The MD-11 should be looked at more closely by Boeing.
The Tri-jet format is ideal to forget about the ETOPS rule.
It may have burn more fuel than expected, but it had
enough range, more than the 777-200, and the A330. And
with Boeing's knowlege put together, they can make the
range even further than the the near 9000NM. it has. With
the stretch version should be also be consider cause of its
range. the 777-300. But know, their is the 777-300ER in the make.
The regular 777-300 has a much less range than trying to
replace the 747-100 and -200. The MD-11 stretch
(maybe formaly called the MD-12X in the past, or the
MD-XX STRETCH) and with better aerodynamic and
more effeicent engines, the range will rival their own 747-400ER and
the A340-600 with the capcity of the 747 Classic, the A330,
and the 777-200. I think the wings are the ones that are
killing it in the drag. they should maybe replace it with
777's type-wings, and add wing-outlet. But It might be
because that the MD-11 had more powerful engines that
was really needed to carry passangers. That would have
mean for not comsuming more fuel. As i sayed in the begining,
the tri-jet format is better in range than a twin jet and near
the same range than a 4 engine jet and much less operating
cost as well, I just hope Boeing is considering this in the
future. And the frighter is far much better than the 747 in
cost wise, and i dont think a twin can carry lost of cargo in
long-haul flights. Also the MD-11 has more payload and more cargo
area then the 747-400F? Cheers to the MD-11 and hope to have a nice
future on a geart wide-body tri-jet airliner!
Click for large version
Photo © Mark Harris