Even they launched MD-XX in 1996, they maybe ready to enter service by 2000, it would hit problem during Asian financial crisis, stock market crash and 11/9 a few years later, look at A340-600 launched at the same time and how many copies sold, once 777-300ER arrived at the scene MD-XX is dead, it would have killed McD. The market, it might get:

BR- BR bought 3 747-400F at the turn of the century, they might hold out along with converting some of their MD-11 order for MD-XX
CI-Maybe, they bought 17 747-400F in 1999, but that order has politics in it too.
CX- Committed to A340 and 777-300, no need for 300 seats long haul aircraft at the time.
AA/DL: Already vocally unhappy about MD-11, they are unlikely to buy more, also, their transpacific network were tiny at the time.
JL/KE: Not in great shape fiscally to buy anything, Boeing offered a great deal to KE later on to take back its MD82/Fokker F100 when KE needed it the most
World-Maybe, it all depends how their business go.
Garuda/Thai/Malaysia/PR No! They are either committed to 777-200ER (MH),A340 (PR) 747 (TG) or are too poor to buy anything.
AZ: Maybe, to replace 747-200, but they are poor fiscally.
KL: Interesting, maybe bought to replace the 747-300, but that went on to 777 instead.
AY: They are too small at the time.
SR: Committed to Airbus, launched A340-600.
Saudi-Maybe with freighters, but they ordered 747-400/777 for pax at that point.
Varig: Maybe, but they ended up with 777 later.
UPS: Their biggest jet were still 747 classics at the time, paid for and work as workhouse, they picked up their 747-400F cheap when Boeing about to finish with 744.
FX: Scooping up every single MD-11 on the market, already want to get rid of 747-200F, no need for anything that size.

To sum up, if they launched that in 1996/7, McD would be bankrupt, the market were moving either towards bigger (744F) or twin for passenger.
If they launched a 250-300 seater twin, they MIGHT survive with a reasonable line of jets and keep a enhanced MD-11 for freight, still they would be inferior in other aspect, such as abilities to arrange finance for orders etc.

Kev

blacksoviet wrote:

Which versions of the A340 are still being built?

None. Airbus stopped selling it in 2011.

there would definately be a lot more md11 around. there would be a lot more planes around if the 777 wasnt made

747400sp wrote:

I wish MD did go ahead and lunch the MD-XX, because there would have been 3 generation the trijet, and Fed Ex would have had more years with the MD trijet, instead of those triple 7s that just do not feel Fed Ex like.

There is no way any MD derivative could have flown the nonstop TPAC routes that FedEx's 77Fs are flying with the payload they carry. The alternative would have been an A340NG F.

B-HOP wrote:

ex DC-10 operator
PR-Got A330/340, to replace both A300, 747-200 and DC-10, also got A320/321, leased from World for a short time for YVR, didn't buy new ones

B-HOP wrote:

PR No! They are either committed to 777-200ER (MH), A340 (PR), 747 (TG) or are too poor to buy anything.

It's conceivable that PR could have gone for an improved MD-11ER had the Asian Crisis not kicked in, and the airline not been in receivership at the time. As you mentioned, they did lease MD-11s from World Airways from 96-98. CFs for Oz, Hi and regional...and ERs, not only for YVR but also LAX, EWR, FRA and CDG...although the latter did get rotated to the shorter sectors.....












I'm guessing McDD offered PR the PiPed version at a steep price and it was overtaken by their merger with Boeing...who naturally would push the 747. Recall how long the deposits remained with Boeing until PR finally managed to clobber together a motley fleet of 744s...but not before they got the A340s.

Devilfish:

I remembered seeing PR　MD-11 summer 1996 in Kai Tak, so they do fill in regionally, the problem is though PR ordered their A340 in 1993 and their first 342 would be back from Cathay by the end of 1996, so I don't think they would touch MD-11ER, unless maybe they can do MNL-LAX nonstop.

MD-87 was a shrink that weren't very successful, 717 did OK after Fokker 100 is gone though and without B we might see quite a few more MD-95 in the air.

MD-XX had around 40 commitments but Asian crisis would have killed MCd, the task were way too big for them to undertake and they knew fighting A340-600/777-300 would be hard, if they did a twin they might be OK, at least with a few hundred copies (KL 767 replacement, CI AB3/6 replacement, BR 767 replacement etc)

I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.

Perhaps they thought having three engines would allow them to stretch the MD-11 further in the future, while still being able to lift lots of freight.

