According to Wikipedia, the A330 is 38% more efficient than the DC-10. Are the efficiency gains of the A330 over the DC-10 primarily due to having one less engine? What other factors would have helped shave off a few percentage points here and there? Could the DC-10 have been made as efficient if it had one less engine?

- The A330 is much, much lighter, both from having only two engines and incorporating 25 years of materials and technology advancements.
- It's got a smaller cross-section for less drag.
- It's got slimmer, much longer wings with winglets, which generate plenty of lift, again with less drag.
- The two engines are a generation more advanced.

To power a DC-10 with two engines, you would need 772ER-size engines. It would perform like a less aerodynamic, less advanced 772. Even the 772 that was ultimately developed with 25 years of advancements over the DC-10 was less efficient, although much more capable, than the A330.

Yes, the DC-10 would have been more efficient as a twin, but engine technology at the time wouldn't allow it. The most powerful engines available when it was on the drawing board could only produce 40-50,000 lbs. of thrust. The DC-10 was originally planned as a "Jumbo Twin," but as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary. The first generation of high-bypass turbofans just didn't have enough oomph to power a 400,000+ lb. twin.

Also, the DC-10 needed a whole lot of extra structure and reinforcement in the tail to mount engine #2. This added a whole lot of extra weight back there that the A-330 doesn't need. As already noted, the A-330 had a couple decades of refinements to help it out as well. Modern engines, fly-by-wire, composites, aerodynamic advancements, and whole host of other little tweaks all added up to make the A-330 more efficient that the DC-10.

Now, what would a twin with a couple of 50,000 lb. thrust turbofans be like? Airbus pretty much nailed that one with their A-300, which ironically was pretty much on par with what the DC-10 was originally planned to be.

PC

edit - Found an interesting article about several stillborn airliner concepts that mentions the DC-10 Twin.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...05/12/20/203709/clipped-wings.html

[Edited 2010-12-13 17:18:24]

The question then becomes...was there a jet airliner that was developed at about the same time as the DC10, that was about the same size, suitable for longer range overwater flying, and was also more 'efficient'...as measured by fuel consumption?
The answer is yes, and it was manufactured at Palmdale California USA.
Lockheed TriStar.
For the same aircraft weight, the TriStar consumed approximately 6% less fuel.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1): - The A330 is much, much lighter, both from having only two engines and incorporating 25 years of materials and technology advancements. - It's got a smaller cross-section for less drag. - It's got slimmer, much longer wings with winglets, which generate plenty of lift, again with less drag. - The two engines are a generation more advanced.

The need for a flight engineer on the DC-10 is also a big cost factor compared to the 2-crew A330.

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2): as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary.

Given that the A300 outsold the DC10, MD11 and L-1011 combined, I would think that this growth can be fairly described as a mistake in hindsight.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): The need for a flight engineer on the DC-10 is also a big cost factor compared to the 2-crew A330

Actually, it's a cost advantage.

This is a wildly inaccurate urban legend on a.net. Take an airline like NWA that operated the A330 and DC10 at the same time, MSP-HNL being the last route the latter was used on. Given the FAR's regarding crew rest, the A330 must carry an augmented crew being a 2-man cockpit, while the DC10 only carries a single crew being a 3-man cockpit. As such, the company staffs the A330 with 1 CA, 2 FO. The DC10 would be staffed with 1 CA, 1 FO, 1 SO. Being on the same payscale, at the time, the SO's were paid less than FO's. As such, on a crew basis, the DC10 was cheaper to operate than the A330.

[Edited 2010-12-13 23:03:40]

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 6): Actually, it's a cost advantage.

Perhaps in some rare occasions which you describe, and only really due to an anomoly in the rule. Why doesn't the DC10 require a crew rest at the same block time as the A330?

Quoting thegeek (Reply 7): Perhaps in some rare occasions which you describe, and only really due to an anomoly in the rule. Why doesn't the DC10 require a crew rest at the same block time as the A330?

Considering the missions of the two aircraft, it would be a grand majority of the occasions, not a 'rare' occasion.

Per the FAR's, in a 2-man cockpit aircraft, the crew is limited to 8 hours without supplemental rest. In a 3-man cockpit aircraft, the crew is limited to 12 hours without supplemental rest. No one has ever quite figured out the reasoning or logic behind that FAR and I won't try to justify it. Regardless, 3-man cockpit crews are allowed to fly longer than 2-man cockpit crews. So on any number of missions at NWA.... MSP-HNL, DTW-FRA, MEM-AMS, etc... the A330 carried 1 CA / 2 FO while the DC10 carried 1 CA / 1 FO / 1 SO.

