Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did NW Stop Using The DC-10-40  
User currently offlineFlywithjohn From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10597 times:

I don't know much about the DC-10 but why is NWA using the DC-10-30 instead of the DC-10-40 what is the main difference and why make this switch?


Always Blue Sky's.....
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10581 times:

I can't tell you the reason, even though I think it had something to do with reliability issues, (don't quote me on that one). But they were pulled off ALL transoceanic flights and put on domestic routes sometime in the late 1990's. the -30's went transatlantic and eventually the -40's were phased out. I think they were actually older than the -30's.

At any rate, I flew two -40's DTW-CDG-DTW back in spring of 1996. You can tell they are -40's because of the MD-11 style No. 2 engine inlet. (Larger).


JAL also had a fleet of -40's, but those are no longer flying either.

UAL


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10555 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
You can tell they are -40's because of the MD-11 style No. 2 engine inlet. (Larger).

And also on JAL's aircraft you can clearly make out a Series 40 from a Series 30 because their JT9Ds have an engine cone similar to the one of the PW4400 Series powered MD-11s, while at NW the engine almost looks exactly the same as the regular CF6-50 on the Series 30, except for the engine intake as you mentioned. Also, the Series 40 is I believe the only DC-10 offered with JT9D engines and no CF6-50 option.

On another issue, the NW DC-10 Series 40 were relatively underpowered, due to the choice of engine (a lower-thrust JT9D). Those engines were to my understanding also heavily prone to engine stalls (most of all the number 2 engine).


User currently offlineKDTWflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10394 times:

I think it was more due to high operating cost i:e MX and fuel consumption. The B753 can take close to the same number of people yet it costs significantly less to operate.


NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10387 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 2):
And also on JAL's aircraft you can clearly make out a Series 40 from a Series 30 because their JT9Ds have an engine cone similar to the one of the PW4400 Series powered MD-11s...

JAL also operated most of their -40 series without the center landing gear as a domestic route modification.


User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2630 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

The DC-10-20 was redesignated a series 40 by MDD at the request of NW, so as not to appear "numerically inferior" to the series 30's. Although the prototype, N141US, still designated as a series 20 first flew in February of 1972. NW had great plans for this aircraft, especially looking forward to the versatility of its range for Trans-Pacific ops. However like all the other operators, NW suffered its share of teething trouble, and NW's Chief at that time was easily spooked.

Don Nyrop had come on board just as the airline was staggering to remain solvent due in no small part to the M-202 debacle. He held his breath, so to speak, through the rest of the piston era, from the B-377 Stratocruiser to the DC-7C (both of those aircraft had very "testy" engines). Then with the promise of the Turbine era, found himself in the middle of the L-188 Electra "teething crisis" in the worst way----NW lost two aircraft--- in just a few years. One to design issues, one to maintenance issues.

Then there was the B-720B crash near Miami (in a severe thunderstorm), the accident that taught the airline industry that the new jets were NOT indestructable! As most already know, a DC-10 suffered a major crash outside of Paris in March of 1974, and another on take-off from ORD in 1979 both with great loss of life, and the usual bad press, then issues regarding certain maintenance proceedures practiced by other airlines----which led to a grounding of the aircraft. Soooooo,it wasn't untill Mr. Nyrop retired that the NW DC-10-40 fleet was really utilized on many varied over-water routes.

All 22 of NW's DC-10-40's were delivered between March of 1972 and December of 1974. All had the P&W JT9D-20 engines (47,500 lb wet thrust) and a MGTOW of 565,000.

The maintenance issues finally forced their retirement even though the airframes were still "built like a battleship". The DC-10-30's being a much newer fleet soldier on, soon to be replaced.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10361 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 4):
JAL also operated most of their -40 series without the center landing gear as a domestic route modification.

Hmm? The center gear is selectable, just like on the A340. You don't have to extend it if your plane is light enough.

N


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 6):
Hmm? The center gear is selectable, just like on the A340. You don't have to extend it if your plane is light enough.

N

JAL has been in the habit of performing extensive modifications to heavy aircraft that are destined to be used on domestic routes. Modifications on both the domestic 747 and DC-10's included increased seating, fuel tank changes and floor stiffening. The center landing gear on the 10's was removed completely for weight saveings.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 5):
The DC-10-20 was redesignated a series 40 by MDD at the request of NW, so as not to appear "numerically inferior" to the series 30's. Although the prototype, N141US, still designated as a series 20 first flew in February of 1972. NW had great plans for this aircraft, especially looking forward to the versatility of its range for Trans-Pacific ops. However like all the other operators, NW suffered its share of teething trouble, and NW's Chief at that time was easily spooked.

