FLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2658 times:
You mean actually start building DC-10s and/or MD-11s again? I doubt it - there are aircraft of a similar size that can do the same job much more efficiently, (except, perhaps, in the case of the MD-11F) and the cost of restarting the line would probably be quite high.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2499 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
If they were to restart the DC-10 line, they'd have to do some major re-engineering because the systems and such are 30+ years old as designed. They'd probably start with the engines, and since they are much more efficient today than the original GE CF-6 they started with, they could hang two larger engines on it and do away with the third engine, saving a lot of fuel and maintenance cost. Then the wing would have to be redesigned because it just wasn't as efficient as the wings used today. Finally add new electronics for the cockpit, do away with the Flight Engineer's station, add new IFE, more efficient air conditioning units and.....
wait a minute...
we just designed a 767/777/A330 clone!
OK, sorry for pulling your leg just a little. The truth is, just as some of the previous posters said, the DC-10 was great for its time, but now there are simply newer and better airplanes for the offering. Airlines are businesses and don't get very sentimental about old aluminum (OK, maybe the Concorde, but that's it). They want what will cost them the least for getting the most people where they want to go.
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Eric From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
i remember watching a program about airline accidents and come to think of it they specifically critized the MD-11's b/c of the third engine. it had to do with the fact that the tail-fin is made of composites and are more prone to damage during a lightning storm. this may be me remembering badly, but i do believe the conclusion of the show was that it the danger of damage was the reason why that specific enigine/tail was taken out of production,
Lowsonboy From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
That sounds very odd.... almost all aircraft have composite tailfin nowadays, not just the M11. Are you maybe getting confused with the criticism the M11 has come under from some quarters for the small size of its tailfin, which can lead to a loss of control on some approaches?