Is that a mistake in the drafting of the rules? Why does the F/E count towards the number of "men". Shouldn't it be the number of "pilots"?

I'm fairly sure that this anomoly doesn't apply in Australia, and that QF needed to have a 4 man crew to do SYD-PER-MEL in 743s.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 5): Given that the A300 outsold the DC10, MD11 and L-1011 combined, I would think that this growth can be fairly described as a mistake in hindsight.

The slight problem was....the original A300 was designed as a medium range airplane, whereas...both the DC10 and the L1011 were designed at the outset for, and flown, on longer range routes.
In addition, the original A300 was not an extended range approved airplane....only two engines and not enough fuel capacity.
IE: it was a good JFK-MIA airplane, with a maximum payload.
Trans-Atlantic?
Not a chance.

Quoting 411A (Reply 10): Trans-Atlantic? Not a chance.

Specifying a trans atlantic range requirement was exactly the kind of thing I am saying was a mistake.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 11): Specifying a trans atlantic range requirement was exactly the kind of thing I am saying was a mistake.

You are quite incorrect.
TWA, just as one example, requested trans-Atlantic range, in order to offer a smaller airplane than the B747.
And, they got it, with the L1011-100.
Several European airlines requested and received trans-Atlantic range capability for the DC-10, for the same reason.
Suggest you look at the historical facts, and not just your supposition.

Quoting PapaChuck (Reply 2): Yes, the DC-10 would have been more efficient as a twin, but engine technology at the time wouldn't allow it. The most powerful engines available when it was on the drawing board could only produce 40-50,000 lbs. of thrust. The DC-10 was originally planned as a "Jumbo Twin," but as the design kept growing and putting on weight, three engines became necessary. The first generation of high-bypass turbofans just didn't have enough oomph to power a 400,000+ lb. twin.

I thought the Douglas wanted the DC-10 to be a twin, but at that time, before ETOPS, the FAA simply was too nervous about having an airplane fly transatlantic on "only" two engines, thus it had three engines.

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 13): I thought the Douglas wanted the DC-10 to be a twin, but at that time, before ETOPS, the FAA simply was too nervous about having an airplane fly transatlantic on "only" two engines, thus it had three engines.

As mentioned previously, it was engine sizes available that dictated the three-engine design.
If however, larger engines would have been available at that point in time, the FAA was ready to propose ETOPS initial...60 minutes, expanded to 90 minutes after suitable operating experience.
How do I know?
I have met several ex-McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed design engineers who told me so, directly.
However, 60 minutes would have presented problems with north Atlantic routings, and would have added considerably longer enroute times (and the added fuel), thus larger engines would be required....which were not available.
The solution...was three engines.

Thanks for all the info! It seems like, had McDonnell Douglas correctly read the signs of the times, they would have developed a twin-engine version of the DC-10 in the mid-70s, which might have led to greater success in the widebody wars.

I often thought that the composition/construction of the DC-10 might have contributed to the disparity between it and the A330. Assuming that "38% more efficient" means "uses 38% less fuel for a comparable flight," would the fuel use of the DC-10 decrease by 33% if you removed one of the engines? (I'm thinking no, because the two remaining engines would have to work harder. However, I'm a musician and not an engineer, so please feel free to correct me or provide additional information). But if that were true, surely the A330 isn't only 5% more efficient than a 2-engine DC-10??

Quoting 411A (Reply 10): The slight problem was....the original A300 was designed as a medium range airplane, whereas...both the DC10 and the L1011 were designed at the outset for, and flown, on longer range routes

That's quite incorrect : As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ;
A300-B4 : 6650 Km
DC-10 : 6100 Km (it went up to 10,000 km on the -30 )
L-1011 : 6340 km ( reaching to 10,200 km on the -500 )

Back to the O.P ;

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter): Are the efficiency gains of the A330 over the DC-10 primarily due to having one less engine?

