Page 2 of 2

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

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:48 pm
by Transpac787
RetiredWeasel wrote:
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.

Here’s a timetable from 1992:

http://www.departedflights.com/NW121592p9.html

HNL-SYD ops split between 742 and DC10.


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

Yes to both. About half the Dash-40 fleet had higher-thrust JT9D-20J motors and an increased gross weight of 550.0 (versus 530.0 on the other ships) and were used on oceanic flights.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:03 pm
by RetiredWeasel
Transpac787 wrote:
RetiredWeasel wrote:
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.

Here’s a timetable from 1992:

http://www.departedflights.com/NW121592p9.html

HNL-SYD ops split between 742 and DC10.


Missed that one completely. I was actually a Second Officer on the 747 based in HNL during that time. The HNL-SYD must have gone way senior cuz I never got there. The HNL pilot base didn't last long for 747 pilots in the early 90's.

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

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:12 pm
by klm617
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.


The DC-10-40 never flew ORD-NRT nonstop all flights had an intermediate stop in ANC

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

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2020 11:56 pm
by Pacific
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Interesting. What years was that service, if I may ask?


Service was launched in June 2004 with the DC-10 IIRC.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:05 pm
by 747classic
Transpac787 wrote:
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.


According the Type cerificate the following NWA DC10-30 aircraft were structurally capable of the following MTOW's

NWA - C/N - MTOW - Original customer
211 - 46868 - 565 K - SAS
220 - 46577 - 565 K - Swissair
221 - 46579 - 565 K - Swissair
223 - 46580 - 565 K - Swissair
224 - 46581 - 565 K - Swissair
225 - 46582 - 565 K - Swissair
226 - 46583 - 572 K - Swissair
227 - 46969 - 565 K - Swissair
228 - 46578 - 565 K - Swissair
229 - 46551 - 565 K - KLM
230 - 46552 - 565 K - KLM
232 - 46961 - 572 K - Thai
233 - 46640 - 565 K - Malaysia
234 - 46912 - 565 K - Korean
235 - 46915 - 565 K - Korean
236 - 46934 - 565 K - Korean
237 - 47844 - 590 K - Varig
238 - 48267 - 590 K - Thai (ER)
239 - 48290 - 590 K - Thai (ER)
240 - 48319 - 590 K - Thai (ER)
241 - 48282 - 590 K - Varig
242 - 47845 - 590 K - Varig
243 - 48315 - 590 K - JAS
244 - 48316 - 590 K - JAS

The identified serial numbers are eligible for these weights when appropriately configured. Specific airplanes may not attain these weights without structural, gear, and other changes. The Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) defines the actual weight approved for each serial number.

See page 12/50 of the TCDS A22WE : https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... Rev_13.pdf

The real IGW (590K) aircraft were original powered by GE-CF6-50C2B engines, a throttle push variant of the normal installed CF-6-50C2 engines.

CF6-50C2B - T/O thrust 53.200 lbs, flat rated 79 degr F.
CF6-50C2 --- T/O thrust 51.800 lbs, flat rated 86 degr F.

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

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:41 pm
by Transpac787
747classic wrote:
According the Type cerificate the following NWA DC10-30 aircraft were structurally capable of the following MTOW's

NWA - C/N - MTOW - Original customer
226 - 46583 - 572 K - Swissair
233 - 46640 - 565 K - Malaysia
234 - 46912 - 565 K - Korean
235 - 46915 - 565 K - Korean
236 - 46934 - 565 K - Korean


A lot of those ships must have received mods or were re-certified to higher weights at some point, as quite a few of those weights are off.

At NW, their respective weights were:
226 - 580.0
233 - 572.0
234 - 572.0
235 - 572.0
236 - 572.0

Interesting to see that 237, 241, and 242 were all capable of 590.0.... they were only certified to 580.0 at NW. To add another degree of complexity, there were three different maximum landing weights throughout the fleet, too. Most were 411.0, where a few were higher at 414.0, and a few lower at 403.0.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:04 am
by 744lover
747classic wrote:
The real IGW (590K) aircraft were original powered by GE-CF6-50C2B engines, a throttle push variant of the normal installed CF-6-50C2 engines.

