I noticed in game where both the DC-10 and L1011 can be purchased new that players overwhelmingly choose the DC10. Why is this? If youre one of those players why do you choose the DC-10 that might not be available or years instead of an L1011 that can be ready more quickly?
The DC-10 can transport much more pax, has more range, is much more fuel efficient, needs less crew and the "good" variants are available on the used market sometimes.
The TriStar is much faster and due to the fact the production line spits out just five aircraft a month, you get 7 new TriStar while you can have 12 new DC-10.
So why one should choose the TriStar? Maybe it fits due to it's thin design and fast speed exactly what you want - for example all routes out of your HQ are too small for DC-10.
Edit:
Oh, and the good DC-10 variants are available while TriStar has only TriStar 1 and TriStar 100 to offer. So another point for DC-10.
And the longer range Tristar is a shrunk version, while the DC-10-30ER keeps its 302-seat shape.
I am one of the ones that went with L1011's, and it was basically for two reasons. First and foremost, the smaller design is huge for my base (BOM) where the DC-10 would be too big for at least half of the routes between 2100 and 5200nm (those not reachable with my 732's). Second is the lack of interest from other carriers. I can place an order for a frame and know I will get it in 3 months. With the DC-10, the wait will be longer (I have not recently checked the order backlog, but in previous games in this era, DC-10 backlog has hit 400 or more with 1+ year waits for a first frame).
Oh, and the plane is not THAT much inferior to the DC-10. Similar range models (the L1011-500 vs DC-10-30ER), the L15 burns about 30% more fuel per ASM (.0432 kgs/nm/pax for the L15 vs .0327kgs/nm/pax for the DC10-30ER), but the L15 is $12 million cheaper which translates into a lease price that is $170k a month less. If you do not need the range of the -500, the 2 models are even closer.
Don
I operated a fleet of a couple hundred L1011's in the previous DOTM and found them to be pretty profitable for what I used them for. On a CASM basis, there's really not a huge difference between them and the DC10, the major difference being the range capabilities on the high end. I was able to architect nearly all of my routes out of LAX with a stop to anywhere I wanted in the world so the 500's range was only used when the route was thin enough for it. If you can make all of your routes work with an L1011-1/100/200, then it makes a VERY easy transition over to the A306's as a direct replacement later in the game.
I knew you'd come out of the woodwork for the L10 schro ;D
Keep in mind tech-stop routes earn less profit and are worse when it comes to competition.
Quote from: Curse on May 31, 2011, 07:37:44 AM
Keep in mind tech-stop routes earn less profit and are worse when it comes to competition.
I think I did just fine in the last DOTM with tech stops.
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplausibletech.com%2Fowl1.jpg&hash=1c02577fcf054108ba7f5f1bde8e31ce070f2ceb)
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplausibletech.com%2Fowl2.jpg&hash=e3b73a710586af645d45c38f91d2a1098dd9afaf)
(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplausibletech.com%2Fowl3.jpg&hash=d94ea9d6a183ac0734e4e9b0b22fd2cea40d18cb)
Lol, yeah...I used to SCROLL the Boeing's used market down in search of 737 classic. Shame I couldn't sort those 727s out of the search engine.
No point in discussing: The L1011 is by far much more beautiful than the DC10.
Cheers,
Denis
Quote from: schro on May 31, 2011, 10:34:23 PM
I think I did just fine in the last DOTM with tech stops.
I saw your airline in the last DotM and without competition and the low fuel prices you could have also used Il-86. :) Nonetheless you ran a nice airline.
However, your screenshot doesn't change the fact ticket prices for tech-stop flights are lower than for the same route as nonstop and pax prefer nonstop flights because they are nonstop AND don't take this long.
Quote from: ArcherII on May 31, 2011, 11:00:51 PM
Lol, yeah...I used to SCROLL the Boeing's used market down in search of 737 classic. Shame I couldn't sort those 727s out of the search engine.
Sorry about that. I wasn't planning on replacing them but I grew a wild hair in the last couple game years and snagged a couple 757s...
Quote from: Curse on June 01, 2011, 12:17:19 AM
I saw your airline in the last DotM and without competition and the low fuel prices you could have also used Il-86. :) Nonetheless you ran a nice airline.
However, your screenshot doesn't change the fact ticket prices for tech-stop flights are lower than for the same route as nonstop and pax prefer nonstop flights because they are nonstop AND don't take this long.