These aircraft are a human generation apart, 22 years during which a lot of progress had been made in terms of computing power, aerodynamics -in particular mastering of the super-critical airfoil - , alloys and new materials...etc... and especially engines.
Everything starts with an engine that's some 15 % more efficient , then quite a lot more *thrusty* than those installed on the -Ten ( as a matter of fact, the three CF6-50 installed on the -Ten develop some 654 kN, compared to the 601 kN the two CF6-80 give the A332.
Although the OEW of the two aircraft are quite comparable ( 121.2 T for the -Ten vs 120.2 for the A332 as regs required more structure than former ones ), and the passengers accomodation in the same ballpark, the difference is quite stunning in terms of MTOW : the -Ten is some 30 tons (some 66,000 lbs) heavier for a much shorter range (4000 Nm vs 6400 ).
The answer to your question has to do with a much lower drag, a lower cruising Mach (.8 iso .85 ) and also, something much overlooked : the cumulative effect of lower fuel burns.
Let's take an example : working at the extreme range (with a full load, that is... ) of the -Ten, let's suppose that the fuel burn index of the A332 is 100.
With engines that are 15% less efficient, the -Ten's index will be 118...but these extra 18 points will need some more fuel in order to be carried on board... on a 9 hr flight, the extra fuel needed should be in the vicinity of 30%, adding therefore an extra 5.4 points to our index.
So, in the end, the -Ten will end up burning 123.4 % of the A332 reference.
Now, consider that the regulation reserves are based on the burn-off, which adds more carried fuel again...
And finally, consider that the -Ten will need extra tanks, extra beefing-up of the structure...etc... etc...
I don't know where the 38% extra efficiency came from in that article, but the above figures are representative of the progress made in the engines. I suppose the rest of the difference comes from aerodynamics.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16): As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ;

As long as we are looking at facts, the original A300 design was not a B4...it was a B2, with severely limited range.
Severely limited so much so, that Thai International could not complete a BKK-HKG sector (flying around VietNam, due to airspace closure) and still have enough fuel for a diversion, and at the same time, carry anywhere near a reasonable payload....IE 60 seats blocked off.
How do I know?
Because I was there and operated replacement 707 services, transporting the extra passengers that Thai had left behind.

In any event, the B4 was not approved for long overwater sectors (without severe restrictions)...the three engine types definitely were, with no restrictions.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16): That's quite incorrect : As a matter of fact, the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ; A300-B4 : 6650 Km

That is true, the were also doing what is know today as 90 minutes ETOPS flights Trans-Atlantic well before the FAA and ICAO came up with the ETOPS concept. The A300 was also one of the very first ETOPS aircraft approved, as they were effectively were doing ETOPS, also one of the first wide bodies to be certified with a 2 man cockpit.

Quoting 411A (Reply 17): In any event, the B4 was not approved for long overwater sectors (without severe restrictions)...the three engine types definitely were, with no restrictions.

Your selective memory never fails to amuse me.
As Zeke said, the original A-300 B4 (to be picky, it came as the number nine airframe out of the line ) was allowed 90 minutes diversion time by just about all the ICAO countries except the USA, of course which insisted in the post WW2 60 minutes' rule... until in 1985 -ish- the first FAA approved ETOPS was for the...guess what ? ..the Boeing 767, of course !!!!!!!
The Thai B2 saga is well documented but in no way representative of the vastly huge majority of the A300 fleet.

Quoting 411A (Reply 14): If however, larger engines would have been available at that point in time, the FAA was ready to propose ETOPS initial...60 minutes, expanded to 90 minutes after suitable operating experience.

That's your way of saying it... it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege.
The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19): That's your way of saying it... it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege. The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.

The FAA leads, others follow, sometimes obtusly.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19): The Thai B2 saga is well documented but in no way representative of the vastly huge majority of the A300 fleet.

Of course it is, and I was there to observe (and fly B707's to fill the void), while Airbus dithered.
Thai International was not pleased, you can be sure.

Quoting 411A (Reply 20): Thai International was not pleased, you can be sure.

Rubbish. Thai knew exactly what they bought.You're making it sound as if Airbus hadn't delivered on specs, which was patently untrue.

Quoting 411A (Reply 20): The FAA leads, others follow, sometimes obtusely.

No longer the case, my friend.
The last time they led was on the 737 vs 320 certification farce they managed to pass under everybody else's nose. See for instance the 180 min ETOPS cert for the Triple-seven that just about nobody bought (not sure about BA and the CAA), thus imposing a probation period on the airplane. Look at what the Europeans have managed to pass through the FAA...
I'm not complaining. We now have a fairly level field and everybody seems to be working toward one direction : air safety.
Which hasn't really been the case as political / industrial concerns went first, most of the time.

[Edited 2010-12-14 14:21:00]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19): it took 11 years for the A300 to see the FAA grant that privilege. The same FAA which granted the 180 min ETOPS to the 777 before EIS... the other ICAO countries demanded 120 for a probation of one year.

Yeah, because things were exactly the same in 1995 as they were in 1974.  