CF6-50C2B - T/O thrust 53.200 lbs, flat rated 79 degr F.
CF6-50C2 --- T/O thrust 51.800 lbs, flat rated 86 degr F.



So, did the DC-10 then end up using the same engine as certified for the 747-200/300?

It seems we learn something new every day :)

BR,
744lover

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:42 am
by 747classic
744lover wrote:
747classic wrote:
The real IGW (590K) aircraft were original powered by GE-CF6-50C2B engines, a throttle push variant of the normal installed CF-6-50C2 engines.

CF6-50C2B - T/O thrust 53.200 lbs, flat rated 79 degr F.
CF6-50C2 --- T/O thrust 51.800 lbs, flat rated 86 degr F.



So, did the DC-10 then end up using the same engine as certified for the 747-200/300?

It seems we learn something new every day :)

BR,
744lover


The 747-200/300 was certified with the GE CF6-50E and -E2, the same engine as the CF6-50C and -50C2, used at the DC-10-30, only with small changes (e.g. one hyd pump) for use at the 747.
The CF6-50E2B has been certified , but AFAIK the combination 747-200/300 and CF6-50E2B has not been certified.

Note : Some tales from the good old times :
During a turn around with our KLM 747-206B(SUD) at Dhaka (DAC) from Dubai (DXB) in the nineties , i noticed during the walk around at engine #4 (CF6-50E2) some bend fan blades (outside limits).
I knew that Biman was operating some DC-10-30's and asked for some (identical-same part number) replacement -50C2 fan blades at their engine.shop.
No spare blades, but lucky for us a CF6-50C2 engine was to be send to Paris for an HPT overhaul.
We interchanged six (3 + 3 opposite blades for balancing) fan blades and departed after a few hour hard work (catering outside by our cabin crew !), just at our crew duty limits.

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:22 am
by 747classic
Question @Tranpac787 :

Was the entire NW DC10-30 fleet powered by CF6-50C2 engines for fleet standarization or were the 590K aircraft powered by CF6-50C2B engines for better T/O performance below 79 degr F. ?

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

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:41 am
by Transpac787
747classic wrote:
Question @Tranpac787 :

Was the entire NW DC10-30 fleet powered by CF6-50C2 engines for fleet standarization or were the 590K aircraft powered by CF6-50C2B engines for better T/O performance below 79 degr F. ?

Here's the information I have, which is over 20 years old. Maybe take it with a grain of salt, but it's the best I can do. Entire DC10 fleet, both Dash-30 and Dash-40, MGTOW and engine type:

141 - 550 / JT9D-20J
142 - (left fleet in mid 80's, to ATA)
143 - 530 / JT9D-20
144 - 550 / JT9D-20J
145 - 530 / JT9D-20
146 - 550 / JT9D-20J
147 - 550 / JT9D-20J
148 - 550 / JT9D-20J
149 - 550 / JT9D-20J
150 - 550 / JT9D-20J
151 - 530 / JT9D-20
152 - 530 / JT9D-20
153 - 550 / JT9D-20J
154 - 530 / JT9D-20
155 - 550 / JT9D-20J
156 - 550 / JT9D-20J
157 - 530 / JT9D-20
158 - 550 / JT9D-20J
159 - 550 / JT9D-20J
160 - 550 / JT9D-20J
161 - 550 / JT9D-20J
162 - 530 / JT9D-20

211 - 565 / CF6-50C
220 - 565 / CF6-50C
221 - 565 / CF6-50C
223 - 565 / CF6-50C
224 - 565 / CF6-50C
225 - 565 / CF6-50C
226 - 580 / CF6-50C2B
227 - 565 / CF6-50C
228 - 565 / CF6-50C
229 - 565 / CF6-50C2
230 - 565 / CF6-50C2
232 - 572 / CF6-50C2
233 - 572 / CF6-50C2
234 - 572 / CF6-50C
235 - 572 / CF6-50C
236 - 572 / CF6-50C
237 - 580 / CF6-50C2
238 - 590 / CF6-50C2B
239 - 590 / CF6-50C2B
240 - 590 / CF6-50C2B
241 - 580 / CF6-50C2
242 - 580 / CF6-50C2
243 - 590 / CF6-50C2
244 - 590 / CF6-50C2

At least per the info I have, the only ships that carried the C2B motors were the lone Swissair ER conversion (226), as well as the three Thai ER birds (238-240). Surprisingly, I show ships 243 and 244 as carrying only C2 motors, despite the 590.0 weight.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:37 am
by 747classic
@Transpac
Thx, from what approx date are these figures ?

