight ops. i knew DC10 operator that made pre-order on the MD11 and didnt contract and it was for a good reason : performance not met ... range was little and fuel burn higher than sold. even with the PIPS the MD11 is still not under the numbers told by the salesmen and nowadays oil or gas is stilla huge part ... ... of course all of us knew that we cannot believe a salesman seems not in aviation .... lolhave a good day.Phil

On a side note: thanks for your wonderful contributions in this conversation, I'm thrilled to read stuff like this!

One reason the MD-11 is disliked is because MD themselves were a direct competitor to Boeing.Boeing hated MD so much they bought it to send them out of business. Don't forget that. ;) Boeing liked the MD-90 so much they fitted the MD-11 avionics to it and called it the 717. Unfortunately it didn't sell as well as they would have liked (the Fokker 100 was in on the act, and 100 seater jets in general were going out of favour, being pushed out by the A320).As was mentioned above - the 747 has many issues with it. Apparently the airframe has more than a few problems, some extremely serious (cracking of the bulkheads, particularly between the forward fuselage and the wing box).I got to fly on Delta MD-11 twice in 1997. I'd fly them again no probs. Also flew on the MD-88 and 737-200 during the same vacation. Couldn't have asked for more!!!MD wanted to put a bigger wing on the MD-11 but couldn't for some reason. It is why it has a far higher approach speed compared to other aircraft. It was the same as the DC-10 but because the MD-11 had increased payload, it was effectively too small.DC-10-30 vs. MD-11 MTOW:* 572,000 lbs for the standard DC-10-30* 602,000 lbs for the MD-11 (passenger, standard)* 630,500 lbs for the MD-11 (up-rated payload, all models)The reason for the small tail was drag. They reduced the size of the original by 30% (and added LSAS to compensate for the smaller elevator) in order to improve fuel efficiency. Had it got the larger wing, its range problem would have been solved as well as it would have had greater fuel carrying capacity. It might have even improved its fuel efficiency.The other thing was 3 engines were going out of favor. Why have 3 engines when 2 will do the job? If you need more, fly 4. That was the logic...Anyone remember the controversy surrounding ETOPS?Best regards,Robin.

It is, unfortunatly, pretty simple. The MD11 performed less then expected fuel wise. This was the reason for AA to wfs, later also DL etc. Also pax comfort (behind the wing) was an issue during some/moderate turbulence.Boeing bought MD and had already a succesfull 777 which was the competitor of the MD11 and stopped the production line. PIP (Performance Improvement Package intro 1995) was too late. I still think Boeing stopped the production to soon, the F version is still a hit and it took Boeing a lot of years before the first 777 F came to the market.Pilots like the DC10/MD11 or hate it. Almost the same discussion between Boeing/Airbus. All of them are extremly safe to fly, otherwise one/more off them wouldn't be flying anymore!@3-2-1-NowHigher apr speed is also because off the delta wing, same with DC-9/MD80 family.John

I think with any certainty, every aircraft is designed "knowing one day it will crash." That is why you have your periodic maitenance inspections, and regular maitenance. The vast majority of accidents in aviation are attributed to human error. Whether it be on the pilots, or maitenance crews part. Having an engineering backround I can tell you it was a real eye opener the way things work. Engineering is not about building something to last forever. Anybody can do that. Engineering is about building the lightest, yet strongest structures possible at the least expense, and to last a favorable amount of time to the end customer. It is about doing more with less, and that is why you see a lot of the accidents and such you see. All these structures take some maitenance, and inspections in order to stay in tip top shape. It is when human factors enter into the equation such as the quality assurance inspector that didn't get enough sleep, and missed that hairline crack in a wing spar, or the guy that has issues at home that skips steps in the book. I think over the course of a lifetime that having a few accidents is probably better than all of them crashing. Granted no loss of human life is acceptable. With millions of planes in the air everyday though I think aviation has a really good record. Especially the MD-11 when you look at they built so few of them. I think KLM is a good example of what could have been with the MD-11. That or they are very lucky. Either way I think the MD-11 is a great aircraft, and I will always have a special place for tri-jets. As stated before though the economics of such aircraft, combined with the maitenance costs of that high mounted 2nd engine just make them unfeasable. I personally would rather pay the extra $$ for an airline ticket if I was going across the Atlantic to get a tri-jet instead of a twin.. Granted that is just my opinion though. I certaintly enjoy flying PMDG's version. It certaintly takes off like a rocket ship, and has an enormous climb rate when lightly loaded.