Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The MD11 Succeeded, But Did The DC10 Fail?  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 939 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

to the un-trained eye it's pratically the same airplane, but their reputation (DC10, MD11) is VERY different.

From day one the DC10 had many critics, but haven't read anything bad about the MD11, execpt that is tricky to land. Seems like companies were/are happy with the MD11's performance and reliability

what's the story

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15406 times:

I thought it was the other way round personally.


Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2582 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15346 times:

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
Give some history of this aircraft, which it claims is a failure in the first sentence.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15363 times:

1. The MD-11 sold just 200 copies.

2. MD needed a performance improvement package after the plane spectacularly failed to reach initial payload-range promises. DL's planes can't do westbound LAX-HKG reliably.

3. MD-11 is plagued by accidents, including Mandarin Airlines at HKG in late 90s and FedEx at NRT just a few years ago.

4. The MD-11 was the last twin-aisle plane the company made before it finally had to sell itself to Boeing and be relegated to the dust heap of history. It's also the last 3-engine large commercial jet made of any manufacturer because it arrived at the dawn of the transpacific ETOPS age.

None of that sounds like "success" to me.


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1259 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15358 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Seems like companies were/are happy with the MD11's performance and reliability

That's not really the case. The MD-11 missed it's performance goals by quite a bit, prompting some cancellations (Singapore Airlines) and, ultimately, the en-masse re-purposing of the MD-11 as primarily a cargo plane - a mission for which it is better suited than hauling passengers in today's market.

The MD-11 was also severely undercut by the evolution of big twins and ETOPS. By 1997, it had virtually no future other than as a freighter.

Only a handful of operators stuck by the MD-11 after 2001, and today only KLM and World Airways are flying them in pax configuration.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
From day one the DC10 had many critics

The DC-10 had many critics because of real and perceived safety problems, owing to several really serious crashes in the 1970s. Ultimately, it's not an unsafe plane, but the damage was done in terms of the public perception. My parents, who lived in Chicago in 1979, never wanted to fly a DC-10 after that, even though we know today that part of the immediate causes of the AA crash were due to maintenance and procedures, not the plane itself. The public largely agreed with them for a long time. The DC-10 seemed to have a perpetual cloud hanging over it in the eyes of the public, and that really hurt the program and the company perception-wise.

The DC-10 program was definitely a success as a whole - although it would have done much better if Lockheed and MD hadn't been aiming two large arrows at the very same slice of the pie, meaning that neither could really take a commanding lead in that market.

The L-1011 was technologically the superior plane, but the DC-10 did the job better - particularly when it came to hauling freight.

I wouldn't argue that the MD-11 was a failure, but it wasn't very successful either. Better range and more refinement might have allowed it to do better, but once it fell so far short of the initial goals, there wasn't much left to be done to refine it. MD lacked the resources to do a clean-sheet design by then and if they'd reworked it, it would have fallen victim to the 777 and A330, just like the A340 did.

The DC-10, with more than 400 built, ultimately has to be counted as a success.

[Edited 2012-02-14 08:14:33]

User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15349 times:

Yeah, the dc10 was the sales success, it just had a early spotty safety record


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 1):
I thought it was the other way round personally.

this article is pretty old but articles like this one are not hard to find

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...lines-dc-10-aviation-experts-crash


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5306 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15302 times:

Quoting Gingersnap (Reply 1):
I thought it was the other way round personally.

Both aircraft had their share of difficulties, but the MD-11's have been more enduring.

After an extremely rocky first decade, the DC-10 eventually matured into a safe and reliable medium-haul widebody for both passengers and cargo. It had certain isolated design flaws which were either fixed or worked around by the early '80s.

The MD-11 had a horrendous entry into service, missing fuel burn targets by as much as 8%. MD made up that shortfall within a couple of years, but the type nevertheless quickly fell out of favor as a passenger aircraft because of poor fuel burn compared to the competition (A343 and eventually 772ER). Even worse, it has a much worse safety record than any other airliner of its generation. Several factors contribute to this. The biggest is an outdated wing not much changed from that of the DC-10, when both Boeing and Airbus introduced brand-new, state-of-the-art wings on their MD-11 competitors. The stabilizer design is also poorly thought through, and other design quirks that were acceptable in the '70s proved problematic in the '90s.


