Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th July 2005 at 07:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
oops, sorry, double negative : 'why ddn't the MD-11 ever really take off?'
By: - 19th July 2005 at 09:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was an Article in another aviation magazine that told the history of McD.
Basically when they submitted the design for the MD11, the Engineers and Designers wanted to design and build a new modern wing for the plane, but this was over-ruled by the bean counters and main board who were worried about the expense, so they updated the old DC10 wing, in retrospect this left the MD11 a bit of a lame duck, by using an old technology wing, it seriously limited the design potential for it. Certain guarentee's werent met about range and performance promised, which left McD to pay penaltys to airlines about performance criteria. After Production had finsihed the Chairman at the time, said we got the wing issue wrong, should have gone with a new design, but isnt Hindsight a wonderful thing!
By: - 20th July 2005 at 07:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was an Article in another aviation magazine that told the history of McD.Basically when they submitted the design for the MD11, the Engineers and Designers wanted to design and build a new modern wing for the plane, but this was over-ruled by the bean counters and main board who were worried about the expense, so they updated the old DC10 wing, in retrospect this left the MD11 a bit of a lame duck, by using an old technology wing, it seriously limited the design potential for it. Certain guarentee's werent met about range and performance promised, which left McD to pay penaltys to airlines about performance criteria. After Production had finsihed the Chairman at the time, said we got the wing issue wrong, should have gone with a new design, but isnt Hindsight a wonderful thing!
Couldn't have said it better myself lad
By: - 20th July 2005 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It says something about just how poor the MD11 was when JAL who operate DC10's chose the MD11, used them for a few years then got rid of them, yet continue to operate the DC10. AA certainly got rid of their's very quickly, mainly to Fed Ex.
By: - 20th July 2005 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on an old model it was doomed from the start. Got a patchy safety record too; quoted a few years back as the "Death Cruiser-10" and the "Mega Death-11"!
By: - 21st July 2005 at 05:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Based on an old model it was doomed from the start. Got a patchy safety record too; quoted a few years back as the "Death Cruiser-10" and the "Mega Death-11"!
That's a bit harsh, apart from the THY crash, the DC10 was much maligned through a series of mishaps that were no fault of it's own. The MD11, as far as i know, apart from the Swissair incident,had an exemplary saftey record
By: - 21st July 2005 at 06:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's a bit harsh, apart from the THY crash, the DC10 was much maligned through a series of mishaps that were no fault of it's own. The MD11, as far as i know, apart from the Swissair incident,had an exemplary saftey recordThe DC-10 did have a serious design fault. The rear cargo hatch was not strong enough and led to 2 or 3 crashes early in it's career. They where later redesigned and retrofitted.
By: - 21st July 2005 at 06:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Steve,
don't forget the Mandarin Airlines MD11 at HKG - although caused by wind shear (the new HK is wll know for it) it would still count as an accident with lives lost. Fed Ex have also lost a couple as well but freight is already dead. Landing accidents seem to be common as IIRC the tail / rudder are on the small side for the size of aircraft with the potential to run out of control authority in harsh conditions.
By: - 21st July 2005 at 08:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The DC-10 did have a serious design fault. The rear cargo hatch was not strong enough and led to 2 or 3 crashes early in it's career. They where later redesigned and retrofitted.
As far as I know, the design fault with the rear cargo door only caused one fatal crash, and that was the THY crash in France. There were several inflight mishaps blamed on the design fault, but as far as crashes go, the American Airlines crash in Chicago, was caused by shoddy maintenance practices by AA. The Air New Zealand Crash in Antarctica, was caused by the wrong coordinates being fed into the flight managment computers, by the airline. As far as the Chinese crash goes, you can hardly blame that on the MD11.
By: - 21st July 2005 at 09:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Steve,
true you cannot blame the MD11 itself but it was a fatal accident and total hull loss - a safety record would include all accidents on type regardless of cause.
By: - 21st July 2005 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As far as I can recall, the Swissair crash was blamed (at least unofficially since it was not possible to come up with a definitive answer) on the inflight entertainment system that had been retrofitted by a private company (and not by McD) at the request of Swissair. Supposedly, the system was responsible for generating electrical problems and short circuits (what started a fire), if I recall correctly.
It would seem to me that this can hardly be blamed on McD (even though, as correctly stressed above, Swissaire was none too please with its MD-11s and had received compensations as they did not meet the promised performances)!!
