Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19 Posted (14 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Since the DC-10 came into service many years ago, it has been labelled a dangerous aircraft by a lot of people after several crashed such as the Turkish airlines crash at Paris and United airlines flight 232 in Iowa but these crashes were due to different events. Was there a design flaw in the DC-10 or what? Personally i think it is an excellent airctaft.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
You could write a book about the design flaws with the original DC-10 design, but to the credit of McDonnell Douglas they not only corrected them in the later series of aircraft but completely eradicated them in the MD-11 design. That was a quality engineering outfit, albeit not the most economical one!
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 week ago) and read 2624 times:
As I recall then AA ceo Robert CrAAndell said that he was completly dissappointed because The plane could not fly a full payload to it's expected destination and guzzled way too much gas as well. Wall ST Journal did a report on it's safety record in the late September 2000 issue. The MD-11 had an inciden/accident rating worse than the DC-10 and was equivelant to the DC-8 and 707 after only 9 years of service!!! FEDEX pilots I talked to from EWR, ANC and MEM had called it the Scud, Mega Death 11 and the Deathstar and actually went back to flying A300s, DC-10s and 727s to avoid that plane. The plane according to DL, AA and FEDEX pilots was too damn sensitve becase of the smaller rudder and stabilizer and that you needed a fighter pilot's mentality to fly it. The problem was so bad that Delta execs wanted an MD techinican in the flightdeck with the pilots during the first month of revenue service. The 11 was so unpopular that it sold much less than the DC-10 in terms of passenger liners.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3717 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (14 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
You aren't by any chance a tabloid journalist ? You are very economical with the facts, you seem to have overlooked the fact that far fewer -40's were built than all the other models, consequently they will be involved in less incidents.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
True, the 40 series was less popular, but I believe the reason the 30 series was more popular with airlines is due to the fact that airlines had other CF6 powered aircraft (like Lufthansa & KLM did), such as the 747, A300, & A310 to share the same engine commonality.
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3135 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
the big reason the -40 was less popular than the -30 is that is didnt have the range and it was more expensive.
JAL and NWA had reasons for wanting a PW powered DC-10, mostly so it would be less of an oddball (both had JT9 powered 747s).
the -30 had enough range to make routes like LAX-HKG if need be. the -40 struggles to make LAX-NRT.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ejaymd11 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (14 years 6 days ago) and read 2499 times:
I agree with B747-437B. Douglas did a good job correcting the DC-10. I think if Mr. Stonceipher had concentrated on improving the company and correcting the MD-11 problems, and not giving the company to Boeing. It would have given the 777, A340 and 330 a run for the money like it did at the begining.