Very odd indeed, that not most 590K's are -C2B powered, more optimal would have been interchanging the engines of ship 243 or 244 with the ones installed at ship 226.

It also strikes me that a lot of engines are not upgraded from the -C to the -C2 standard, because the -C and -C2 differ 1,8% TSFC.
See : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... q9wAXbda6Z
Most probably a lot of spares for the -C engines (especially the old type of fanblades of the -C engines) were still in stock and had to be used first, before slowy updating the remaining engines.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:44 am
by 747classic
@ Transpac
Also the upgrade from JT9D-20 to the JT9D-20J at the NW DC10-40's seems to be in progress at the date of your listing.
Question : Were the NW DC10-40 aircraft (all) original equipped with water injection ?

Note : -20J Same as -20 except no wet rating.
Dry takeoff thrust is available to 86 degr F ambient temperature sea level static . Thrust is increased to 48,050 lb (50,000 lb ideal) and Max. EGT is 985 degr i.s.o 915 degr due to an improved burner and improved high and low pressure turbine (LPT), with stage 1 directional solidified turbine blades with increased cooling.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:19 am
by Transpac787
747classic wrote:
@Transpac
Thx, from what approx date are these figures ?

1999-2000


747classic wrote:
@ Transpac
Also the upgrade from JT9D-20 to the JT9D-20J at the NW DC10-40's seems to be in progress at the date of your listing.
Question : Were the NW DC10-40 aircraft (all) original equipped with water injection ?

As far as I know, they never planned (or executed) any fleet-wide upgrade of the Dash-40's, on their engines. The 40's left relatively soon after 9/11; I believe the final one exited in Fall 2002. Between the 9/11 downturn and the entry of the 757-300, the 40's left pretty quick.

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

Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:55 am
by 747classic
Transpac787 wrote:
747classic wrote:
@Transpac
Thx, from what approx date are these figures ?

1999-2000


747classic wrote:
@ Transpac
Also the upgrade from JT9D-20 to the JT9D-20J at the NW DC10-40's seems to be in progress at the date of your listing.
Question : Were the NW DC10-40 aircraft (all) original equipped with water injection ?

As far as I know, they never planned (or executed) any fleet-wide upgrade of the Dash-40's, on their engines. The 40's left relatively soon after 9/11; I believe the final one exited in Fall 2002. Between the 9/11 downturn and the entry of the 757-300, the 40's left pretty quick.


There must have been an upgrade programme before 1999-2000, because in your listing most aircraft are equipped with -20J engines, not available when the NWA DC10-40's were delivered in 1972-74.
According the JT9D type certificate E20EA : the JT9D-20J variant is certified as late as December 29th 1986.
See TCDS page 3 : https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... /E20EA.pdf

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

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:15 pm
by bfitzflyer
What year did the DC-10 start flying transatlantic/Transpacific.. If I recall they were used only domestically/HI until almost mid 80's and the 747's did all international other than some snowbird runs to PHX and TPA.

