DC10

[kschachn]

What? All aircraft are "fragile" in any accident, but Douglas heritage aircraft are among the strongest there are.

And that crash you mention - are you sure you're not thinking of the 747 crash in early 2013?

Originally Posted By: Concours14
One of those crashed in Iraq or Afghanistan awhile back. Hideous when they go down. SO fragile.

 

[Malo83]

Heavy Hauler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG06xAbBf3Q

 

[CT8]

DC 10 is for girls. 747 !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sReRoENILks

 

[stranger706]

Sorry for the technical difficulties. Here's one of the original pics.

 

[slowdime]

Ah the good ol diesel 10

 

[CT8]

It is amazing the work the commercial planes do and how they run . They are pretty much miracles of industry.

 

[youdontwannaknow]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
And if you fly in one make sure the doors are closed and properly latched.


Boy I never knew this was such a big deal and a very dark spot on the history of DC-10 as well as McD.D.
I just happened to watch a documentary series on Netflix called "Air Disasters" and there is one episode on DC-10 where these cargo doors were an issue. One flight was lucky to land after the door blew off and made a gapping hole in the fuselage, another not so much. But this went all the way to a congress hearing and a lot of heads got involved. It had become a big deal because McD.D. already knew about it and did nothing, even after the first incident and FAA issue an advisory.

Frankly, I hated the aircraft. I dreaded the thought of flying in it. It was the ultimate personification of the "sardine can" analogy. I wouldn't wish a 9 hour haul (as a passenger) on that fuel-tanker-pretending-it-was-a-passenger-airliner even on my worst enemy. It was really a refuel tanker KC-10 originally. No surprise they are now banished to lowly cargo duty.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
It was really a refuel tanker KC-10 originally. No surprise they are now banished to lowly cargo duty.


Yeah...no.

The DC-10 went into service with American Airlines in 1971.

The KC-10 went into service with the USAF in 1981.

This was a passenger plane converted to tanker after it had been flying in passenger service. Much like the 767 and the KC-46 today.

 

[kschachn]

I saw that too, but was I too uninterested in correcting his tirade to do anything about it. It's amazing when people post junk as "fact" when they are completely wrong.

The point about the cargo doors is partially correct. They are unusual in that they are not plug doors, but the real issue was with the "latched and locked" indication. The latches and pins were adequately designed, but it was all to easy for the door to appear to be locked when it was not. While blamed on the mechanism, it is also true that ground crews improperly secured the doors (overfilled compartments). Since there was no indication that the door was not completely latched it became a critical safety issue.

To be afraid to fly them is unfounded though. Their safety record after the door modification program is completely in line with other similar airframes. A Netflix documentary is not exactly a definitive statement on this aircraft.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: youdontwannaknow
It was really a refuel tanker KC-10 originally. No surprise they are now banished to lowly cargo duty.

Yeah...no.

The DC-10 went into service with American Airlines in 1971.

The KC-10 went into service with the USAF in 1981.

This was a passenger plane converted to tanker after it had been flying in passenger service. Much like the 767 and the KC-46 today.

 

[Astro14]

The 747, my favorite airliner by the way, had a problem with the cargo door latching, they weren't plug doors either, as the crew of UA 811 found out...and what resulted was an incredible story of crew resource management, decision making, and aviation skill.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811

That's a documentary worth watching.

Most cargo doors aren't plug doors. It's usually just cabin doors that are plug type.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Plenty of DC-10/MD-11's left in the FedEx fleet.

Sixty one DC-10's

Sixty MD-11's

Up until very recently, FedEx was still flying a 727.


i still don't understand why some old, fuel guzzling planes are used in cargo service. are they flown slower to offset the fuel consumption?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Plenty of DC-10/MD-11's left in the FedEx fleet.

Sixty one DC-10's

Sixty MD-11's

Up until very recently, FedEx was still flying a 727.


i still don't understand why some old, fuel guzzling planes are used in cargo service. are they flown slower to offset the fuel consumption?


