Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MD-11 Questions  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

After the incident today I was just thinking about the MD-11. Flew back to LHR from JFK years ago on an AA MD-11 (was only 17 and snuck off to New York while my parents weren't looking) and thought it was a very nice aircraft. Have a friend who is a pilot and he once told me that McDonnell Douglas were the 'Rolls'Royce' of aircraft production.

Is this true ? If so why did they have so many problems with the DC-10 and MD-11 ? I think they are iconic looking aircraft especially the 10. Did American and the others get rid of them because of the problems or weren't they practical ? (The 2-5-2 layout in coach was a bit of a nightmare !!)


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7857 times:

American bought them so they could fly DFW-NRT initially. They replaced the 747SP. However, while the MD-11 was being developed, so were the A340/330, and eventually, the 777. The originaly MD-11's did not live up to performance specifications, and were eventually replaced by 777's with American starting in 1998 I believe. I flew the DFW-NRT route in 1999 and the DFW-KIX aircraft next to us was still an MD-11.

As far as I know, American only had issues with the performance of the MD-11, and that newer FBW twin jets were available that would do the same mission or better.

That said, the AA's MD-11's had a higher thrust to weight ratio than their 777's do. I think this makes them excellent freighters. Their performance on the runway and climb was pretty amazing.

Just a side note, AA also put 2-5-2 in coach on their 777's. The MD-11 is essentially the same size as the 777.


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7858 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
Did American and the others get rid of them because of the problems or weren't they practical ? (The 2-5-2 layout in coach was a bit of a nightmare !!)

Airlines withdrew the MD11s quite quickly because they were "fuel-thirsty" and they didn't meet the expectations of airlines, not because of the 2-5-2 config (it would have been easy to reconfigure the a/c with a 3-3-3 config)



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7763 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
not because of the 2-5-2 config (it would have been easy to reconfigure the a/c with a 3-3-3 config)

LOL - no I appreciate that, was just commenting after enduring being in the middle seat once. Not fun.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7750 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
American bought them so they could fly DFW-NRT initially. They replaced the 747SP. However, while the MD-11 was being developed, so were the A340/330, and eventually, the 777. The originaly MD-11's did not live up to performance specifications, and were eventually replaced by 777's with American starting in 1998 I believe. I flew the DFW-NRT route in 1999 and the DFW-KIX aircraft next to us was still an MD-11.

As far as I know, American only had issues with the performance of the MD-11, and that newer FBW twin jets were available that would do the same mission or better.

That said, the AA's MD-11's had a higher thrust to weight ratio than their 777's do. I think this makes them excellent freighters. Their performance on the runway and climb was pretty amazing.

Just a side note, AA also put 2-5-2 in coach on their 777's. The MD-11 is essentially the same size as the 777.

Thanks, that just about covers it !

(Why the hell put 2-5-2 on a 777 ? )



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinecleared2land From United States of America, joined May 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7627 times:

I remember flying MD-11's from LHR to JFK when I was a kid and then connecting on a 767-300ER over to LAX. I absolutely loved the 11. We always had non-stop 767-300ER service from LAX-LHR but coming back we always connected at JFK. The three times I went to Europe were in the early to mid 90's.


"Build a mile of highway, go one mile. Build a mile of runway, go anywhere" -Bart Geisler, Director, Aviation Assoc. o
User currently offlinecleared2land From United States of America, joined May 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Thanks for the memories, by-the-way! I haven't thought about the 11 in years. Who is still flying them?


"Build a mile of highway, go one mile. Build a mile of runway, go anywhere" -Bart Geisler, Director, Aviation Assoc. o
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7549 times:

Quoting cleared2land (Reply 6):
Who is still flying them?

KLM comes to my mind, but with their 777s and A332, I wonder why they are still flying MD11s



אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7479 times:

Quoting cleared2land (Reply 6):
Thanks for the memories, by-the-way! I haven't thought about the 11 in years. Who is still flying them?

