What's Wrong With the MD-11?

Popular Mechanics:

Quote:

---

What's Wrong With the MD-11?
Some pilots say that the MD-11 invites disaster. Does it?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/p...sh_0510-md.jpg

A FedEx McDonnell Douglas freighter, landing through gusty winds at Tokyo's Narita International Airport on March 23, 2009, bounces during touchdown. As the airplane impacts the runway a second time, it banks sharply, snapping the port wing on the ground and rupturing a fuel tank. In flames, the MD-11 rolls over onto its back, then slides out of view of the airport surveillance camera filming the tragedy. Both pilots are killed. The accident, still under investigation, appears to be a carbon copy of two previous MD-11 crashes--a FedEx freighter at Newark International Airport, N.J., in 1997 and a China Airlines passenger jet at Hong Kong International Airport in 1999. "I've never heard of a landing flip-over with any other type of airliner," says John DeLisi, deputy director of aviation safety at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). [Full Article]

---

There is a rumor that MD-11 is more sensitive to crosswind landings because of its airframe design and aerodynamics, also the MD-11 has a higher approach speed compared to other commercial airliners and therefore can be quite tricky to land during high wind conditions.

It's got a smaller tail section compared to the DC-10 and can be more unstable at approach speeds, especially if heavy. Overall though it's still a safe airliner, operating thousands of flight daily around the world.

You can see the effect of the smaller horizontal stab and the lengthened fuselage in these pictures. Notice what appears to be a rather odd angle of the stab compared to the DC-10 in the last picture. I was reading a very good website on the MD11 and found a very rare picture of a Continental DC-10-10 fitted with winglets.
http://md-eleven.net/MD11-History-Developement

From what I can say about the MD-11, the aircraft is a nice looking bird but the performance was pretty poor, the tailplane and the stab was also an issue, because of theses issues the MD-11 had, many PAX airlines gave them up as early as 1998/99, but it became very good with many freight operaters, even though a few freight airlines like FE, KE had a few small incident with cargo load on the plane which made them lean back onto the ground..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta777LR

From what I can say about the MD-11, the aircraft is a nice looking bird but the performance was pretty poor, the tailplane and the stab was also an issue, because of theses issues the MD-11 had, many PAX airlines gave them up as early as 1998/99, but it became very good with many freight operaters, even though a few freight airlines like FE, KE had a few small incident with cargo load on the plane which made them lean back onto the ground..

---

all in one sentence!

A friend of mine is a MD-11 pilot and he tells me there is no sweet spot for the aircraft to settle in on approach as you have to fly it all the way down to the runway. The nose wanted to rise sometimes and drop other times and the same pilot would fly the 727, 737 and now the 777. Of course this is second hand so it is 100% parlor talk. :borat:

Yea my father has said how the shortened stabilizer has made the plane dangerous. I have yet to see the difference but I have also yet to get up close to a MD-11. Which i'm still trying to do. Some help would be appreciated. Also dont have a good shot of a MD-11. So yea. The way I have heard of all of this the MD-11 doesnt have much of a life left.

I can follow in theory the issue of the smaller horizontal stab and the lengthened fuselage, but not what it is I am supposed to be noticing in those images... the DC-10 and the MD-11s are taken from different angles.. different airports, different dates and presumably different wind conditions..

Is there anything odd about the MD-11 smaller stabilizer in these images, which are more what we see in the DC-10 example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHG750R

You can see the effect of the smaller horizontal stab and the lengthened fuselage in these pictures. Notice what appears to be a rather odd angle of the stab compared to the DC-10 in the last picture. I was reading a very good website on the MD11 and found a very rare picture of a Continental DC-10-10 fitted with winglets.
http://md-eleven.net/MD11-History-Developement

---

http://derf.smugmug.com/photos/875183991_eyQQx-L.jpg

Thanks Fred - I realize it is a different tail DC-10 to MD-11, but do those images show where "You can see the effect" of it??

Its a rhetorical question at this point though, never mind..

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Turner

Thanks Fred - I realize it is a different tail DC-10 to MD-11, but do those images show where "You can see the effect" of it??

