747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:02 pm

I have been seeing, that first gen wide bodies, use a lot of runway. Now I understand why a 747 take up almost all of a runway, because they are design for long trans Atlantic and Trans Pacific flights, from large airports like JFK, LAX, LHR and NRT. Now L1011, DC10 and A300 was design to fly from smaller like LGA, yet they are almost as big of dogs as a 747, so why are the smaller first gen wide such dogs?
 
baje427
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:10 am

I am no expert but could it be a result of the older generation engines they have .
 
113312
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:40 am

Engine life is extended by using reduced thrust for takeoff. Basically, when there is plenty of runway and the aircraft is less than maximum weight, you can calculate a takeoff thrust reduction that produces the minimum required climb performance which is roughly equal to a fully loaded plane at maximum power.

Of course, the mentioned models of aircraft also had engines that were rated at less power than is commonly available today on the newest engine varients.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:51 am

As 113312 mentions, reducing thrust has a lot to do with it. Airlines save big money on engine maintenance by using lower thrust and thus more runway. Also a longer run typically means higher climb speed later in the ascent. No point using all the thrust available if it is not needed.

Sure, those airliners cantake off from LGA, but they would probably not be able to cross the Atlantic from LA with any useful payload.

As for a 747 being a dog, that really depends on reduced thrust and weight. If you're doing LAX-SYD of course a lot of runway is used no matter what. If you're doing NRT-KIX with the same aircraft it can really leap off the runway.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:22 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now L1011, DC10 and A300 was design to fly from smaller like LGA, yet they are almost as big of dogs as a 747, so why are the smaller first gen wide such dogs?


The L-1011, DC-10 and A300 replaced the 707, DC-8, and VC10 and were more efficient in every way than those earlier generation jets. They in turn have been replaced by even more efficient airliners like the 777 and the A330 which are soon to be eclipsed by the 787 and A350, that is called progress!

If you think the L-1011, DC-10 and A300 are dogs I must assume that you have never flown on a A340-200?
 
citationjet
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:39 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 4):
If you think the L-1011, DC-10 and A300 are dogs I must assume that you have never flown on a A340-200?

The A340 gets into ground effect on its own, and then only climbs due to the curvature of the earth.   

If you think the early widebodies are dogs, look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O20fo-WqRmc
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.
 
andz
Posts: 7628
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:49 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:38 pm

A300 in 1976 was far less of a dog out of JNB than the 340 is today.

747? From -200 to -400 they leapt off this high elevation runway, something a 340 can only dream of.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:35 am

If you're an airline, you don't want a two-seat, 600HP twin-turbo Ferrari that screams down the runway into the hanger to see the mechanic, you want a van or pick-up truck that will carry enough load to make you money with a smaller engine as will do the job efficiently and cheaply.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:53 am

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 7):
If you're an airline, you don't want a two-seat, 600HP twin-turbo Ferrari that screams down the runway into the hanger to see the mechanic, you want a van or pick-up truck that will carry enough load to make you money with a smaller engine as will do the job efficiently and cheaply.



I guess, that why 739/A321 are replacing 757 200s.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:48 am

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 7):

That's good. Airlines want pickups, not sports cars...not that pickups don't have plenty of power available...they just use what they need, which is usually less than what is available.

The go fast handle is also the fuel economy and engine life handle.
What the...?
 
dc863
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:57 am

None of these aircraft are dogs except for one; DC-10-40's operated by Northwest Orient. A former Captain told me the P/W power plants were a bit underpowered. The -40s flown by JAL were fine because it's engines were rated for higher thrust.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:34 pm

I can only speak for the A300, and she's very far indeed from being a dog. With 2 x 50K dangling under the wings she can do the rocket trick, if asked to do so. Tthe A300 has a pretty advanced wing, allowing a no-flap slats only take-off under certain conditions. Obviously that will extend take-off roll, but airliners are not in the business of putting on a show for the sportters  

The main point is however, that as an airline you're paying for the whole runway, not just half or 2/3rds of it, so why not use it all? Flex/de-rate as much as possible, saving big bucks on maintenance, and do what the thing is built to do - namely making money for the owners.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:51 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
I can only speak for the A300, and she's very far indeed from being a dog. With 2 x 50K dangling under the wings she can do the rocket trick, if asked to do so. Tthe A300 has a pretty advanced wing, allowing a no-flap slats only take-off under certain conditions. Obviously that will extend take-off roll, but airliners are not in the business of putting on a show for the sportters

I've seen A300s do some very short takeoffs (go watch some FX ops... if the plane isn't fully loaded those guys go up fast.


