L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9 Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11083 times:
I was just reading an old topic on the predecessor proposals to the A380 and the MD-12 came into my mind. Looking through my library I also remembered the MD-XX, the MD-11's 773-sized bigger brother. I heard something about a 767 competitior but I'd like to hear more about the MD-XX, the MD-12, and anything else McDonnell Douglas tried after around 1980. Your help is much appreciated.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2768 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10893 times:
When McDonnell Douglas offered the MD-XX it got the press attention as a very serious bid for MDC to stay in the commercial airplane market. And the press meant it was a big blow to let the MD-XX go.
By the way when we talk about the MD-XX. Is the patented super critical air foil shape which according to Orlowski was to be the most aerodynamically efficient wing in the airline industry being related to the wing design on the 787? It seems like the new raked wingtips are a MDC product, and the new wing design seems very identical to the 787 wing. I know the wing here looks much like a regular MD-11, but I have seen computer drawings that hints to a more radical design than what you see in the picture below.
Quote: MCDONNELL DOUGLAS UNVEILS NEW MD-XX TRIJET DESIGN
FARNBOROUGH, England, Sept. 4, 1996 -- Plans for a new high capacity, long range three-engine jetliner for the 21st century were unveiled here today by McDonnell Douglas Corp. at the Farnborough International Air Show.
The aircraft, designated the MD-XX, is planned in two initial models -- a 375-seat stretch version to accommodate growing world air traffic and a long range variant to meet airline demands for greater non-stop capability. Both will use a newly developed, highly efficient wing with increased span and total area.
McDonnell Douglas expects to begin offering the aircraft to airlines later this year, with a formal launch anticipated in early 1997.
The stretch version of the MD-XX will have the same or greater range than the MD-11, while carrying 25 percent more passengers and baggage. The aircraft will seat 375 passengers in typical three-class arrangement. With all-economy seating, it will carry up to 515 passengers. The long range model is being designed to fly 20 percent farther than the MD-11, with a full load of 309 passengers and baggage. The MD-11 typically carries 298 passengers, with a maximum range of more than 7,000 nautical miles (8,050 statute miles or 12,950 km).
Details of the new aircraft were disclosed today by Walt Orlowski, MD-XX program vice president-general manager for the Douglas Aircraft division of McDonnell Douglas. He introduced the MD-XX as a new member of the company's family of long range, wide cabin trijets that includes more than 550 MD-11s and DC-10s now in service.
MD-XX capabilities ride on an advanced design wing with a span of 213 feet (64.9 m), and total area of 5,200 square feet (483.1 sq m). A patented supercritical air foil shape will make it the most aerodynamically efficient wing in the airline industry, Orlowski said.
The MD-XX design has evolved in intensive studies started last April by Douglas President Mike Sears.
The decision to develop two variants of the new aircraft responds to discussions with potential airline customers, Orlowski said. To meet future traffic growth, the carriers are demanding aircraft with more passenger capacity and also want more range capability than current jetliners.
The MD-XX will be a wide cabin luxury airliner. The stretch model will be 233.8 feet (71.2 m) long, 32 feet (9.7 m) more than the long range version, which has the same fuselage length as the MD-11. Design studies include plans for using lower deck space for a sky lounge or for sleeping compartments or airborne offices for business travelers.
For pilots, the new aircraft will feature the McDonnell Douglas advanced common flightdeck now being developed for the new MD-95transport and other McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft. In the MD-XX, it will offer complete operational commonality with today's MD-11 cockpit.
All flight, navigation and systems information will be presented to the two-person crew on six large liquid crystal display screens. Automatic system controllers doing much of the routine of flight will reduce crew workload. Fly-by-wire systems will drive flight control surfaces and engines. Power for the MD-XX will be provided by three advanced high bypass ratio turbofan engines operating in the 65,000 pounds thrust range. With the new wing, they will give the aircraft exceptional takeoff performance and the ability to climb quickly to an altitude of 35,000 feet, where it will cruise efficiently at a speed of about Mach 0.85.
Orlowski said discussions are under way with all three major engine manufacturers -- General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce -- about using their powerplants on the aircraft.
The MD-XX is being designed not just to meet, but to beat, the most stringent environmental regulations. With expected noise levels a cumulative 20 decibels below current limits, it will be the quietest airliner in its class.
Program plans aim at gaining permission from the McDonnell Douglas board of directors to make formal MD-XX offers to airlines later this year, Orlowski said. A 44-month development schedule would lead to first deliveries before the end of the year 2000 if orders needed for formal launch of the program are booked early in 1997, he said.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13284 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10780 times:
The developments in more powerful engines, along with the problems with mainence of the center tail engines killed off the MD-XX and similar proposals. I wouldn't doubt though that Boeing had used some of the valuable research done by MD in the 777, 787 and future aircraft, including the wing engineering of the MD-XX.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2768 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10632 times:
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 3): The developments in more powerful engines, along with the problems with maintenance of the center tail engines killed off the MD-XX and similar proposals.
I thought the main reason was the financial difficulties and that the airline feared MDC would kill of it's commercial division. I tried to follow the MD-95 development as much as I could and I know SAS had a concern about for how long they would be able to get new planes and parts for the MD-95 if they had ordered it.