KLM is the only scheduled pax operator still flying it, but I think WO does military charters with the type. Several airlines, including 5X, FX, SV, ET, BR and FM,still use them as freighters.

Going back through the history of the M11, I think SQ provided the killer blow, when it cancelled its M11 order and ordered A343s instead.

On the thread currently running on the M11 crash at RUH, one poster made a very good point, which I had not noticed before: the hull losses involving the M11 didn't really start happening until the M11 was about five years in service, starting with the FX M11 at EWR, then SR 111 and CI 602 in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Given the controllability issues, now well known, it's kind of odd that these didn't really present themselves in the first few years of operation (which has been the case for many new types, such as the A320).

I had the pleasure of flying on the M11 three times - once with SR and twice with RG, from LHR to CPH and back, which I did as a jump seater. Now that was fun! That was in about 1999, before the control issues and landing problems really began to make themselves felt, so I didn't remember the landings being anything but normal.


User currently offlinemorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7402 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 7):
I wonder why they are still flying MD11s

Because that aircraft still does the trick for KLM on some of their routes. They had a chance a while ago to face them out but are now maintained in the fleet for another few years. (At least until 2015 I believe, please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.)

The MD-11 in AA colors, man I feel sorry for myself to have never witnessed that. Should have looked great.



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7374 times:

Is KLM my only remaining chance to fly on an MD-11, or is there any possibility of hitching a ride on a cargo carrier like FedEx or a charter airline like World?

User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7326 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 8):
Given the controllability issues, now well known, it's kind of odd that these didn't really present themselves in the first few years of operation (which has been the case for many new types, such as the A320).

I blame Global Warming and Obama. 


The MD-11 was a pleasure to fly as a pax. It's very interesting to compare similar sized aircraft however:

MD-11


Length 200-202'
Winspan 170'6"
Horizontal Stab: 59'2"
Wing Area: 3648.0sq ft
180,000-186,000lbs of thrust

767-300ER


Length: 176'1"
Wingspan: 156'1"
Horizontal Stab: 61'1"
Wing Area: 3050sq ft
96,000lbs-120,000lbs of thrust

767-400ER


Length: 201'4"
Wingspan: 170'4"
Horizontal Stab: 61'1"
Wing Area: 3129sq ft
127,000lbs of thrust

777-200ER

Length: 209"1'
Wingspan: 199"11'
Horizontal Stab: 70'5"
Wing Area: 4065sq ft
180,000-190,000lbs of thrust

A340-300

Length: 209'
Wingspan: 197'
Wing Area: 3908.4sq ft


Now here's my theory as to why the MD-11 is more difficult to handle than same sized aircraft, especially at lower speeds, ie landing.

1. You have an aircraft where the CG is centered aft of the middle of the fuselage, which places the two wing-slung engines further aft, and you have one engine completely aft of the aircraft. The reason the CG is centered aft is because of the no. 2 engine. Every time engines are throttled up, this causes a pitch down moment for the aircraft. Throttle back, and it releases it. So you have attitude adjustments every time you make adjustments in thrust, and when are the most adjustments made in thrust most rapidly? Landing.

2. Have you ever tried to put to fat people on a very small wave runner or jet ski? At very low speeds, it's very difficult to keep it upright. One small shift in one direction, it all goes to hell. However, if you put 2 fat people on a very large boat that weighs the same as the waverunner, it's very stable in slow or still water. Why? The surface area of the boat is much greater than the wave runner. Now, compare the diagrams and figures above for the wingspan, especially looking at the 777 and MD-11 comparisons. In slow speeds, the 777 should, by theory, be more stable and easier to maintain pitch and require less adjustment. (in the same conditions).

3. Wing sweep: I'm not sure if I'm correct or not on this, but I would think the higher wing sweep of the MD-11 might cause it to be a touch more difficult, or at least have less responsive slow speed capabilities. This I am not certain.

The 777 and MD-11 have very similar takeoff weights and landing weights, but you have a lot less surface area holding that up in the MD-11, combined with a MUCH smaller horizontal stabilizer and vertical stabilizer on the MD-11.

Only my $0.02USD.

UAL


User currently offlinemorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7299 times:

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 10):
Is KLM my only remaining chance to fly on an MD-11, or is there any possibility of hitching a ride on a cargo carrier like FedEx or a charter airline like World?

Well, don't know about your connections etc   but I guess KLM would be the best chance.
I had a pleasure once when Martinair flew the MD-11 in PAX config in the summer months! Really nice aircraft and it was the best flight of my life (Well, my other flights were on KLM 737's or crammed charter flights with Transavia, so I have not much to compare it with  )



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7257 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 2):
Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):

[quote=tsugambler,reply=10]Is KLM my only remaining chance to fly on an MD-11

KL currently uses the MD-11 on the following routes from AMS.

Montreal
Vancouver
Toronto (3 of 10 weekly flights; also 4 x week 744 and 3 x week 74M combi)
Panama City
Bonaire-Guayaquil-Quito
Paramaribo
Tehran


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 189 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7240 times:

The MD11 is not an inherently unsafe aircraft. But it not a forgiving a/c for mistakes. It has a high wingload and a aft CoG which makes it skilfull to handle.
I know of pilots always gleaming of the LH DC10 being the fastest over the fence (apart from Concorde that is)

But the md11 was ill-fated due to the unmet specifications, the fact that it only was a better DC10, and the Airbus340.
The Airbus offered everything a notch better- and compatible with it´s other models.
Douglas , now owned by Boeing, hadn´t - and presented there own new 777. The MD11 was doomed to be a side product and not a global player.
Luckily for Douglas (now Boeing) the US military bought the C-17 Globemaster which is in large parts a 4-engined MD11.

Today no-one would go for anything else than Airbus or Boeing. Fact.
It´s like Apple and Microsoft. Would you start trying to go for a third player?


User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7233 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 11):
Now here's my theory as to why the MD-11 is more difficult to handle than same sized aircraft, especially at lower speeds, ie landing.

Interesting, and I think I agree with some of your theories.
I have heard numerous times from the people I come in contact with that the MD-11 was/is a bit unstable when it comes to landing and slow speeds, just as others have mentioned here. That was an argument when the FedEx MD-11 crashed on landing in NRT a little while back, and I think serves a good example.
They were sure great airplanes to fly on! It seems like every time I get on a 764 it reminds me of getting on one of those.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6680 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 7):
KLM comes to my mind, but with their 777s and A332, I wonder why they are still flying MD11s
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 11):
Now here's my theory as to why the MD-11 is more difficult to handle than same sized aircraft, especially at lower speeds, ie landing.

I have to disagree with parts of your analysis. You are correct about the small wing area, leading to higher wing loading. This leads to higher landing and takeoff speeds, which makes any other problems more serious. But the real handling problems arise from the fact that MD, in an attempt to improve efficiency on the cheap, tried to use a much more aft CG than any other airliner, which reduces inherent stability. The reason for this is that the farther forward the CG is from the center of lift the more stable in pitch the plane is, but it is at the cost of drag, as the horizontal stabilizer has to exert more downforce to keep the attitude. This requires more lift out of the wing as well, as the wing and the horizontal stabilizer are working against each other, which causes the induced drag of both to increase. So by making the CG closer to the center of lift less downforce is required from the horizontal stabilizer and hence it can be smaller, causing lower drag both from the smaller stabilizer and from the lower induced drag on both the wing and the horizontal stabilizer. I suspect that MD engineers thought that since they had been building fighters for decades with much lower stability that they could get away with it on an airliner, but since every other airliner has had much higher inherent stability it has made the MD-11 much more difficult to fly than any others. Your point about the engines is a factor, but it also applies to the DC-10, which does not have anywhere near the handling problems (or accident rate) of the MD-11.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRenfro747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
But the real handling problems arise from the fact that MD, in an attempt to improve efficiency on the cheap, tried to use a much more aft CG than any other airliner, which reduces inherent stability.

