Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-11/Archive 1

Archive 1

Performance shortfalls

Since MD doesnt exist anymore anyway, could someone please disclose what the performance shortfalls were? It seems quite of interest currently because the new airbus 380 is rumoured to have similar problems facing it......

• MD is still around as part of Boeing. The article says the MD-11 didn't meet targets for range and fuel burn. There needs to be a reference for that statement though.. -Fnlayson 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Tanker section

Tanker Program is NOT NPOV: The language and tone of this section is definately not NPOV. --Tarpy 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yep. It is a lot of speculation at the least. -Fnlayson 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MDC Boeing did provide retrofit kits which addressed some of the problems by reducing drag, especially around the engine pylons for the wingmounts. But by then the commercial damage was done. Overall the MD-11 was more suited to higher weight and shorter range operations as flown by freight carriers. The range and fuel burn problems were a direct result of using the DC-10 wing layout to save money at MDC. Later freight buyers such as Lufthansa Cargo would have added more newbuilds if the line was still going as it makes an excellent hauler for them. That's another pointer towards the KC-11 being a strong contender against the big twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.42.212 (talk • contribs)

Well, a KC-11 would be a fine tanker no doubt, but one in the "extra large" category, even larger that KC-10. Not a successor for the mid-sized KC-135.

Ok, I do agree with Boeing pushing its 767 against the MD-11. It is not a point of view nor an opinion that Boeing has not been a fan of the MD-11 but a fact. One major reason (out of many others) for Boeing's purchase of MDC was to shut down the MD-11 in order to sell more 777s. The MD-11 was not a huge threat, however Boeing did it anyway. Also, on many occasions the 767 has been heavily pushed for the tanker program. One executive was fired for taking bribes for this. The list goes on and on. Lufthansa and Fedex wanted more freighters late 1999, yet Boeing insisted on closing the production line. The Md-11 and DC-10 were the flagship of MDC and caused great pains at Boeing for over 3 decades. Getting rid of it was a combination of all these factors. Therefore I think the claims presented in the paragraph are sound and the tag needs to be removed, however I also think the paragraph should be worded differently to not sound so speculative. --Bangabalunga 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

With the way it is worded now I'm inclined to want to remove the Neutrality tag. It could use a cite or two would help. Anybody want the NPOV tag to stay? -Fnlayson

Infobox image

An editer has been capitalizing the infobox file name for some reason. But the image isn't showing up with the capital N.

Here are examples:

File name: air namibia.jpg

File:Air Namibia.jpg File name: air Namibia.jpg

Last passenger MD-11

Am I right with this plane ? [1] 217.86.33.170 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the last passenger MD-11 built. --EuroSprinter 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Combi MTOW

An editer added this to the article but messed up the references section in the process.

MD11 COMBI max take off weight was 283.700 kg, not 285.990 as stated. Only five were built and they were all operated by alitalia. All 5 aircraft have since been converted to CARGO and renamed MD11SF (special freighter) due to the unique position of the main cargo door in the rear of the aircraft. Eventually the max take off weight of the MD11SF has been increased to 285.990 kg

What's the source for values? -Fnlayson 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Combi Passengers

The MD-11C could have been transformed into an all passenger aircraft with the same capacity as the MD-11 in a single class layout. --EuroSprinter 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, it was understanding that the cargo space was fixed in the Combi. The Airliners.net page lists lower 2 class and 3 class capacity for the Combi. Well the numbers should match the passenger version then. Sorry.. -Fnlayson 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably that Alitalia never used them otherwise than in Combi configuration, but if you check Kev's MD-11 site, you can see an official document from the manufacturer that shows all the different combinations. Although it doesn't show a high density, I don't think it was impossible. http://md-eleven.net/Specs-Technical-Details --EuroSprinter 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I changed it back. The Boeing Combi page says it can be all passenger with no pallets. -Fnlayson 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins addition

• Nice addition on the background info, EuroSprinter. Did that happen to come from McDonnell Douglas MD-11: A Long Beach Swansong or McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mordern Civil Aircraft: 12)? Those references are already listed and would be easy to add to the new info. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. About 95% came from the 'Modern Civil Aircraft: 12' book, and the rest is split between the 'Swansong' and a magazine report I'll add as references. --EuroSprinter 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good deal. I moved the MD-11 Civil reference up there so you can use. -Fnlayson 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Variants

Could it be worthwhile to add a new "Variants" section after "Design" that would incorporate the last paragraph of the later ? Somehow like for the DC-10 article but in a smaller way ? --EuroSprinter 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be fine. It would probably encourage expansion too. More details on the Combi and Convertable Freighter would be good. I'd mention the ER at the top, since it is an option they all could have. -Fnlayson 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may make some changes to what you've started when I'll work on it in a few hours after the night. But anything could be discused and changed back of course. My ideas are not "of course" the best. --EuroSprinter 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do what you can. I'm sure it'll be an improvment. -Fnlayson 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Varig still flies this plane