The 4 Trent 500 on the A340-500/600 needs less maintenance than 2 GE-90-110/115 on the 777-200LR/300ER. I would imagine that a similar solution could work out for the MD-XX as well if they got the fuel burn down?
DouglasDC10 From Germany, joined Feb 2000, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9867 times:
We should not forget the new DC-10 varhriants proposed in the early 1980s called DC-10-61 , -62 and -63. They followed a similar concept as they did with the DC-8. Air New Zealand, Swissair and United were named as airlines with serious interest, but unfortunately, none of them made it into the air.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1013 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9816 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6): The 4 Trent 500 on the A340-500/600 needs less maintenance than 2 GE-90-110/115 on the 777-200LR/300ER.
Says who? Rolls Royce?
In a startling turn of events, in-service data has shown that the Ge-powered 777LR have maintained significantly higher dispatch reliability and on-wing time. Less we forget that many Trent 500 required early replacement due to blade-rubbing issues...
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9670 times:
Quoting DouglasDC10 (Reply 13): We should not forget the new DC-10 varhriants proposed in the early 1980s called DC-10-61 , -62 and -63.
What exactly did these variants entail? Were they similar to the DC-8 Super 60s? Just aerodynamics and stretches? Or were there supposed to be more involved? My understanding was that these evolved into the MD-11, but I know little beyond that.
Dtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1185 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9641 times:
Quoting L.1011 (Reply 15): What exactly did these variants entail? Were they similar to the DC-8 Super 60s? Just aerodynamics and stretches? Or were there supposed to be more involved? My understanding was that these evolved into the MD-11, but I know little beyond that.
The series 62 would have been 206ft 11inches and would have carried 353 pass. in mixed class over a range of 5500 miles.The-62 MTOW was to be 620,000lbs.Wing span for the 62 would have been 175'4". Engines for the 62 would have been GE CF6-50C1 or PW JT9D7R4H rated at 56,000lbs. The 61 and 63 would have been 40 foot stretches(221ft). The 61 carried 393 pass in mixed class. Not sure of the range of the 61.MTOW of the 61 was 520,000lbs.Engines were to be GE CF6-50C2's derated at 46,500lbs. The 63 would have carried the same number of pass. as the 61 but over a range of 4800 miles.The 63 would have used the 62 wing and engines
Dougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9626 times:
I got out of LGB in 1992 when the layoffs really started. I was in on the first fifty MD11s, and the last DC10 for that matter (446 was the hull number, went to Nigeria).
When MDD was trying to sell off the commercial division to Taiwan they were playing footsie with Airbus. Of course, Airbus would have had a problem as everything in the plant was antiquated so it came to naught-although with that tanker deal on the line I betcha they wish they could build airplanes from scratch in the states huh?
I'll tell you the exact moment I knew Douglas was doomed. I'd officiated at a hull section join and they were using a laser device that had only recently replaced a level and transit. They'd call out to the mechs who'd bang on the screw jacks with mauls to level the sections. Then, they'd drill and shoot all the fasteners by hand.
That night I was watching a PBS special about Airbus, and that exact same process was completely automated with special dedicated tooling.
I knew right then and there my beloved Douglas was as dead as last week's salmon. So, I started working all the overtime i could get, stopped spending money and got ready for the layoffs Iknew were going to hit home.
Of course, when you start talking mismanagement, they got rid of Jim Worsham, who damn well knew how to sell airplanes, and replaced him with Robert Hood, who had to have help wiping his own ass I guess....
More fuel-efficient than turbofans of the time, but noisy and unacceptable from a passenger viewpoint and the airlines agreed, once fuel costs went back down (too expensive to develop into a commercially viable product).
L.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9260 times:
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22): More fuel-efficient than turbofans of the time, but noisy and unacceptable from a passenger viewpoint and the airlines agreed, once fuel costs went back down (too expensive to develop into a commercially viable product).
We all know that turboprops are inherently more efficient than turbofans, and turbofans are inherently more efficient than turbojets, but were propfans inherently more efficient than turbofans? How would the 80s propfans compare to a GEnx or a Trent 1000 or even the PW8000 GTF? Could the improvements made in engine technology since then be applied to a propfan?
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9247 times:
Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter): I was just reading an old topic on the predecessor proposals to the A380 and the MD-12 came into my mind. Looking through my library I also remembered the MD-XX, the MD-11's 773-sized bigger brother. I heard something about a 767 competitior but I'd like to hear more about the MD-XX, the MD-12, and anything else McDonnell Douglas tried after around 1980. Your help is much appreciated.
It's alittle earlier time frame than you're interested in, but the 'original' DC-9 concept was a more or less 3/4-sized DC-8, 4-engined medium-stage aircraft. This was intended for the US domestic market, 500-1,500 miles or so, carrying about 90-100 pax. A competitor for the Boeing 720, one could suppose.
Concept was evolved about 1959 as the DC-8 entered service, but died about 1961 when what was to become the 'real' DC-9 took form.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
: I think it's particularly tragic that MDC never built this DC-10 variant, much talked about in the mid-70s. Had they done so, it would have given the
: Wasn't the inital DC-8 concept a Viscount-esque DC-9 sized turboprop? How far along did the DC-10 Twin get in development? What kind of capability wa
: It's so long ago, there doesn't seem to be much detailed info on the DC-10 Twin in searches but here's a link I came across, although it doesn't have
: Boeing had similar problems with the engines on the first production 747s.