What is the status on the FX DC-10 retirements? I remember seeing a post here on a.net (so take it for what its worth) awhile back that said the retirements are being slowed due to low fuel prices and 767 deliveries not coming fast enough. Is that true? What is the retirement date and how many are left?

Quoting UA444 (Thread starter): What is the status on the FX DC-10 retirements?

They have no more DC-10.

The active fleet is down to 44. Interestingly, among them are some of the oldest frames. I guess most MD-10s are being retired when they are due for the next major check.

N361FE has just been retired:
http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=4

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1): They have no more DC-10

Semantics. MD-10s are still the same DC-10s with the same DC-10 fuselage, engines, flight characteristics, etc.

A little birdie told me late last year that they actually had 2 MD-10s in C-check (a -10 and -30).

I think the retirement choices will be made on a frame by frame basis, as many of the recent SDRs show skin cracks and corrosion as a common issue.

N361FE has a tally of about 82,000 hours and 30,000 cycles on her. Fedex has started just reporting the last 3 digits of the total time on the SDRs, which sucks.

What is status of N365FE?

Supposedly still active. Holy moly, it has over 37000 cycles on it. Not bad for line number 6.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 5): What is status of N365FE?

Still active according to FlightAware: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N365FE
It is absolutely astounding how old some of the MD-10s still flying are.

[Edited 2016-04-07 19:42:07]

FedEx had line number 4 before it was written off in 2003.

Is N365FE slated for retirement? It looks a bit faded paint wise. But some of the other 10s look freshly painted which is curious to me which led to me starting this thread.

I don't know a ton about FX, but what I understand is they are retiring the MD-10s as they cycle/time out and new 767s are delivered. As it was stated above, apparently some MD-10s are going through C-checks due to low fuel prices and 767s not coming online fast enough. I'm not sure when ship 365 is due for her next major check, but that is when I would expect to see her retired, I wouldn't expect FX to put a 45+ year old plane through C-check.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 3): Semantics. MD-10s are still the same DC-10s with the same DC-10 fuselage, engines, flight characteristics, etc.

Its actually not semantics. The MD-10 modification is a change to the type certification as an amendment to the TC and not an STC. The data plates of a DC-10-10, -10F, -30, -30F are changed to a MD-10-10F or -30F, respectively. They are separate models in the TCDS.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...063dccf/$FILE/A22WE%20REV%2012.pdf

Perhaps the mods can amend the thread title.

Perhaps the mods can amend the thread title.

On another thread recently we were discussing which was the highest hours Boeing 747 and we came to the conclusion it had to be either of KLM's PH-BUH or PH-BUI at around 135,000 hours before final retirements with other airlines. I flew on PH-BUH many years ago and was impressed with its ultimate longevity. I was also impressed to see that G-BNLF, another plane I flew on 17 years ago only retire a week or two ago with 115,964 hours

However, the DC-10 story is even more impressive certainly in terms of life span. I flew on United DC-10 N1809U way way back on 23rd July 1980 from Chicago O'Hare to the old Denver Stapleton. That is 36 years ago!!! My dad who was with me on that flight has long since passed away. This aircraft became N370FE with Fedex and as far as I can see it is still active at around 44 years old. I saw it on flightradar not that long ago. It would be interesting to have an idea what hours and cycles these DC-10s might have logged.

Interestingly, N365FE (l/n 6) is only a month younger than FedEx itself!

I even know people who started working for Fedex while that frame was in service, and retired before it left. It's incredible how much some aircraft are living these days.

Quoting adipasquale (Reply 9): I don't know a ton about FX, but what I understand is they are retiring the MD-10s as they cycle/time out and new 767s are delivered. As it was stated above, apparently some MD-10s are going through C-checks due to low fuel prices and 767s not coming online fast enough.

This is generally correct, and yes the 767 deliveries have slowed dramatically. Then again, the plan is for China/East Asia flying to convert completely to 767 by next year, so we will still be seeing plenty of MD metal here domestically.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 13): This aircraft became N370FE with Fedex and as far as I can see it is still active at around 44 years old. I saw it on flightradar not that long ago.

It is indeed still active.

N68053 originally a CO DC-10 flew over my home yesterday as FE, age 41 years and 3 months.

Quoting flflyer (Reply 16):

I see them everyday at PHX and SAN. Sometimes two at a time in PHX.

Quoting panampreflight (Reply 17): Sometimes two at a time in PHX.

Guess they are getting used to the climate they will be spending their retirement in! 

Speaking of FedEx MD10s, here in Chicago in the evening I see one regularly approaching ORD. When I look it up on flightradar it turns out to be a flight from MKE. How does it make any economical sense to fly a 40+ year old three holer on such a short route when you could put all that cargo on a truck and still make it in the same business day (especially since it's an evening flight)?

I'm surprised some of the new builds they took delivery of in the late 80s have been retired but older ones haven't.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 20): I'm surprised some of the new builds they took delivery of in the late 80s have been retired but older ones haven't.

That's because the purpose for which the MD-10s are used, FX don't need the range or takeoff weight of the -30.

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 19): Speaking of FedEx MD10s, here in Chicago in the evening I see one regularly approaching ORD. When I look it up on flightradar it turns out to be a flight from MKE. How does it make any economical sense to fly a 40+ year old three holer on such a short route when you could put all that cargo on a truck and still make it in the same business day (especially since it's an evening flight)?

FX certainly does not need an MD-10 to carry freight from MKE to ORD. It's almost certainly either 1) dropping through ORD as a transit point to fill up a plane that is otherwise not full, on its way to MEM - or 2) It's dropped off freight at MKE but isn't needed in the morning, so it's staging to ORD for the morning departure.

While it likely carries a small amount of freight destined for ORD from MKE, that's just icing on the cake.

The 767 delivery schedule is pretty much unchanged, 10 aircraft to be delivered in 2016,line 1093 delivered February, 1095 April Delivery any day now , 2 a/c lines 1094&1096 were move to OCT&DEC the 7 were moved up . The retirement schedule for the MD10 was changed in August 2015, 14 MD10 retirements were changed due to contract increase in USPS volume, 68049 is next to retire within the next couple days. The last 310-200 454 should make its last flt to VCV Monday. As of today the last MD10 316 should leave the property in June 2020.

[Edited 2016-04-08 13:33:41]

[Edited 2016-04-08 13:35:00]

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 10): Its actually not semantics. The MD-10 modification is a change to the type certification as an amendment to the TC and not an STC. The data plates of a DC-10-10, -10F, -30, -30F are changed to a MD-10-10F or -30F, respectively. They are separate models in the TCDS.

The difference is in a retrofitted cockpit so only 2 crew members are required instead of 3. I don't see that this change makes the aircraft any less of a DC-10 than it was before. The change in crew required a change in flight certificate and that was the name they chose. The performance characteristics of the 2 aircraft are identical except the Flight Deck. None of the general posts in this thread would have suffered at all if DC-10 was used instead of MD-11.

Quoting atypical (Reply 24): The difference is in a retrofitted cockpit so only 2 crew members are required instead of 3. I don't see that this change makes the aircraft any less of a DC-10 than it was before. The change in crew required a change in flight certificate and that was the name they chose. The performance characteristics of the 2 aircraft are identical except the Flight Deck. None of the general posts in this thread would have suffered at all if DC-10 was used instead of MD-11.

Yes thanks, I am very familiar with the modification. You can call it whatever you want, but according to the FAA and the way it was certified, its an MD-10, not a DC-10. Sure, the general conversation did not suffer at all, just pointing out the fact that FedEx no longer has any DC-10s.

When did Fed Ex take delivery of their first DC-10?

Out of interest, can anyone confirm the flight characteristics of the DC 10 and MD 10 are the same.

Quoting bigbird (Reply 26): When did Fed Ex take delivery of their first DC-10?

I could be wrong but I think it was 1980 (?)
FE bought eight DC-10-10CFs from CO N68049-056.

It says a lot about the original design, over-engineering and quality of MX by FedEx that these DC/MD-10's are still in daily use for decades.
What are the main routes/stations the DC/MD-10 work, the mix of North America or international vs. other model aircraft in their fleet ? I know they often fly in/out of EWR.

Quoting iahcsr (Reply 28): I could be wrong but I think it was 1980 (?) FE bought eight DC-10-10CFs from CO N68049-056.

You are right.

Here's FX fleet dates of deliveries. By the end of 1984 they had 12 second-hand aircraft. First newly manufactured arrived in 1985.

http://www.planespotters.net/product...Donnell-Douglas&type=DC-10&sort=dd

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 29): It says a lot about the original design, over-engineering and quality of MX by FedEx that these DC/MD-10's are still in daily use for decades.

