Douglas contracted out a lot of DC-10 engineering and some of it was not good. From what we learned about the way Douglas rushed the program to beat Lockheed it was obvious that corners were cut and a lot of work wasn't properly monitored. The strut / wing installation design was one of the worst ways that it could be done BUT it was quick and cheap. The cargo door failure exposed the lack of blow out panels in the upper deck that would have allowed pressure equalization when the cargo door blew out , thus collapsing the main deck. The airplane had numerous design flaws initially that had to be addressed to make it reliable but they came too late. Douglas did beat Lockheed in introducing the DC-10 but they eventually paid a price and so did a lot of passengers. I have been told that the L-1011 was a much better airplane.
Always wondered why MD didn't pursue a twin engine version when ETOPS was changed from having to have 3 engines. I know they looked at, and began design of a 4 engine 2 deck version (MD-12?).
I've heard that also... the 1011 was delayed and hurt badly by the bankruptcy of Rolls Royce when their new engines did not perform. The 1011 was designed around those engines and could not use those of other manufacturers apparently.
L-1011 had major reliability problems and that is why Delta jettisoned them as quickly as they could, even though they were the primary maintainer for depot level maintenance for the L-1011. Last one I flew on, the gear would not retract out of LAX. Started my habit of not changing my watch to the destination airport time until the gear retracted. They put us on a 767 instead.
Maybe we're looking at overall concept and configuration but had some glitches in the mix. I heard many times that it was a better airplane than the DC-10 Taz, your Delta flight could have been a maintenance problem. I have flown L-1011's without any incidents. Getting back to the DC-10, take a look at those three bar flap hinge mechanisms hanging out in the air below the wing. In a wheels-up landing these things can and have damaged the fuel tank integrity, opening up the fuel cell.An incident in LAX where a DC-10 veered off the runway and into a building, I think from a blown tire. The main gear was torn off and opened up the fuel tank, starting a big fire. I recall that there were no structural fuse links in the oleo strut connection and it took out a section of rear spar. Shoot at me if you want but this is what I remember when I was in engineering at the Big Kite Factory and they were analyzing everything in accidents. On the other hand, the DC-10 was good aerodynamically in spite of that ugly number two engine installation.
I heard that as airlines were lining up to order either the DC-10 or L-1011, all the majors had made their picks except United. Their engineering wanted the 1011 but the bean counters made them agree to the DC-10, and that factor alone kept the DC-10 program alive. If United had picked the L-1011, the DC-10 program would have died right there, and I think that Lockheed and the flying public would have been much better off in the long run.
I was once on a TWA L-1011 coming out of Seattle that appeared badly in need of an overhaul. When the flaps were lowered for takeoff, I could see some torn bulb seals. Not surprisingly, when the pilot raised the flaps after takeoff, they would not retract fully. After a few minutes, the pilot throttled back, lowered the flaps back to takeoff position, and then retracted them again. This time they retracted fully, the pilot advanced the throttles and we continued on to JFK. Upon leaving the airplane in N.Y., I quizzed the pilot about the flap situation, and he confirmed that if the flaps had not retracted fully on the second attempt, we would have had to turn around and return to SEA. The next TWA L-1011 I flew was in much better condition.
There's no denying that Douglas did some great stuff but there are a few that had the Douglas name on them when it should have been Jack Northrop's since he designed them. In the early 2000's our entire group went to MaChord AB to inspect the C-17 and we came away impressed as heck at the design features and with the execution. The C-17 is one clever and well done airplane. We all know that it ain't Boeing.
Right. Effectively the Naval counterpart of the A-17 was the BT-1, and the BT-2 prototype was the SBD!
Other airplanes that Northrop had a major hand in was the Lockheed Vega and Sirrus. I think that I remember that he initiated the molds for the molded plywood skins that early versions had. I know, I know....same as the 1918 Albatross. I will always like the Northrop Gamma, that again is in the SBD line.
The DC 10 was my least favorite airliner to fly on. I had an emergency pull up landing a LAX. No idea why but scared the crap out of me. I was so happy when they were retired.
Back in the 70's my dad was good mates with the chief pilot at American who was mates with the guy who designed the cargo doors on the DC10. After the Paris crash he received multiple death threats both against him and his family. He subsequently came to stay (hide) with us in the back blocks of Australia while the investigation played out. Investigators came out to interview him and he ended up staying about 9 months.
300 hours as an engineer. Great airplane! No experience with the MD-11 although guys I knew that flew it hated it. No specific reason, lots of various problems.
My late sister flew a lot on various airplanes when she was a government employee. She told me about a DC-10 trip delay because they couldn't get the cargo door to close and to stay closed. She said that they had to wire something up to make it work. I don't know what or how it was done.