Actually, for the first few years I had rather stiff competition against the guy that later ran Donkey Airlines out of ATL. It was a pretty bloody battle, and I was actually still flying the L10's at that time. Also, until the last couple game years there was another guy in the base that built up to a 15-20% share that kept my profits in check - when he bankrupted (boredom I think) it doubled my weekly profit.
I'm not in a game right now, but I'd be curious on whether the "standard" pricing for say, EWR-SNN-CAI is the same as EWR-CAI. Can anyone check that?
I ran at "standard" price with no discounts on my airline. The beauty of the L1011 is that it cruises so much faster than other planes, on a 6000nm+ trip with a stop, that speed difference puts it within a pretty close margin of a DC10 or other widebody with no stop other than the 747. I'm sure my 100 CI helped the loads, but overall, competition on long haul wasn't much of an issue even with stops.
My main disadvantage was being based at LAX where there's pretty much no short haul demand. ATL and ORD are much easier cities to play from.
I have no Newark based airline, but here are the prices for Tokyo Narita to London Heathrow (on DC-10 :D);
[attachment expired]
Interesting. It appears that standard pricing is 5% lower, though, that might mean that if all other factors are equal then passenger preference is a wash given the lower price?
The other thing to consider is that flying a plane with a 20% lower cost with a stop more than makes up for the revenue shortfall....
schro you are the special case ;) you can just keep on sending planes and flood the route with tech stop flights (tons of 727/757......). I remember I have to use A310 to fight with my NRT-LAX route and you are the second largest slot owner at NRT ;)
Quote from: type45 on June 04, 2011, 08:21:26 PM
schro you are the special case ;) you can just keep on sending planes and flood the route with tech stop flights (tons of 727/757......). I remember I have to use A310 to fight with my NRT-LAX route and you are the second largest slot owner at NRT ;)
He hogged my sweet LHR slots last DotM by flying several B727 via Iqaluit... instead of flying the one or the other B74X/77X/A33X/34X...
:P
Jona L.
Quote from: type45 on June 04, 2011, 08:21:26 PM
schro you are the special case ;) you can just keep on sending planes and flood the route with tech stop flights (tons of 727/757......). I remember I have to use A310 to fight with my NRT-LAX route and you are the second largest slot owner at NRT ;)
LAX-NRT is quite lucrative. I flew it with what I had available. I think I upgaged everything to A306's before the game ended, but you were gone by then. You seemed to have a ton of fleet types as well....
Quote from: Jona L. on June 04, 2011, 09:19:21 PM
He hogged my sweet LHR slots last DotM by flying several B727 via Iqaluit... instead of flying the one or the other B74X/77X/A33X/34X...
:P
Jona L.
Its all about fleet commonality. I would have loved a subfleet of A330/340's at the end of the last game, but it would have cost me $80M+ per week in fleet commonality charges as I already had the 727 (only 10 flying at the end of the game), 757 and A306. I also didn't want to plunk down hundreds of millions of dollars to wait in line for my turn to get 2 of them. The other issue I had with the LHR routes was that I originally scheduled the 727s at 5x weekly which basically gave them no wiggle room on the weekly schedule. This made it fairly impossible to convert them over to other planes with higher turn types, thus, its why I used A310's instead (nonstop made up the time difference).
Either way, until ABCBA routes come back, I will use the tar out of tech stops to keep a more common fleet.
I moved to MT4 at that time already......I've the plan to replace all my DC-10/L1011/A300/743 with owned 744 and A330/340, but it never completed as I don'y have that time ;)
I agree it's lucrative......at lease I can still make profit even with my A310 (5 weekly per planes*7 planes)
Quote from: schro on June 05, 2011, 05:42:11 AM
L
Either way, until ABCBA routes come back, I will use the tar out of tech stops to keep a more common fleet.
Lets be honest, as long as you fly plenty of something it will make money no matter what. What I dont understand is why you chose 3 fleets that are all so similar if you want to keep commonality costs low. You could easily have removed one of them and picked up 747-400 and made alot
more money.
Quote from: lilius on June 05, 2011, 06:13:54 PM
Lets be honest, as long as you fly plenty of something it will make money no matter what. What I dont understand is why you chose 3 fleets that are all so similar if you want to keep commonality costs low. You could easily have removed one of them and picked up 747-400 and made alot more money.