ILNFlyer wrote:

I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.

They considered it with the DC-10, coming up with a squashed version of the DC-10 that would have been a 767 competitor, but the issue is that the fuselage was too wide to make it really a good design. Also, at the time that they were really thinking about the MD-11, there still weren't engines in the pipeline that were big enough to be able to make it a twin and given that they were mostly re-using the original DC-10 wing box and gear, I'm not sure if there was sufficient under-wing clearance to do that.

A clean-sheet design is a monumentally expensive and resource-intensive product. Just ask Boeing. McDD wasn't in the financial position to design such a product in the mid 1980s.

B-HOP wrote:

Devilfish:

I remembered seeing PR　MD-11 summer 1996 in Kai Tak, so they do fill in regionally, the problem is though PR ordered their A340 in 1993 and their first 342 would be back from Cathay by the end of 1996

Yes...with the A340 in the fleet, it was very hard to add something more capable afterwards.





Admittedly, PR is all about price and the A340 was their best all-around bet then, even if those usually had to make a tech stop on the westbound to MNL.

B-HOP wrote:

so I don't think they would touch MD-11ER, unless maybe they can do MNL-LAX nonstop.

The MD-11ER was nominally a 7,240 nm airliner with 298 pax...so theoretically, it shouldn't be a problem doing the ~6,348 nm GC TPAC crossing...as the photos attest.....

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-MNL&MS=wls&DU=nm

It was noted upthread that the MD-11ER was hitting its promised numbers with the last production units...but maintenance and support were bound to diminish after the merger.

As Delta's Richard Anderson said that they have to pick from whatever the manufacturers are making. If the 777 was not around, more airlines would be flying the A340's.

DocLightning wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.

They considered it with the DC-10, coming up with a squashed version of the DC-10 that would have been a 767 competitor, but the issue is that the fuselage was too wide to make it really a good design. Also, at the time that they were really thinking about the MD-11, there still weren't engines in the pipeline that were big enough to be able to make it a twin and given that they were mostly re-using the original DC-10 wing box and gear, I'm not sure if there was sufficient under-wing clearance to do that.

A clean-sheet design is a monumentally expensive and resource-intensive product. Just ask Boeing. McDD wasn't in the financial position to design such a product in the mid 1980s.

In 1995, Trent 700 and GE CF6-80C2 already exist, but they are too late for the party, Boeing already had 10 years of experience with ETOPS, but a twin would have to be 300 seats, but the response weren't good.

ILNFlyer wrote:

I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.

They were not in a financial position to do so, and management did not want to do a clean sheet anyway because it cost too much. I think when McDonnell took over they decided at that point that they could tweak the existing line (including the DC-10, which was in development at the time) more or less indefinitely and stay in the game. And that is what they tried to do. It was an inadequate plan; they would not even spring for a new wing for the MD-80 series, which would have helped it a lot. And the DC-10 wing was hopelessly inadequate for the MD-11, but they still tried to use it. And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.

SEPilot wrote:

And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.

I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).

I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.

DocLightning wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.

I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).

I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.

Making a derivative is a lot less expensive and risky than a whole new engine half again as powerful as anything yet built. And I stand on my assertion that the only one of the three airframe manufacturers in the late 80s-early 90s that could have gotten one, let alone all three, engine manufacturers to build it was Boeing. They had to have assurances that the plane would sell enough to give them a reasonable chance to make money on it, and the only one with the track record to do that was Boeing. As to RR launching the Trent line for Airbus, I understand that RR was desperate to improve their market penetration (which at the time was about 8%) and so were more than willing to team up with Airbus on that (probably hoping that Airbus would do exactly what it did in becoming a challenger to Boeing), but it was not a completely new engine, as it was basically an improved RB-211. I still doubt that they would have jumped on with Airbus for a 74,000 lb thrust engine at that time, but they did for Boeing.

SEPilot wrote:

As to RR launching the Trent line for Airbus, I understand that RR was desperate to improve their market penetration (which at the time was about 8%) and so were more than willing to team up with Airbus on that (probably hoping that Airbus would do exactly what it did in becoming a challenger to Boeing), but it was not a completely new engine, as it was basically an improved RB-211.

By that standard, RR has never built a completely new engine because every engine they have ever made seems to be an evolution from prior models.

DocLightning wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.

I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).

I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.

It reminds me of what John Leahy said around the A350XWB launch period a decade or so ago, about how GE expected Airbus to accept whatever engine it was building for Boeing whereas RR would build engines based on Airbus's needs.

And the more I lurk around here the more I learn how important it is to have the right engine for the job. Some things stick out like Airbus's Tom WIlliams saying the TXWB wasn't a good choice for A380neo (even though it was in the right thrust band), and recent comments here about how the PW GTF is really too heavy and delivers too much power to be suitable for the A319.

It seems a.net at large thinks you can slap whatever engine is available onto an airframe and come up with a good product, but that doesn't seem to match reality.

Sort of on topic, but came across this on YouTube.

The MD-11 is my favorite trijet. It's a shame it's success was not as pronounced. Like the ultra-modern props of the '50s and '60s facing the jet age, so to did the trijets face the new twinjets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HML-cWNoLu4

McDonnell missed their chance when they decided not to do a wide body twin engined. They got the fuselaje and the skills to resolve the equation, instead, they gambled their chances going to a revamped trijet, and they lost.
(This is my first post here on A-net and it's a honour to do it)

If the 777 were never built, the MD-11 would have sold in 1995-96 like the DC-10-30 had during 1977-78. By that point, the PIPs had put the range and payload performance beyond the original contractual projections.

If we are just considering the the absence of the 777, any estimation of another model's sales can't be validated one way or another. The absence of the 777 is a two variable issue:
The assumption would be no 777 is made AND Boeing cedes the market. Boeing was clear it was going to enter the market, had it not done that with the 777 it still would have with something. Very possibly it's own tri-jet but one that has a clean sheet design and and all the material and production benefits that went into the 777. One possible outcome is that Boeing's tri-jet still performs well enough to hurt MD sales so either design results in the same outcome.

atypical wrote:

If we are just considering the the absence of the 777, any estimation of another model's sales can't be validated one way or another. The absence of the 777 is a two variable issue:
The assumption would be no 777 is made AND Boeing cedes the market. Boeing was clear it was going to enter the market, had it not done that with the 777 it still would have with something. Very possibly it's own tri-jet but one that has a clean sheet design and and all the material and production benefits that went into the 777. One possible outcome is that Boeing's tri-jet still performs well enough to hurt MD sales so either design results in the same outcome.

A clean sheet trijet would have destroyed the MD-11, perhaps even more than the 777 did. A Boeing trijet would be able to carry more cargo than a 777.

blacksoviet wrote:

A clean sheet trijet would have destroyed the MD-11, perhaps even more than the 777 did. A Boeing trijet would be able to carry more cargo than a 777.

Alas, these were as far as Boeing got with the idea... ...


http://airchive.com/galleries/19115.jpg


http://www.boeing-747.com/_Media/b747-3 ... med-2.jpeg


That Boeing did not push through with both says a lot about their viability in the marketplace. Perhaps this might have better chances in the future


http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... 201-01.jpg

JeremyB wrote:

ACATROYAL wrote:

Just curious what was the longest route any airline flew the MD-11?

Delta for sure pushed their MD-11's to the limit, with JFK-NRT, ATL-NRT but LAX-HKG would be the longest non-stop route ever flown with the MD-11.

Not sure how much the MD-11 was being pushed on this route, but ATH-ATL sure seemed like it.


As far as LAX-HKG is concerned, I once heard a pilot "rumor" (take it any way you want), that the pilots had a couple of alternates, but they were in the PRC and were unofficial. So, if they couldn't get into HKG, they were prepared to land at one of these alternates and just walk away. Doesn't sound very plausible, but who knows?

mitchell747 wrote:

there would definately be a lot more md11 around. there would be a lot more planes around if the 777 wasnt made

I tend to think the MD-11 would have had a much chance had it been launched in order to enter service sometimes during the mid-80s, on time and delivering the announced performances for long-range flights.. Then MDC could have evolved with a new wide-body twin to cover for intra-Asian routes first before making that twin ever more versatile, just like the A330.

Nothing seriously new was proposed and produced at Long Beach since the launch of the DC-10. Everything was just an update where the competition was designing/proposing better families of more advanced aircraft. The guys from STL were too narrow minded with their approach to commercial aircraft.

Nobdy is saying it, but even the 767-400 would have sold beter.

DocLightning wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.

I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).

I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.