By: - 21st July 2005 at 21:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As far as I can recall, the Swissair crash was blamed (at least unofficially since it was not possible to come up with a definitive answer) on the inflight entertainment system that had been retrofitted by a private company (and not by McD) at the request of Swissair. Supposedly, the system was responsible for generating electrical problems and short circuits (what started a fire), if I recall correctly.It would seem to me that this can hardly be blamed on McD (even though, as correctly stressed above, Swissaire was none too please with its MD-11s and had received compensations as they did not meet the promised performances)!!
When the crew smelt burning in the flightdeck, the crew cut off the power to the cabin, no lights or galley equipment etc...unfortunatly, the IFE system wasnt wired in to the main breaker, hence leaving the cabling to overheat
By: - 21st July 2005 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
one reason the MD11 apparently 'failed commercially.
I have just one question which I'm curious about, but why didn't the MD-11 never really take off (no pun intended...)?You don't exactly see much of them around and a lot of the ones that there are have been converted to cargo aircraft. What made me ask this is that a few days ago I saw the video of the Palma de Mallorca to Amsterdam Martinair MD-11 flight (one of the 'ITVV' series, I believe).
Its predecessor the DC-10 was a plane you seemed to see a lot more of.
The Boeing 777 came along ..and three engines went out of fashion..despite the mods that made the MD11 a 'good 'a/c after the disasterous hydraulics problem and fatalites following the amazing approach using just the two engines power..(the airport's name escapes me at the moment..but someone will surely know?)..MD of course was absorbed by Boeing..another reason..
By: - 21st July 2005 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone remember their plans to make a twin deck version of it?
By: - 22nd July 2005 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone remember their plans to make a twin deck version of it?
or the very near tie up with Airbus??
McD knew it was in trouble long befor the boeing take-over, the only thing that had kept it going was those big fat and juicy defence contracts. McD would of been Airbus's american marketing arm and it would of been able to handle production for the North and South American sales, the only hang up was McD wanted to keep building and selling its aeroplanes,which would of been in direct comptition with Airbus.
McD tried to forge partnerships all over the world, there was twin engine versions of the DC10, which was being designed in partnership with Sud-Aviation (the for-runner to Airbus).
you look back at the DC3,4,6,7,8 and early DC9's and you see a company with a superb pedigree in aeroplane manufacture, then towards the later years you could see the writing was on the wall for this once mighty company.
what might of been if McD did come into the Airbus family?
What might of been if they had been allowed to design a new wing for MD11?
By: - 22nd July 2005 at 04:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Boeing 777 came along ..and three engines went out of fashion..despite the mods that made the MD11 a 'good 'a/c after the disasterous hydraulics problem and fatalites following the amazing approach using just the two engines power..(the airport's name escapes me at the moment..but someone will surely know?)..MD of course was absorbed by Boeing..another reason..
It was a United DC10 and the Airport was Sioux City Iowa
By: - 22nd July 2005 at 04:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone remember their plans to make a twin deck version of it?
The MD12 built to carry 511 passengers in a three class configuration that would be 11ft longer than the 744, with a games room, a duty free shopping area, showers and a gym, a claim repeated ten years later with the A380
By: - 22nd July 2005 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
theMD11/DC10 saga
It was a United DC10 and the Airport was Sioux City Iowa
Thanks Steve...I guessed you would know..this has certainly brought out a few interesting views concerning a well established airplane maker..Just what this forum is all about.(Kind regards, David)..That incident was recreated I recall on TV and included the actual crash using newsreel'film'..
By: - 22nd July 2005 at 21:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why did MD not built this aircraft 5 years earlier ?! :mad:
Source: Boeing.com - MCDONNELL DOUGLAS UNVEILS NEW MD-XX TRIJET DESIGN
Posts: 17
By: cdnnl77 - 19th July 2005 at 07:58
I have just one question which I'm curious about, but why didn't the MD-11 never really take off (no pun intended...)?
You don't exactly see much of them around and a lot of the ones that there are have been converted to cargo aircraft. What made me ask this is that a few days ago I saw the video of the Palma de Mallorca to Amsterdam Martinair MD-11 flight (one of the 'ITVV' series, I believe).
Its predecessor the DC-10 was a plane you seemed to see a lot more of.