Quoting 411A (Reply 12): Suggest you look at the historical facts, and not just your supposition.

Well the historical fact is that Douglas or McD never developed another clean sheet airliner. You may argue that this was more to do with the cargo door problem and lack of slat locking, and perhaps some other more minor problems rather than 2 or 3 engines, but I am sure that both were factors.

Just because the DC10 had a market isn't really an argument. And to re-ieterate, the A300 considerably outsold the DC10.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 15): Thanks for all the info! It seems like, had McDonnell Douglas correctly read the signs of the times, they would have developed a twin-engine version of the DC-10 in the mid-70s, which might have led to greater success in the widebody wars.

Yes, but we will never know for sure. It also would have been a visionary concept to have a medium range plane with only 2 engines.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 23): And to re-ieterate, the A300 considerably outsold the DC10.

Smaller/shorter range types normally do outsell larger/longer range types...and always will.
Because, there are more airlines that fly shorter routes than there are airlines that fly longer/overwater/intercontinental routes.
I'm surprised you have not figured this out by now....but if you hadn't, now you know.

Quoting zeke (Reply 18): the were also doing what is know today as 90 minutes ETOPS flights Trans-Atlantic [with the A300] well before the FAA and ICAO came up with the ETOPS concept.

Before... 1985? What airline?

Quoting 411A (Reply 24): Smaller/shorter range types normally do outsell larger/longer range types...and always will.

Ok, that point is true. But the range difference in this case isn't as significant, well, as anything I can think of.

   The DC-10's cabin floor 100% flat while the A330 cabin floor is only 85% flat. So the DC-10 cabin floor is 15% flatter than the A330's!

Quoting KGRB (Reply 22): h, because things were exactly the same in 1995 as they were in 1974.

Apparently changes were not enough for all the other countries so they refused the EIS certification for ETOPS 180.   

[Edited 2010-12-15 02:37:11]

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16): the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven

1977-78 Jane's says

A300B4 (157500 kg MTOW version) range 5930 km with full fuel (56600 liters)

DC-10-10 (MTOW 440000 lb) range 9543 km with full fuel (21800 gal)

L1011-1 (MTOW 430000 lb) range 8080 km with full fuel (23814 gal)

Lockheed's range is with "international reserves"; the other two say nothing about that.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 15): Thanks for all the info! It seems like, had McDonnell Douglas correctly read the signs of the times, they would have developed a twin-engine version of the DC-10 in the mid-70s, which might have led to greater success in the widebody wars.

Except that since McDonnell "merged" with Douglas (as a lion merges with a zebra) there was zero chance of anything like that happening. As thegeek points out, MD never again designed another clean sheet airliner, because McDonnell was unwilling to spend the money

Quoting 411A (Reply 24): Smaller/shorter range types normally do outsell larger/longer range types...and always will.

.
I would argue this. Why did the 783 die? The fact is that even though the majority of routes are much shorter than the capabilities of the planes flying them, airlines buy planes with the range for their longest routes so they have the flexibility to use any plane on any route. Neither A nor B is building any short or even medium range planes; they are building everything as long range as is practical. If short range planes sold better they wouldn't be doing that.

Quoting timz (Reply 29): 1977-78 Jane's says.................................................

The figures I took were with Full Pax Loads which are quite comparable.
Your figures don't mean anything to an airline, which is not in the business of carrying fuel to far away places.
They are nothing short of ludicrous.

So the A300B4 can do 6650 km with a full pax load, but 5930 km with full fuel?

Quoting timz (Reply 32): So the A300B4 can do 6650 km with a full pax load, but 5930 km with full fuel?

Figure 5.5 hours tops, with a full freighter payload.

Anything else is total nonsense.

From the horse's mouth :
"The Series 10 model was designed for service on routes of up to 4,000 statute miles (6,436 km) and is powered by General Electric CF6-6 engines, each rated at 40,000 pounds (17,144 kg) takeoff thrust. "
Can be checked on the Boeing site at :
BCA

Alan Wright, top technical writer at Ian Alan 's modern Civil Aircraft cites the Ten-10 range with 277 pax at 3800 mi = 6110 km ( no cargo).
As for the :

Quoting 411A (Reply 33): Figure 5.5 hours tops, with a full freighter payload.

cited by 411A, as usual without any reference, suffice it to say that in 1985, SQ was already flying the first ETOPS route between Singapore and Mauritius with an A300-B4 with a full load : the airway distance is 3150 Nm, some 5825 Km for a 6 hr 45 min flight time.

Quoting timz (Reply 32): So the A300B4 can do 6650 km with a full pax load, but 5930 km with full fuel?

As I told you, those figures border on the ludicrous. I personally stopped taking Jane's seriously when in the early eighties I was asked to advise on a cargo project between Europe and West Africa. The data on Jane's were unexploitable.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 34): SQ was already flying the first ETOPS route between Singapore and Mauritius with an A300-B4

SQ operated A310's on that route.

Quoting 411A (Reply 20): The FAA leads, others follow, sometimes obtusly.

As someone who has flown a lot under both FAA and JAA I will say that the FAA is decades behind in understanding fatigue issues.

The FAA is not the shining beacon on a hill for all others.

That said, I will admit that most of what other aviation authorities claim as their own was largely taken, virtually verbatim, from the FAA. I've seen it with JAA documents.

Nevertheless, the FAA and American aviation are no longer the world's leaders on all things.

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 36): is decades behind in understanding fatigue issues.

In what way??

The FAA's rule regarding time on the flight deck is much better vs the JAA.

FAA:
0+01 to 8+00 : single crew
8+01 to 12+00 : 1.5 crew
12:01 and above : double crew

JAA:
0+01 to 10+00 : single crew
10+01 to 15+00 : 1.5 crew
15+01 and above : double crew

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 37): In what way?? The FAA's rule regarding time on the flight deck is much better vs the JAA. FAA: 0+01 to 8+00 : single crew 8+01 to 12+00 : 1.5 crew 12:01 and above : double crew JAA: 0+01 to 10+00 : single crew 10+01 to 15+00 : 1.5 crew 15+01 and above : double crew

My last 4-day trip started with a 4:40 AM showtime. I flew between 4 and 6 legs each of those days and the last day finished at 02:23, actually on day 5. No regard for circadian rhythm changes and I was legal to work up to 16 hours per day. Or at least on a couple of those days. And the last day I did work about 14.5 hours and the F/O 15.5.

I will say time and time again that more segments = more fatigue and total block time is a meaningless figure when duty time is taken to 16 hours, which it frequently is in the US.

Duty time limitations are far more humane in Europe. I have never flown long-haul and don't doubt that it is fatiguing in its own way. But when I fly to Europe, which I do about three or four times per year, I see the take-off and about 30 minutes later a pilot emerges for a dinner and a nap. A few hours later the next one rotates in and finally the final pilot takes a break. Then eight or nine hours after we took off (or twelve, depending on the route of course), we land.

In that same 8-12 hour block (extendable to 16) I will have done between four and eight segments. And the first day might have started with a wakeup call at 3AM and the last one finishing well after midnight.

These types of trips are common in the US and verboten in Europe.

I can only speak to my own experience and Europe was vastly less fatiguing than the US when it came to duty regulations.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 16): the original B4 had a greater range than the -Ten or the Ten Eleven, respectively ; A300-B4 : 6650 Km

Quoting Pihero (Reply 31): The figures I took were with Full Pax Loads

And Jane's says the B4 with the optional 157500 kg takeoff weight can do 3200 nm 5930 km with full fuel, 2500 nm with 269 pax and bags. You say it could actually do much better than that; did Airbus know it could? But they didn't want Jane's to publish the better figures?

(Also, "original B4" might mean 150000 kg takeoff weight.)

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 38): My last 4-day trip started with a 4:40 AM showtime. I flew between 4 and 6 legs each of those days and the last day finished at 02:23, actually on day 5. No regard for circadian rhythm changes and I was legal to work up to 16 hours per day. Or at least on a couple of those days. And the last day I did work about 14.5 hours and the F/O 15.5.

I'm fairly sure this sort of trip would be prohibited in Australia too. There are rest requirements after trips before you can be asked to fly again. I'm not across the details though.

Timz,
I have to apologize as my A300 figures related to the -600R ( quite a difference !)
I had a look at the documents I had somewhere on my hard disk and I found the manufacturers' specs.
for the Tenten
and for the A300b4
Although the performance conditions are not exactly the same, there is some similarity that will allow us to use some ballpark figures.
For the -Ten : 3400 Nm = 6300 km
For the B4 : 2500 Nm = 4750 km
(same load :270 pax ) The Ten figures check right on with the values I gave earlier :

Quoting Pihero (Reply 34): From the horse's mouth : "The Series 10 model was designed for service on routes of up to 4,000 statute miles (6,436 km) and is powered by General Electric CF6-6 engines, each rated at 40,000 pounds (17,144 kg) takeoff thrust. "

So I was in error when I claimed that the 'Bus had a longer range.

