Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The "love" For DC-10/MD11 Freighters!  
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6541 times:

Hi!

I almost could talk about an interesting case study for both the DC-10 and MD11 and their roles has freighters. I'm sure that when McDonnell Douglas projected these two models they had MOSTLY the airliner has a great passenger carrier, but them what we see it's almost a "2nd. life" for these two airplanes.... the freighter role! But why is that???? Why for example Airbus never seriously got involved in the cargo market ( well of course we have the A300 and the A310 but... ) and Boeing only have the 747-400F and starting now with the 777F ( in the past they offered the 707C, 727QC and 727F, the 737-200C but after that?!?!?!?!... )?
I think both the DC-10 and the MD11 great airplanes and having flown both I consider them great airliners, but I seriously would like to understand more about this unique feature of beeing ( by many enthusiasts and also by airline responsibles ) the best freighters in their class!
regards

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The MD-11F is well received because of it's strength, power, and availability (at least at first). It was significantly less expensive than a new build 744F or later the 772F and fit a niche for capability that several operators saw as useful.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

Hi!

But my feeling is that the MD11's with cargo door wasn't that popular! AZ was one of them, but were there any other clients with that option??? Otherwise it might me quite expensive to convert an MD11 into freighter no?
Regards


User currently offlineVSFLYER747400 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6484 times:

Quoting CV990 (Thread starter):
and Boeing only have the 747-400F and starting now with the 777F ( in the past they offered the 707C, 727QC and 727F, the 737-200C but after that?!?!?!?!... )?

What about the 767 freighters operated by UPS? Weren't they new builds and not converted?



Being on: (in no order) VS BA AA EK CX MH DL EI BD KL HV NW RC LH AF DA TG QF US FR LX AC SK AZ PG SQ UA PA
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6471 times:

Hi!

Yes, 767 and also 757's too!!!
Regards


User currently offlineAndreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6465 times:

On the contrary!! There are dozens of cheap aircraft on the market, that are fairly new, too, the statement to discontinue MD-11 didn't exactly help to make these aircraft more marketable.

LH got a brilliant deal, extremely low prices and the conversion thrown in for good measure on the first 9 or 10 aircraft, in the meantime they've doubled the number by buying whatever new MD-11 they could get their hands on. And yes, quite nice performance they have, too. LH was already giving the 747F away, too large, and not very economical, and in came the MD-11F.

Let's face it...DC-10 AND MD-11 are not very popular, never really were but as usual that doesn't mean it's a shitty aircraft....  Wink



I know it's only VfB but I like it!
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4699 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting CV990 (Reply 2):
But my feeling is that the MD11's with cargo door wasn't that popular! AZ was one of them, but were there any other clients with that option???

AZ had one F (I-DUPA) and 4 Combi's (MD-11C, with a freight door behind the wing, regs I-DUPE/I/O/U) wich are going to be or are allready converted to freighters.

MP has 3 full freighers (PH-MCU/W/Y) with a cargo door front of the wing, and 4 MD-11CF's (PH-MCP/R/S/T) wich also have a cargo door in front of the wing, but can take either pax or freight (unlike the combi's, wich carry both). A couple are full time freighters now, don't know if they all are.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8118 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Andreas, I disagree, the MD11 is a shitty aircraft - underperformed initially, no commonality with anything else, and a safety record that would make the 707 and DC8 look good. How a third generation plane can crash this often is very surprising. The DC10 was known for it's entire life as a dangerous aircraft (not without some justification), but the MD11's record is worse.

I for one, while fond of it's looks, am very glad my days of flying on the MD11 (aka the "scud" - you never know where it'll come down) are over.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6371 times:

The very first MD11 delivered was an MD11F. At that point, MD knew what was going on...

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 7):
The DC10 was known for it's entire life as a dangerous aircraft (not without some justification), but the MD11's record is worse.

Come on now. I don't think anybody would agree that the D10 was known as a dangerous aircraft, although it certainly had some high profile incidents.

The M11's safety is related to aggressive changes by McD that just did not play out.

N


User currently offlineEilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6304 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8):
he M11's safety is related to aggressive changes by McD that just did not play out.

You might want to visit www.aviation-safety.net and peruse the relevant accident reports and the conclusions one by one. If you have already done so, I'd like to know what incident(s) you were referring to.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6229 times:

DC-10's and MD-11's make good cargo aircraft because they are cheap to buy, there systems are not very sophisticated, and they can carry a heavy load over a long distance.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26501 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Quoting Andreas (Reply 5):
LH was already giving the 747F away, too large, and not very economical, and in came the MD-11F.

The 742F flew in Lufthansa Cargo's fleet for quite a long time and stayed with them for several years in tandem with the MD-11F. In fact, even after the sale of the aircraft to Air Atlanta, LH immediately leased them back. They actually think both the 742F and 744F are too SMALL and have wanted a 748F sized aircraft for years



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6127 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 7):
The DC10 was known for it's entire life as a dangerous aircraft (not without some justification), but the MD11's record is worse.

