Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Efficiency Of A330 Vs. DC-10  
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8960 times:

According to Wikipedia, the A330 is 38% more efficient than the DC-10. Are the efficiency gains of the A330 over the DC-10 primarily due to having one less engine? What other factors would have helped shave off a few percentage points here and there? Could the DC-10 have been made as efficient if it had one less engine?

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

- The A330 is much, much lighter, both from having only two engines and incorporating 25 years of materials and technology advancements.
- It's got a smaller cross-section for less drag.
- It's got slimmer, much longer wings with winglets, which generate plenty of lift, again with less drag.
- The two engines are a generation more advanced.

To power a DC-10 with two engines, you would need 772ER-size engines. It would perform like a less aerodynamic, less advanced 772. Even the 772 that was ultimately developed with 25 years of advancements over the DC-10 was less efficient, although much more capable, than the A330.


User currently offlinePapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8767 times:

Yes, the DC-10 would have been more efficient as a twin, but engine technology at the time wouldn't allow it. The most powerful engines available when it was on the drawing board could only produce 40-50,000 lbs. of thrust. The DC-10 was originally planned as a "Jumbo Twin," but as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary. The first generation of high-bypass turbofans just didn't have enough oomph to power a 400,000+ lb. twin.

Also, the DC-10 needed a whole lot of extra structure and reinforcement in the tail to mount engine #2. This added a whole lot of extra weight back there that the A-330 doesn't need. As already noted, the A-330 had a couple decades of refinements to help it out as well. Modern engines, fly-by-wire, composites, aerodynamic advancements, and whole host of other little tweaks all added up to make the A-330 more efficient that the DC-10.

Now, what would a twin with a couple of 50,000 lb. thrust turbofans be like? Airbus pretty much nailed that one with their A-300, which ironically was pretty much on par with what the DC-10 was originally planned to be.

PC

edit - Found an interesting article about several stillborn airliner concepts that mentions the DC-10 Twin.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...05/12/20/203709/clipped-wings.html

[Edited 2010-12-13 17:18:24]


In-trail spacing is a team effort.
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8728 times:

The question then becomes...was there a jet airliner that was developed at about the same time as the DC10, that was about the same size, suitable for longer range overwater flying, and was also more 'efficient'...as measured by fuel consumption?
The answer is yes, and it was manufactured at Palmdale California USA.
Lockheed TriStar.
For the same aircraft weight, the TriStar consumed approximately 6% less fuel.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8680 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
- The A330 is much, much lighter, both from having only two engines and incorporating 25 years of materials and technology advancements.
- It's got a smaller cross-section for less drag.
- It's got slimmer, much longer wings with winglets, which generate plenty of lift, again with less drag.
- The two engines are a generation more advanced.

The need for a flight engineer on the DC-10 is also a big cost factor compared to the 2-crew A330.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8677 times:

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2):
as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary.

Given that the A300 outsold the DC10, MD11 and L-1011 combined, I would think that this growth can be fairly described as a mistake in hindsight.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3214 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8596 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
The need for a flight engineer on the DC-10 is also a big cost factor compared to the 2-crew A330

Actually, it's a cost advantage.

This is a wildly inaccurate urban legend on a.net. Take an airline like NWA that operated the A330 and DC10 at the same time, MSP-HNL being the last route the latter was used on. Given the FAR's regarding crew rest, the A330 must carry an augmented crew being a 2-man cockpit, while the DC10 only carries a single crew being a 3-man cockpit. As such, the company staffs the A330 with 1 CA, 2 FO. The DC10 would be staffed with 1 CA, 1 FO, 1 SO. Being on the same payscale, at the time, the SO's were paid less than FO's. As such, on a crew basis, the DC10 was cheaper to operate than the A330.

[Edited 2010-12-13 23:03:40]

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8582 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 6):
Actually, it's a cost advantage.

Perhaps in some rare occasions which you describe, and only really due to an anomoly in the rule. Why doesn't the DC10 require a crew rest at the same block time as the A330?


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3214 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8573 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 7):
Perhaps in some rare occasions which you describe, and only really due to an anomoly in the rule. Why doesn't the DC10 require a crew rest at the same block time as the A330?

Considering the missions of the two aircraft, it would be a grand majority of the occasions, not a 'rare' occasion.