I would say that, structurally and functionally, the DC-10 was over engineered. The engineering for some systems was probably deficient. Namely all three hydraulic systems were routed throug a small area near the center engine and there was no interlock to prevent asymmetric operations of the leading edge slats. Also, the floor vent system was inadequate as was the cargo door locking system. These four design issues led to three of the most notorious airline accidents in history, ruined the reputation of the DC-10 for a long time and killed its sales.

I hate to say this because I always preferred Douglas aircraft and the DC-10 was one of my favorite planes on which to travel. I am also one of the few people on this forum who thought that the DC-10 was better looking than the L-1011.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 31): I would say that, structurally and functionally, the DC-10 was over engineered. The engineering for some systems was probably deficient. Namely all three hydraulic systems were routed throug a small area near the center engine and there was no interlock to prevent asymmetric operations of the leading edge slats. Also, the floor vent system was inadequate as was the cargo door locking system. These four design issues led to three of the most notorious airline accidents in history, ruined the reputation of the DC-10 for a long time and killed its sales.

I think the overall point stands out though. It's amazing that these Douglas planes, along with the DC-9 and MD-80, flew all these years. Quite an accomplishment. I think the DC-8s flew for a long time as well.

A lot of planes have had design flaws that took accidents to find and fix. Some of these design flaws probably wouldn't have been issues if the operators had done things differently. American was jamming engines back up and into the wing with a forklift. Unfortunately, the pilots of 191 didn't know what had happened and was happening. Maybe if American had purchased an additional stick shaker for the copilots side, they would have known of the stall. Maybe the American procedure for loss of engine should have called for increasing speed. More of an issue was the lack of information the pilots had. Unfortunate they lost engine 1 and the systems that were connected to that.

What responsibility did cargo handlers have for jamming cargo doors shut/not shutting them properly? What responsibility lay with operators for training? Ok, poor design of the door locking system. But some responsibility lays with the operators there with that one as well. I'm not sure you can prepare for every eventuality that may develop because it's hard to think of every one of them, especially when there are outside forces and chains of events.

Alaska was trying to cut maintenance costs. Sorry, that there was no fail-safe point for the jackscrew on the MD-80, but then the manufacturer probably didn't anticipate Alaska trying to cut costs on maintenance and lube. As far as I know, there weren't other jackscrew accidents.

A lot of these accidents come down to costs and probabilities. Unfortunately, the DC-10 had these high-profile accidents. However, the 747 had even more disastrous accidents, many due to pilot error, but some were also design/repair issues. I just think the overall point stands. Douglas planes have lasted.

[Edited 2016-04-10 08:28:46]

Quoting wrenchon727 (Reply 23): 68049 is next to retire within the next couple days.

This must be it on its final flight to VCV: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDX9038

No doubt that Douglas airplanes were among the sturdiest airplanes ever built. My point was that seemingly small things rose up to bite the DC-10 in the butt. If the same cascade of events had occurred on the 747 or L-1011, perhaps the same results would have occurred. Just like the Lockheed Electra disasters, the DC-10 taught the industry that strength alone is not sufficient in airplane design.

There are actually a few DC-8s in civilian service today. That was an airplane with no design flaws in my opinion. I would gladly fly on any properly maintained Douglas product ever built including the DC-1 and DC-2. There was a DC-3/C-47 that served in the Berlin Airlift that flew for another 20 years or so with a couple of tons of coal dust hidden under the floor. It was discovered in the 1960s during a major overhaul. That plane had flown as much as two tons overweight for years, and showed no ill effects.

Quoting wrenchon727 (Reply 23): 68049 is next to retire within the next couple days.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1): Quoting wrenchon727 (Reply 23): 68049 is next to retire within the next couple days. This must be it on its final flight to VCV: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/F...X9038

Wowww..... for me personally, this is the end of an age - and making me realize mine.

I loved the Continental DC-10s as a young boy because flying on one meant I was going to grandpa's to run around barefoot for month. From getting soap and wings and Golden Tail swizzle sticks, to playing Pong in the first-class lounge, those big birds still glow magically in my memory.

I remember so clearly seeing 68049 nose up to the LAX terminal windows back in the '70s, and thinking what an important and special plane it was because it had someone's name in big black letters under the cockpit window. I also remember that Robert F. Six must be the coolest and most important and most powerful person in the world, because his name was a number and it was on a DC-10!!

So now I am almost 50 years old and this memory was a lifetime ago. Seeing that Flightaware track to VCV actually brought a tear to my eye. Farewell, old friend; well done. See you in the beer section, and I'll raise a well-deserved toast....

http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/359056