Its a rhetorical question at this point though, never mind..

Tom

---

I was not responding to your post rather than just showing two line art drawing of the aircraft. -Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derf

I was not responding to your post rather than just showing two line art drawing of the aircraft. -Fred

---

k -- It is a useful comparison :D thx, TT

To summarize the MD-11 arguments:

1-It's smaller horizontal stab has been a source of controversy since its inception.
2-Every aircraft has its own unique handling operating characteristics, with some strong and weak areas. No type will provide across the board utopia.
3- Fact: many MD-11s/DC-10s were yanked out of service prematurely due to downturn in economy, 9/11, and the resulting glut of 777s offered at ultra attractive rates. Not from dangerous operations or failures.
4- If the MD-11 is a looser or dangerous then FedEx, UPS, KLM, Finnair and a few others would have not used them for so long- with so little trouble. Yes there have been just a few wrecks, BUT this type has been in service for 22 years, and counting. Were talking about a large amout of people and cargo safely transported worldwide- even to this day.

The MD-11 is a victim of circumstance.
It's initial range performance was off. Everyone in aviation business remembers that. MD came out with a fix and it actually exceeded the original design expectations. Not remembered well at all.
The few losses they had, as they always are for any crash, a complex compilation of weather, operation conditions/mechanical and pilot error.

Stating "whats wrong with the MD-11" to me spells unbridled fanaticism from a panic inducing reporter who's only goal is to sell stories, regardless of fact, to the simple minded public that will buy anything drenched in negativity and hopefully slingshot their carrier to anchor.

In conclusion its unfair and unscientific to condem the MD-11. Its a solid and profitable aircraft. I assure you every time one takes off a lucky rabbits foot is not required for safe operation and when they touch down the operators are not counting how much debt they have acquired. They work, they fly, safe, and still turning a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingColors

To summarize the MD-11 arguments:

1-It's smaller horizontal stab has been a source of controversy since its inception.
2-Every aircraft has its own unique handling operating characteristics, with some strong and weak areas. No type will provide across the board utopia.
3- Fact: many MD-11s/DC-10s were yanked out of service prematurely due to downturn in economy, 9/11, and the resulting glut of 777s offered at ultra attractive rates. Not from dangerous operations or failures.
4- If the MD-11 is a looser or dangerous then FedEx, UPS, KLM, Finnair and a few others would have not used them for so long- with so little trouble. Yes there have been just a few wrecks, BUT this type has been in service for 22 years, and counting. Were talking about a large amout of people and cargo safely transported worldwide- even to this day.

The MD-11 is a victim of circumstance.
It's initial range performance was off. Everyone in aviation business remembers that. MD came out with a fix and it actually exceeded the original design expectations. Not remembered well at all.
The few losses they had, as they always are for any crash, a complex compilation of weather, operation conditions/mechanical and pilot error.

Stating "whats wrong with the MD-11" to me spells unbridled fanaticism from a panic inducing reporter who's only goal is to sell stories, regardless of fact, to the simple minded public that will buy anything drenched in negativity and hopefully slingshot their carrier to anchor.

In conclusion its unfair and unscientific to condem the MD-11. Its a solid and profitable aircraft. I assure you every time one takes off a lucky rabbits foot is not required for safe operation and when they touch down the operators are not counting how much debt they have acquired. They work, they fly, safe, and still turning a profit.

---

Remember as a/c age they break more frequently. And as that happens the safety of the a/c goes into question. Ok 22 years in service and counting. And safety is already being queationed. Truth be told how much longer does the MD-11 have left? The findings from this crash will either be the key to longer life or the nail in the coffin for most MD-11 still flying. And lets not forget the more recent MD-11 crash out of state. I read an article about it and how it was simmilar to the fed ex crash. (diff carriers though) Truth be told and you all know this, the outlook for the MD-11 is grim.

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 !"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingColors

"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 NLovis

[ I can only speak for what I see and it would seem FX pilots are maby a little too trigger happy so to speak?

---

What does that even mean? Your opinions on the subject are baseless and uneducated and your reasoning is straight out of left-field.

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