User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15272 times:

"Both aircraft had their share of difficulties, but the MD-11's have been more enduring"

Disagree with you there.


While the DC-10 was involved in some famous incidents, most of the airlines that operated it ended up getting the full service life out of their frames. Outside of KLM and Finnair, the same really can't be said for the MD-11. Delta and American both ordered large fleets of them and ended up retiring them very early. Some factor in that decision by DL and AA can be placed on the success of the 777, however it certainly seems to me that the lack of dispatch reliability certainly contributed to their decision to retire it early.
Personally, I would argue that the DC-10 program was generally a success, while the MD-11 was not.

[Edited 2012-02-14 08:19:16]


Next
User currently onlinenorthstardc4m From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2990 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15239 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

They both got bad starts for different reasons:

DC-10= Problems with early GE CF6 engines caused poor dispatch rate early on. Cargo door problems leading to infamous THY crash in Ermondville, France; Then a few years later the crash of AA191 (due to maintenance granted but not known then) leading to the grounding of the type... both put the DC-10 in the wrong public light for most of the 70s. Add to that the very limited market and competition from the L1011 (with it's own problems) from the start limited sales. The press ate the DC-10 for lunch for much of the period and the black eye never faded.

MD-11= Very public row with American over early performance problems, Singapore canceled a large order over performance problems, delays with RR engine option, problems with PW44xx engine delivery rates, reduced orders by Thai and JAL over performance concerns... By the time the performance was up to delivery promises the A330/340 was in service and the 777 was coming fast.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15243 times:

If the A340 is perceived (among A-netters) to be very small succes, the MD-11 is definitely not a success.
- The A340 has had no fatal incidents yet (only 3 written offs and one crash)
- The MD-11 relatively have dealt with a lot of incidents

As far as I'm concerned, only KLM and Finnair have operated the MD-11 for a period of 15 years (or longer) without any problem. The only success the MD-11 it has, is that it appears to be a perfect cargo plane.

After the horrible start of the DC-10, it was quite succesful in the late 80s and 90s, wasn't it?


User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15241 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
to the un-trained eye it's pratically the same airplane, but their reputation (DC10, MD11) is VERY different.

From day one the DC10 had many critics, but haven't read anything bad about the MD11, execpt that is tricky to land. Seems like companies were/are happy with the MD11's performance and reliability

what's the story

You got that the wrong way round. The DC10 did have some bad press in the early years but went on to have a long successful career.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21485 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14977 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 3):
3. MD-11 is plagued by accidents, including Mandarin Airlines at HKG in late 90s and FedEx at NRT just a few years ago.

Not to mention the SR111 crash.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5306 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14912 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 8):
"Both aircraft had their share of difficulties, but the MD-11's have been more enduring"

Disagree with you there.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. That was intended to mean that the MD-11's difficulties have been more enduring.


User currently offlinephishphan70 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14759 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 10):
- The A340 has had no fatal incidents yet (only 3 written offs and one crash)


Just a little Nit-Pick. Pretty sure the EY A-346 that jumped the chocks at TLS was fatal. Now i know that isn't an in-service crash, and it was a test pilot that was killed, but a fatal accident none the less.

And as everyone above has stated, the initial performance shortfall killed whatever success was possible with the MD. Yes, the 777 and 330 played a role in the downfall, but the perception of the MD-11 is of a dog that never even came close to being what it was suppose to be.
Having said that, there is nothing that sounds as good as sitting in the last 3 rows of coach with the #2 engine spooling up for takeoff.


User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12407 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14684 times:

Quoting phishphan70 (Reply 14):
Pretty sure the EY A-346 that jumped the chocks at TLS was fatal. Now i know that isn't an in-service crash, and it was a test pilot that was killed, but a fatal accident none the less.