Thank you for posting this.
With all of the comments and speculation that is going on regarding the type, it's nice to have the challenges of the MD-11 summarized in this fashion.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6692 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
But the real handling problems arise from the fact that MD, in an attempt to improve efficiency on the cheap, tried to use a much more aft CG than any other airliner, which reduces inherent stability.

It was my understanding that the longer the fuselage, the smaller the flight control surfaces had to be at the aft. Much like the vertical stabilizer is smaller on the A330-300. (I think, or one of those variants, maybe the A340-600). But I'm wondering if they went just a touch too small, because there is a MASSIVE difference in the DC-10 horizontal stab to the MD-11.

I will say that I think the MD-11 was a cheap solution to industry requirements, in the sense that it did not require much modification from the DC-10. Perhaps it should have?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 16):
Your point about the engines is a factor, but it also applies to the DC-10, which does not have anywhere near the handling problems (or accident rate) of the MD-11.

Yes, but the DC-10 is a much shorter aircraft, thus the forces exerted by the no.2 engine, and in the same boat, the 1 and 3 engines, have much less effect on the plane itself.


User currently offlinetrystero From Portugal, joined Oct 2008, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 14):
Luckily for Douglas (now Boeing) the US military bought the C-17 Globemaster which is in large parts a 4-engined MD11.



Is it? I don't know it looks a lot different.



Of course I love you. Now get me a beer.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6336 times:

Quoting trystero (Reply 19):
Is it? I don't know it looks a lot different.

Well, for one thing, the C-17 has a fighter like "stick" rather than the normal control column; also, the C-17 has some particular capabilities unique to the military, such as its rough field capability - and the ability to descend at 20,000' per minute (yes, you read that right). I'm sure they share similar electronics, but the main difference is their "geometry"; the C-17 doesn't have any of the problems the MD11 faced, because it was not based on an earlier design which was modernised within a budget; it was a clean sheet design.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18):
It was my understanding that the longer the fuselage, the smaller the flight control surfaces had to be at the aft. Much like the vertical stabilizer is smaller on the A330-300. (I think, or one of those variants, maybe the A340-600). But I'm wondering if they went just a touch too small, because there is a MASSIVE difference in the DC-10 horizontal stab to the MD-11.

That may well be the case, but you hear very few landing incidents involving Airbus widebodies (ok, there was the Libyan A330 a few months back) and despite its length, the A346 is said to handle very well.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15474 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6282 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
If so why did they have so many problems with the DC-10 and MD-11 ?

First, I don't think that one can really lump the DC-10s problems and the MD-11 problems (whatever they may be) into the same category.

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
Did American and the others get rid of them because of the problems or weren't they practical ?

The MD-11s did not live up to their promises, and the MD-11 itself was too little too late. Had the plane showed up in the early to mid 1980s instead of early 1990s, it would probably have fared much better.

What eventually became the MD-11 was actually the third DC-10 evolution looked at by McDonnell Douglas. First was the DC-10 Super Sixty at the tail end of the 1970s and then the MD-100 in the early eighties. There were a lot of factors that made the MD-11 the subpar seller it was, but by the time it arrived ETOPS was well established and proliferating, the 777 was around the corner, and falling short of performance promises finished it off.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
As far as I know, American only had issues with the performance of the MD-11

The MD-11 did not meet expectations, but I don't know if it was as much a problem for other users as it was for AA.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 4):
(Why the hell put 2-5-2 on a 777 ?

Because you don't have to use the middle seat until the aircraft is some 80% full.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6680 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6213 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18):

It was my understanding that the longer the fuselage, the smaller the flight control surfaces had to be at the aft. Much like the vertical stabilizer is smaller on the A330-300. (I think, or one of those variants, maybe the A340-600). But I'm wondering if they went just a touch too small, because there is a MASSIVE difference in the DC-10 horizontal stab to the MD-11.