To build on what SEPilot said, the Trent was not an "all-new" product. The Trent 700 was an evolution of the RB211-524H. There's a nice visual depiction of the RB211/Trent evolution in this paper. It's from the power gen industry, but still relevant:

http://iagtcommittee.com/downloads/2013 ... _paper.pdf

DocLightning wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

As to RR launching the Trent line for Airbus, I understand that RR was desperate to improve their market penetration (which at the time was about 8%) and so were more than willing to team up with Airbus on that (probably hoping that Airbus would do exactly what it did in becoming a challenger to Boeing), but it was not a completely new engine, as it was basically an improved RB-211.

By that standard, RR has never built a completely new engine because every engine they have ever made seems to be an evolution from prior models.

Which is a reasonably fair statement. For that matter, GE has only designed two brand-new engine cores in their large engine history: the TF39 and the Ge90. All of their subsequent variants (CF6-50, CF-80, GEnx, Ge9X) evolved from one of those two parent engines.

The MD-XX would have had a new high-speed (mach .85 cruise) supercritical wing with a full 213' span (44' greater than the MD-11) with an area around 5200 sq ft, 65,000+ lb thrust Trent 600 engines and 2 lengths (an LR at MD-11 length and a stretch). The LR, which is my favorite, could fly 8320 nmi with 309 pax in a 3 class configuration at an 802,000 lb TOW.
Not quite as light as the 777-200 ER/LR, but very good performance and it would have been a contender in the absence of the 777 or not.

Devilfish wrote:

That Boeing did not push through with both says a lot about their viability in the marketplace. Perhaps this might have better chances in the future


http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... 201-01.jpg

Triple engine BWB would make the 777 look like an archaic gas guzzler...

The MD-11 as we know it would still not wing against the A330/340 and something 767-400 like simply because it had the old wing. Swiss/Swissair operated the A340 and the MD-11 and the call the A340 more efficient, more reliable and most importantly much easier to fly, as the approach speed of the MD-11 was quite high.

SpaceshipDC10 wrote:

mitchell747 wrote:

there would definately be a lot more md11 around. there would be a lot more planes around if the 777 wasnt made

I tend to think the MD-11 would have had a much chance had it been launched in order to enter service sometimes during the mid-80s, on time and delivering the announced performances for long-range flights.. Then MDC could have evolved with a new wide-body twin to cover for intra-Asian routes first before making that twin ever more versatile, just like the A330.

Nothing seriously new was proposed and produced at Long Beach since the launch of the DC-10. Everything was just an update where the competition was designing/proposing better families of more advanced aircraft. The guys from STL were too narrow minded with their approach to commercial aircraft.

Mid-80's, the world are still recovering from a recession and what come out would probably would not be advanced enough for the 90's, I believe early 80's they would still be 3 crew aircraft, maybe with CF6-80/RB211-524D4 engine, with a simple stretch, refinement on aerodynamic but nothing else, the 61/63 plan were of course, a step towards the right direction though, but seriously, once they relaxed ETOPS requirement in 1984, the case for trijet diminished, beside, those needed 747 sized aircraft already bought 747-200B (833klb) aircraft between 1979-82, this aircraft needed to be with 12000km range, beating 742 and meeting 744 and two crew cockpit, nothing like MDc was purposing to at the time, don't forget there are a number of 742 whitetail between 1980-85, such as the one from Braniff, BA, Libyan and they could be had for cheap.
Eg: SQ already has a number of 742 and 743 started to arrive,
MH bought 2 742 from BA (whitetail),
TG got 742 1979,
PR got 742 in 1980,
CX got 742 in 1980, CI was 1978/79,
KE already has a sizable fleet of 742/DC10, but they might be interested, JL, same case
MH,TG,PR,KE all only has a small DC10 fleet, if they need top up, they might have got it in the second hand market, anything bigger is covered by 742
British Caledonia might be interested, but they ended up with second hand 742
AZ/LH Could be interested, they had a few 747 combi delivered around this time, but then commonality vs 2 crew cockpit also an issue.
UA/AA-Had large DC10 fleet and used 747 for transcon/Hawaiian routes, however inefficient, the solider on till mid 90's, UA had few international flights at that point
NW might be interested though, especially if the range are good enough for transpac to start from Seattle to HKG/TPE/SEL/Osaka, instead of hubbing though NRT.

