Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Three Engine Aircraft Popular Cargo Airplanes  
User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14400 times:

Hi,

It was discussed previously in this forum that the MD-11 and the DC-10 are very popular aircraft with cargo operators. I find that interesting, but there were some explanations given. First, these models seem to be fast, can hold sufficient cargo with standard containers, are reliable, and there is a market with plenty of second-hand aircraft of this type.

Now here comes my first question.  Smile

Is it coincidence that an aircraft with three engines enjoys such popularity or is there a deeper reason behind it? Why not a twin engine aircraft? The Airbus A300B4 is also popular with freighter airlines, but not as popular as DC-10s and MD-11s, isnt it? I am sure there are plenty of old twin engine airplanes available.

Second question:

Why is the Lockheed Tristar not as popular with freighters than DC-10 or MD-11? It also has three engines, thus the name.  Wink/being sarcastic It wasn't as widely used as the DC-10, but is has a good reputation and was very advanced.

Nick

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAUAE From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14331 times:

I am not sure Lockheed ever really marketed the L1011 as a freighter. Douglas heavily marketed the DC-10 and M-11 as frieghters. Modifying an L1011 to create the large cargo door would be quite expensive. I am guessing this is why you son't see it too much. DC-10 and MD-11 came straight from Douglass with those huge doors.

As for why 3 engines...because they were too expensive to market as pax liners, so they targeted the freight industry. It will be interesting to see what the replacement for all those 3 engine planes will be.



Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 14317 times:

@AUAE
Hmm, yes, DC-10s/MD-11s were marketed as freighter versions, too. But a lot of the DC-10s/MD-11s operated by cargo airlines are converted planes.

Nick


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14310 times:

Did the L1011, DC10/MD11 pass stage 3, if not are they hush kits to all of them availble?


User currently offlineAUAE From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14309 times:

Only speculation here, but I am guessing the availabilty of modification engineering was more readily available on the DC-10 and MD-11. I believe Douglas provides after market conversion kits???

Could be also that L1011s were run pretty hard until they were put to pasture. ??



Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14270 times:

Since freight aircraft tend to lag one generation behind pax aircraft, I'm sure the next gen of freight aircraft will be full of two holers.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14261 times:

Lockheed very actively marketed the 1011 in 1991 to 1994 and even built an overhaul facility in Tucson with the intention that it would be a Passenger-to-freighter conversion facility that would rival the one in Italy for the Douglas fleet.
The problem is the 1011 fuselage is not wide enough to accomodate two freight cans. Kalitta (American International) did have some planes built and I'm fairly sure they're still in operation somewhere but the idea died before it could really get going. Just not profitable enough for the operator with only a couple of planes.
FYI the cargo conversion costs from $250,000 for a barebones 727 job in Miami or PEMCO to upwards of $8Million at Boeing for whatever your little heart desires.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14122 times:

I think there just is (and was) a huge surplus of tri-holers simply due to their relative unpopularity in the commercial market. Because of this, many freight carriers prefer them simply due to the fact that there are many available, and at a low cost.

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14100 times:

Three-holers really became unpopular after the ETOPPS rules were updated to allow two-holers to fly intercontinental. Before that, three-holers (DC-10, MD-11, and L-1011) were frequently used for such operations on routes where the 747 was just too big for the demand to support one.

The after-market value of three-holers dropped like a stone after two-holers started intercontinental routes. As a result, they were cheap to obtain for freighters. Even before that, they were popular, but now they are extremely popular among cargo carriers.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14093 times:

Arrow also flew L-1011 freighters...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14088 times:

Speaking of 3 holer freighters, don't forget the 727s. The last 727-200s built were for FedEx.


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 13930 times:

The last -200's were not built for FEDEX
They're still being converted at many facilities around the world.
The last -200 built in Renton for PAX was converted to freight in Copenhagen in 1995 around Easter.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineN685FE From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13897 times:

The last 727 built by Boeing did in fact go to FEDEX. They bought the last 16 of them as -200F's right off the line, never were used as pax a/c.


psp. lead by example
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13891 times:

I think that one of the major reasons that the L10 was not widely used is/was because it was quite the hangar queen. They were not as reliable. The mx costs on it were very high and delays are an even greater problem for the time sensitive freight industry.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The old three engine aircraft are why I like my job so much. The majority of the jet fuel I pump goes into DC-10s and 727s. Fed Ex decided to send one to LAX from STL this past Sunday and seeing one of those things take off during the day, with only two people and the 70,000 lbs of fuel I added really give you a sense of how powerfull those things are!



DMI
User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 13893 times:

Hi everybody,

Thanks for all your input. Let me see if I got this rigth.

1) Three-holers became "unnecessary" after ETOPS regulations were changed so that two-holers could fly the routes for which one needed three-holers prior to that. And, of course, three engines are more expensive to maintain than two engines.

2) The L1011 has a narrower fuselage than the DC-10/MD-11, and you can't get two freighter cans in it. Thus, it's not as economic as the DC-10.

Nick


User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13771 times:

OOPS sorry
I was thinking of the last 727 PAX aircraft built that went to THY. They were converted to freighters in 95-96.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13436 times:

Hi,

I have a follow up question regarding this issue, thus, I am bringing the thread up.

Was there any intention (and/or implementation) of fitting the L1011 with a glass cockpit, like it's done with the DC-10 --> MD-10?