This is true, but the reason the MD-11 surfaces are so much smaller is that the CG was moved closer to the center of lift. The added length did reduce the necessary size, but not that much.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18):
I will say that I think the MD-11 was a cheap solution to industry requirements, in the sense that it did not require much modification from the DC-10. Perhaps it should have?

Definitely. They should have at least made a new wing and sized it properly for the payload and range they wanted.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 18):
Yes, but the DC-10 is a much shorter aircraft, thus the forces exerted by the no.2 engine, and in the same boat, the 1 and 3 engines, have much less effect on the plane itself.

The reason the DC-10 engines have less effect is again because of the CG location. When the CG is very close to the center of lift it only takes a small change in thrust to cause a pitch up or down; when the CG is farther from the center of lift it has less effect. Also, the small horizontal stabilizer allows the pitching motion to be relatively unhindered. The length would actually go to lessen the effect of the wing engines; it may increase the effect of the tail engine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
First, I don't think that one can really lump the DC-10s problems and the MD-11 problems (whatever they may be) into the same category.

I agree with you. The DC-10 was a good performing aircraft that was easy to fly and handled well. It did have some design problems that contributed to 3 crashes, but overall it has performed long and well. The MD-11 was an attempt by MD to stay in the game without investing what was required, and the subsequent compromises led to a very tricky handling plane with most of the shortcomings of the DC-10 exacerbated by its increased weight and length and without any of its good characteristics.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlinea300 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone know what happened to the Centurion MD-11 that had an incident at MVD? Has it been repaired or dismantled yet?


Boland Aseman Jayegah Man Ast.
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8090 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 8):
Going back through the history of the M11, I think SQ provided the killer blow, when it cancelled its M11 order and ordered A343s instead.

Singapore Airlines wanted the MD-11 to fly to Paris from Changi with a certain payload, it could not do so they cancelled. They bought A340-300, were unhapy with those and purchased 777, a very large fleet of 777's.


25 BMI727 : Were they actually unhappy with the A340s, or did they just replace them because the 777 was better?
26 slz396 : to continue on your story: since SQ flew to more places than just CDG, they ended up mis-using most of their 777 fleet on routes where they simply ca
27 DocLightning : In fact, between the two, there's a reason Boeing wound up winning. McD was just not as good at it as Boeing was. The DC-9 series sold well for a whi
28 SEPilot : There is more to it than this. Douglas was undoubtedly the best builder of prop planes; when Boeing was exploring jets Douglas (at the insistence of
29 Aesma : Are you serious ? Embraer, Bombardier ring a bell ? And of course, the numerous Linux distros, to show your example fails too. Most of internet runs
30 n471wn : ATDB says it is now active so it must thave been repaired...
31 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : It went back into service last January or February. Registration was changed. It's now N988AR (previously N701GC). Photo last month at SCL. View Larg
32 jfk777 : Hey if Singapore Airlines wants to get rid of a problem and you can solve it for them, then you get bragging rights to Sinagpore flying your airplane
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...
What's Wrong With The MD-11? posted Tue May 11 2010 11:00:37 by GothamSpotter
What Are KLM's Remaining MD-11 Routes? posted Tue May 4 2010 12:18:47 by Bennett123
United Airlines MD-11 Order/LOI? posted Sat Apr 17 2010 07:28:52 by Tango-Bravo
Finnair And KLM. The Last MD-11 Users? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 09:51:10 by nitepilot79
Status Of Two Damaged MD-11's posted Tue Jan 5 2010 12:47:01 by N471WN
KLM & The MD-11 posted Sat Jan 2 2010 16:02:52 by Kaitak744
KLM MD-11 At MAN posted Sun Dec 27 2009 19:16:54 by Airsrpska
KLM MD-11 From HEL To AMS? posted Wed Dec 23 2009 17:39:25 by KL911
MD-11 In BEY Today - Which Airline? posted Tue Dec 22 2009 14:37:04 by Mozart
How Long The Love For The MD-11? posted Mon Nov 30 2009 23:00:25 by VC10er