Cargo planes sit for most of the day. Passenger planes fly most of the day.

Key cost for passenger planes, then, is fuel with all their hours in the air. Capital cost is amortized over lots of flight time.

Key cost for cargo planes then is capital cost (depreciation, insurance, financing). They burn relatively little fuel, because they sit so much, that an older, used airplane is much cheaper overall.

 

[friendly_jacek]

thanks, makes sense.

 

[zuluplus30]

UPS doesn't fly the 10s. Only MD-11s. And no, for UPS and FDX time is money. They like direct routes and fly them on the barber pole. You can usually hear the anguish when we turn them or slow them down for spacing into Memphis or Louisville at night.

 

[Mr Nice]

MD-10 is still in use for FedEx

I would sooo love to fly one.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: zuluplus30
UPS doesn't fly the 10s. Only MD-11s. And no, for UPS and FDX time is money. They like direct routes and fly them on the barber pole. You can usually hear the anguish when we turn them or slow them down for spacing into Memphis or Louisville at night.


The OP posted picks of the Fed Ex -10 he was working on.
Probably all of the DC-10 aircraft now in service with Fed Ex have had the cockpit re-dos and are designated as "MD-10s". This allows a flight crew of two, ditching the flight engineer, but the frames are still DC-10s, not the quite different MD-11.
These are durable frames that age well, as did every Douglas design.
Imagine that these aircraft are with at least their third operator and the type is now in its fifth decade of service.
Boeing never built them any better than Douglas and Airbus isn't even worth mentioning as compared to these old Doug frames.
This is without even mentioning the DC-9, an aircraft capable of 100K hours, as many frames are, but also 100K cycles, as some DC-9s saw in passenger service.

 

[zuluplus30]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: zuluplus30
UPS doesn't fly the 10s. Only MD-11s. And no, for UPS and FDX time is money. They like direct routes and fly them on the barber pole. You can usually hear the anguish when we turn them or slow them down for spacing into Memphis or Louisville at night.


The OP posted picks of the Fed Ex -10 he was working on.
Probably all of the DC-10 aircraft now in service with Fed Ex have had the cockpit re-dos and are designated as "MD-10s". This allows a flight crew of two, ditching the flight engineer, but the frames are still DC-10s, not the quite different MD-11.
These are durable frames that age well, as did every Douglas design.
Imagine that these aircraft are with at least their third operator and the type is now in its fifth decade of service.
Boeing never built them any better than Douglas and Airbus isn't even worth mentioning as compared to these old Doug frames.
This is without even mentioning the DC-9, an aircraft capable of 100K hours, as many frames are, but also 100K cycles, as some DC-9s saw in passenger service.


Yes, I know. I was responding to page 2

Originally Posted By: 72te27
UPS is still flying them too.

 

[72te27]

My ambiguous post was referencing UPS flying MD11's.

Zuluplus30, do you work Kansas City or Indy Center?

 

[kschachn]

Yeah, the airline I worked for had a couple DC-9-10 that came very near 100,000 cycles before retirement, and Northwest took some of theirs to over 104,000. There is/was a maintenance package that could take them farther, but it was never financially viable. IIRC one of the major items in that package was replacing the aft pressure bulkhead.

With proper maintenance most any airplane could last forever. Our airline operated the #2 and #4 DC-9 fuselages (among others), and as long as you watched for cracks and corrosion IAW the aging aircraft inspections there wasn't a problem. But those inspections cost a lot of time and money.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is without even mentioning the DC-9, an aircraft capable of 100K hours, as many frames are, but also 100K cycles, as some DC-9s saw in passenger service.

 

[kschachn]

Oops OK. I was most familiar with the DC-9/MD-80/717 and the only non-plug door was for the airstairs.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Most cargo doors aren't plug doors. It's usually just cabin doors that are plug type.