I simply ran out of time/years in the game in order to do that.
My original fleet plan was 727-200Advs and L1011's. I was going to stick with them til the end of the game, but got a bit ambitious about it. Those two are very different planes and due to the runway requirement of the L1011, its not suited for a number of airports within the US.
Then I was feeling a bit crazy, and decided I'd onboard the A300's to replace the L1011's and select 727 routes where the additional capacity was needed. This transition took about 4-5 game years since I had 200+ planes to replace, during which time I had 3 fleet types. Once that was done, I decided I'd try to replace as many 727s with 757s by the end of the game. I was nearly successful, but had 10 727s left in service at the end. Since I had over 300 of those to start with, it was a bit of a task.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, is when you have already amassed a significant fleet, it takes a while to transition to a new fleet type and that my fleet choices were not similar.
With regards to 747's, no matter what variety, they are a very high risk plane and they do not suit LAX very well due to their size. They have a very high acquisition cost, drink fuel like its free and make a poor showing in a frequency battle. I was anticipating a much higher fuel level than we ultimately saw in the game (peaking around $400ish in 1990-1991), thus I avoided them. Had I known it was going to bottom out and stay low, it could have been a consideration.
Its funny to read "I was a bit crazy" :laugh:
I see your point with process of changing a huge fleet type. Very time consuming and difficult with only getting one per month delivered.
I was also expecting that fuelspike that never came. I stressed about it for so long because I had a big fleet of 747-200 to replace but I felt really secure with the 747-400 when it arrived. I think its pretty efficient for its time of early production especially in the default MTOW and LAX must be perfect for it too.
You hit the nail on the head with the time that it takes to get planes delivered. The 747-400 would have been a fine plane in DOTM from its release to the end of the game, though, when I look at onboarding a fleet type, I look at the speed that I can acquire them as well - they would have trickled in at 10 per year starting in 1989 and probably not much of a used market for them until 1995+. In order to replace my L1011's 1 for 1, it would have taken 10-15 game years. A300's and 757s were readily available when I made the switch, so I was able to acquire 100+ per year.
Its also the reason I didn't jump on the 757s in the early game - there was a 3-5 year long wait on the new production side and they were scarce as hen's teeth on the used market (so, when I saw one, I bought it, and resold for a high profit). Meanwhile, I was adding 727's like they were going out of style (oh wait, they were).
Speaking to LAX, its actually a more difficult airport to play in than I thought it would be. There's simply not much demand to go anywhere within 1200-1500 miles of there, so your planes can basically do 2 turns per day tops (unless you're going to the northeast US). International demand is decent, but its all in the 5000nm+ range and premium seats aren't super high in demand. Many of my international configured A306's would only have a need for 4F and 14-21 C seats with the rest in the back of the bus. The A306 was sufficient for 1x daily service to most international destinations until the last couple of game years, so I think the 744 would have been too big (and burns double the fuel for 33% more pax).
Quote from: schro on June 06, 2011, 01:06:45 PM
Its also the reason I didn't jump on the 757s in the early game - there was a 3-5 year long wait on the new production side and they were scarce as hen's teeth on the used market (so, when I saw one, I bought it, and resold for a high profit). Meanwhile, I was adding 727's like they were going out of style (oh wait, they were).
I'm currently running your fleet of the last DOTM in the current DOTM#2 (727s and L1011s). I'm planning on running 727-200Advs until the end of the 1980s and I was wondering how long your 727s were really profitable for (even at those fuel prices).
just another example of two aircraft that in RW were almost exactly the same but in AWS one is better than the other.
The DC-10 and L1011's held the same amount in RW. The L1011 held ~250 in a three class config while the DC-10 held ~250 in a two class.
The only reason the DC-10 was better in RW than the L1011 was because it got to the market faster due to the RB211 issues with the L1011.
the -30 only has 500nm more range than a L1011-200.
Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality. One could have DC9s and 10s. Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.
Civil aircraft, you mean? They've always made fantastic military aircraft, and still do.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 08, 2011, 12:05:25 PM
Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality. One could have DC9s and 10s. Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.
There is no manufacturer commonality in this game.
Quote from: Curse on June 08, 2011, 12:20:58 PM
There is no manufacturer commonality in this game.
I know... right now there isn't.
But with this illustrious 1.3, who knows what will be out there?
Quote from: alexgv1 on June 06, 2011, 03:43:22 PM
I'm currently running your fleet of the last DOTM in the current DOTM#2 (727s and L1011s). I'm planning on running 727-200Advs until the end of the 1980s and I was wondering how long your 727s were really profitable for (even at those fuel prices).
They were still profitable by the end of the game. The real issue wasn't fuel for them, it was staff costs. I had 50% more large pilots than required after I ditched them for 757s, but that was costing maybe an extra 4 million per week which was trivial (as I was still clearing over 100M in profit each week).
If you think about the fuel burn, a 727-200Adv with 17R's at max MTOW will burn around 9k pounds/hour. If you're flying them in an HD config, you'll have 180Y (to get to fair seating condition) or 15C162Y (or whatever the Y balance is). Compare that to a 737-300 sized plane, your fuel burn is about comparable to it on a per seat basis, though you will have more pilots. If you compare that to the 757, which runs around 8k pounds/hour with 200-220 seats, you're looking at a 20-25% lower on a per seat basis for fuel. At $400 fuel (the game's peak), the 727s were still very profitable and there wasn't a huge need to replace them. My main stumbling block with them was that a lot of them were getting to their 16 and 24 year old D checks, and those were getting expensive. If fuel gets to $800ish, you'll probably be feeling the pain, but if you think about it, there's not enough manufacturing capacity to replace all first gen jets in DOTM prior to the scenario ending, so by design of the game world they will likely stay profitable until the end. Considering that US airlines were flying 727s into the early 2000's, the late 80's almost seems early to flush them out. Its all about being able to get a ton of their replacements quickly (the 757 production line had a 3+ year wait until the early 90's when the persian fuel spike took out some of the worst managed airlines).
The other fun thing about the 727s is that they've got better economics on a per seat basis than some of the first gen widebodies.
If fuel begins to become a problem, then you'd want to start trimming the longest routes that the fuel hogs are flying and get them on short haul high frequency stuff where they spend more time being turned than flying.
Thanks schro for your comprehensive answer. I think you are right in that operating them would be more of a challenge if the game world was 30 or so years and there was more urgency on fleet replenishment because they would not last this time.
I guess you make a good point about the 3 crew flight deck, that will add up the costs.
Right now I am quite happy running a fleet of all tri-holers, however! ;D
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 08, 2011, 12:05:25 PM
Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality. One could have DC9s and 10s. Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.
brief? Since when is 57 years of commercial manufacturing a brief time?
McDonnell Douglas was brought down all because one airline didnt want to read its technical manuals. They were told not to use a front-end loader and dismount engines from the pylon. BUT, American Airlines (if I remember correctly) went ahead and did it anyway. Well, on a flight leaving Chicago, that engine fell off. The plane flipped and nosed into the ground.... no survivors. Not McDonnell Douglas' fault. However, no one ever ordered DC10s again and MD11 sales were poor to fair at best.
This is why McD was forced to merge with Boeing. One crashed plane that was not even remotely their fault.
Quote from: swiftus27 on June 11, 2011, 01:11:52 AM
McDonnell Douglas was brought down all because one airline didnt want to read its technical manuals. They were told not to use a front-end loader and dismount engines from the pylon. BUT, American Airlines (if I remember correctly) went ahead and did it anyway. Well, on a flight leaving Chicago, that engine fell off. The plane flipped and nosed into the ground.... no survivors. Not McDonnell Douglas' fault. However, no one ever ordered DC10s again and MD11 sales were poor to fair at best.
This is why McD was forced to merge with Boeing. One crashed plane that was not even remotely their fault.
+1
American Airlines maintenance killed MD.
Although they paid for it - they lost commonality with the MD-80, and that is killing them in CASM these days
McDonnell Douglas was much more than 300 some DC10s. Don't forget the military contracts and technological assets. One crash can't bring down a company (although would bring down a project), but several additional factors will.
Ok, fine.
American Airlines significantly contributed to the demise of MD.
Im calling BS on this whole MD and AA thing.
The DC-10 wasnt a failure because of one American Airlines crash. Yes, American didnt follow MD procedures, but they developed that technique. It wasnt the fact that they took the engine and pylon off in one piece that caused the problem, it was the fact that they started the process and then stopped, just as the engine was no longer secured to the front of the wing, to switch out shifts. It was then left alone for hours which allowed the hyd. pressure in the forklift to decrease and the engine to sag on the rear pin which caused the stress fracture.