Per the FAR's, in a 2-man cockpit aircraft, the crew is limited to 8 hours without supplemental rest. In a 3-man cockpit aircraft, the crew is limited to 12 hours without supplemental rest. No one has ever quite figured out the reasoning or logic behind that FAR and I won't try to justify it. Regardless, 3-man cockpit crews are allowed to fly longer than 2-man cockpit crews. So on any number of missions at NWA.... MSP-HNL, DTW-FRA, MEM-AMS, etc... the A330 carried 1 CA / 2 FO while the DC10 carried 1 CA / 1 FO / 1 SO.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8565 times:

Is that a mistake in the drafting of the rules? Why does the F/E count towards the number of "men". Shouldn't it be the number of "pilots"?

I'm fairly sure that this anomoly doesn't apply in Australia, and that QF needed to have a 4 man crew to do SYD-PER-MEL in 743s.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8562 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 5):
Given that the A300 outsold the DC10, MD11 and L-1011 combined, I would think that this growth can be fairly described as a mistake in hindsight.

The slight problem was....the original A300 was designed as a medium range airplane, whereas...both the DC10 and the L1011 were designed at the outset for, and flown, on longer range routes.
In addition, the original A300 was not an extended range approved airplane....only two engines and not enough fuel capacity.
IE: it was a good JFK-MIA airplane, with a maximum payload.
Trans-Atlantic?
Not a chance.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8557 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 10):
Trans-Atlantic?
Not a chance.

Specifying a trans atlantic range requirement was exactly the kind of thing I am saying was a mistake.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8555 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11):
Specifying a trans atlantic range requirement was exactly the kind of thing I am saying was a mistake.

You are quite incorrect.
TWA, just as one example, requested trans-Atlantic range, in order to offer a smaller airplane than the B747.
And, they got it, with the L1011-100.
Several European airlines requested and received trans-Atlantic range capability for the DC-10, for the same reason.
Suggest you look at the historical facts, and not just your supposition.


User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8425 times:

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2):
Yes, the DC-10 would have been more efficient as a twin, but engine technology at the time wouldn't allow it. The most powerful engines available when it was on the drawing board could only produce 40-50,000 lbs. of thrust. The DC-10 was originally planned as a "Jumbo Twin," but as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary. The first generation of high-bypass turbofans just didn't have enough oomph to power a 400,000+ lb. twin.

I thought the Douglas wanted the DC-10 to be a twin, but at that time, before ETOPS, the FAA simply was too nervous about having an airplane fly transatlantic on "only" two engines, thus it had three engines.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8336 times:

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 13):
I thought the Douglas wanted the DC-10 to be a twin, but at that time, before ETOPS, the FAA simply was too nervous about having an airplane fly transatlantic on "only" two engines, thus it had three engines.

As mentioned previously, it was engine sizes available that dictated the three-engine design.
If however, larger engines would have been available at that point in time, the FAA was ready to propose ETOPS initial...60 minutes, expanded to 90 minutes after suitable operating experience.
How do I know?
I have met several ex-McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed design engineers who told me so, directly.
However, 60 minutes would have presented problems with north Atlantic routings, and would have added considerably longer enroute times (and the added fuel), thus larger engines would be required....which were not available.
The solution...was three engines.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8284 times:

Thanks for all the info! It seems like, had McDonnell Douglas correctly read the signs of the times, they would have developed a twin-engine version of the DC-10 in the mid-70s, which might have led to greater success in the widebody wars.

I often thought that the composition/construction of the DC-10 might have contributed to the disparity between it and the A330. Assuming that "38% more efficient" means "uses 38% less fuel for a comparable flight," would the fuel use of the DC-10 decrease by 33% if you removed one of the engines? (I'm thinking no, because the two remaining engines would have to work harder. However, I'm a musician and not an engineer, so please feel free to correct me or provide additional information). But if that were true, surely the A330 isn't only 5% more efficient than a 2-engine DC-10??


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4589 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8286 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 411A (Reply 10):
The slight problem was....the original A300 was designed as a medium range airplane, whereas...both the DC10 and the L1011 were designed at the outset for, and flown, on longer range routes

That's quite incorrect : As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ;
A300-B4 : 6650 Km
DC-10 : 6100 Km (it went up to 10,000 km on the -30 )
L-1011 : 6340 km ( reaching to 10,200 km on the -500 )

Back to the O.P ;

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
Are the efficiency gains of the A330 over the DC-10 primarily due to having one less engine?

These aircraft are a human generation apart, 22 years during which a lot of progress had been made in terms of computing power, aerodynamics -in particular mastering of the super-critical airfoil - , alloys and new materials...etc... and especially engines.
Everything starts with an engine that's some 15 % more efficient , then quite a lot more *thrusty* than those installed on the -Ten ( as a matter of fact, the three CF6-50 installed on the -Ten develop some 654 kN, compared to the 601 kN the two CF6-80 give the A332.
Although the OEW of the two aircraft are quite comparable ( 121.2 T for the -Ten vs 120.2 for the A332 as regs required more structure than former ones ), and the passengers accomodation in the same ballpark, the difference is quite stunning in terms of MTOW : the -Ten is some 30 tons (some 66,000 lbs) heavier for a much shorter range (4000 Nm vs 6400 ).
The answer to your question has to do with a much lower drag, a lower cruising Mach (.8 iso .85 ) and also, something much overlooked : the cumulative effect of lower fuel burns.
Let's take an example : working at the extreme range (with a full load, that is... ) of the -Ten, let's suppose that the fuel burn index of the A332 is 100.
With engines that are 15% less efficient, the -Ten's index will be 118...but these extra 18 points will need some more fuel in order to be carried on board... on a 9 hr flight, the extra fuel needed should be in the vicinity of 30%, adding therefore an extra 5.4 points to our index.
So, in the end, the -Ten will end up burning 123.4 % of the A332 reference.
Now, consider that the regulation reserves are based on the burn-off, which adds more carried fuel again...
And finally, consider that the -Ten will need extra tanks, extra beefing-up of the structure...etc... etc...
I don't know where the 38% extra efficiency came from in that article, but the above figures are representative of the progress made in the engines. I suppose the rest of the difference comes from aerodynamics.



Contrail designer
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8266 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16):
As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ;

As long as we are looking at facts, the original A300 design was not a B4...it was a B2, with severely limited range.
Severely limited so much so, that Thai International could not complete a BKK-HKG sector (flying around VietNam, due to airspace closure) and still have enough fuel for a diversion, and at the same time, carry anywhere near a reasonable payload....IE 60 seats blocked off.
How do I know?
Because I was there and operated replacement 707 services, transporting the extra passengers that Thai had left behind.

In any event, the B4 was not approved for long overwater sectors (without severe restrictions)...the three engine types definitely were, with no restrictions.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9149 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8266 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16):

That's quite incorrect : As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ;
A300-B4 : 6650 Km

That is true, the were also doing what is know today as 90 minutes ETOPS flights Trans-Atlantic well before the FAA and ICAO came up with the ETOPS concept. The A300 was also one of the very first ETOPS aircraft approved, as they were effectively were doing ETOPS, also one of the first wide bodies to be certified with a 2 man cockpit.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4589 posts, RR: 77
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 411A (Reply 17):

In any event, the B4 was not approved for long overwater sectors (without severe restrictions)...the three engine types definitely were, with no restrictions.

Your selective memory never fails to amuse me.
As Zeke said, the original A-300 B4 (to be picky, it came as the number nine airframe out of the line ) was allowed 90 minutes diversion time by just about all the ICAO countries except the USA, of course which insisted in the post WW2 60 minutes' rule... until in 1985 -ish- the first FAA approved ETOPS was for the...guess what ? ..the Boeing 767, of course !!!!!!!
The Thai B2 saga is well documented but in no way representative of the vastly huge majority of the A300 fleet.

Quoting 411A (Reply 14):
If however, larger engines would have been available at that point in time, the FAA was ready to propose ETOPS initial...60 minutes, expanded to 90 minutes after suitable operating experience.

That's your way of saying it... it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege.
The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.



Contrail designer
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8156 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
That's your way of saying it... it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege.
The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.

The FAA leads, others follow, sometimes obtusly.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
The Thai B2 saga is well documented but in no way representative of the vastly huge majority of the A300 fleet.

Of course it is, and I was there to observe (and fly B707's to fill the void), while Airbus dithered.
Thai International was not pleased, you can be sure.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4589 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 411A (Reply 20):
Thai International was not pleased, you can be sure.

Rubbish. Thai knew exactly what they bought.You're making it sound as if Airbus hadn't delivered on specs, which was patently untrue.

Quoting 411A (Reply 20):
The FAA leads, others follow, sometimes obtusely.

No longer the case, my friend.
The last time they led was on the 737 vs 320 certification farce they managed to pass under everybody else's nose. See for instance the 180 min ETOPS cert for the Triple-seven that just about nobody bought (not sure about BA and the CAA), thus imposing a probation period on the airplane. Look at what the Europeans have managed to pass through the FAA...
I'm not complaining. We now have a fairly level field and everybody seems to be working toward one direction : air safety.
Which hasn't really been the case as political / industrial concerns went first, most of the time.

[Edited 2010-12-14 14:21:00]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8027 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege.
The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.

Yeah, because things were exactly the same in 1995 as they were in 1974.  



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 12):
Suggest you look at the historical facts, and not just your supposition.

Well the historical fact is that Douglas or McD never developed another clean sheet airliner. You may argue that this was more to do with the cargo door problem and lack of slat locking, and perhaps some other more minor problems rather than 2 or 3 engines, but I am sure that both were factors.

Just because the DC10 had a market isn't really an argument. And to re-ieterate, the A300 considerably outsold the DC10.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 15):
Thanks for all the info! It seems like, had McDonnell Douglas correctly read the signs of the times, they would have developed a twin-engine version of the DC-10 in the mid-70s, which might have led to greater success in the widebody wars.

Yes, but we will never know for sure. It also would have been a visionary concept to have a medium range plane with only 2 engines.


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8008 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 23):
And to re-ieterate, the A300 considerably outsold the DC10.

Smaller/shorter range types normally do outsell larger/longer range types...and always will.
Because, there are more airlines that fly shorter routes than there are airlines that fly longer/overwater/intercontinental routes.
I'm surprised you have not figured this out by now....but if you hadn't, now you know.