But ... your Jane's figures are still far off:

Quoting timz (Reply 29): DC-10-10 (MTOW 440000 lb) range 9543 km with full fuel (21800 gal) L1011-1 (MTOW 430000 lb) range 8080 km with full fuel (23814 gal)

On the -Ten, I presume the figures apply to the -30, and secondly, I( cannot believe one second that with a lighter weight, 2000 gallons of fuel more in the tanks, the Tristar would only fly some 1500 km less than the -Ten.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 41): Quoting timz (Reply 29): DC-10-10 (MTOW 440000 lb) range 9543 km with full fuel (21800 gal) L1011-1 (MTOW 430000 lb) range 8080 km with full fuel (23814 gal) On the -Ten, I presume the figures apply to the -30, and secondly, I( cannot believe one second that with a lighter weight, 2000 gallons of fuel more in the tanks, the Tristar would only fly some 1500 km less than the -Ten.

You are right in questioning the figures!

DC-10-10 fuel capacity 178,534 lbs, range with full passenger load 3295 NM.

L-1011-1 fuel capacity 159,560 lbs, range with full passenger load 2945 NM.

DC-10-30 fuel capacity 245,560 lbs, range with full passenger load 5370 NM.

L-1011-500 fuel capacity 213,540 lbs, range with full passenger load 5040 nm.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 42): L-1011-500 fuel capacity 213,540 lbs, range with full passenger load 5040 nm.

Which I accomplish on a regular basis...subject to winds aloft and diversion weather requirements, of course.
160 knot headwinds can knock 900 nm off the max range figure...easily

Quoting timz (Reply 25): Before... 1985? What airline?

The European carriers that were working to the ICAO 90 minute rule, while FAA carriers were limited to 60 minutes. It was the pressure from the FAA carriers that really got the ETOPS ball rolling as the European carriers were making a lot more money flying twins than they were flying the trijets.

If memory serves correct, the FAA also did grant an exemption to some 737 operators in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean islands to go beyond 60 minutes before 1985, it might have only been 15 minutes.

Did someone fly the A300 transatlantic using 90 minutes before El Al and TWA (and Air Canada?) started doing it with 767s?

It says the ICAO rule was 90 min at all-engine speed

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200511.html

So a US airline flying transatlantic was allowed 60 min at single-eng speed, while... any European airline flying transatlantic was allowed more?

Quoting 411A (Reply 14):

Thanks for the info, I guess the FAA would've given ETOPS to the DC-10 had larger engines been available in the early 1970s to power it. Too bad MCDD didn't resurrect the twin engine wide body in the late 70s/early 80s when more power became availeable.

But, as I mentioned in another thread in the Civil Aviation forum, the Douglas and McDonnell merger of the late 1960s ended anything spectacular from the civil division of the combined company. From that point on, all the new company did was "tweak" the same 40 year old airplane for the rest of its life, which I feel brought it down. Had MCDD went forward with a twin instead of modifying the DC-10 into a practically worthless airplane (the MD-11), MCDD might have still been around today.

Quoting timz (Reply 46): So a US airline flying transatlantic was allowed 60 min at single-eng speed, while... any European airline flying transatlantic was allowed more?

The FAA brought in the 60 minute rule in the 1950s, only aircraft with more than 3 engines could go beyond 60 minutes. In the 1960s the FAA changed the rules again, so then only twins were restricted to 60 minutes.

Much the same time the FAA brought in the 60 minute rule, ICAO brought in recommendation that no airplane shall be operated beyond 90 min (all engines operative) from a diversion airfield, except if the route can be flown with two engines inoperative. Locals CAAs saw that to mean that twin, and trijets could fly to a 90 minute rule.

As far as I am aware, A300/A310s were operating flights to the 90 minute rule in Caribbean, Africa, Bay of Bengal, North Atlantic, South China Sea before ETOPS came out. Much the same time TWA did its first ETOPS flight, SQ also did its first ETOPS flight in an A310.

As you can see from that article Airbus was pushing for a relaxation of the 90 minutes rule due to the engine reliability, many people on here would have you think that this was a Boeing/FAA initiative.

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 47): practically worthless airplane (the MD-11),

Don't think FedEx (etc) would agree, as it makes a dandy freighter.
When FedEx bought Flying Tigers, they got rid of the ex-Tiger 747's as fast as possible.
Why?
Too large...and I had friends in FedEx at the time to tell me so....directly.