The DC-10 was by no means a sound design at first. It had many, MANY, design issues at EIS that caused MULTIPLE high profile crashes. The hyd. system wasnt as safe as other airliners, the cargo doors were designed horribly (this alone caused at least 2 crashes that i know of possibly even more) and a few other issues.
The only reason MD went under was because of the lack of ability to build a good design. The stopped the DC-10 in order to make the MD-11. They failed miserably at first and it missed its target specs by a lot. American ordered it and took delivery of only 19 frames because of this reason. It wasnt just poor for American's needs either, a lot of airlines canceled their orders in favor of the 777 which was being developed at the same time. It wasnt until the MD-11ER was started that the initial -11 was able to meet target with the changes made to the ER.
At the same time, the MD-80 was no longer efficient compared to the upcoming 737NG and A320's and even the 737classics.
so the only reason MD was merged was because they could no longer compete from their own doings. Hardly AA's fault who operated at one point 66 DC-10's and over probably 300 MD-80's.
Quote from: flightsimer on June 13, 2011, 12:13:02 AM
Im calling BS on this whole MD and AA thing.
The DC-10 wasnt a failure because of one American Airlines crash. Yes, American didnt follow MD procedures, but they developed that technique. It wasnt the fact that they took the engine and pylon off in one piece that caused the problem, it was the fact that they started the process and then stopped, just as the engine was no longer secured to the front of the wing, to switch out shifts. It was then left alone for hours which allowed the hyd. pressure in the forklift to decrease and the engine to sag on the rear pin which caused the stress fracture.
The DC-10 was by no means a sound design at first. It had many, MANY, design issues at EIS that caused MULTIPLE high profile crashes. The hyd. system wasnt as safe as other airliners, the cargo doors were designed horribly (this alone caused at least 2 crashes that i know of possibly even more) and a few other issues.
The only reason MD went under was because of the lack of ability to build a good design. The stopped the DC-10 in order to make the MD-11. They failed miserably at first and it missed its target specs by a lot. American ordered it and took delivery of only a few because of this reason. It wasnt just poor for American's needs either, a lot of airlines canceled their orders in favor of the 777 which was being developed at the same time. It wasnt until the MD-11ER was started that the initial -11 was able to meet target with the changes made to the ER.
At the same time, the MD-80 was no longer efficient compared to the upcoming 737NG and A320's and even the 737classics.
And I'm gonna call BS on this
While they may not have been the most fuel efficient designs, NOBODY can deny that MD had some of the sturdiest birds out on the market. Douglas built their civilian planes with military stregnth, and some of their workhorses are still flying today.
Quote from: BobTheCactus on June 13, 2011, 12:21:44 AM
And I'm gonna call BS on this
While they may not have been the most fuel efficient designs, NOBODY can deny that MD had some of the sturdiest birds out on the market. Douglas built their civilian planes with military stregnth, and some of their workhorses are still flying today.
i agree DOUGLAS did and i never said they werent sturdy. However, nobody buys aircraft because they are just sturdy. Your right military aircraft are study, but military aircraft are also some of the most inefficient aircraft ever made.
However MD got away from the Douglas approach. Everything MD did was to just "improve" Douglas' origional 1960's and 1970's designs and call them a 1980's and 90's design. They didn't try to improve their product lineup like Boeing and Airbus did.
The MD-80- a DC-9 strech and officially they are still DC-9's i believe
MD-11- a slight strech and update of the DC-10. Brought to the market at the same time as other large twin engine widebodies.
The MD-90 and 717 were the only two aircraft they had that could possibly compete with the 737 and A320 on an economics basis, but they both came too late.
For those of you interested in the whole airliner manufacturer saga of this era, I highly suggest reading "The Sporty Game". It along with a few other industry books should give you a very good picture of how the markets developed and why certain planes failed and succeeded.
Douglas was a successful but poorly managed company that oversold its production line for DC-9's and couldn't handle the growth they undertook, thus the merger with McDonnell (5 other companies bid on them at that time, and Lockheed was actually in the lead until the last minute). McDonnell was a family run business that had no experience in the commercial airliner business yet had slightly better management but no idea how to play the sales game. The DC-10 was the first plane that Douglas created when part of McD and they wanted to demonstrate that they could run an efficient and profitable project.
Lockheed's design was superior to that of Douglas's from an engineering perspective, but they paired it with the "too good to be true on paper" RB211 and did not want to spend the extra $100 million in design costs to accomodate the CF6 from GE (as it was a much longer engine than the RB211). American chose the DC-10 first mostly because they had a fairly inept CEO (Spater) at the time that favored the company's standing relationship with Douglas and basically bought the plane based on their relationship. United did the same and were unwilling to use foreign engines (the RB211). TWA, Eastern and Delta all opted for the L-1011 due to its engineering advances and gambled that the RB211 would make its initial performance targets. Lockheed still had a bit of a hangover from the L-1049 as its prior commercial airliner.
Basically, if one airline had chosen a different manufacturer than the way they were selected, the other project would have been killed off and this great debate wouldn't wage on to this day.
With regards to the death of McD, it really didn't have to do anything with the crashes of the DC-10s due to hydrolic failures or user error, it was McD's disinterest and inability to afford being a player in the commercial airliner space. If you think about it, they didn't have any new designs go to production after the DC-10. Everything else was a stretch or evolution of an existing airframe that wasn't competitive in the market place.
MD-11 - A stretch and re-wing of the DC-10. Underperformed promised specs and had its lunch eaten by the 777 and A333.
MD-90 - A stretch of the M80s with IAE-2500s. Major teething/maintenance issues that took a few years to sort out. Delta to dropped their order of 125 down to 16 (after the Boeing purchase and converted them to 737-800s).
MD-95 - Aka Boeing 717- A modernized DC-9-30 - Great plane but no commonality to other types (could be to the MD-90 with the right flight deck, but most all operators chose the MD-88 style deck and only Saudi took 30 of the 717 style flight deck). Mainline pilots must be payed for this one. Their target customers didn't get the chance to buy - the planew as aimed at NWA to replace their DC-9s, but after evaluation, they spent 2-3 million to refurb per each DC-9 to bring them up to modern interior standards instead of ordering new.
Ironically, the MD-11 is the only widebody to have all non-crashed produced aircraft still in revenue service.
The only reason AA ended up with so many Super 80's is that they initially got a dozen or so of them on a free lease from McD because noone would buy them. AA liked them and used them as a tool to get their pilots to accept B-scale wages for new hires so they ended up buying 250 or so. They then inherited another 100 from TWA bringing the fleet up to about 350.
A short personal remembrance that accords with Schro's post about the failings of MD. My father worked as a production supervisor on DC 10 wings at their Malton plant (Toronto) for MD for years -- at least until laid-off during the 1982 recession. He has always maintained MD was a terribly run company (even compared to BAC in Britain which he also worked for in the early-mid 1970s), and given the (poor) engineering he witnessed, was amazed that the DC 10 had any customers at all. In the early '80s the workers at the plant had a macbre pool on when another engine would 'fall off' in flight. Some of the workers even bet on the third (tail) engine being the next failure. My father became so disillusioned that even when called back by MD he left the aero-production industry altogether.
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 :)
Quote from: Curse on June 21, 2011, 01:43:35 PM
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.
Ok, so it's not the performance data or aerodynamics or so?
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 (;D) because it is so high up. That's one of the reasons why trijets are not very popular (anymore).
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.
Quote from: Ilyushin on June 21, 2011, 01:48:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Curse on June 21, 2011, 01:55:12 PM
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).
Quote from: Ilyushin on June 21, 2011, 02:05:50 PM
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 (;D) 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.
Ah, ok, thanks to both of you. So it's more about not in AWS modelled things :)
Quote from: Curse on June 21, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
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).
Quote from: schro on June 21, 2011, 02:50:34 PM
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 (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4587800/) makes for an interesting read regarding the MD-11s safety.
Quote from: Ilyushin on June 21, 2011, 03:11:29 PMThere 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...
Quote from: schro on June 21, 2011, 02:58:25 PM
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! :o
Why are you discussing so much?
Take both models :)
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. ;)
Quote from: L1011fan on June 25, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
And yes, I'm prejudice and I admit it. ;)
Never would have guessed ::)
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.
Quote from: L1011fan on June 25, 2011, 07:36:03 PM
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.