I am surely not qualified to post here, but was wondering...with all of the negative press the DC-10 had received in its lifetime, what were its technical and operational merits?
Large cockpit windows?
Cargo capacity?
Any pilots/mechanics weigh in?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Lets Praise The DC-10
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
It simple: DC-10s, just like many other Douglas aircraft starting with the DC-3/C-47 were built to last.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
DC-10 avionics were very advanced for their time: CATIII Dual Autoland, FMS, fuel management etc.
Much less workload for the FE compared to the B747 classic.
I loved them 'cause they were dependable work horses that were relatively easy to maintain and operate.
Much less workload for the FE compared to the B747 classic.
I loved them 'cause they were dependable work horses that were relatively easy to maintain and operate.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Cdekoe (Reply 3): I loved them 'cause they were dependable work horses that were relatively easy to maintain and operate. |
HEY HEY HEY
Let's not set up the headstones just yet. There's still a couple hundred running around loose and FEDEX's MD mod with the 717 avionics suite should ensure they're around as long as the DC-8 has been. . .
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
Well, it eventually turned into a reliable aircraft.
But only after racking up the worst safety record of any widebody aircraft.
Until the MD 11 came along !
Despite it's complexity the L1011 was and is a far superior aircraft.
The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT.
But only after racking up the worst safety record of any widebody aircraft.
Until the MD 11 came along !
Despite it's complexity the L1011 was and is a far superior aircraft.
The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GGg
GGg
-
- Viscount724
- Posts: 19316
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Mlsrar (Thread starter): Large cockpit windows? |
Also passenger windows. If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies. That was one reason I always liked flying on both types. Helped make the cabin seem even more spacious and roomy than it was. Like the DC-8 and DC-9, Douglas built them to last.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
Well, it the first plane I ever flew on, and thank to my mother being a loyal AA flyer in the 80's and early 90's, I flew on more DC 10 than any other jet as a child. It was cool flying on the second biggest jetliner in the world, at that time.
The DC-10 did have a very spacious cabin, every time I was on one, I knew I was on a big jet.
| Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): Also passenger windows. If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies. That was one reason I always liked flying on both types. Helped make the cabin seem even more spacious and roomy than it was. Like the DC-8 and DC-9, Douglas built them to last. |
The DC-10 did have a very spacious cabin, every time I was on one, I knew I was on a big jet.
-
- Tristarsteve
- Posts: 3678
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): Well, it eventually turned into a reliable aircraft. |
But the original CF6-6 was not very reliable even in later years.
Only anecdotal evidence but in the mid nineties we shared a hangar with an airline who had 5 DC10-10s. We had 4 L1011-1s.
We were both charter operators flying from ARN down to Greece and Spain. In two years the DC10 mob changed 23 CF6-6 engines. We changed one RB211-22B, and that was time expired.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Cdekoe (Reply 3): DC-10 avionics were very advanced for their time: CATIII Dual Autoland, FMS, fuel management etc. Much less workload for the FE compared to the B747 classic. |
I think you are mistaken it for the Tristar. The "FMS" for the -10 was a joke, compared to the L-1011.
"Dual Autoland"...to what decision height ?
"Fuel management" by the F/E...
Give me a Tristar anytime !
Contrail designer
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Pihero (Reply 11): Give me a Tristar anytime ! |
... and I thought this topic was to Praise the DC-10?!
I have no experience with the Tristars. Only flew on the 747 and DC10, and was comparing those two.
We performed many full Autolands in CAT III-B conditions at AMS - only needed to apply reverse thrust.
The FMS on the -10 was a lot more sophisticated than the caroussel INS' on the 747 classics as well.
So... praise to the DC-10!
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20375
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT. |
I don't want to dilute the Tristar hoorah (great plane indeed) but the same could be said of the 320, the 330/340, the 777...
The DC-10 sure could look badass. Here is one of my favorite a.nut pics:
Photo © Sunbird Photos by Don Boyd
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
Isn't there a significant delta in the cargo capacity between the -10 and the Tristars?
It was my understanding that, for their size, the DC-10s could carry a significant cargo uplift.
It was my understanding that, for their size, the DC-10s could carry a significant cargo uplift.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
-
- airfoilsguy
- Posts: 3485
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT. |
| Quoting 411A (Reply 8): very VERY redundant systems. |
It didn't have redundant landing gear down and locked indicators or a test to see if the light is functional.
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 15): It didn't have redundant landing gear down and locked indicators or a test to see if the light is functional. |
What?
Lights test button on the F.E. panel. Push it and very light (that is functional) laminates.
