An issue raised in a different thread...
"Got my fill of DC-9s and MD-80s on Midwest too, some of the safest airliners in existence. Donald Douglas knew how to build a plane. Not saying Boeing doesn't either, but it was a different design philosophy."
My sense is that Douglas Commercial planes are/were tough, stout, arguably overbuilt. How does/did that compare to Boeing & Airbus as far as design philosophy?
Boeing vs. Douglas design philosophies
- Thread starter CincyDavid
- Start date
- Status
Not sure how or if it applies to your question; there used to be a saying that the best planes were designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing and sold by Douglas.
Don Douglas, Boeing and Lockheed have all built amazing airplanes, built like older Dodge trucks (heavier than they need to be)
The DC-9 "series" is some of the best EVER. Still flying 50 years later.
Airbus are built cheap and light. They are "throwawy" aircraft
I suppose one could argue that Douglas built very durable aircraft and that some may have been overbuilt. But I think this ended with the DC-9. I don't recall any modern aircraft that was involved in more passenger fatalities/mile from mechanical failure than the DC-10 (O'Hare, Turkish Airlines/Paris, United/Sioux City, etc.). And for those few remaining operators of the MD-11, believe the model still has the "Death Star" nickname. Maybe the "Donald Douglas" philosophy eventually wore off.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
An issue raised in a different thread...
"Got my fill of DC-9s and MD-80s on Midwest too, some of the safest airliners in existence. Donald Douglas knew how to build a plane. Not saying Boeing doesn't either, but it was a different design philosophy."
My sense is that Douglas Commercial planes are/were tough, stout, arguably overbuilt. How does/did that compare to Boeing & Airbus as far as design philosophy?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
It doesn't matter because no matter who you are, you have to build to the FAA requirements for Stresses and G-forces.
Last edited:
Not really.
The DC-10 was a very robust design and actually had a longer fatigue life than the sainted B747.
Northwest retried their DC-10s after about 140K hours. Don't know of any 747s that were flown that many hours.
The MD-11 is a very demanding aircraft on approach since it's basically a stretch DC-10 with a much smaller horizontal stab and elevators. An unstable approach that a pilot might save in a DC-10 is one that should prompt a go-around in the MD-11. Some pilots haven't gone around when they should have with tragic results.
OTOH, Finnair operated pax MD-11s trans Atlantic for twenty years with never a problem and Biman also operated the type in pax service for many years with no problems and KLM did the same. That a certain cargo carrier's pilots have had sometimes fatal difficulties with the type may be more a reflection of their operating standards than any shortcomings of the airframe.
If the crews are properly trained and are held to proper operating standards, the MD11 was a long life airframe that could be flown anywhere without issue.
The early builds had performance issues related to fuel burn and range that MD addressed and corrected and were it not for the 777 (the real death star for both the MD11 and A340 programs), the skies over all of the oceans would have been full of MD11s and A340s.
4WD
$50 site donor 2023
Years ago I was on a BA DC10 sitting across from James Baker in FC … the engineer seat was empty until one of the British pilots invited Mr Baker to come up for a visit … he stayed there a long time ~ even for the landing …
All pre 9/11 of course …
As for jumbos, in my opinion no aircraft can match the durability, safety, beauty, and design of the Boeing 747.
STILL in production after 49 years! It's been in commercial service for 48 years. It's a veritable icon of aviation.
As for hours/cycles vs. the DC-10? Not sure but certainly the info is available online. I know a lot of DC-10/MD-11 have been in freighter service for many years. As for 747's I did a quick look and see that many operated to well over 100k hours. I believe Southern Air and KLM have/had some in service over 120k. I wonder how many hours those old Iranian 747's have?
I've never flown in a 747 or DC10/MD11, but had at least one flight on an L1011. Running out of chances for a 747 flight...
The B747 has a hard time limit of 127K hours. This can be extended at great expense.
This also equals more than fourteen years of actual flight time which is pretty impressive.
The DC-10 could do more hours and cycles.
The FAA site provides hour and cycle limits for every commercial aircraft.
The old Doug/MD designs always exceeded the limits for the Boeings which typically exceed those for comparable Airbus aircraft.
Douglas did know how to build aircraft although Boeing and Airbus do as well.
Most of us have probably flown on plenty of each and they really aren't significantly different in fatal accident rates.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
It doesn't matter because no matter who you are, you have to build to the FAA requirements for Stresses and G-forces.
1936 XB15
1967 737
Douglas design philosophy...
1933 DC-1
1941 XB19
1965 Douglas DC9
Last edited:
- Status