Also, to be honest I've never heard the term 'dog' used in this way, but I assume you mean an airliner that is underpowered and requires a lot of runway to take off?

I think in the end it is more a function of fuel and payload weight, not of the aircraft itself.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:57 pm

The DC10 & L1011 max out their engine capability in the same way the 747-100/200/300 does. All have rather weak runway performance since the engines are heavy fuel burners and are lower in thrust than more modern engines. In reality however, minimum runway length is not changing with new designs. Minimum takeoff runway lengths are increasing from what they were in the 60s when the DC10 and L1011 were designed. There isn't hardly an airport in the world that warrants widebody service and has a runway shorter than 9,000 ft. We have been accustomed to twins with much higher thrust to weight ratios because that is required for ETOPS and engine out performance. In reality, an airplane slower to takeoff is more efficient. Aviation fans hate it, but there is a reason why airlines are replacing 757s with lower powered 737s and A320s.

Quoting andz (Reply 6):
A300 in 1976 was far less of a dog out of JNB than the 340 is today.

Any twin is going to have better takeoff performance than a quad (except the specially designed Avros). The reason is engine out performance. It has to climb on 50% thrust instead of 75% thrust.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
FriendlySkiesUK
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:26 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:04 am

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 12):
I've seen A300s do some very short takeoffs (go watch some FX ops... if the plane isn't fully loaded those guys go up fast.

You want a quick take off? Try flying on a Monarch Airlines A300, admittedly not a first generation A300 (they operate the Airbus A300-600R’s) but boy can those birds get off the runways quickly and the climb out – simply amazing!

I once flew on an L1011 (CKT) out of Dalaman (Turkey) and I was alarmed by just how much of the runway we seemed to use up – but as B777LRF said the airline is paying for the whole runway length so I guess they should use as much as possible and get the most for their money...  
Katie
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:57 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13):
Minimum takeoff runway lengths are increasing from what they were in the 60s when the DC10 and L1011 were designed. There isn't hardly an airport in the world that warrants widebody service and has a runway shorter than 9,000 ft.

Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a bit.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:52 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a

Only in their original configuration. The weight increases of follow-on models made them too heavy for LGA .
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17208
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:38 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 16):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Quite. Both triplets were designed to handle LGA. This skewed their design quite a

Only in their original configuration. The weight increases of follow-on models made them too heavy for LGA .

Fair point. However the design was still originally for LGA. Perhaps it would otherwise have been different, with a knock-on effect on the heavier versions.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:05 pm

Quoting dc863 (Reply 10):
None of these aircraft are dogs except for one; DC-10-40's operated by Northwest Orient. A former Captain told me the P/W power plants were a bit underpowered. The -40s flown by JAL were fine because it's engines were rated for higher thrust.

NWs DC10-40s were flying some long stage lengths, too, save fuel on take-off in case the weather at your destination changes in the hours it takes to get there.

Not all DC10s were that way. I was on a UA DC10 (a -10 I'm assuming) on a CLE-TPA flight that was lightly populated. Halfway down the runway the pilot set it on its tail and I could barely lift my head off the seatback until we leveled off a few minutes later.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs?

Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:56 am

Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 18):
NWs DC10-40s were flying some long stage lengths, too, save fuel on take-off in case the weather at your destination changes in the hours it takes to get there.

Not all DC10s were that way. I was on a UA DC10 (a -10 I'm assuming) on a CLE-TPA flight that was lightly populated. Halfway down the runway the pilot set it on its tail and I could barely lift my head off the seatback until we leveled off a few minutes later.

Now that what I call a good climb out!    You sure you was not on a DC10 30, because that sound like the pilots had a lot of power at there fingertips.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos