DC-10 v L1011

[Curse]

Some of you said, several times, in real world the 1011 was "technically" better. Why? I'm not deep into aviation and so I can only compare the AWS DC-10 and the AWS 1011

[Ilyushin]

Some of you said, several times, in real world the 1011 was "technically" better. Why? I'm not deep into aviation and so I can only compare the AWS DC-10 and the AWS 1011

Perhaps due to the design flaw in the cargo door... it was a really scary machine in its time.

You can still consider the MD-11 scary with the horizontal stabs being too short and the center of gravity being misplaced. Too many MD-11s have crashed/been written off compared to airliners like 330, 340, 777 etc. Very unstable on landing.

[Curse]

Ok, so it's not the performance data or aerodynamics or so?

[Ilyushin]

AWS should be correct regarding performance so you can judge that yourself. Aerodynamics are related to performance.

But in both aircraft, the tail engine was a pain to maintain () because it is so high up. That's one of the reasons why trijets are not very popular (anymore).

[ArcherII]

The L1011 was the first commercial aircraft to feature  the very earliest "FMC". I would like to tell about that but I'm a bit ignorant on the fact, but it did certainly.

[schro]

Perhaps due to the design flaw in the cargo door... it was a really scary machine in its time.

You can still consider the MD-11 scary with the horizontal stabs being too short and the center of gravity being misplaced. Too many MD-11s have crashed/been written off compared to airliners like 330, 340, 777 etc. Very unstable on landing.

I wouldn't say that the cargo door is a design flaw. The incident related to it was because someone closed the door improperly causing the decompression to happen not because the door was designed/built incorrectly.

The MD-11 horizontal stabs is a subject of great debate, as many who have flown it have no issue with it, others find it challenging compared to other planes to land. At the end of the day, if the plane was truely unstable and not suitable to be flown, then the FAA, CAA and JAA would revoke its operating certs. There have been no official findings that the aircraft's design was the true cause of a crash to this point.

Ok, so it's not the performance data or aerodynamics or so?

Higher redundancy of systems (i.e. 4 hydraulic systems in the L10 versus 3 in the DC), placement of hydraulic systems (leading edge of wing in DC, trailing edge in the L10), avoinics (auto pilot/autoland. The L10 was the first to get certified for autolandings with nearly no visibility - quantified, it saved BA over 800k in the first year or two of operation because of reduced diversions into foggy airports), and the RB211 engine (the first carbon fiber blade engine that was ahead of the CF6 at the time in efficiency).

AWS should be correct regarding performance so you can judge that yourself. Aerodynamics are related to performance.

But in both aircraft, the tail engine was a pain to maintain () because it is so high up. That's one of the reasons why trijets are not very popular (anymore).

The L1011's engine is significantly lower to the ground than the DC10. The real reason for the death of tri-jets is that big twins eat them for lunch for economics, ETOPS (as well as the public's willingness to fly a 2 engine plane across the pond) and the extra weight for supporting a tail mounted engine feeds into the poor economics.

[Curse]

Ah, ok, thanks to both of you. So it's more about not in AWS modelled things

[schro]

Ah, ok, thanks to both of you. So it's more about not in AWS modelled things

They could be modeled in the competation of maintenance and/or fleet commonality costs, but I've not done a direct comparison of such things. AWS also didn't model in the -150 and -250 "mod" versions of the L1011 which basically brought the -200's range up to par with the DC-10-30ER. I think it'd be rather interesting to see how that impacts game play.

Ultimately, the fate of the battle between the planes came down to engine choice and politics more than anything. If Lockheed had a better reputation for airliner support in the late 60's when the project was launched, then the DC-10 would have never come to exist (or would have came out as a big twin with less range, thereby eliminating the A300 from existance).

[Ilyushin]

The MD-11 horizontal stabs is a subject of great debate, as many who have flown it have no issue with it, others find it challenging compared to other planes to land. At the end of the day, if the plane was truely unstable and not suitable to be flown, then the FAA, CAA and JAA would revoke its operating certs. There have been no official findings that the aircraft's design was the true cause of a crash to this point.

There have been quite a few incidents lately so I'd start worrying if I was the FAA. Even seasoned MD-11 pilots say it's an incredibly unstable aircraft and it surely may have contributed to the 2009 FedEx crash in Narita, the 2010 Lufthansa Cargo crash in Riyadh and the 2009 Centurion landing incident in Mexico.

Also this makes for an interesting read regarding the MD-11s safety.

[Tujue]

There have been quite a few incidents lately so I'd start worrying if I was the FAA.

The FAA did make several bad mistakes in the past;

If they had issued an AD after the incident of American Airlines Flight 96, Turkish Airlines Flight 981 crash wouldn't happened;
If the FAA communicated better after the crash of Air Ontario Flight 1363, they could have prevented USAir Flight 405 crash.

It looks like sometimes the FAA lacks professionalism and cause (more) casualties before taking real actions...

[alexgv1]

They could be modeled in the competation of maintenance and/or fleet commonality costs, but I've not done a direct comparison of such things. AWS also didn't model in the -150 and -250 "mod" versions of the L1011 which basically brought the -200's range up to par with the DC-10-30ER. I think it'd be rather interesting to see how that impacts game play.

Ooh I'd love to see the -250 in-game. The only thing making the -200 not competitive for me at the moment is its lack of range. That could be a real game changer for the L1011! 

[Jona L.]

Why are you discussing so much?

Take both models

[L1011fan]

OK, what can I say. I believe the L-1011 was better made and hasn't had an accident that wasn't storm related that I know of. I have flown several times on both. The L-1011 is more comfortable and the lavatory layout was sheer genius. The Rolls Royce engines that were chosen by most carriers were much more quiet and didn't have that grinding sound the DC-10 had on take off. The DC-10 was NOT very neighborhood friendly when it came to noise.
And yes, I'm prejudice and I admit it.

[alexgv1]

And yes, I'm prejudice and I admit it.

Never would have guessed 

[L1011fan]

Yes, in the real world the L-1011 was technically better than the DC10 and probably for the most part the MD-11 too. Jeez, add fins to the wings and give the DC-10 another name. Thats all that was basically. Puleeeaasseee.

[L1011fan]

Never would have guessed 

LOL!

[schro]

OK, what can I say. I believe the L-1011 was better made and hasn't had an accident that wasn't storm related that I know of. I have flown several times on both. The L-1011 is more comfortable and the lavatory layout was sheer genius. The Rolls Royce engines that were chosen by most carriers were much more quiet and didn't have that grinding sound the DC-10 had on take off. The DC-10 was NOT very neighborhood friendly when it came to noise.
And yes, I'm prejudice and I admit it.

The RR engines were the only ones offered with the L1011 and the GE CF6 was the only one offered with the DC10. The CF6 was based on an older design that GE leveraged from a military program and the RB211 was a ground up design that bankrupted Rolls. Other engines couldn't be outfitted to the L1011 without significant design modifications as the RB211 is signifcantly shorter than the GE and PW options. Length wasn't an issue on the DC10.