I don't think it was; the only people on board were aviation engineers from Abu Dhabi (from GAMCO, I think) ; one or two was seriously injured, but none killed. No test pilot was on board.

The MD11 was, as fine an aircraft as it was in certain ways, a failure. It was built to a budget and certain shortcomings became clear during its time in service; the shorter tail combined with the longer body posed stability problems and as has been mentioned above, there were many serious incidents; some incidents of VERY heavy landings didn't make the press because they weren't fatal.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14571 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Not to mention the SR111 crash.

Which wasn't so much the fault of the MD11 as it was the IFE equipment that it was equipped with.



PHX based
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14460 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 15):
I don't think it was; the only people on board were aviation engineers from Abu Dhabi (from GAMCO, I think) ; one or two was seriously injured, but none killed. No test pilot was on board.

4 seriously injured, 5 with minor injuries. No fatalities.

http://avherald.com/h?article=41176dfa&opt=0



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlinephishphan70 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14446 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 15):
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 17):

I stand corrected, happily! Always love hearing no one was killed when I had previously thought they were!


User currently offlineJalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 355 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 14119 times:

Quoting phishphan70 (Reply 14):

And as everyone above has stated, the initial performance shortfall killed whatever success was possible with the MD. Yes, the 777 and 330 played a role in the downfall,

The 330 and MD11 weren't competing in the early years, it was marketed as a medium range plane. The A340 was the only other plane in the MD11's playground.

As for initial performance problems, I also seem to remember that Swissair had serious complaints.


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13957 times:

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 10):
As far as I'm concerned, only KLM and Finnair have operated the MD-11 for a period of 15 years (or longer) without any problem. The only success the MD-11 it has, is that it appears to be a perfect cargo plane.

As far as I'm concerned World Airways has operated the MD-11 for a period of 15 years of longer without any problems.

FX1816


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13940 times:

Quoting Jalap (Reply 19):
The 330 and MD11 weren't competing in the early years, it was marketed as a medium range plane. The A340 was the only other plane in the MD11's playground.

As for initial performance problems, I also seem to remember that Swissair had serious complaints

Correct, it was the B777 vs the MD-11 vs the A340. A couple of months ago I read an article (from the late 80s) that said that the MD-11 would become the best selling wide body ever. The A340 came from Airbus (at that time, the success of Airbus was very limited) and the B777 (the initial version is way not comparable to what the later -200ER/LR can do). the A330 at that time was not a long range aircraft.

Except for SR111, what were the problems that SR encountered? Why do KLM have no problems with the MD-11?


User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13887 times:

Was it the AA crews that affectionately dubbed the MD-11 the Scud...because you didn't know where it was going to land

Have been lucky enough to have ridden in Delta, KLM and Finnair MD-11's and found it a fine aircraft to travel in, although compared to the modern twins and quads a little grating noise wise at the back.



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1300 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13854 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 3):
4. The MD-11 was the last twin-aisle plane the company made before it finally had to sell itself to Boeing and be relegated to the dust heap of history. It's also the last 3-engine large commercial jet made of any manufacturer because it arrived at the dawn of the transpacific ETOPS age.

One small correction: MD bought Boeing using Boeing's money. Ref. Harry Stonecipher.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24764 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13768 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 4):
Only a handful of operators stuck by the MD-11 after 2001, and today only KLM and World Airways are flying them in pax configuration.

But it made an excellent freighter.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 3):
3. MD-11 is plagued by accidents, including Mandarin Airlines at HKG in late 90s and FedEx at NRT just a few years ago.

Not to mention the SR111 crash.
Quoting 777STL (Reply 16):
Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
Not to mention the SR111 crash.

Which wasn't so much the fault of the MD11 as it was the IFE equipment that it was equipped with.

Apart from SR111, which as mentioned had nothing to do with the aircraft, only 13 people (5 passengers, 8 crew) have been killed on MD-11s in over 21 years of service.


25 seabosdca : Neither of the MD-11's primary competitors has ever experienced a fatality. More significantly (since fatalities in aviation are quite unpredictable)
26 ghifty : Did the A340 really contribute to the MD-11/DC-10's demise? What was the A340's vs. MD-11/DC-10's SFC?
27 JHCRJ700 : I thought the same thing when I read the title. As stated above me, the MD-11 didn't live up to it's promises, thus it didn't sell well.
28 greggariouspdx : By the early 1980's, the DC-10 had to be the most closely scrutinized passenger aircraft, so I never felt nervous flying on one. I flew many an AA and
29 Max Q : The Dc10 had serious technical problems resulting in numerous fatal accidents. So did the MD11. The DC10 sold reasonable well. I wouldn't call either
30 cchan : Reputation and success are quite different in my view. Success: D10 is more successful than M11. The D10 sold a lot more and as passenger aircrafts,
31 LGWflyer : What about Omni?
32 cargolex : No argument there. Until the launch of the 777LRF, there was a big gulf between the A306/B763 freighters and the 747-400F/ERF. The MD-11, available c
33 LGWflyer : Of course sorry getting confused with the DC-10.
34 dave2 : The underlining problems was the DC-10 and the L-1011 going after the same market place. Started with AA putting out a specification in the late 1960s
35 Viscount724 : Total L-1011 production was 250.
36 HDA212 : I would hardly call either a 'success'
37 ghifty : I think the only objective definition of success is whether or not the product brought in more revenue than was spent on creating the profit, in other
38 ltbewr : What if the MD-11, as was proposed at one point as the MD-12, to be a 2-engined a/c? I would have beaten the 777 into service by several years and may
39 ghifty : That'd be like the Boeing engineers deciding to turn the 747 into a tri-jet. Which they did attempt, and then backed out of. I think the "twin-engine
40 neutronstar73 : ermm...I think you have that a bit backwards. The MD-11 didn't meet initial expectations, but has been a reasonably safe aircraft and capable in its s
41 frmrCapCadet : A cynical definition of a successful airline model is that it produces enough cash flow to develop the next generation. Profits be darned!
42 AAIL86 : The DC-10 was a qualified success, the MD-11 was not. Trying to compare them both is simply not valid- and ignores the fact that the MD-11 should hav
43 Post contains images AAIL86 : Aviation has not made a profit in its entire history, so why why is this surprising???
44 HPRamper : I would not simply boil it down to success or failure overall. Arguably, the MD11 was disappointing as a passenger carrier but as far as I am concerne
45 FX1816 : Really, the DC10 has much more longevity than the MD11 at this point. The MD11 is all but gone as a passenger plane and there was even a thread here
46 n729pa : IMO, the fact the major airlines started to off load the MD11 so early speaks for itself. OK there are some that have persisted with it. It's safety r
47 Mir : The IFE equipment caused the spark, but it was the insulation (which was standard equipment for the MD-11 - it's since been banned) that allowed it t
48 faro : IIRC, the FAA was equally to blame for this accident because it did not mandate thorough correction of the cargo door problem on the white tails park
49 CiC : Sad that no airline ordered the MD-11 option for the "panorama deck" in the front part of the fuselage, and sad that they never started the MD-11 stre
50 ckfred : IIRC, Bob Crandall, AA CEO, was so unhappy with the first MD-11 that he threatened to return it and cancel the order. The fuel burn on DFW-NRT was gre
51 beechnut : The maintenance procedures were the first hole in the Swiss cheese, no doubt about that. Alas the other holes were due to design flaws with the aircr
52 teva : In the early days of MD11, in addition to range and fuel issue, there were a lot of issues with the electronics in the cockpit. I remember a lot of pe
53 nimbus111 : i thought the MD-11 was basically an updated DC-10. so i would expect the MD-11 to perform better. correct me if im wrong.
54 scouseflyer : It was as closely related to the DC10 as the 737NG and classics are - same basic structure (but stretched) and layout but everything under the skin d
55 JFKPurser : People like to repeat this notion frequently on this forum, but really the DC10 safety reputation lingered in the public consciousness for only a yea
56 nimbus111 : interesting thanks for the info! both aircraft are beauties.
57 seabosdca : Anecdotal, I know, but my mom brought up her perception of the DC-10 as an "unsafe airplane" when I mentioned that I was going to be flying on one in
58 Post contains images Viscount724 : That wasn't unique to the MD-11. Many other aircraft used the same type of insulation and had to replace it. Should also note that NW acquired 24 use
59 Mir : Still a design flaw on the part of McD. -Mir
60 helfan : Maybe this is an elementary question, but I've wondered why, if the MD11 didn't meet the performance targets in the first place, it still has been so
61 nimbus111 : i can speculate and say maybe the size of the aircraft with having 3 engines wasnt cost effective fuel and maintenance wise in the passenger area. i
62 Viscount724 : One issue is that range is less important for freighters.[Edited 2012-02-15 13:35:00]
63 AR385 : Because not meeting the performance targets so dramatically only happened in the first models. The later, newer models were pretty close to their per
64 seabosdca : One major strength of the MD-11 is that, for its size, it can carry a staggeringly heavy payload. It has a strong basic structure and a lot of power
65 AAIL86 : Yes. It's crazy how much mileage NW got out of their DC-10s. I remember seeing the NW D10s in HNL every time I would fly through...
66 milesrich : The DC-10's cargo door was fixed after the first incident with American near Detroit, but the Turkish Air aircraft wasn't retrofitted. I don't rememb
67 B727LVR : I remembering watching a documentary on the DC10 door accidents, and the the same NTSB investigator on the AA DC10 was on the Turkish crash. I rememb
68 seven3seven : I see now what it takes to make a successful thread on a.net.. Just get your facts totally wrong in the initial post.
69 777STL : Sure, if you want to split hairs. The root cause was still the IFE system overheating and the outcome would have been the same had the same situation
70 Areopagus : This reminds me of the failure of Delta III's second flight, in which the Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engine failed. LockMart got to keep bragging abou
71 RWA380 : Havinig been lucky myself to fly American, Delta and Thai MD-11's, I found them all to be great, mostly since all but one time on AA, I was in J, but
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...
Will A340 N/G Be Retire Early Like The MD11? posted Mon Mar 1 2010 21:19:41 by 747400sp
MD11 Who Had The Most Success With It? posted Thu May 29 2008 19:43:22 by Thunder747
KLM And The MD11 posted Mon Jan 7 2008 20:17:31 by UAL727NE
What's The NWA DC10 Like? posted Fri Oct 14 2005 20:00:43 by AirPacific747
Why Do People Expect The A380 To Fail? posted Tue Jan 11 2005 20:05:11 by CHRISBA777ER
American, The Biggest But The Worst posted Mon Mar 15 2004 23:41:24 by AM772
"Good Loads But The Route Was Not Profitable"? posted Wed Jun 18 2003 09:34:54 by Airmale
Why The NW DC10 Upgrade Into Mem? posted Sat Feb 23 2002 02:36:08 by Rolex01
Did AA Security Fail For The Third Time? posted Sun Dec 23 2001 18:21:59 by Bobcat
Nobody Cares... But The Whole World Needs To Know! posted Sun Sep 30 2001 07:43:49 by FlightSimFreak
Why Do People Expect The A380 To Fail? posted Tue Jan 11 2005 20:05:11 by CHRISBA777ER
American, The Biggest But The Worst posted Mon Mar 15 2004 23:41:24 by AM772
"Good Loads But The Route Was Not Profitable"? posted Wed Jun 18 2003 09:34:54 by Airmale
Why The NW DC10 Upgrade Into Mem? posted Sat Feb 23 2002 02:36:08 by Rolex01
Did AA Security Fail For The Third Time? posted Sun Dec 23 2001 18:21:59 by Bobcat
Why The NW DC10 Upgrade Into Mem? posted Sat Feb 23 2002 02:36:08 by Rolex01
Did AA Security Fail For The Third Time? posted Sun Dec 23 2001 18:21:59 by Bobcat