THY747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 23 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7791 times:
Forgive me for my ignorance but I would like to know what some specific MD-11 performance problems were. I know that airlines were generally unhappy with the aircraft and I remember reading about fuel consumption being more than projected. Is this true? What other problems existed?
Triple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7170 times:
Problems with the MD-11s were almost, if not fully corrected by mid 90s.
The corrected version was introduced as the MD-11ER (retrofit package available to earlier models too). Performance of the MD-11ER were actually better than the original performance parameters set for the MD-11 program.
However, bad image and publicity killed the MD-11 program...and McDD itself.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7057 times:
Google "MD-11 range shortfall" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky. This produces Langley Research Center's computational fluid dynamics page that overviews their contribution to the MD-11 performance recovery effort. That was in the unexpectedly adverse airflow and pressure distribution around the engine pylons, which hadn't shown up in subscale model wind tunnel testing. The pylons were redesigned. In summary, they note:
Initial flight tests of the MD-11 indicated an unacceptable range shortfall of over 400 nmi. McDonnell Douglas initiated a modification program for the MD-11 known as the Performance Improvement Program (PIP), which included focused efforts to improve the aircraft’s weight, fuel capacity, engine performance, and aerodynamics. Cumulative improvements from modifications identified by the PIP from 1990 to 1995 recovered and subsequently extended the range for the aircraft.
N685FE From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6883 times:
"Too small a rudder, instability and a tendency to want to rollover during approach.">
MD put a four piece rudder on the a/c that more then makes up for it's physical length. What data do you have that shows the a/c wants to roll during aproach? If you are refurring to FDX N611FE and China Airlines B-150, the a/c rolled after the gear and wing seperated the a/c and lost lift on the effected side causing it to roll. Both cases were pilot error, "improper landing technique". ConcordeBoy, are you prejudgeice? You tend to judge an entire a/c type on these two cases whose only flaw was the pilots flying them at the time. If you can judge an a/c type by a few cases then:
The 737 has a tendency to lawn dart during approach/departure/cruise;UA, N9031U; Indian Airlines VT-EAM; Pacific Western Airlines, CF-PWC; Air Florida, N62AF; Transportes Aereos Militares Ecuatorianos, HC-BIG;TAAG, D2-TBN; Thai, HS-TBB; British Airtours, G-BGJL; VASP, PP-SME; China Airlines, B-1870; LAN Chile, CC-CHJ; Thai Airways, HS-TBC; Condor, D-ABHD; Ethiopian Airlines, ET-AJA; Brithish Midland Airways, G-OBME; VARIG, PP-VMK; China Airlines, B-180; Xiamen Airlines, B-2510; ect ect....
The 737 has a tendency to brake up, Far Eastern Air Transport, B-2603; VASP, PP-SMY;Gulf Air, A40-BK; EgyptAir, SU-AYH; Iraqi Airways, YI-AGJ; Aloha Airlines, N73711; USAir, N416US; Philippine Airlines, EI-BZG; ect ect....
Do you get my point? And this is just the 737, you could do this to any a/c type.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6827 times:
Were all of the AA and DL MD-11s eventually given the MD-11ER retrofitting package? It's just too bad that these beautiful birds saw so few years of service. Well, at least KLM's will be around until 2012, or should I say 2008 since AF bought them out? BTW, if AF bought out KLM, I would imagine they will try to phase out the MD-11s, right, since they have the much more fuel efficient A343s and Boeing 744s?
Solnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6808 times:
Watched NatGeo Channel about Swisscrash in -98 with the MD11; just horrible to see it though actors.....in that case it was the electrics to the 1st class pc´s / phones.
Maybe the performance is crappy but the aircraft is a beauty!!!
**You´ll be missed**
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6785 times:
The MD-11 had a smaller horizontal stabiliser by 40% and its centre of gravity was moved aft. This led to it being less stable than the DC-10. The thing wasn't particularly dynamically stable - and even though it was certified, its lack of stability was atributed to a few crashes.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6622 times:
I know that part of the problem for the MD-11 was that even after the original range problems got fixed it still did not have sufficient range for some of the city pairs that the launch customers wanted to use it for. Part of the problem is that certain city pairs became effectively farther apart during the course of the MD-11 program, i.e. the typical winds changed. I know this was the case with HKG-LAX, which for which the effective still air range increased significantly between updates.