Qantas777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 484 posts, RR: 1 Posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
Just thinking to myself and I realize that many carriers are taking their MD-11's out of their fleets. I am wondering why this is, since it is a pretty new aircraft. I know that it's not that good in terms of performance and its a mx nightmare at times, but still? I see this jet leaving airlines like I see DC-9's leaving airlines.
Captain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3808 times:
I think this has been discussed quite a few times recently. If you run a search you should be able to find the answers you require, more than what I can provide you with anyway.
1. The MD-11 promised so much, efficient flying, glass cockpit etc But it was not successful when it joined AA and seemings that they were the major lauch customer, the signs were not good! By the time MD had fixed the performance issues etc the 777 and A340/A330 were better options for fleet expansion for the worlds' airlines.
Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4957 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3778 times:
The problem with the MD-11 was the band-aid approach MD took torwards building it. Instead of designing a more efficient wing they took the old one and threw winglets on it. Instead of using fly-by-wire they kept the old cable-pulley system. Instead of updating their production facilities they kept things as is.
End result, an airplane that did not meet it's performance goals.
If I remember correctly the first MD-11 was 4000lbs over weight.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4500 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3701 times:
Fly-by-wire or not, this **** airplane, which I was supposed to fly on for the first time a week ago, suffered "hydraulic failure" at the gate in DFW. The flight was cancelled, and this caused me to sit 2 hours in the terminal (the terminals are terrible for picture-taking, by the way) waiting for a flight to CVG instead of ATL, giving me a grand total of 19 minutes to make the connection home. Barely made it by running.
Good riddens to the More Death 11!
It's joked among AA techs that the MD-11 should have been named the "Scud", because no one knows where it might land!!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
The MD-11 is not a bad aircraft, it's just relatively expensive to fly and maintain compared to the 777 and A330.
Combine that with a limited support base now that it's no longer in production (and never was produced in large numbers in the first place) and it makes sense to replace them earlier than originally envisioned.
NikonF100 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
No matter what anyone says, American effectively killed the MD-11 program. The first planes didn't meet range specs, Douglas offered PIPs which corrected the problem. However, American kept insisting that the plane had problems, when most, if not all the problems were corrected by the PIPs. The MD-11 provided exceptional payload capacity. Example, a flight Dallas-Santiago could leave with more than enough cargo and max passengers + gas, and still be under MGTOW by 30,000 lbs!
Have you ever flown any other plane before and had mechanical problems? How about the L1011? I seem to recall you being a big fan of the L1011, yet that plane was delayed, or cancelled more than any other airplane in Delta's fleet. You certainly would rather find out about a hydro problem on the ground than in the air, right? And if you don't like the MD-11, why on earth did you book a leg on it?
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1042 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3555 times:
Niiccee....condem a plane because it had hydrolic failure at the gate! I am sure no Boeing or Airbus ever suffered such a failure.
At any rate, the MD-11 did go on to meet performance goals after the fixes in the early days were applied. It was stated that the MD-11 had the same old wing...well, it doesnt, it was a new wing that was not shared with the DC-10.
Luftahnsa has experienced excellent operational reliability with their MD-11Fs, I dont know statistics for other operators but LH has a sizeable fleet and they have worked very well for them. They were certainly an improvement over the 20+ year old 747-200s that although they are excellent airplanes, suffer from the increased MX and less efficiency that any 20 year old airplane would.
I dont think MD-11s are leaving fleets because of reliability or efficiency problems in general. There arent any more new ones and most of the existing fleets are small so as airlines move toward fleet standardization, they move away from the types that arent available anymore and are in demand for freighter conversion.
One reason that the MD-11 freighter was a success is because of the high payload and long range. It is also the most efficient freighter out there with exceptional lift and operating economics. It was overbuilt for a passenger airliner but well suited as a freighter.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3475 times:
The Engines are FBW. The flight controls are not. In fact the Boeing Manual calls the throttles "resolvers". Basically the throttles are big reostats. Gotta love those engineer minds. Resolvers. Geez.
The throttles are connected to the "throttle resolvers" but I've never heard the throttles called resolvers.
While we're on the subject. I could never understand the listing of, lighter weight, as one advantage of FADEC engines.
The FADEC computer (ECU actually) on each engine weighs a ton (exaggeration).
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3462 times:
NikonF100 is certainly correct. AA Bad-mouthed M11 performance from the beginning. Their pilots had a hand in it as well, for cockpit documentation issues. However, they were never interested in the Cruise Performance Improvement Packages (CPIP) that DAC offered in the mid-90s, such as deflected T/O ailerons, drooped cruise ailerons, etc, (A1 package). Nor were they ever interested in increasing their TOWs up to what was the max (then) of 618K. The TOWs later increased to 625.5K, but by then they (AA) had already decided to dump them and sell them to FX. The MD-11ERs (just a handful of them) have a RW of 633K and a TOW of 630.5K. (Or something like that)
The cargo carriers love the M11F now because they have had the MTOW, MZFW, and MLW increased to suit their requirements.
Three groups killed the MD-11:
1. Douglas Marketing Department.
2. American Airlines.
Seagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
The MD-11 is actually very reliable if you maintain it (why do you think that FedEx -- the company that cares about reliability more than anyone else--loves it?).
The flight controls are actually a hybrid FBW. There are full time FBW inputs to improve stability regardless of mode, and the autopilot control is strictly FBW in all modes, although some control surfaces are back-driven in some autopilot modes.