NLovis - How would you compare the ages of Evergreen's 747 fleet against FedExs MD-11 fleet? Aren't they comparable if not in FedEx's favor?
Printable View
NLovis - How would you compare the ages of Evergreen's 747 fleet against FedExs MD-11 fleet? Aren't they comparable if not in FedEx's favor?
"Remember as a/c age they break more frequently."
How about Delta with its DC-9 fleet?! The just recently acquired additional DC-9-50s. One aspect is a well maintained aircraft is better then a new one: all of the glitches have been worked out and prior weak areas exposed and corrected.
And what about the FAA certificate of airworthiness? After 22+ years they are just getting around to a revaluation? Not!
Yes the outlook/service life of the MD-11 is grim for one fact: Economics. The plane was designed with late 80s tech and naturally is less efficient then newer airframes. But for some the capital outlay for newer is not always better. Plenty of airlines are making due with what they have for a bit more.
Folks, you can stop building a shelter in the back yard: You won't be hearing the radio play " Hallelujah it's raining MD-11s !"
If delta bought more 50's then there is something wrong there. Tom yes EIA's 747 fleet is much older then FX's MD-11's. The diff though is that EIA hasent had a major event with their fleet unlike FX with its MD-11's. True the cause is still unknown but they have had one which looks bad for their rep. You forget the DC-10 in all of this considering its an earlier MD-11. The age range for the DC-10 and 742 is simmilar. But both a/c are regarded in higher standards then the MD-11. True the MD-11 is still young compared but with this many questions surrounding it it would seem like its in the same age group. Personally I have yet to see a difference detween the 10 and 11 in regards to the tail section. Personally I like the MD-11. I do not consider it to be a dangerous a/c. If it was as dangerous as it is made out too be there wouldnt be any MD-11's flying currently. I think the tail section is exactly the same as on a DC-10. But the MD-11 is as shown longer and larger then a 10. Probably because of that and the stabilizer being the same size it is a harder a/c to pilot. It probably "looks" smaller because of the a/c size increase but in reality it is exactly the same. Tom you are correct in stating FX had the advantage. But the advantage goes to EIA when it comes down to crashes. Now idk about FX pilots but our pilots dont take any chances when there is a problem. Maby if FX MD-11 pilots were a little more cautious they wouldnt have any problems but as I said idk how FX pilots are. I can only speak for what I see and it would seem FX pilots are maby a little too trigger happy so to speak?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingColors
What does that even mean? Your opinions on the subject are baseless and uneducated and your reasoning is straight out of left-field.Quote:
Originally Posted by NLovis
If we're just throwing out theories, then mine is that the MD-11 has had more accidents because the paint scheme on most MD-11 angers the aviation gods who in turn cause the aircraft to crash... /sarcasm
Not to get off subject but.....
"If delta bought more 50's then there is something wrong there."
Why do you say?
They sure did buy more and they are all now painted in current colors.
Okay, I have kept my mouth shut long enough on this one. I have no time in any douglas type but I do happen to understand airline econ. as well as the sciences of aeronautical enginnering and the science of flight a good bit. Number one..... Age means nothing in terms of aircraft safety....
As someone else said Delta just picked up some additional DC-9 lift for their 50 fleet. If that was so dangerous why would they do it? The airplanes are all pretty much paid for and due to the age they are relatively cheap to pick up second hand. Almost nothing cost wise in fact.... The biggest driving factors behind why airlines get rid of airplanes are lease rates in this day and age... Not lack of safety.... The DC9 fleet is long paid for and it actually relatively efficent to fly even with the old coal burner JT8's on the pods.... When you own an airplane outright the only cost you incur is insc., MX and fuel..... With those things considered the airplane likely makes more money for Delta than the A320/319 and 737NG... I would venture to guess there is almost no cost to operation infact compared to other fleetr types.
Back on track here. I am suprised USAF did not point this out but the MD11 and DC10 are nothing alike. They come from similar design but engine placement and window shape is about where it ends. The tail plane on the MD11 is tremendously smaller than that on the DC10... The wings are completely diffrent...... The CG is completely diffrent and a million other things. One of the issues I hear pilots who have flown the 11 and the 10 speak of is related to control effectiveness at lower speeds in the MD11 compared to the DC10 family. At lower speeds it takes a much larger deflection to garner the desired result due to the size of the horizontal stab in particular. This becomes a large issue during landings as is well documented by the string of crashes in recent times during landing with the MD11.
I tookm the time to write an entire theroy out after either the FedEx crash or the takeoff accident in China... I will dig and post it here later... A little too tired to go for detail right now.
sorry nlovis, but....
and not that it's a commercial airliner, but I fly a stunning 1976 Cessna 172. The airplane is flawless inside and out, and just goes as a testament to say that if you take care of the airplane, it will last.
What I meant by there is a problem there is the fact that they did pick them up. Those early gen JT8 engines have to burn fuel. True cheap to pick up but that cose rises when you factor in the gas and all. Didnt this airline go into Ch 11 twice during the gas spike? True the DC-9 is a wonderful plane but it doesnt make sense to operate them when they burn so much fuel. Also if i'm not mistaken gas prices are rising again. Didnt they learn the 1st 2 times? It doesnt make any sense in the long run.
Fuel burn is only a minor factor... Notice that the MD88 was not retired when they went CH11.... They own the airplanes outright and the airplanes have minimum insc. payments. The airplane costs next to nothing to operate at this point. In fact... The airplanes have been in fleet for so long at this point that just sitting on the ground they probably make a profit. Haha