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

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:48 am
by NWAROOSTER
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 bought the DC-10-40 with the JT9D-20 power plant as it was mostly common with those on the 747 and the engine shop then did not need to maintain the GE CF6 engine. As the basic engine was the same it could be built for use on either a DC-10 or a 747. Pratt did have a parts availability problem which caused some airlines to acquire new build GE powered 747s and retire their Pratt powered 747s. Lufthansa was one and Nyrop wanted wanted buy them but Boeing managed to prevent Northwest from buying any. Another thing was that if there was a shortage of 747 Pratt engines Northwest would park a DC-10 and rob the number one and three engines and convert them for use on a 747. They would do that usually to a maximum of two DC-10s. If an additional engine was needed then Northwest would rob the number two engines off the parked DC-10s and convert them to use on a 747. Northwest had one DC-10 that was robbed of so many parts that it sat for over a year by the cargo shack until it was decided to be returned to service. Northwest started buying DC-10-30s basically for two reasons. Parts were getting expensive for the DC-10-40s and Northwest was not maintaining them as they used to. Also due to Northwest's financial condition buying new wide body aircraft was beyond their ability. DC-10-30s then became more affordable due to retirements and Northwest Airlines bought those rather than trying to acquire new aircraft. :old:

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

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:28 am
by 747classic
NWAROOSTER wrote:
As the basic engine was the same it could be built for use on either a DC-10 or a 747


The JT9D-20, as installed at the NW DC10-40 aircraft, has indeed the same basic engine as installed at the 747-100/200B fleet (-7), however part of the accessories has to be changed (gearbox), also a different fuel control, stator vane control and start bleed control / 3.0 bleed control , requiring a motorshop visit and (part) power testing.
According the Type certificate :
JT9D-20, same as -7 except for gearbox and certain accessories are mounted external to the fan case and the thrust attachment
points are located on the intermediate case. Dry takeoff rating of 44,500 lb is available to 84oF ambient temperature
sea level static, and wet takeoff rating of 47,500 lb is available to 86oF ambient temperature sea level static. Engines
equipped with water injection system may be operated at wet takeoff rating without activating the water injection
system when ambient temperatures are at standard +6oF and below. These ratings represent McDonnell Douglas DC10 aircraft installed performance

See : https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... /E20EA.pdf



NWAROOSTER wrote:
Pratt did have a parts availability problem which caused some airlines to acquire new build GE powered 747s and retire their Pratt powered 747s. Lufthansa was one and Nyrop wanted wanted buy them but Boeing managed to prevent Northwest from buying any.


The only time there was a spare part issue with Pratt was during the massive PW engine upgrade from -3A to -7 or -7A at the early 747-100/200B fleet , starting in 1972, so during this engine upgrade program some -20 engines could have been used to keep all the NW 747's operational during this upgrade program.

In a later stage the spare parts problem was especially valid for specific -20 parts, because NW was the only airline that operated this JT9D version and only a few were build (66+)

The airlines that changed to the GE CF6-50 engine at the 747-200B (KL, LH, AF) were all not satisfied with the early JT9D series (-3A, -7,-7A) and had already knowledge about the superior performance and reliability of the GE engine at the DC10-30 (KSSU an ATLAS) fleets.

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

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:45 pm
by klm617
mikesbucky wrote:
Did NW ever fly the DC-10-40 on either the MSP-LGW or CDG-DTW routes?


I would say no on MSP-LGW as I believe that was always a 747 up until being replaced by the DC-10-30, but they did operate DTW-CDG on the DC-10-40. Both DTW-FRA/CDG were opened in the summer of 1989 with the DC-10

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

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:26 pm
by skipness1E
Transpac787 wrote:
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.

They all flew on the North Atlantic routes with the exception of N142US which had been sold by 1987 when this began. N143US was returned to NWO and became N133JC in the same period.

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

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:59 am
by NWAROOSTER
skipness1E wrote:
Transpac787 wrote:
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.

They all flew on the North Atlantic routes with the exception of N142US which had been sold by 1987 when this began. N143US was returned to NWO and became N133JC in the same period.


So did N144US which came back as N144JC. N142US was sold to ATA and reregistered. As Northwest had decided not to sell any more DC-10-40 to any airlines after selling the three DC-40s. N142US was going to be returned to Northwest but burned beyond repair at ORD the day before it was to be returned. The cause was an extra seat group in the bulk cargo area when an oxygen generator caught fire while sitting remotely. Northwest obtained the wing mounted engines with their pylons and maybe some other small parts before the aircraft was scrapped. :old:

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

Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:37 pm
by skipness1E
Oh I forgot about N144JC, I saw that one much later on than the rest. Why were those three sold? Just the chaos of the early 1980s?