Why is Varig still listed as having retired the type? On Airliners.net, there was a picture of a Varig MD-11 in service that was taken just 2 weeks ago, and even the Varig page on Wikipedia says they are still in service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.10.127 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I'm a bit hesitant about it. I've listed VRG Linhas Aereasas current operator, while Varig is on the previous operator list based on what www.ch-aviation.ch says. Still, the situation isn't pretty clear for me, but the article on Wiki talk of a "new" Varig (VRG Linhas Aereas). Any clarification on that airline would be much appreciated. --EuroSprinter 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just checked one of my source on the web, and it says that three MD-11s were transfered from VARIG to VRG Linhas Aereas in July 2006. All three still had the Varig colors. The fleet is now down to two. --EuroSprinter 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone has anynomously removed the VRG Linhas Aereas as current operator, and has changed the status of the aircraft on the airline article without providing a source. Clarification is needed.--EuroSprinter 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Change it back and add your reference(s). Question: Are you saying above that Varig still has 2 MD-11s and VRG Linhas Aereas has 3 now? Thanks. -Fnlayson 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question, the old Varig is no more. Thus, the new one, VRG Linhas Aereas, owned by Gol Transportes Aereos and still showing the VARIG name on its aircraft, has two MD-11s that were transferred from the old airline into the new. At first, three MD-11s (PP-VTI/J/P) were used, but since January the fleet is down to two, and perhaps zero now if they stopped operating them. Time will tell. --EuroSprinter 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, much clearer. Thanks a lot for explaining. -Fnlayson 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Varig is now using only one MD-11 that should remain in service until the beginning of June. I think this will appear in the upcoming sources update. So I don't change them on the article. I still wonder if I'll have to merge all MD-11s into a single past operator or not ? --EuroSprinter 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, I think that I'll merge both VRG Lihas Aereas and Varig under the name Varig. I can't get enough proof to do it otherwise. As Varig is expected to operate for the last time an MD-11 during this coming week-end, I'll wait and update the former ops part afterwards. --EuroSprinter 10:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Substantial copy violations?

Large chunks of the history section (like entire paragraphs) are possibly large scale cut and pastes from http://www.md-11.org/history.html. It is possible that the reverse is true of course. Hard to say without seeing the text of the MD11 history text cited in the article. On the surface, the MD-11.org site seems legit. Just raising the question in the absence of any firm evidence either way.GlenDillon 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this article was written in 2007 and before. That web page is dated 2009. I do not see a copyright notice on the MD-11.org page anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not substantial. Looks like that site reworded and summarized the Wikipedia text. I compared the first 2-3 paragraphs in the Development section with the history page's text and they are similar but different. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You are probably right. I only compared the 4th paragraph (starting with "The following year, though, things changed.") and it was word for word exact copy. I'll try and get hold of the cited textbook from a library sometime just as a check.GlenDillon 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did not spot check enough for that. :( I have a couple of the books used as references, but not that one (ref. 1). Think I'll reword the paragraph here some. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Design

I am amazed that the article says virtually nothing about the fact that the MD-11 was deliberately designed with a dynamically unstable pitch mode. It has a significantly smaller horizontal stabilizer than other airliners. That, plus the shifting of its center of gravity further aft, all to reduce drag and thus fuel burn, causes it to be unusually light on the controls. That design, known as "relaxed stability," is common to fighter planes, but is not normally found in the pitch axis of a civilian airliner. It makes it more likely that the pilot will over control and exacerbate the situation, during a recovery attempt after a high altitude upset, or a hard and/or bounced landing. That deficient design, combined with a lack of in-depth pilot training for upset recovery in the MD-11, was the cause of the December, 1992 upset accident, as well as 4 other upset incidents. The November, 1994, May, 1996 accidents, (both at Anchorage), as well as the June, 1997, July, 1997, August, 1999, and November, 2001 accidents, were linked to that dynamically unstable pitch mode, which was and still is part of the deficient design of the MD-11. And, after watching the film of the Narita crash yesterday, it appears that will again be the result of that deficient unstable pitch design.

You can find the details on that at http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm . I cannot mention this problem of deficient pitch design, in the main article myself, simply because I wrote that article, 10 years ago. However, I suggest that others discuss that issue (of deficient design), because it is a factual part of the MD-11 history. I think it both necessary and proper to discuss the issue of deficient design in an airliner, when it results in accidents that led to the loss of human lives. EditorASC (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It has been published in a reliable source independent of the subject. The reliable source doesn't need to be independent of the editor citing it. There are also a couple of articles you may wish to cite (not available publicly, I think):

• "Bumpy Ride: Jet's Troubled History Raises Issues for FAA And the Manufacturer". Andy Pasztor. The Wall Street Journal. 19 September 2000.
• "Safety Board: MD-11 Design Can Pose Problems in Flight". Don Phillips. The Washington Post. 16 February 1994.

Bongomatic 08:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Safety Concerns

Given the recent crash of an MD-11 in China, the recent crash in Japan, the previous crash in New Jersey, etc. etc. etc. etc, along with numerous anecdotal reports from pilots - our company pilot used to fly those and he (ordinarily being a Boeing fanboi of annoying proportions) descends into an unrepeatable stream of invective when he describes the takeoff and landing performance of that aircraft along with plenty of bad press going back to when the plane was nearly new - would it not be appropriate to expand on the "Safety" section of this article?

That Tragic MD-11 Safety Record from 2000
The extraordinary accident history of the MD-11 and MD-10 from March, 2009
Heck, just search your favorite engine for "MD-11 difficult to land"

Notice how none of the Tier 1 carriers fly it anymore for pax despite the relative youth of the type, relegating it to third-world carriers and cargo carriers. I'd posit that this is due to the fact that the vehicle is a deathtrap.
gloin (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You really need some reliable sources and not just opinion/original research that the safety record of the MD-11 is any different to contempary aircraft. Are you sure that the lack of use by the passenger airlines is related to safety or the availability of more modern and fuel efficient aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There already is a mention in the section on safety concerns, cited from the WSJ. Adding anything more would require a similar source. Certainly vandalistic edits such as this one (by an IP), which occured even before this crash, are inappropriate, but do indicate a pre-existing bias out there against the aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)