Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3561 times:
Quoting Cdekoe (Reply 3): I loved them 'cause they were dependable work horses that were relatively easy to maintain and operate.
HEY HEY HEY
Let's not set up the headstones just yet. There's still a couple hundred running around loose and FEDEX's MD mod with the 717 avionics suite should ensure they're around as long as the DC-8 has been. . .
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Also passenger windows. If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies. That was one reason I always liked flying on both types. Helped make the cabin seem even more spacious and roomy than it was. Like the DC-8 and DC-9, Douglas built them to last.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
Well, it the first plane I ever flew on, and thank to my mother being a loyal AA flyer in the 80's and early 90's, I flew on more DC 10 than any other jet as a child. It was cool flying on the second biggest jetliner in the world, at that time.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): Also passenger windows. If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies. That was one reason I always liked flying on both types. Helped make the cabin seem even more spacious and roomy than it was. Like the DC-8 and DC-9, Douglas built them to last.
The DC-10 did have a very spacious cabin, every time I was on one, I knew I was on a big jet.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3460 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): Well, it eventually turned into a reliable aircraft.
But the original CF6-6 was not very reliable even in later years.
Only anecdotal evidence but in the mid nineties we shared a hangar with an airline who had 5 DC10-10s. We had 4 L1011-1s.
We were both charter operators flying from ARN down to Greece and Spain. In two years the DC10 mob changed 23 CF6-6 engines. We changed one RB211-22B, and that was time expired.
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4672 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3449 times:
Quoting Cdekoe (Reply 3): DC-10 avionics were very advanced for their time: CATIII Dual Autoland, FMS, fuel management etc.
Much less workload for the FE compared to the B747 classic.
I think you are mistaken it for the Tristar. The "FMS" for the -10 was a joke, compared to the L-1011.
"Dual Autoland"...to what decision height ?
"Fuel management" by the F/E...
Give me a Tristar anytime !
... and I thought this topic was to Praise the DC-10?!
I have no experience with the Tristars. Only flew on the 747 and DC10, and was comparing those two.
We performed many full Autolands in CAT III-B conditions at AMS - only needed to apply reverse thrust.
The FMS on the -10 was a lot more sophisticated than the caroussel INS' on the 747 classics as well.
So... praise to the DC-10!
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3323 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 15): It didn't have redundant landing gear down and locked indicators or a test to see if the light is functional.
Lights test button on the F.E. panel. Push it and very light (that is functional) laminates.
Pop-up indicator on each wing, down (flush with wing skin) when the gear is up and up (approximately 1") when main gear down and locked. View port in aft bulkhead of the forward electronics bay and mechanical lock indicator on nose gear upper jury brace.
TrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3052 times:
Operational merits include its durability, range, and payload. Some airframes are at or approaching 35 years of age and still going strong. The DC-10-30 had superior range than the L-1011-500, which debuted roughly six years after. Payload is self explanatory, look at all the Fed Ex freighters.
It was passenger friendly for its spacious cabin, large windows, and powerful take-offs. And contrary to popular belief by some, the DC-10 had a good safety record after 1979, although 1989 was a rough year.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): But only after racking up the worst safety record of any widebody aircraft.
Until the MD 11 came along !
Well, first of all the 747 classics have the worst safety record for widebody aircraft. Second, the MD-11 has only had one accident with a significant loss of life.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT.
Yes, and hats off to the Tristar. Although there were incidents with cracks in the wing spars, something I don't remember hearing with the DC-10. Furthermore, it's worth noting each of the DC-10 accidents that were caused by the design had an element of human error.
To the pilots in the forum: Would a DC-10's auto-pilot disengage without warning if the control column was slightly nudged? a la EA 401..
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies.
No question, I can not believe how tiny they are on the A330 in comparison.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3024 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 21): Quoting LTU932 (Reply 18):
As long as it isn't 3-4-3, it will feel more spacious. 3-4-3 on a DC-10 (and MD-11, given that both have the same fuselage cross section) is hell, I can assure you that.
Thankfully, I only flew on AA DC-10s, they had 2-5-2. 3-4-3 on a DC-10, ouch that sound painful.
The DC-10 (and L1011) were even more spacious when they were first introduced as for the first few years most of them had 2-4-2 seating in Y class, comparable to the 3-4-2 for the first 3 or 4 years of 747 service. And they were all at least 34 inch seat pitch in Y class, at least 2 to 3 inches more than most current widebodies.