25 timz : Before... 1985? What airline?
26 thegeek : Ok, that point is true. But the range difference in this case isn't as significant, well, as anything I can think of.
27 Post contains images 474218 : The DC-10's cabin floor 100% flat while the A330 cabin floor is only 85% flat. So the DC-10 cabin floor is 15% flatter than the A330's!
28 Post contains images Pihero : Apparently changes were not enough for all the other countries so they refused the EIS certification for ETOPS 180. [Edited 2010-12-15 02:37:11]
29 timz : 1977-78 Jane's says A300B4 (157500 kg MTOW version) range 5930 km with full fuel (56600 liters) DC-10-10 (MTOW 440000 lb) range 9543 km with full fue
30 SEPilot : Except that since McDonnell "merged" with Douglas (as a lion merges with a zebra) there was zero chance of anything like that happening. As thegeek p
31 Pihero : The figures I took were with Full Pax Loads which are quite comparable. Your figures don't mean anything to an airline, which is not in the business
32 timz : So the A300B4 can do 6650 km with a full pax load, but 5930 km with full fuel?
33 411A : Figure 5.5 hours tops, with a full freighter payload. Anything else is total nonsense.
34 Post contains links Pihero : From the horse's mouth : "The Series 10 model was designed for service on routes of up to 4,000 statute miles (6,436 km) and is powered by General Ele
35 411A : SQ operated A310's on that route.
36 saab2000 : As someone who has flown a lot under both FAA and JAA I will say that the FAA is decades behind in understanding fatigue issues. The FAA is not the s
37 Transpac787 : In what way?? The FAA's rule regarding time on the flight deck is much better vs the JAA. FAA: 0+01 to 8+00 : single crew 8+01 to 12+00 : 1.5 crew 12
38 saab2000 : My last 4-day trip started with a 4:40 AM showtime. I flew between 4 and 6 legs each of those days and the last day finished at 02:23, actually on da
39 timz : And Jane's says the B4 with the optional 157500 kg takeoff weight can do 3200 nm 5930 km with full fuel, 2500 nm with 269 pax and bags. You say it co
40 thegeek : I'm fairly sure this sort of trip would be prohibited in Australia too. There are rest requirements after trips before you can be asked to fly again.
41 Post contains links Pihero : Timz, I have to apologize as my A300 figures related to the -600R ( quite a difference !) I had a look at the documents I had somewhere on my hard dis
42 474218 : You are right in questioning the figures! DC-10-10 fuel capacity 178,534 lbs, range with full passenger load 3295 NM. L-1011-1 fuel capacity 159,560
43 411A : Which I accomplish on a regular basis...subject to winds aloft and diversion weather requirements, of course. 160 knot headwinds can knock 900 nm off
44 zeke : The European carriers that were working to the ICAO 90 minute rule, while FAA carriers were limited to 60 minutes. It was the pressure from the FAA c
45 timz : Did someone fly the A300 transatlantic using 90 minutes before El Al and TWA (and Air Canada?) started doing it with 767s?
46 Post contains links timz : It says the ICAO rule was 90 min at all-engine speed http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200511.html So a US airline flying tran
47 Northwest727 : Thanks for the info, I guess the FAA would've given ETOPS to the DC-10 had larger engines been available in the early 1970s to power it. Too bad MCDD
48 zeke : The FAA brought in the 60 minute rule in the 1950s, only aircraft with more than 3 engines could go beyond 60 minutes. In the 1960s the FAA changed t
49 411A : Don't think FedEx (etc) would agree, as it makes a dandy freighter. When FedEx bought Flying Tigers, they got rid of the ex-Tiger 747's as fast as po
50 Northwest727 : I understand, but that was not MCDD's intent with the MD-11. The MD-11 needed lots of improvements in order to fulfill MCDD's promises to their custo
51 411A : So will, I expect...the 787. For example, electrical junction boxes that don't burst into flames every once in awhile. Also, lets have a look at some
52 Starlionblue : Adding to 411A's list of teething problems could be: - 747. Initially unreliable engines meant delays in delivery. - A380. Granted this one has demons
53 simonriat : In terms of beauty however, I would take a DC10 over a A300 any day. What a stunner. Just wish I had a chance to fly on either of them. I have also he
54 VC-10 : I once knew a Laker Airways DC-10 FE who told of a time he operated a DC-10 flight from MAN to Las Palmas. On the same day at around the same time a
55 Transpac787 : Not to vicariously quote someone since I've never flown either but my dad flew both DC10 and 747-400 and really did not like the DC10 but *loved* the
56 zeke : Not possible, they have the same engines, the DC-10 has one more. Besides, structural limits on cruise altitudes ? someone is pulling your leg.
57 thegeek : Not for a normal flight. Perhaps the DC10 was doing a (perhaps two engine) ferry flight while empty but the A300 had a full payload.
58 VC-10 : Higher cruising altitude = lower fuel burn Structural limits - heard of Max Cabin Differential Pressure? Another factor would be Crz Alt vs Wt[Edited
59 gabep : Pilot's certainly felt that way. Be careful with "Jane's says." As to the original poster questions: No, but it does save a lot in terms of fuel, wei
60 zeke : OEI on a trijet would burn more fuel than all engines in a twin, they altitude capability is not the same. Like one engine out on a twin cannot maint
61 thegeek : Sounds pretty unequivocal then.
62 Pihero : Pilots can be quite partial with their aircraft. The -Ten a pilot's aircraft ?... suffice it to say that it was flown most of the time on CWS -contro
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Efficiency Of A330 Vs. DC-10
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
DC-10-30 Vs DC-10-40 posted Fri Mar 19 2004 03:08:13 by Hawaii50
MD-10 Vs DC-10 Vs MD-11 posted Mon Dec 9 2002 06:48:01 by Gigneil
What Is The Vent On The Side Of This DC-10? posted Tue Jun 1 2010 19:18:58 by Gulfstream650
Changes In Materials And Weight Of The DC-10 posted Sat May 3 2008 06:29:47 by DC10student
The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions? posted Wed Apr 25 2007 14:08:30 by MD11Fanatic
Old Photo Of DC-10: Tech/ops Question posted Wed Jun 22 2005 16:38:12 by September11
DC-10 Lost Part Of The Body posted Thu Nov 25 2004 08:15:45 by Tobi3334
Pics Of A Couple Of DC-10 Accidents This Month posted Fri Apr 30 2004 08:50:33 by DC-10Tech
DC-10 N1 Vs EPR posted Tue Mar 9 2004 02:50:46 by UAL Bagsmasher
Efficiency Of Non-stop Vs. 1 Or 2 Stop Flights posted Fri Oct 17 2003 18:23:59 by StarG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format