You look at DC-10's order, without Pentagon, DC-10 were basically done by early 80's, they are still recovering from AA191 and have little resources to put on DC-10 and even it did, they have to fight with airlines all upgrading capacity to 747, itself with poor sales, if it went for a half-heart stretch they would not survive fighting 747-400, let alone A340, even the later MD-11 weren't good enough with the package being thrown in, if it has a better wing, they might survive till 346/77W with reasonable sales as freighters. If McD's management have understood the problem by early 90's, they would not write off the development cost but pour money for a twin, with some commonality with MD-11, many of the A330 sales to ex-MD-11 operators came between 1997-2003 AY,BR,CI, KL etc, instead they are focused to sell MCD off and take the money

If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.



Poking the 777, I should know better..

Remember that the first batch of MD11s late out the factory door, had quite a few bugs to be worked out as well as being a little heavier than originally promised with the slightly less range than promised that goes with it. This helped depress interest somewhat even as the company worked things out with later aircraft.

keesje wrote:

If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.

Maybe...

Against the specification sheet you posted, the 777-300ER lifts 30,000 pounds more payload than the MD-XX and flies the MD-XX's payload 1000nm farther (and it's own payload as far). If McD had put the GEnx on the MD-XX, Boeing would not have stood still, so GE either would have given them the GE9X or they would have gone to Rolls-Royce for the RB3025. So that would have dramatically reduced the 77W's fuel burn and it would have had the MRO benefits of two engines versus three. The 777-300ER also would have still been around 10,000 pounds lighter.

keesje wrote:

If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.

That picture to me looks like less payload range than a 777-300ER at higher operating costs.

And that's not really a surprise. No one expected the 777-300ER or the GE90-115B to be as good as they were. Not even Boeing. What you posted would have had a payload disadvantage, but a range advantage and closer fuel burn numbers, to Boeing's originally projected 777-300ER performance.

keesje wrote:

If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.

Poking the 777, I should know better..

I applaud your dedication to the craft of putting down the 777 at every opportunity, even hypothetical ones.

I don't see any conceivable way that 3x GEnx would be less expensive to maintain than 2x GE90, especially when one of those engines is 10 meters above the ground. The GEnx would need maintenance costs roughly 33-50% lower than the Ge90 for that to be feasible.

If one engine pops after V1 it would have 20% more power left, less asymetric, so have superior MTOW / payload. Specially from short/hot runways, like many in Asia. The 777 GE engines are not famous for their low MRO costs. More familiar 70k engines would probably costs >33% less, as today is the case. Specially if there is choice. ETOPS wouldn't exist. The 777 is a good aircraft, but let's be real. (See what I wrote below the picture..)

blacksoviet wrote:

atypical wrote:

If we are just considering the the absence of the 777, any estimation of another model's sales can't be validated one way or another. The absence of the 777 is a two variable issue:
The assumption would be no 777 is made AND Boeing cedes the market. Boeing was clear it was going to enter the market, had it not done that with the 777 it still would have with something. Very possibly it's own tri-jet but one that has a clean sheet design and and all the material and production benefits that went into the 777. One possible outcome is that Boeing's tri-jet still performs well enough to hurt MD sales so either design results in the same outcome.

A clean sheet trijet would have destroyed the MD-11, perhaps even more than the 777 did. A Boeing trijet would be able to carry more cargo than a 777.

Sorry, I disagree with you here. A trijet is a terrible design; there just is no good way to mount the center engine. It requires either a very heavy and complex structure to mount in the vertical stabilizer (per the MD-11 and DC-10) or an S-duct which causes a host of problems, including lost efficiency. For a tube-with-wings design the ideal (and most efficient) number of engines is two. The breakthrough of the 777, and the reason it was so successful, is that Boeing pushed the engine manufacturers to design engines big enough that they could power the plane they wanted to build with just two of them. A trijet of the same size, no matter how cleverly designed, would have been less efficient. And there was no reason to go bigger; they still had the 747, which at that time was selling very well.

keesje wrote:

If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.



Poking the 777, I should know better..

This makes no sense unless you have a time machine. The GenX engine was not even thought of at the time the MD-11 was being developed. The technology to build it had not been developed yet. Why didn't GE develop it for the original 747 back in 1969? Then Boeing could have skipped both the 744 and the 748.

keesje wrote:

If one engine pops after V1 it would have 20% more power left, less asymetric, so have superior MTOW / payload. Specially from short/hot runways, like many in Asia.

And yet Asia is one of the largest 777-300ER operational areas.... So is the Middle East, for that matter, and it's pretty warm there, as well. And again, a 77W's maximum payload is 30,000 pounds higher than an MD-XX Stretch's so even if the 77W goes out payload-restricted due to local conditions, it is not going to go out anywhere near that much.

keesje wrote:

The 777 GE engines are not famous for their low MRO costs.

Well they're evidently cheaper than four A340 RR engines in terms of MRO considering RR agreed to lower their TotalCare and spares prices to match GE to improve A340-600 operating costs. And if GE charges a fair bit for their GE90 engines MRO, one would think they would for their GEnx engines, too.

keesje wrote:

ETOPS wouldn't exist.

Yes it would. ETOPs applies to tai-jets and quads now, as well as twins (hence the new designation of ExTended OPerationS).

Well they're evidently cheaper than four A340 RR engines in terms of MRO considering RR agreed to lower their TotalCare and spares prices to match GE to improve A340-600 operating costs. And if GE charges a fair bit for their GE90 engines MRO, one would think they would for their GEnx engines, too.

No, for the GENX they have competition and future sales campaigns.

Yes it would. ETOPs applies to tai-jets and quads now, as well as twins (hence the new designation of ExTended OPerationS).

I remember CF6 were standardized on ETOPS with many airlines out of standardization considerations. 747s going ETOPS I haven't seen..
Poking the 777 a bit now and then is funny, it's a kind of success story many relate too & take personal
Putting a GENX in a MD11 tail would mean a total redesign of the tail section and seems a kind a un-feasible to me.

keesje wrote:

Putting a GENX in a MD11 tail would mean a total redesign of the tail section and seems a kind a un-feasible to me.

Even without en engine change, probably a new MD-11 version would need its horizontal re-designed for certification, because of its awful longitudinal stability.

keesje wrote:

Well they're evidently cheaper than four A340 RR engines in terms of MRO considering RR agreed to lower their TotalCare and spares prices to match GE to improve A340-600 operating costs. And if GE charges a fair bit for their GE90 engines MRO, one would think they would for their GEnx engines, too.

No, for the GENX they have competition and future sales campaigns.

On the 787 they do. But would they have on the MD-XX? Perhaps, considering RR seems willing to make an engine for anyone.

keesje wrote:

Yes it would. ETOPs applies to tai-jets and quads now, as well as twins (hence the new designation of ExTended OPerationS).

I remember CF6 were standardized on ETOPS with many airlines out of standardization considerations. 747s going ETOPS I haven't seen.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-03-18- ... nute-ETOPS

keesje wrote:

Putting a GENX in a MD11 tail would mean a total redesign of the tail section and seems a kind a un-feasible to me.

Which begs the question why did you suggest it up-thread...

The fact Boeing made the A747-8i (30?) ETOPS out of standardisation considerations seems midly convincing ETOPS applies to all tri jets & quads.

keesje wrote:

The fact Boeing made the A747-8i (30?) ETOPS out of standardisation considerations seems midly convincing ETOPS applies to all tri jets & quads.

Now, we have to start a new thread titled "What If Airbus Built The 747-8?".....as this seems like the exact opposite of the premise in that other thread!

Please remember that the MD-11 was not a new plane, it was just another version of the DC-10, which is perhaps one of the main reasons MDD went bankrupt - no new planes since the 60/70s, just new versions...

keesje wrote:

Poking the 777 a bit now and then is funny, it's a kind of success story many relate too & take personal

Your shtick is well known and fooling no one. Hence why I said I applaud your endless one-sided efforts at trolling folks.

Maybe I should start a thread on how a 727 reengined with the GTF would really spank the A321neo. I mean, the A321 is good but certainly not great. The savings on ETOPs certification alone would really make the A321 uncompetitive.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Maybe I should start a thread on how a 727 reengined with the GTF would really spank the A321neo.

Perhaps you should make that the 7J7... ...


http://airwaysnews.com/galleries/19048.jpg



http://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7e ... _webp=true


.....as mounting a centerline GTF (or UDF) on the 727 can be very problematic

Devilfish wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Maybe I should start a thread on how a 727 reengined with the GTF would really spank the A321neo.

Perhaps you should make that the 7J7... ...


http://airwaysnews.com/galleries/19048.jpg



http://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7e ... _webp=true


.....as mounting a centerline GTF (or UDF) on the 727 can be very problematic

It certainly would make a tailstrike a lot more interesting!

Many UDF lifting body designs I've seen have 3 instead of 2 engines. I wonder why.