Pop-up indicator on each wing, down (flush with wing skin) when the gear is up and up (approximately 1") when main gear down and locked. View port in aft bulkhead of the forward electronics bay and mechanical lock indicator on nose gear upper jury brace.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
 |
| DC10 Jolly Jet |
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting 747400sp (Reply 9): The DC-10 did have a very spacious cabin |
As long as it isn't 3-4-3, it will feel more spacious. 3-4-3 on a DC-10 (and MD-11, given that both have the same fuselage cross section) is hell, I can assure you that.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the beautiful music the DC10's engines create. Nothing like the sound of 3 CF6's or JT9D's working in unison at takeoff power! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVRHQJh5UGU
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...d_Airways_Aviation_Video-4387.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVRHQJh5UGU
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...d_Airways_Aviation_Video-4387.html
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
Here's another video from fl350. In addition to the NWA DC-10, listen to the JT9D's I mentioned in my previous posts on those Kalitta 747 classics (as well as the GE90's on the KLM T7).
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra..._Airlines_Aviation_Video-4139.html
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra..._Airlines_Aviation_Video-4139.html
-
- TrijetsRMissed
- Posts: 1983
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
Operational merits include its durability, range, and payload. Some airframes are at or approaching 35 years of age and still going strong. The DC-10-30 had superior range than the L-1011-500, which debuted roughly six years after. Payload is self explanatory, look at all the Fed Ex freighters.
It was passenger friendly for its spacious cabin, large windows, and powerful take-offs. And contrary to popular belief by some, the DC-10 had a good safety record after 1979, although 1989 was a rough year.
Well, first of all the 747 classics have the worst safety record for widebody aircraft. Second, the MD-11 has only had one accident with a significant loss of life.
Yes, and hats off to the Tristar. Although there were incidents with cracks in the wing spars, something I don't remember hearing with the DC-10. Furthermore, it's worth noting each of the DC-10 accidents that were caused by the design had an element of human error.
To the pilots in the forum: Would a DC-10's auto-pilot disengage without warning if the control column was slightly nudged? a la EA 401..
No question, I can not believe how tiny they are on the A330 in comparison.
It was passenger friendly for its spacious cabin, large windows, and powerful take-offs. And contrary to popular belief by some, the DC-10 had a good safety record after 1979, although 1989 was a rough year.
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): But only after racking up the worst safety record of any widebody aircraft. Until the MD 11 came along ! |
Well, first of all the 747 classics have the worst safety record for widebody aircraft. Second, the MD-11 has only had one accident with a significant loss of life.
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): The Tristar NEVER HAD A DESIGN CAUSED ACCIDENT. |
Yes, and hats off to the Tristar. Although there were incidents with cracks in the wing spars, something I don't remember hearing with the DC-10. Furthermore, it's worth noting each of the DC-10 accidents that were caused by the design had an element of human error.
To the pilots in the forum: Would a DC-10's auto-pilot disengage without warning if the control column was slightly nudged? a la EA 401..
| Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): If not mistaken, the DC-10 (and MD-11) windows are larger than those on any other current widebodies. |
No question, I can not believe how tiny they are on the A330 in comparison.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
-
- Viscount724
- Posts: 19316
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting 747400sp (Reply 21): Quoting LTU932 (Reply 18): As long as it isn't 3-4-3, it will feel more spacious. 3-4-3 on a DC-10 (and MD-11, given that both have the same fuselage cross section) is hell, I can assure you that. Thankfully, I only flew on AA DC-10s, they had 2-5-2. 3-4-3 on a DC-10, ouch that sound painful. |
The DC-10 (and L1011) were even more spacious when they were first introduced as for the first few years most of them had 2-4-2 seating in Y class, comparable to the 3-4-2 for the first 3 or 4 years of 747 service. And they were all at least 34 inch seat pitch in Y class, at least 2 to 3 inches more than most current widebodies.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 15): very VERY redundant systems. It didn't have redundant landing gear down and locked indicators or a test to see if the light is functional. |
It did if you knew how to use them.
-
- OceansWorld
- Posts: 828
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 14): It was my understanding that, for their size, the DC-10s could carry a significant cargo uplift. |
In the lower forward cargo compartment, the DC-10 can transport 5 88- x 125-in. pallets or 16 LD-3 containers. For almost all DC-10-10s (except the 16 Continental DC-10-10/-10CFs) and all DC-10-15s, the forward cargo hold could only receive LD-3 containers as the cargo door was only 70 x 66 in. Some DC-10-30s and all DC-10-30CFs also had the smaller forward cargo door, and from what I remember, all aircraft equipped with the smaller forward cargo door had the lower galley arrangement installed, which reduced cargo space to six LD-3 containers only.