There was also the thing that the then head of NW was refusing to order aircraft that have GE engines. I believe he said the following:

"If I want to buy and engine, I'll go to Pratt & Whitney. If I want to buy a light bulb, I'll go to GE."

Ironically though, NW eventually did get DC-10 Series 30 with the same General Electric CF6-50 engines, which that NW Boss refused to buy at first.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16308 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10214 times:

In discussing the merits of the DC-10-40, it's important to distinguish betw the NW and JAL machines.

The JAL DC-10-40's were built some time after the NW DC-10-40's and had the more powerful JT9D-59A engines vs the NW JT9D-20s. Different nacelles, weights and performance.

Quoting Flywithjohn (Thread starter):
I don't know much about the DC-10 but why is NWA using the DC-10-30 instead of the DC-10-40 what is the main difference and why make this switch?

It was not so much a switch from the DC-10-40 to the DC-10-30: NW wanted to add used D10's to its fleet to augment the DC-10-40 fleet, and was only able to add the DC-10-30 since that was all that was available on the used market. In the end, their -30 fleet has outlasted their -40 fleet for the reasons menetioned above.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2006 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10161 times:

NW ordered the Series 40 with JT-9's so that they would have maintenance commonality with the JT-9's on the 747-151's, or so they said at the time. I believe that JAL chose the Series 40 for the same reason.

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2972 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10012 times:

Contrary to some previous posts, JL used the DC-10-40 with the center gear inop (stowed) during domestic ops. All twenty DC-10s came this way though a handful of DC-10s never used the center bogie during their life at JL.

The first JL DC-10 came in 1976.


User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9992 times:

Ultimately, what would be the point in just not using the center gear? If you don't remove it, you're still carrying the weight, so why not put it to use?

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9898 times:

Why Did NW Stop Using The DC-10-40


Too modern?  duck 


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2754 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9737 times:

The DC-10-40 has 9265 km range (5002Nm) while the The DC-10-30 has 10010km range (5405Nm) That and a greater takeoff weight 572 000 lbs vs 555 000 lbs makes the DC-10-30 more sense in that regard. I read in an article in ATW that the 757-300 which replaced the DC-10-40 on some routes uses 50% less fuel on the same routes. Also the A330 uses 30% less fuel.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

I think age and maintenance costs have something to do with it as well. The airframes were sound and perfectly safe, but try as you might, it's hard to disguise the fact you're flying on a 30 year old aircraft. Passengers hated them because, as one once told the Wall Street Journal, "There always seems to be something broken." whether it be the IFE system, toilets that pack up half way through the flight.

Flight attendants hated them too, because they were the ones who had to deal with the angry passengers when something invariably did break down.

I've probably flown more on DC-10's in the last 30 years than on any other aircraft. It turned out to be a terrific airplane, but one that is now woefully obsolete and had to be replaced by more efficient and reliable aircraft.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineFrancoBlanco From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

Ehhhmmm..
I think this thread is going in the wrong direction.

NW retired all DC-10-40s in the last years because of their age; as already said they were delivered between 1972 and 1975 and have accumulated LOTS of both cycles and hours.

ALL DC-10s in NW`s today's fleet are DC-10-30 and NW bought them from different other airlines between 1991 and 1998.

The reason that these aren`t -40s is simply because there weren`t any available in the early nineties. JAL was the only airline besides NW to operate them and they didn`t sell them, they keep them flying until today.
Also there was no possibility of ordering new ones since the production of the DC-10 had been stopped in 1988.

OK, let`s say you are right with the specific problems of the JT-9D and so on but you have to keep in mind that NW is and has always been a loyal PW customer (they fly the 757-300 with the PW2000, as an example).

A mere speculation but nevertheless I`d say that IF there would have been any DC-10-40 available in the nineties, NW would have bought them instead of bringing a completely different engine
(-manufacturer) into the fleet.

Sebastian


User currently offlineTimT From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8924 times:

The JT9D-20J engines on the DC-10-40 that NW had are no longer supported by P&W. Parts are close to impossible to find. And no ready supply of spare parts makes it VERY expensive to operate and maintain any kind of reliability. Personally, I didn't mind working on the engine too much, but you could count on at least 1 oil bath. Just servicing the #2 engine/csd oils made a raincoat a required tooling item. Most people only stood under that door once when they opened it. "Fill the oil and check the fuel". The GE's would use maybe a quart in 8 hours, often less. The Pratts would need 4 to 6 quarts in the same time, and most was either blown out the breather or just leaked.

User currently offlineNWA757boy From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

Quoting Ctbarnes (Reply 15):
I think age and maintenance costs have something to do with it as well. The airframes were sound and perfectly safe, but try as you might, it's hard to disguise the fact you're flying on a 30 year old aircraft. Passengers hated them because, as one once told the Wall Street Journal, "There always seems to be something broken." whether it be the IFE system, toilets that pack up half way through the flight.

Flight attendants hated them too, because they were the ones who had to deal with the angry passengers when something invariably did break down.

A friend of mine whom is a flight attendant for NW always told me he hated working on the DC10-40 because of all the things that could end up not working...he had to hand out $100 vouchers to any passenger that was sitting in a seat that's overhead light was not functioning


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8035 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 6):
You don't have to extend it if your plane is light enough.

Actually, JAL removed the centre gear and accessories from the -40 "D" birds to save the weight.

Steve


User currently offlineFlywithjohn From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7915 times:

OK I see a lot of reason that is no longer with NW but does any airline at all use the DC-10-40 I know fedex uses -10 -30 but -15 I think there is a -20 and -40 I've never heard of.


Always Blue Sky's.....
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7584 times:

Quoting Flywithjohn (Reply 20):
OK I see a lot of reason that is no longer with NW but does any airline at all use the DC-10-40 I know fedex uses -10 -30 but -15 I think there is a -20 and -40 I've never heard of.

not sure if it's still flying but Aeroflot were using a DC-10-40F


User currently offlineCIDflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2333 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7482 times:

I believe the D10-40 was phased out when NW began receiving the 753's, in late 2002

User currently offlineJwb20 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

I think that they got rid of the -40's because of cost. they picked just which would be more efficient and that was the -30. I would have to say that none of these aircraft are very efficient becuase they are so old. I think but im not really sure please correct me if im wrong, but I think that they are going to start replacing them with their A330's. A much more efficient aircraft then the DC-10's

JWB20  Smile



Flying is a mans bestfriend
User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6896 times:

I was pretty frequent on EWR-HNL through 2001-2003, when we first started sending the 76 there. On most of my trips, you could count on seeing at least 2-3 NW -40s parked at 12-13-14, but by the end of 2002 and into 2003, the scene had changed almost exclusively to 757-300s. I would venture to say NW pulled the -40s between late 2002 and early 2003.

FYI, there was a very simple procedure to disable the center main on the DC-10-30, and it was recommended by McDD to do so for extended periods of short-haul ops, but at Continental we always used the three mains as was standard procedure. The DC-10-30's mission at Continental was primarily long-haul, so there was never a need to keep the center mains stowed. As far as I know, this was the case with most other operators of the type.


25 Magyarorszag : If I remember well, when NW got a sufficient number of DC-10-30s for international routes, they kept their DC-10-40s on the US routes. When they deci
26 Ctbarnes : I seem to remember that too. The -30's, as I recall, were purchased from Swissair. Charles, SJ
27 Magyarorszag : NW DC-10-30s sources: KLM 2 / SR 7 / JU 1 / MH 2 / KE 3 / RG 2 / JD 2 / TG 3
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 Did Delta Stop Using Mainline Ac On YYC-SLC? posted Sun Jun 16 2002 03:35:18 by Westjet_8
Why Did NW Choose The A319 & 320? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 06:20:10 by MSPGUY
What Year Did Carriers Stop Using DC-8/B-707s posted Fri Mar 3 2006 20:08:03 by Jetskipper
Did The DC-10 Replace The DC-8. posted Sat Mar 26 2005 19:56:41 by 747400sp
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Why Does JAT Use The DC-10 On European Routes? posted Tue Mar 23 2004 21:24:45 by Vio
Why Does Everyone Love The DC-10? posted Tue Oct 14 2003 01:48:13 by BCAInfoSys
NW DC-10-40 Back In Pax Service posted Thu Nov 7 2002 01:12:07 by PSU.DTW.SCE
Why Are The DC-10 And MD-11 Ridiculed So Much? posted Thu May 31 2001 03:44:29 by Jm-airbus320
What's The Story Behind This ATA DC-10-40? posted Thu Mar 22 2001 03:14:08 by Dazed767