For all you DC-10 fans!

[ThirdSeatHero]

It was single engine performance that mandated a third engine. Thrust ratings were not sufficient for single engine takeoffs at that time and high-thurst engines to power a twin jet with continental range were not sufficient. You have to remember that high bypass ratio engine technology was new at the time. The DC-10 and L-1011 were new wide body aircraft next to the 747. So trying to utilize two engines in wide body aircraft at the pioneer days of high bypass ratio engines was insufficient. Only did it evolve later on with the A-300 but that wide body aircraft was smaller than the DC-10 and L-1011. There was a design from McDonnell Douglas for a smaller version of the DC-10 with two engines. It was designated the DC-10-J2. It was to compete with the Airbus A-310.
 
Good info from this source.
 
http://www.dc-10.net/

 
Indeed, the DC-10 Twin could've beaten the 767 to market by 5 or 6 years. 
 
McDonnell Douglas could've also stepped in front of Airbus more recently had they pursued the MD-12 project.

 

[MCI transplant]

Could have, would have, should have!------ We've played this game before!

 

[MCI transplant]

 I thought I heard that Douglas had assigned the designation of MD-12 to another Aircraft. That Aircraft was re-designated as the 717, shortly  after Boeing bought Douglas.

 

[700UW]

The 717, was originally the MD-95, thats what MD named it, then Boeing changed after the merger.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 I thought I heard that Douglas had assigned the designation of MD-12 to another Aircraft. That Aircraft was re-designated as the 717, shortly  after Boeing bought Douglas.

 
The MD-12
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD-12#Specifications_.28MD-12_High_Capacity_design.29

 

[robbedagain]

Was the DC10-30 the first aircraft to have the center gear and what purpose considering the Dc10 10 did not have it?

 

[MetalMover]

Was the DC10-30 the first aircraft to have the center gear and what purpose considering the Dc10 10 did not have it?

Increased fuel capacity meant increased weight..especially in the center fuel center tank. 
Obviously for longer range. the DC-10 -10 was basically considered the domestic version.

 

[MCI transplant]

The 717, was originally the MD-95, thats what MD named it, then Boeing changed after the merger.

O.K.! I stand corrected!

 

[MCI transplant]

 
The MD-12
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD-12#Specifications_.28MD-12_High_Capacity_design.29

Interesting! But with the DC-10, and DC-11's track record, it might be best that it never flew. But the L1011 had it's problems also. It seems Lockheed had problems with cracks in wings of almost all it's Aircraft, from the Electra, to the C-5, and yes, the L1011, which alternately grounded it.

 

[Overspeed]

Interesting! But with the DC-10, and DC-11's track record, it might be best that it never flew. But the L1011 had it's problems also. It seems Lockheed had problems with cracks in wings of almost all it's Aircraft, from the Electra, to the C-5, and yes, the L1011, which alternately grounded it.

 
L1011 accident rate is lower than the DC10 and the MD11 actually is worse. So much for new and improved. Interesting is that the DC10 and 747 Classics are very similar in accident rates yet the DC10 was slammed as being so awful. Did Boeing do better press control?
 
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
 
Page 19

 

[robbedagain]

Thanks metalmover. The only L1011 accident I can think of is the saudi arabian airlines fire that killed all 302 aboard cld be an accident accident vs pilot error related like dl 191 and eal 401 is that accurate?

 

[1AA]

Thanks metalmover. The only L1011 accident I can think of is the saudi arabian airlines fire that killed all 302 aboard cld be an accident accident vs pilot error related like dl 191 and eal 401 is that accurate?

. DFW windshear with Delta back in 85?

 

[MCI transplant]

Thanks metalmover. The only L1011 accident I can think of is the saudi arabian airlines fire that killed all 302 aboard cld be an accident accident vs pilot error related like dl 191 and eal 401 is that accurate?

And what the Saudi's don't what you to know is what caused the death of those 302, was  a passenger that started to heat food on a portable stove in the back of the Aircraft ,while transporting "pilgrims" to Mecca, for their once in a lifetime trip, during "Hadge". One of the Pilots  smuggled a video of it out of Saudi, and one of our (TWA) Instructors got a hold of a copy and showed it to us.---- Not pretty! The Aircraft had landed, and was taxing to the gate when the fire started, or during landing. They never made it!

 

[robbedagain]

1aa yes I knew bout DL 191 my dolks knew the capt and 2 fas aboard that plane. But the plane crashed due to combo of wind shear/micro burst and pilot error per the ntsb report the ntsb ruled that the crew flew into a known tstm cell. As for the saudi I did not knw that the pax had a portable stove thanks for that mci

 

[lineguy43]

And what the Saudi's don't what you to know is what caused the death of those 302, was  a passenger that started to heat food on a portable stove in the back of the Aircraft ,while transporting "pilgrims" to Mecca, for their once in a lifetime trip, during "Hadge". One of the Pilots  smuggled a video of it out of Saudi, and one of our (TWA) Instructors got a hold of a copy and showed it to us.---- Not pretty! The Aircraft had landed, and was taxing to the gate when the fire started, or during landing. They never made it!

 
Plus that FE was dyslexic and was an idiot that added to the problems of that Saudi L1011. Cannot really blame the aircraft on that one in fact none of the L1011 crashes I can blame on mechanical problems unlike the DC-10 which had many until the bugs were worked out. The DC-10 was rolled out in a hurry to compete with the L1011 and its shortcomings were unfortunately found out. The L1011 was over engineered really. I loved flying on both A/C