-
- access-air
- Posts: 1577
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting 747fan (Reply 20): Here's another video from fl350. In addition to the NWA DC-10, listen to the JT9D's I mentioned in my previous posts on those Kalitta 747 classics (as well as the GE90's on the KLM T7). http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra..._Airlines_Aviation_Video-4139.html |
Sorry to break it to you but the NW DC10 in this Video is a GE powered DC10-30....not a P&W powered DC10-40....When this video was made all of NW's DC10-40s had been retired....You are looking at a former Swissair machine taking off...
Myself, I am just happy that I was able to fly on the few DC10s that I had the chance to, which were the Model 10, 30 and 40. I was chomping at the bit to get on a model 15 when Sun Country got them used in recent years but now I think they have all been scrapped or sold to wherever.....
I miss seeing the DC10s. And of course L1011's. The current twins can be cool, but there is nothing like the fascination one feels as you watch the DC10 take off and wonder how in heck that centre engine stays on the thing. I miss the plethora of 10s at ORD of AA and UA.....I am proud to say that on Easter Sunday back in 1991 I was fortunate enuff to fly on N101AA, of American Airlines from Detroit Metro to OHare, which many of you know that N101AA was DC10 number 1 off the line...That made me very happy....
Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
-
- MD11Engineer
- Posts: 13899
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): Until the MD 11 came along ! |
This is only because so few were built, because Boeing stopped the line after # 200. The Concorde, through one single accident, has a much worser safety record (1 out of 20), while the MD-11 has 5 out of 200. At least two of these MD-11 accidents were caused by gross stupidity of the operators (Hong Kong, landing in a Taifun, and Swiss Air, who had a non-approved pax entertainment system installed on a bus, which defied Douglas's fire protection philosophy).
The DC-10 is, like the MD-11, a sturdy, easy to maintain aircraft.
It is however NOT a Boeing or an Airbus. The design philosophies are completely different.
Concerning the DC-10, the O'Hare crash was caused by the airline deliberately deviating from the Maintenance manual to save time and $$$. Douglas only accepted the blame due to not to loose a customer.
The Turkish Airlines crash over Paris had almost happened as well on a United 747 (cargo door opening in flight), only that the surrounding circumstances were a little bit more lucky.
Granted, GE had a problem with their early CF-6 engines, mainly in production control, this led to the Sioux City accident. If you look at total numbers, e.g. the Boeing 737 has a much higher number of accidents than the DC-10.
Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
-
- Tristarsteve
- Posts: 3678
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 27): Granted, GE had a problem with their early CF-6 engines |
I always worked on the L1011, never on DC-10. However a little CF6 story.
This happened in around 1979 in BAH.
A KLM DC-10 arrived and parked on the apron outside the GF hangar. Being curious, we wandered over to see what was up. The Nbr 1 engine had failed. From a distance the engine looked complete, but I could put my head through a hole in the turbine casing and see inside the combustion chamber. One of the HPT blades had sheared completely the 3/4in slat operating cable in the leading edge.
Amazing. We had a lot of RB211 failures on the L1011 in the early days, the HPTBs did not last long, but when they failed it was usually very difficult to tell what had failed until you looked through the boroscope. About one failur in four you could see the dust of a failed blade in the jetpipe, but that was it.
I know the BCAL engineers at LGW thought it was a great aircraft, it was always going AOG and they were getting trips abroad out of it!
-
- MD11Engineer
- Posts: 13899
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
I have seen a PW 2040 on a 757 spitting compressor blades after a major compressor stall.
Jan
Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting Access-Air (Reply 26): Sorry to break it to you but the NW DC10 in this Video is a GE powered DC10-30....not a P&W powered DC10-40....When this video was made all of NW's DC10-40s had been retired....You are looking at a former Swissair machine taking off... |
I know, and they sound lovely! I was referring to the 747's with the JT9D's. Sorry about the confusion.
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 28):
I know the BCAL engineers at LGW thought it was a great aircraft, it was always going AOG and they were getting trips abroad out of it! |
I'm an ex-BCAL engineer who worked on the casualty unit and I have say they were a VERY reliable a/c. When BA took over they found they were a lot more reliable than their L1011's. BA had to keep a spare L1011 available, this wasn't necessary with the DC10.
[Edited 2007-07-01 21:55:15]
-
- TrijetsRMissed
- Posts: 1983
- Joined:
RE: Lets Praise The DC-10
| Quoting VC-10 (Reply 33): When BA took over they found they were a lot more reliable than their L1011's. BA had to keep a spare L1011 available, this wasn't necessary with the DC10. |
Not to mention the L-1011's would have never been able to fly the LHR-PHX route the DC-10's were on during the later years.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests