Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1765 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2683 times:
Just wondering whether the MD-11 design had the same modified cargo doors that were found to be faulty on the DC-10. If you remember, this faulty door caused the loss of a fully loaded Turkish DC-10 near Paris in the 80's.
Also, was the hydraulic system redone (especially around the tail area) to avoid a similar situation as the United 232 disaster in Iowa? I know that NASA and McDonnell Douglas had been testing a "thrust steering" system on the MD-11 after the accident in the event of hydraulic loses.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 870 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
I know that the MD-11 has a smaller horizontal stabilizer than the DC-10.
DC10GUY From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
The Fix for the door was known about before the Paris crash which was in 1974. All doors have been fixed. Same with the Hydalic problem.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
The fix for the Souix City crash was a valve that traps sys 3 fluid in the event of a catastrophic failure of #2 eng. You will have norm. ailerons, slats and stab trim. You will not have upper and lower rudder, all elevators, flaps, autopilots, and a few other lesser items. For what it's worth, you still in deep do-do.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5810 posts, RR: 56 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1920 times:
The root cause for the THY DC-10 disaster in Paris was that when the baggage door departed, then the catastrophic cabin decompression caused the cabin floor to collapse. It took out all three hydraulic systems sin they ran under the cabin floor.
All DC-10s and all other wide body airliners were rebuilt with stronger floor making the floor resistant to catastrophic decompression.
Boeing wasn't happy about that because the 747 has the hydraulic lines running in the ceiling and consequently couldn't copy the DC-10 disaster. But the FAA deemed it uncomfortable for pax to be thrown into the cargo bays in the event of a decompression, even if the plane might land safely afterwards.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Your are correct about the floor but the fix was spring loaded panels that equalize the pressure between floors ... All this was learned about after the AA near crash in DTW ...
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 870 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1899 times:
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 4): Boeing wasn't happy about that because the 747 has the hydraulic lines running in the ceiling and consequently couldn't copy the DC-10 disaster.
JAL 123 was the cause for Boeing to put in hyd fuses in the three system lines going to the tail.
JAL 123 had a incorrectly repaired rear pressure bulkhead, when it failed, the pressure blew the rudder off the plane, that took out 3 main hyd lines too, bled the hyd system out in the plane too.
So hyd fuses and a panel to cover the opening in the tail going to the rudder was installed plus some small modifications or inspections.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1765 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5810 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
