Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:26 am

Hey Guys, Is there any difference between NW's DC-10-40s vs the DC-10-30s

DC-10-40


DC-10-30
Image


Anyone know the physical difference between the two?
 
StinkyPinky
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:03 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:39 am

The only real way to tell is by the #2 engine - you can see the opening and rear portion of the tail mounted engine is flaired a bit on the DC-10-40. Not sure if that what your question was asking. Otherwise, I believe it was really only engine performance and range. Somebody more technical definitely knows the answer.
Last edited by StinkyPinky on Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5746
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:41 am

While it's subtle, the #2 engine holds the key the physical differences. The intake on the 40 is wider than the straight tube of the 30
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN WP YS 8M
 
tootallsd
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:02 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:42 am

Note slight bulge at the front of the tail-mounted engine. Apparently the key difference beyond different engines.
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:07 am

There are many differences between all the DC-10 variants and they are cataloged very well at this site: https://www.airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=392

But as folks have noted, the easiest thing to spot on the -40 is the bulge of the intake on the #2 engine.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 ARJ AT6/7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 741/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR1/2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L4T M11/80/87/90 SF3 SU9 TU3/TU5 YK2
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:49 am

UA857 wrote:
Hey Guys, Is there any difference between NW's DC-10-40s vs the DC-10-30s

DC-10-40


DC-10-30
Image


Anyone know the physical difference between the two?

the promary difference is the CF6-50 engines on the -30 and the JT9D-59's on the -40 the Center engine Intake and the Fan cowls on the wing engines on the -40 and the engiguages in the cockpit. Other than that? Not much. I had occasion to have my crew replace a wing engine at SFO when a bird went down the #3 engine of a NWA DC10-40. Northwest wanted to use the bootstrap kit e but United didn't have one as we had switched to a lift kit to save time on engine changes which lifter the entire shipping stand to the pylon to remove the engine from the pylon and attach it to pylon right from the shipping stand. and we could remove or attach the engine with the Nose cowl installed if we chose to.. It usually saveyo 1.5 to 2 hours elapsed time or 9-10 manhours as we dent the inspectors up with the engine to verift the mount bolt torques and witness stripe the mount Bolts as we did the firewall inspection with the engine on the ground whikle attaching the Nose cowl.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:29 pm

Keep in mind that two basic versions of the DC10-40 were produced :

NWA's DC10-40's were initial powered by JT9D-20, later by upgraded -20J engines, same as the JT9D-7, -7J series as installed at the 747, except for gearbox and certain accessories are mounted external to the fan case and the thrust attachment points are located on the intermediate case.

JAL's DC10-40 aircraft were powered by JT9D-59A engines, installed in the same (common) under wing cowling as the JT9D-70A at the 747.
The most succesfull version of this basic engine was the version with the Boeing designed short cowling at the 747 : JT9D-7Q

JAL ordered ten DC10-40I (International) aircraft and ten DC10-40D (Domestic) aircraft, wihout the center gear installed, lower operating weights and high density seating.
Aircraft could be re-configurated from one version to the other during a HMV for equalizing of flight hours and cycles.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6478
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:50 pm

And Nyrop’s famous quote to the GE president’s accusation that he, Nyrop, was prejudiced against GE, “no, I am not, every time I buy a light bulb, it’s a GE bulb”.
 
Lpbri
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:18 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:38 pm

Which shows how technically illiterate airline management is. The GE was the better engine.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:08 pm

What was the longest DC-10-40 scheduled route
 
User avatar
richcam427
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:03 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
What was the longest DC-10-40 scheduled route


ORD-NRT was one of the longer flights for the -40s, but I'm not sure if that was the longest scheduled route.
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1344
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:21 pm

richcam427 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
What was the longest DC-10-40 scheduled route


ORD-NRT was one of the longer flights for the -40s, but I'm not sure if that was the longest scheduled route.


Was that nonstop and are we only talking Northwest Orient / Northwest Airlines? There are probably other longer routes (like JAL NRT-ANC-JFK return) if the NW and nonstop qualifiers are removed.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:12 pm

richcam427 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
What was the longest DC-10-40 scheduled route


ORD-NRT was one of the longer flights for the -40s, but I'm not sure if that was the longest scheduled route.


Seriously? Yes, I meant scheduled nonstop by any airline. Seriously, I don’t even think NW did anything that long with the -30. I am shocked the -40 could do that.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2369
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:00 am

Lpbri wrote:
Which shows how technically illiterate airline management is. The GE was the better engine.

What would make the GE better than the PW for the DC10? Curious to get your take on it.

If you stare at enough pictures, you can also spot the difference by looking at the #1 or #3 engines: the GE is a bit longer, and the fan intake angle is a bit different.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8556
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:23 pm

747classic wrote:
Keep in mind that two basic versions of the DC10-40 were produced :

NWA's DC10-40's were initial powered by JT9D-20, later by upgraded -20J engines, same as the JT9D-7, -7J series as installed at the 747, except for gearbox and certain accessories are mounted external to the fan case and the thrust attachment points are located on the intermediate case.

JAL's DC10-40 aircraft were powered by JT9D-59A engines, installed in the same (common) under wing cowling as the JT9D-70A at the 747.
The most succesfull version of this basic engine was the version with the Boeing designed short cowling at the 747 : JT9D-7Q

JAL ordered ten DC10-40I (International) aircraft and ten DC10-40D (Domestic) aircraft, wihout the center gear installed, lower operating weights and high density seating.
Aircraft could be re-configurated from one version to the other during a HMV for equalizing of flight hours and cycles.



Interesting and seemed like an unusual practice in the industry


I wonder how long the process took to remove a center landing gear from one -40 and reinstall in another
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:22 am

richcam427 wrote:
ORD-NRT was one of the longer flights for the -40s, but I'm not sure if that was the longest scheduled route.

Northwest never used the DC10 on ORD-NRT. It only operated with the 747-200.

Incidentally, ORD-NRT was planned as NW's first A340 route in the early 90’s, but that never came to pass.


LCDFlight wrote:
Seriously? Yes, I meant scheduled nonstop by any airline. Seriously, I don’t even think NW did anything that long with the -30. I am shocked the -40 could do that.

No, NW DC10's never flew ORD-NRT.

Not all Northwest DC10-40's had the increased gross weight for oceanic flying; only about half the fleet did, give or take. The rest were strictly domestic/Hawaii birds. The longest routes the Dash-40's were used on, with any regularity, would be DTW-FRA or MSP-AMS.
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:36 pm

IIRC... NW acquired their DC-10-40s with trans-ocean flights in mind and, until the DC-10 grounding in 1979, used their -40s on their then-new trans-Atlantic routes. It seems (again IIRC) when DC-10s were able to return to service they were relegated primarily/almost entirely to high density domestic services and largely/mostly withdrawn from intercontinental flights. When NW acquired secondhand DC-10-30s from Swissair and Thai (and others?) these became their 'go to' type on U.S.-Europe, with 747s on select frequencies to AMS and LGW (IIRC).

And, although the timing may have been different, it seems JAL's DC-10-40s were assigned primarily/almost entirely to high-traffic domestic routes and intra-East Asia... aside from the aforementioned TYO-ANC-JFK return flight (as confirmed by a JAL-issued timetable in my collection).
 
User avatar
richcam427
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:51 pm

Transpac787 wrote:
richcam427 wrote:
ORD-NRT was one of the longer flights for the -40s, but I'm not sure if that was the longest scheduled route.

Northwest never used the DC10 on ORD-NRT. It only operated with the 747-200.

Incidentally, ORD-NRT was planned as NW's first A340 route in the early 90’s, but that never came to pass.


LCDFlight wrote:
Seriously? Yes, I meant scheduled nonstop by any airline. Seriously, I don’t even think NW did anything that long with the -30. I am shocked the -40 could do that.

No, NW DC10's never flew ORD-NRT.

Not all Northwest DC10-40's had the increased gross weight for oceanic flying; only about half the fleet did, give or take. The rest were strictly domestic/Hawaii birds. The longest routes the Dash-40's were used on, with any regularity, would be DTW-FRA or MSP-AMS.


You're right, not sure what I was thinking. Probably confused NW with AA and confused a DC-10 with an MD-11 :lol:
 
Lukas757
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 11:59 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:01 pm

To get back to the original post:

The position of the bulk cargo door is different. You can spot it when you enlarge the pictures.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21893
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:23 pm

While we're at it, what was the point of the flaring on the #2 nacelle? Presumably, the PW engines had a larger diameter, which necessitated the aft bulge, but what about the forward bulge? OK, so the inlet was larger, but then it tapered to the same diameter as on the -10/30. How does this work to ensure adequate airflow to the engine?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:14 am

Lpbri wrote:
Which shows how technically illiterate airline management is. The GE was the better engine.

I worked on both engines both the CF-6-6d the CF6-50 and the JT9D and I can definitely tell you? That ain't So !! The CF6 had temp problems EVERY summer and there was always some othe malady or other with that engine up to the -50 series.
they weren't improved until the CF6-80 series. The ONLY reason the CF6 and the GE90 series is the sole engine on Boeing Wide Bodies? Because GE PAID Boeing for the right to BE the sole Engine. from the USA. NOT and Most CERTAINLY because they build a superior Engine. Because they Don't!!! Yours is an opinion and I doubt backed up by any real facts or knowledge of both manufacturers. It's probably something somebody TOLD you!!
 
Lpbri
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:18 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:48 am

I stand by my comments. GE is still in the business and PW is a sideshow
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 5:42 am

The GE CF6-50 series was the real killer for the first generation of JT9D engine due better SFC and far better IFSD rate. On the 747 several airlines (e.g. KLM, LH) decided even to switch to GE from P&W due the benefits of this engine shown on early DC10-30 operation

The P&W JT9D-20 as installed at the NWA DC10-40 aircraft is a first generation JT9D certified under Type Certificate A20EA.

TSFC is about 5% below the TSFC of the GE CF6-50C engine as installed at the DC-10-30 series.
Also the certified T/O thust of the CF6-50C is higher (50,400 lbs) than the T/O thrust of the JT9D-20 (44.500 lbs), only with water injection T/O thrust could be increased to 47.500 lbs.

Later the NWA engines were upgraded to -20J standard (48.650 lbs T/O thrust), with an improved HPT, but with an even higher TSFC , due increased blade cooling.

The JT9D-59A as installed at the later built JAL DC10-40 aircraft was a better match for the GE CF6-50C, but the improved CF6-50C2 series (2% better TSFC, improved fanblades) regained the lead again.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:15 pm

747classic wrote:
The GE CF6-50 series was the real killer for the first generation of JT9D engine due better SFC and far better IFSD rate. On the 747 several airlines (e.g. KLM, LH) decided even to switch to GE from P&W due the benefits of this engine shown on early DC10-30 operation

The P&W JT9D-20 as installed at the NWA DC10-40 aircraft is a first generation JT9D certified under Type Certificate A20EA.

TSFC is about 5% below the TSFC of the GE CF6-50C engine as installed at the DC-10-30 series.


Correction : TSFC of the P&W JT9D-20 (adapted JT9D-7 for the NWA DC10-40) is 5% higher (less fuel efficient) than the TSFC of the GE CF6-50C.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:55 pm

For just a little bit of timeline info. I checked out as an FO on NW DC-10 sometime in 2003. By that time NW had gotten rid of the -40s and were only flying -30s. I remember during the checkout I heard the pilots were glad the -40's were gone. Seems there were problems of compressor stalls at the top of descent if throttle reduction was not use in conjunction with finesse pitch movements at altitude. Not a problem in the 30.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:46 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
For just a little bit of timeline info. I checked out as an FO on NW DC-10 sometime in 2003. By that time NW had gotten rid of the -40s and were only flying -30s. I remember during the checkout I heard the pilots were glad the -40's were gone. Seems there were problems of compressor stalls at the top of descent if throttle reduction was not use in conjunction with finesse pitch movements at altitude. Not a problem in the 30.

Also the early P&W engines were susceptible for X-wind, tail wind during start, etc.
To protect the JT9D-7 and -20 engine against a compressor stall an auto recovery system (ARS) was installed, opening the 3.5 bleedvalves, when sensing a pressure drop in the compressor.
Also an EGT warning system was installed to guard against a sudden EGT rise, indicating an engine stall.
After a compressor stall a boroscope inspection was needed, if certain parameters were exceeded.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:27 pm

Given the historical fleet strategy and that NW continued to acquire select late-build -30s as late as mid 2000, would more second hand acquisitions occurred if 9/11 never happened?
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:47 pm

DeltaMD95 wrote:
Given the historical fleet strategy and that NW continued to acquire select late-build -30s as late as mid 2000, would more second hand acquisitions occurred if 9/11 never happened?


Yes, with the acquisition of the first DC10-30, NWA discovered the big difference between a JT9D-20(J) powered DC10-40 and the "real thing" : a CF6-50C2 powered DC10-30 : higher operating weights and lower fuel consumption.
In retrospect : selecting the first generation JT9D for the DC10 was a bad decision, seen all the issues with that engine at the 747-100/200 series (also with NWA).
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:35 pm

Knowing nyrop, it was thought to be a case of common engines=common parts=savings. That, and it’s better to stick with the devil you know than the one you don’t.
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
trex8
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:09 pm

Lukas757 wrote:
To get back to the original post:

The position of the bulk cargo door is different. You can spot it when you enlarge the pictures.

Any reason MDC would have changed the location?
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:18 pm

747classic wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Given the historical fleet strategy and that NW continued to acquire select late-build -30s as late as mid 2000, would more second hand acquisitions occurred if 9/11 never happened?


Yes, with the acquisition of the first DC10-30, NWA discovered the big difference between a JT9D-20(J) powered DC10-40 and the "real thing" : a CF6-50C2 powered DC10-30 : higher operating weights and lower fuel consumption.
In retrospect : selecting the first generation JT9D for the DC10 was a bad decision, seen all the issues with that engine at the 747-100/200 series (also with NWA).



The DC-10-40 is a DC-10-20 is because Nyrop didn't like the the GE powered 30 to be seen as superior to the his choice so they called it a DC-10-40 so it would look as a more advanced version.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:40 pm

stratosphere wrote:
747classic wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Given the historical fleet strategy and that NW continued to acquire select late-build -30s as late as mid 2000, would more second hand acquisitions occurred if 9/11 never happened?


Yes, with the acquisition of the first DC10-30, NWA discovered the big difference between a JT9D-20(J) powered DC10-40 and the "real thing" : a CF6-50C2 powered DC10-30 : higher operating weights and lower fuel consumption.
In retrospect : selecting the first generation JT9D for the DC10 was a bad decision, seen all the issues with that engine at the 747-100/200 series (also with NWA).



The DC-10-40 is a DC-10-20 is because Nyrop didn't like the the GE powered 30 to be seen as superior to the his choice so they called it a DC-10-40 so it would look as a more advanced version.


How significant was the difference in performance between the NW DC-10-40s vs JL? IIRC, JL’s -40s were built in the late ‘70s/early ‘80s, with improved JT9Ds compared to the NW aircraft delivered circa ‘72-‘74.
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:57 pm

DeltaMD95 wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
747classic wrote:

Yes, with the acquisition of the first DC10-30, NWA discovered the big difference between a JT9D-20(J) powered DC10-40 and the "real thing" : a CF6-50C2 powered DC10-30 : higher operating weights and lower fuel consumption.
In retrospect : selecting the first generation JT9D for the DC10 was a bad decision, seen all the issues with that engine at the 747-100/200 series (also with NWA).



The DC-10-40 is a DC-10-20 is because Nyrop didn't like the the GE powered 30 to be seen as superior to the his choice so they called it a DC-10-40 so it would look as a more advanced version.


How significant was the difference in performance between the NW DC-10-40s vs JL? IIRC, JL’s -40s were built in the late ‘70s/early ‘80s, with improved JT9Ds compared to the NW aircraft delivered circa ‘72-‘74.


I think the ones that JAL had were only 3000lbs more thrust than the NW ones. 50,000 vs 53,000.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:04 am

The NWA DC-10-40 aircraft were powered by JT9D-20 engines with a max T/O thrust of 44500 lbs (dry ) and 47,500 lbs (wet)
Later these engine were upgraded to a JT9D-20J configuration, with max T/O thrust of 48.050 lbs (water injection deleted)
MTOW was certified at 565.000 lbs.
The JAL DC10-40 aircraft were powered by JT9D-59A engines with a max T/O thrust of 51.720 lbs.
MTOW of the JAL DC10-40I was 572.000 lbs.
On top of that the TSFC of the -59A engine was more than 5% better than the -20 series.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
Lukas757
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 11:59 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:06 pm

trex8 wrote:
Lukas757 wrote:
To get back to the original post:

The position of the bulk cargo door is different. You can spot it when you enlarge the pictures.

Any reason MDC would have changed the location?


Just a guess, but the wing-body fairing was extended at some point, going halfway over the door (you can actually see that on the picture of the -30, early DC10s had a shorter fairing, ending in front of the door). Maybe it was just easier to have the door located further back, out of the way of the fairing.
But then, the door actually also looks different in shape and size. I‘m sure someone knows the answer.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Aug 04, 2020 6:15 am

Lukas757 wrote:
trex8 wrote:
Lukas757 wrote:
To get back to the original post:

The position of the bulk cargo door is different. You can spot it when you enlarge the pictures.

Any reason MDC would have changed the location?


Just a guess, but the wing-body fairing was extended at some point, going halfway over the door (you can actually see that on the picture of the -30, early DC10s had a shorter fairing, ending in front of the door). Maybe it was just easier to have the door located further back, out of the way of the fairing.
But then, the door actually also looks different in shape and size. I‘m sure someone knows the answer.


Here is the answer : https://www.airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=392

The first DC-10 with the bulk door relocated aft of the aft main entry door was L/N 46, KLM DC-10-30, PH-DTA (the first produced DC10-30 and used as testbed with registration N1339U.)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:37 pm

exFWAOONW wrote:
Knowing nyrop, it was thought to be a case of common engines=common parts=savings. That, and it’s better to stick with the devil you know than the one you don’t.

Nyrop famously said, I’ll buy lightbulbs from General Electric, and aero engines from Pratt & Whitney
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:18 pm

cedarjet wrote:
exFWAOONW wrote:
Knowing nyrop, it was thought to be a case of common engines=common parts=savings. That, and it’s better to stick with the devil you know than the one you don’t.

Nyrop famously said, I’ll buy lightbulbs from General Electric, and aero engines from Pratt & Whitney


When he stepped down as CEO in 1976, Northwest Airlines was still the only customer for the JT9D-20 powered DC-10, all others selected General Electric CF6 engines.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
ThalesCoelho
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:12 pm

Why no JT-9D-7R4G2 for the -40? AFAIK that was the engine version that gave the 747-200 its better performance, no?
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1344
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:37 am

Yes, the registrations.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:32 am

ThalesCoelho wrote:
Why no JT-9D-7R4G2 for the -40? AFAIK that was the engine version that gave the 747-200 its better performance, no?


The JT9D-7R4G and -H series were certified at July 23, 1982.
At that point in time the DC-10 production was already in the final phase with production of the 60 KC-10A's (first delivered L/N 373 at 10 Feb 1982), plus 10 ordered Fedex DC10-30F and some late built DC10-30ER's.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Aug 27, 2020 1:07 pm

Transpac787 wrote:
No, NW DC10's never flew ORD-NRT.



No, they flew ORD-NRT with DC-10-40s in at least late 1973... with a traffic stop in ANC each way:

http://northwestairlineshistory.org/wp- ... 28-CHI.pdf
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:05 pm

VC10DC10 wrote:
No, they flew ORD-NRT with DC-10-40s in at least late 1973... with a traffic stop in ANC each way:


No, they did not. Your schedule is from 1973. NRT didn’t even open until 1978. Your schedule would be for ORD-ANC-HND.

By the by, the poster I replied to clearly specified “scheduled nonstop”, and is why I typed ORD-NRT, not ORD-ANC-NRT. So, my point stands. Northwest DC10’s never operated ORD-NRT scheduled nonstop.
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Aug 27, 2020 5:16 pm

Transpac787 wrote:
VC10DC10 wrote:
No, they flew ORD-NRT with DC-10-40s in at least late 1973... with a traffic stop in ANC each way:


No, they did not. Your schedule is from 1973. NRT didn’t even open until 1978. Your schedule would be for ORD-ANC-HND.

By the by, the poster I replied to clearly specified “scheduled nonstop”, and is why I typed ORD-NRT, not ORD-ANC-NRT. So, my point stands. Northwest DC10’s never operated ORD-NRT scheduled nonstop.


Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. But, my point still stands--Northwest flew DC-10s from Chicago to Tokyo, which is what the OP and everyone else was interested in knowing.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:18 pm

Did NW at any time operate the few late build -30ERs on select “longer” DC-10 runs? Presumably, even if the trim tank was removed, the higher MGTOW would have still been an advantage over an ex-Swissair from 1973, per se.

On the topic, what was the longest TATL NW DC-10 route operated?
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
Pacific
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:55 pm

DeltaMD95 wrote:
Did NW at any time operate the few late build -30ERs on select “longer” DC-10 runs? Presumably, even if the trim tank was removed, the higher MGTOW would have still been an advantage over an ex-Swissair from 1973, per se.


N226NW comes to mind, ironically an ex-Swissair from 1980. Flew PDX-NRT in the final ("new") NWA livery.
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:08 am

Pacific wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Did NW at any time operate the few late build -30ERs on select “longer” DC-10 runs? Presumably, even if the trim tank was removed, the higher MGTOW would have still been an advantage over an ex-Swissair from 1973, per se.


N226NW comes to mind, ironically an ex-Swissair from 1980. Flew PDX-NRT in the final ("new") NWA livery.


Interesting. What years was that service, if I may ask?
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:05 am

DeltaMD95 wrote:
Did NW at any time operate the few late build -30ERs on select “longer” DC-10 runs?

Northwest had DC10-30's weighing 565.0, 572.0, 580.0, and 590.0. I'm assuming you're interested in the latter two, being the highest-weight ships:

580.0
226 (ex Swissair)
237 (ex Varig)
241 (ex Varig)
242 (ex Varig)

590.0
238 (ex Thai)
239 (ex Thai)
240 (ex Thai)
243 (ex JAS)
244 (ex JAS)


DeltaMD95 wrote:
Presumably, even if the trim tank was removed, the higher MGTOW would have still been an advantage over an ex-Swissair from 1973, per se.

Yes and no. Those IGW DC10's required optimal conditions to even be able to get to those increased gross weights. Temperatures over 80 degrees or runways less than 12,000ft, their runway performance was not such that they could get to those weights.


DeltaMD95 wrote:
On the topic, what was the longest TATL NW DC-10 route operated?

TATL, specifically?? SEA-AMS.

On the Pacific, at various points they operated SEA-KIX, PDX-NRT, SFO-NRT, and HNL-SYD.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 810
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:46 pm

Transpac787 wrote:

On the Pacific, at various points they operated SEA-KIX, PDX-NRT, SFO-NRT, and HNL-SYD.


I don't remember any HNL-SYD flight during my tenure, but it's possible (year?). HNL-GUM existed for a couple of years on the 10. There was also a ANC-NRT on the 10 for a year.
 
mikesbucky
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:17 am

Re: NW DC-10-40 vs DC-10-30

Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:54 pm

Did NW ever fly the DC-10-40 on either the MSP-LGW or CDG-DTW routes?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: working2gether and 22 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