Also, if L1011s are no longer used in passenger operations and are not popular among freighters, what's happening to all the L1011s? Scrapped? I still don't understand why the L1011 was such a bummer. O.K., its delivery was delayed due to Rolls-Royce's problems, but it was more advanced than the DC-10 at the time. I wonder why Lockheed didn't get into gears to make this plane a bigger success.

Nick


User currently offlineDC3CV3407AC727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13385 times:

Champion Air currently flies N697CA,the last pax three holer off the line,in 1983.


the rumble of round engines is like music to me,likewise the thunder of thr JT8D
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13795 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13359 times:

As far as I understand, the DC-10 and MD-11 require very little modification except for the door to be converted into a freighter, due to the fact that Douglas built them like tractors. Esp. the floor structure is strong enough as it is. The L1011 would require massive strenghtening of the floor, which togethert with it´s advanced, higher stressed design, makes it more expensive and complicated to convert.
The various Airbusses also need to be considerably reinforced internally (unless they were built from scratch as freighters), but conversion of at least the A300 series is cheaper than a L1011.

Jan


User currently offlineBeowulf From Singapore, joined Jul 2003, 730 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13159 times:

@MD11Engineer / Jan
Thanks for this insight. It's very fascinating for me to read this.

Recently I bought "The End of an Era: My Story of the L-1011" by James West, which (supposedly) describes why the L-1011 flopped. Well, I'll keep you posted whether it's any good.

One more question, maybe 411A knows this:
Was there any intention (and/or implementation) of fitting the L1011 with a glass cockpit, like it's done with the DC-10 --> MD-10?

Nick


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13142 times:

For an airplane to be converted to a freighter version (No, Boeing does not offer conversion kits), several things have to happen: A)The floor structure has to be analyzed to see if it can sustain the necessary design loads plus a safety factor B) You don't just cut a hole in the skin and then build a door for the hole; you have to install doublers and load paths in the fuselage structure C) You need to have a cargo restraint system to keep the cargo from rolling fore and aft (CG problems could be a bit touchy) and last but not least, you need to install a 9G bulkhead or install a cargo net restraint( You don't want to be the freight dog driving, come to a sudden stop only to have your cargo push over the glare shield).

All this is developed in the form of a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that has the drawings, the analysis of all the necessary calculations and other pertinent data, such as loading information, AFM supplements etc. The STC is the property of the entity that came up with the data, applied for it and received approval; until they sell it to whomever wants to buy it.

For a while Marshall's of Cambridge was converting the L-1011's to freighter version and Aeronavali does a great deal of DC-10/MD-11 conversions.

Reason that a glass cockpit hasn't been done for the L-1011 is that you have to develop an STC for it and that takes time and money, besides there aren't a whole lot of these flying around anymore.

Last I say Arrow was still flying their L-1011.




User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 13098 times:

Old thread rearing it's head  Big grin

Anyway I thought of the following for the MD-11F (of which LH Cargo took the last few). At the end of the production run, any additional orders are just additional gravy. Investments in design, testing, tooling and so on are all (hopefully) paid for. In any case the airframer is in a situation where a very low price can be offered, and the waiting period is very short compared to a well-selling mainliner.

A good reason for the MD-11F to have sold for quite a while after the line would have shut down for purely pax.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Three Engine Aircraft Popular Cargo Airplanes
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...
Why No C-130 Aircraft For Cargo Airlines? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 01:19:54 by PPVRA
Rear Engine Aircraft: Slow Climb? posted Sat Sep 21 2002 23:20:47 by BigPhilNYC
Best Single Engine Aircraft To Train On? posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:41:24 by Fly_yhm
Single Engine Procedures For Commuter Aircraft posted Sun Sep 17 2006 22:05:36 by AdamWright
Aircraft (engine) Maintenance Protocols posted Thu Jun 1 2006 18:13:34 by Goinv
Small Cargo Planes For Large Aircraft Flights posted Sun Apr 23 2006 10:33:50 by QFA380
Etops And Cargo Aircraft posted Sat Mar 18 2006 20:53:12 by Don81603
Aircraft Engine Fires - Types posted Mon Nov 28 2005 08:22:04 by HAWK21M
Changing Engine Mfr On Delivered Aircraft Poss? posted Fri Nov 18 2005 10:47:02 by BestWestern
Two Different Engine Makes On The Same Aircraft? posted Wed Sep 28 2005 18:57:47 by JAM747
Heavy Twin Engine Aircraft posted Sun Apr 20 2008 18:08:20 by KC135TopBoom
Why No C-130 Aircraft For Cargo Airlines? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 01:19:54 by PPVRA
Rear Engine Aircraft: Slow Climb? posted Sat Sep 21 2002 23:20:47 by BigPhilNYC
Best Single Engine Aircraft To Train On? posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:41:24 by Fly_yhm
Aircraft Engine Website posted Mon Apr 14 2008 12:20:04 by YWG747
Which Is The Most Popular Jet Engine Of All Time posted Thu Mar 6 2008 03:31:03 by Clydenairways
Engine Cranking On Different Aircraft posted Wed Feb 27 2008 23:34:46 by Emre767
A320-which Engine Choice Is More Popular? posted Thu May 24 2007 05:46:09 by KELPkid
1 Different Engine Than Other Three posted Wed Mar 7 2007 06:58:14 by LASOctoberB6

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format