Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Sioux City 2 Safety record 3 MD-100 4 Concorde crash 5 RAF Order? 6 Fedex 7 Continental retiring DC-10s? 8 Combining 2 similar sections

[edit] Sioux City

I removed the statement that controlling the plane by its throttles is "a feature few other aircraft have."

I don't really know much about the DC-10, so I might be mistaken, but I am not aware of anything about the DC-10 which makes it any easier to control without hydraulics than any other commercial airplane. In fact, a DHL cargo A300 lost all hydraulics in Iraq after being hit by a SAM, and the flightcrew managed to circle the airport and land safely using differential thrust to control the plane. (You can find an article describing this by going to http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/ and entering "DHL A300" in the Search box.)

[edit] Safety record

I don't really like the sentence I added here..

"and the safety record improved as time went on (and in fact is now better than the 747s.".

It is true (witness http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm) but I think my wording is fairly clumsy. Hopefully someone can tidy it up.

Looks like this has already been cleaned up. Kevyn 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not true. The DC-10 is "reasonably" safe but doesn't beat the 747; Whether you consider the hull loss percentage [1], the hull loss accident rate [2] or the fatal event rate [3]. Also, the 'airsafe' reference above uses a very odd calculation method that is biased depending on the number of seats and loading of the aircraft being analysed. -- FirstPrinciples 11:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MD-100

DC-10 variants include the MD-100 (originally the DC-10 Series 50 and 60), but I can't find any mention of it on Wikipedia. It should go here or on the MD-11 page. Any aviation historian-types want to tackle this? If not, I'll take a shot in the next few weeks. Kaszeta 13:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll check my books to decide where to edit these information, and add it. I'm pretty sure that the MD-100 should be added to the MD-11 page, but for the DC-10 Series 60 I'm less sure.

--EuroSprinter 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the MD-11 page. I've added origin details of the MD-11, including the MD-100 and DC-10 Super 60s. --EuroSprinter 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde crash

In the article about the Air France Concorde crash in 2000, apparently that jet was downed after "inhaling" some scraps of metal which had fallen off none other than a DC-10 which had taken off from that runway shortly beforehand. Sounds a bit similar to the engine trouble which doomed the one from Chicago in 1979. Does anyone think that might be worth noting?

The picture shown in Flight International of the suspected metal bits look suspiciously like the pieces from the DC-10's thrust reversers; the rubstrip. If reversers are poorly maintained, segments of rubstrip may fall of as they are held to the reversers only by small rivets. Fikr

[edit] RAF Order?

Does anyone have a source showing the RAF's order of the KC-10? I've never heard a cheep about it, and they must have cancelled it - they don't have any, and the future tanker is the A330. Is it possible that this could be confusion with the Tristar or visiting USAF KC-10s?

The RAF has never ordered any KC-10. In the early 1980s, during the Falklands war, the RAF realised it lacked such equipment so it began to evaluate urgently the wide-body alternatives. They had the choice between the TriStar and the DC-10 with aircraft of both types readily available on the secondhand market. British Airways was to be the source of the TriStar, and for the DC-10 the idea was to convert three DC-10-30CFs of World Airways and one DC-10-30F, belonging to Korean Air, to RAF's specification. McDonnell Douglas DC-10, by Alan J. Wright (ISBN 0711017506) On this book,Lockheed TriStar, by Philip J. Birtles (ISBN 0711018243), it is said that the DC-10s could have been the ex. Laker Airways aircraft.

To date, the only DC-10 ever used by the RAF was a -30CF leased from SABENA during the first Gulf War to transport troops.

--EuroSprinter 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fedex

"Later, in 1994, A FedEX DC-10 involved in a hostile takeover was flown at speeds exceeding Mach 1 and was made to perform barrel rolls at over 400 mph. It travelled faster than any DC-10 had ever gone. Despite severe buffeting and breakage of certain components, the plane was landed safely, despite being severely overweight. It also had to make tight turns to be able to land on a runway that would be long enough for it to stop whilst carrying so much weight. It stopped with just 300m of runway to spare."

This sounds unlikely. A cite, anyone? Guinnog 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The barrel rolls and Mach 1 sounds crazy. The rest could be possible. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The diving DC-10 accelerated past 500 miles per hour, then past the instruments’ capacity to register." from http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm Have you tried to search the NTSB site http://www.ntsb.gov . It seems to be down at the moment, but I'm pretty sure you'll find more informations there to answer your query. --EuroSprinter 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental retiring DC-10s?

Does anybody have a cite for the second sentence in paragraph below about Continental quickly retiring all their DC-10s. I couldn't find anything related to that reason. They did get rid of them in Oct 2001 for age and to simplify their fleet. [4]

The Air France Concorde crash of 2000 was attributed to a fragment of titanium metal that fell from a DC-10 that had taken off some four minutes earlier. Continental Airlines, the operator of the DC-10 in question, quickly retired its entire fleet of DC-10s immediately afterward.

For what it's worth, it wasn't immediately afterwords, but more than a year later. Once the retirment started, though, not only did they retire the fleet fairly quickly, but the offending aircraft N13067, was one of the first to get parked at Mojave, and the only one rushed into the scrapping program - less than 3 weeks after arriving, it was already being torn down. I do have a citation for this, but I can't use it due to conflict-of-interest rules: there is a small chapter on this aircraft and its scrapping in a book I wrote. Akradecki 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the last sentence to this:

Continental Airlines was the operator of the DC-10 in question.

Thanks. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining 2 similar sections

The Current Operators and The DC-10 in Service Today sections largely repeat the same information. I will move the DC-10 in Service content to the Current Operators section later on, provide no one has a problem with it. -Fnlayson 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. -- BillCJ 22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)