I can't let that go by. The DC-10 was an excellent aircraft. It's reputation was sullied by two accidents, Turkish Airlines over Paris and AA in Chicago. Both were highly publicized structural failures, but the cause of those failures in both cases were the result of the operator.

The Turkish accident was caused by a door latch that had been identified as a potential problem early in the life of the DC-10, and Douglas issued mandatory instructions and kits for its replacement, as well as a temporary workaround. The Turkish DC-10 had not been modified, and the workaround was not exercised.

The accident in Chicago was caused by American Airlines wanting to cut corners in maintainance, using a forklift to ram the engine assembly onto the wing, instead of the more careful procedure devised by Douglas, who warned them that the forklifts were a very bad idea. But AA and Continental continued to use the shortcut.

Since the practice was so widespread, after the accident, all DC-10s were grounded for inspection. All the public knew in the age of 30-second news bytes was that the DC-10 had been grounded, even though a properly maintained DC-10 would have been perfectly safe (at least as much as any other aircraft type). But the PR impact was such that not a single DC-10 was ordered after the Chicago accident.

DC-10 pilots I have spoken with love the plane, and say that it is the most stable and pleasant airliner they ever flew. The MD-11 was a different story - that was rather unstable.


User currently offlineCactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6069 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The accident in Chicago was caused by American Airlines wanting to cut corners in maintainance, using a forklift to ram the engine assembly onto the wing, instead of the more careful procedure devised by Douglas, who warned them that the forklifts were a very bad idea. But AA and Continental continued to use the shortcut.

The Chicago crash was caused by inproper mx procedures by AA, but the pilots could have flown out of it had the aircraft's systems been configured differently. Design changes to the slat controls and stall warning system (stick shaker) were made AFTER the crash. Had this same incident happened on, say, an L-1011, the pilots might have been able to fly it through the engine loss and land safely due to the systems configuration on that aircraft.

Despite that the DC-10 is indeed a great aircraft. However it's never been able to shake the negative reputation caused by those accidents, even almost 30 years later. The MD-11 on the other hand.....


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6047 times:

Stick shakers were an option on the F/O side, and AA opted not to get them. Had they gotten the option, that bird very may well not have crashed.


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Quoting CactusA319 (Reply 13):
The Chicago crash was caused by inproper mx procedures by AA, but the pilots could have flown out of it had the aircraft's systems been configured differently. Design changes to the slat controls and stall warning system (stick shaker) were made AFTER the crash

That is not completely true. When the engine plyon separated, it tore the hydraulic lines from the left side of the aircraft. Thus the slats on the left wing retracted because the DC-10 does not have hyraulic lock-outs. The airplane can be flown in this "one-in-one-out" configuration above 172(?) knots. However, AA's manual stated on engine failure on take-off, the pilot is supposed continue the take-off and to climb and gain altitude. The pilots did this and mantained around 160 kts. Thus the left wing stalled due to its "clean" configuration causing the plane to roll over and crash a few miles away from O'hare. If the pilots had kept the nose down and gained airspeed, they would been able to control the aircraft and would have survived.

So it was more of a company procedural error both in mantainance and in emergency procedures.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Copy/pasted and edited from a post I made earlier:

MD-11 has a higher CASM compared to other newer aircraft. However, cargo aircraft tend to be older, more so than the MD-11, but given that the latter went out of production, airlines are not inclined to operate the type anymore, which then drops it's resale/lease value, making it perfect for cargo ops.

That means you get a very cheap and still modern freighter. PAX make less money for airlines compared to cargo, so the higher CASM is not that big of an issue.

And don't forget cargo airlines tend to own their aircraft.

Cheers

[Edited 2005-12-16 20:14:11]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5864 times:

Hi!

I have also an opinion related to both DC-10 and MD11. I think the DC-10 got a bad reputation with the AA accident. Until then, with the THY was a big accident but we didn't see a lot of comments on that and most airlines kept ordering and buying it! After the AA accident and then in a close chain, there was also the ANZ one and Western one too. So it was like suddenly the DC-10 was always at the front page of any newspaper. But like Cfalk said all those big accidents were very unfortunate and all of them didn't have nothing to do with any aerodymics or project defaults! I flew twice with the DC-10 ( ORD/DEN and DEN/SEA with UA ) and both flights were excelent and the plane was indeed very confortable.
Regarding the MD11, well we must say that the accident with HB-IWF played a bad role on the future of the aircraft but I've seen strong fleets of the aircraft still going on, I'm talking about KL and RG!
I also flew in a MD11 ( LX from ZRH/LAX ) and besides the fact that the flight was actually very confortable I was very impressed with the power of the airplane on take-off... I think the closest airplane compared to the MD11 would be the 777 but even them I think the MD11 was "power"!!!
Regards


User currently offlineEilennaei From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 15):
So it was more of a company procedural error both in mantainance and in emergency procedures.

The pilot flying had no means of evidencing the accidental asymmetrical deployment (or actually retraction) of the wing leading edge devices because the damage also tore apart some electric lines rendering his instrument panel and stall warning systems inoperative. Therefore the emergency procedures were of no use in this case.


User currently offlineDc10heaven From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5801 times:

The one great thing about living in Memphis is I get to see on a daily basis a dose of the largest fleet in the world of DC10, MD-11, A300, A310, & 727s, all with purple tails (except the 2 ex-UA DC10s that are still grey fuselage/blue tail/white nose).

User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5681 times:

Quoting Eilennaei (Reply 18):
The pilot flying had no means of evidencing the accidental asymmetrical deployment (or actually retraction) of the wing leading edge devices because the damage also tore apart some electric lines rendering his instrument panel and stall warning systems inoperative. Therefore the emergency procedures were of no use in this case.

I believe they do. If AA procedures consisted of gaining a minimum airspeed rather than pitching for best climb, the accident could have been prevented.



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlineReins485 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5670 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The MD-11 was a different story - that was rather unstable.

What do you mean by unstable? My dad used to fly the MD-11 and he enjoyed flying the airplane. The one comment I remember him making was that at cruise, you could not hand fly the airplane and maintain a constant altitude. It would go up and down as the pilot tried to play catch up. But that was due to the tail mounted engine.
I have flown on the MD-11, while my dad flew the plane. It was a great flight.
But the reason I think is that a great freighter is that is was relatively cheap to buy second hand (I know AA wanted to get rid of the really bad when they were in the fleet). Also the fact that it has a decent amount of power so it can lift heavy loads.
Reins485


User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Here's a related question I've always wondered about - why are the DC-10/MD-11 popular for freighter conversions, but not the L-1011?

I could understand the MD-11 being more popular simply because you can pick up relatively late-model planes cheaply, but that doesn't explain the popularity of the older DC-10s.


User currently offlineUAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5648 times:

Quoting Reins485 (Reply 21):
What do you mean by unstable? My dad used to fly the MD-11 and he enjoyed flying the airplane. The one comment I remember him making was that at cruise, you could not hand fly the airplane and maintain a constant altitude

Because McD could not meet the range requirements necessary, they reduced the size of the horizontal stabilizer by 30%. This made the MD-11 EXTREMELY pitch sensitive and, "unstable".



It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
User currently offlinePennPal From United States of America, joined May 2004, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
But the PR impact was such that not a single DC-10 was ordered after the Chicago accident.

Huh?? Not sure if I agree with that statement. The Chicago crash occurred in May 1979, and the last DC-10 was built/delivered in 1989, if I'm not mistaken. If your statement were true, then that means McDD had a ten year backlog of orders...  confused 


25 Eilennaei : You will mean the engine-out procedures as the accident took place on rotation? I quote from Air Disasters, part 2 by Mcarthur Job, p 58: "Because th
26 Post contains images FXramper : Dudes! Don't forget the MD10! DC10, MD10, and MD11, are my babies! I'll be climbing around on the MD10 tonight. Be jealous.
27 474218 : Some how Douglas convinced the FAA that the DC-10 did not require an asymmetry detection system for their flaps and slat and systems. If the AA DC-10
28 Magyarorszag : I for myself don't agree with the statement of Cfalk! "At the end of March (1979), total sales stood at 330 firm plus conditional firm and options fo
29 Eilennaei : The above is untrue. The a/c did have such a system (naturally), but it was rendered inoperative because of the electric fault condition. The slat re
30 474218 : How can that be UNTRUE? If the loss of hydraulic pressure allowed the slats on only one wing to retract then there was no asymmetry dictation system
31 Eilennaei : 474218: Detection devices, by their very definition, do not take a part in the actual operation, they just signal the status. You might have mixed som
32 LTBEWR : Many airlines that ordered the DC-10/MD-11 (and to some extent the L-1011)series as pax aircraft realized they didn't need that large of an aircraft a
33 474218 : The purpose of asymmetry detection devices is to prevent asymmetrical conditions, like what happen to the DC-10 in Chicago. They do that by detecting
34 Post contains links Eilennaei : 474218: You're using a different terminology. What I understand the detection devices to be are the position sensors which route to the slat disagreem
35 CosmicCruiser : not very sophisticated systems? excuse me.. the MD-11 is a fine jet and after the last 6 yrs. of flying it with nothing more than a tire failure unde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The Retirement Of L1011's And DC-10's? posted Fri Aug 3 2001 10:43:44 by Kcle
Why The "20" In 707 Model Numbers? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 18:46:57 by Duke
Why The "7E7"? posted Sat May 15 2004 16:37:51 by FRAspotter
Canadian Airports - Why The "Y" posted Mon Feb 16 2004 04:19:40 by Flyhigh69
What's The White-tail DC-10 / MD11 @ ZRH posted Sun Jun 8 2003 08:59:01 by Rw774477
Why The "H" In Southwest Jets posted Wed Jan 31 2001 04:56:58 by ContinentalEWR
Why The "Y" In Canada? posted Wed Feb 2 2000 16:25:09 by Boeing757/767
Why The 20's Age Limit For Cabin Crew? posted Fri May 14 2004 12:48:21 by Airmale
What Is The Seat Config Of A NW DC-10? posted Wed Mar 17 2004 10:45:39 by Chris78cpr
Where In The US Can I See SunTrips DC-10? posted Wed Dec 25 2002 23:54:42 by Clickhappy