Agreed. McDonnell Douglas should have stuck to making military air craft, ie F15 and F18. Not to mention Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. And some others.

MD series scares the FUCK out of me, getting absorbed by Boeing was the single best thing that could have happened to that company.

So what's the problem? the bad rep it had from the accidents of past? many of those were fixed and it is a good plane if it still works to this day. Once companies continue to perform the aged aircraft checks and do it as often at it is to be, these birds can fly a long long time. No I am not a Dc10 lover really... I'm an L1011 person. but despite the history the DC10 has become a great plane.

>>323037

Bad design, if the tail engine explodes it takes the entire tail section with it.

>>323037
>>323040

And all three of their hydraulic pumps would go with them. Left, right, and aux.

So whatever little control you had with no tail and no power just became non existent putting you into an uncontrollable glide.

>>323129
Except that after United 232 they were retrofitted with hydraulic fuses. That problem has been gone for twenty years.

Only DC-10s I ever deal with are KC-10s, though, but there's nothing wrong with DC-8s or DC-9s, and the MD-11 is a pretty good airplane, although handling is supposed to be touchy due to aft CG and small tail, both for efficiency reasons.

> 2012
> Still using hydraulic surfaces

Why does it even have 3 engines? The high one looks like it would create loads of drag.

>>323134
Because it's more efficient than four engines, and at the time it came out, you couldn't get massive ETOPS certifications on twinjets.

>>323131


Didn't know about the hydraulic fuses. Neat.

>>323131
from what i've heard, the dc-10 already had the aft cg and handling problems that the md-11 experiences. the md-11 is a stretched dc-10 and higher mtow/mlw on the dc-10 wing/tails. should be no surprise when the worst of the dc-10 gets amplified...

"Let's run all the hydraulics through one section what could go wrong?"

I'm not an engineer but even I can see this is retarded. And so many aircraft do this.

> Worrying about DC10s not DC9s
> Plane can crash if one nut breaks

HURR DURR HOW I DESIGN PLANE

>>323310

Engineers do, too, but beancounters look at the cost of doing things properly and tell the engineers to use a shitty design to save money and deal with it.

>37 years old
>still flying revenue service
>MCD deathtraps what?

>>324292
Flew into Atlanta the other day and was looking at those things trying to decide how horribly old they were. 25 years at least. Watching a C-9 struggle its way up the climbout is just sad.

>>323310
You need to run three hydraulic lines up the tail past #2 engine. Where would you have put them?

>>324292
Looks like a giant Tylenol

>>323310
>>324338
Yeah, I really see no alternative, besides maybe making your redundant yaw-control system drag-flap based so it can be in the wings instead...

Of course, if you just put the engines under the wings where they ought to be, then you eliminate the problem altogether.

Thoes planes had elevators in them how cool is that?

>>324391
Not cool at all.

It is unwise to attempt to pull a "Red Devils/Eagles" maneuver and perform a snap-roll on takeoff with a DC-10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191