4 ms·

DC-10 are not transporting passengers anymore. Neither MD-11. Perhaps because they’re known? An MD-11 crashed because it was too long and the pilot didn’t know

DC-10 are not transporting passengers anymore. Neither MD-11. Perhaps because they’re known? An MD-11 crashed because it was too long and the pilot didn’t know whether it was landing or already boucing. The Concorde crashed because of a piece lost by a DC-10. The DC-9 lost 4 times the same door, crrating 4 times the same crash. It goes all the way to the DC-3, where overfilling the tank would overflow into the aircon system, pulverizing droplets of jet fuel into the cabin. No need to picture the rest. Perhaps that’s why no-one knows this brand anymore. Same as De Havailland. Too many crashes. Bad engineering and management shortcuts.

lmm 8y ago
> The Concorde crashed because of a piece lost by a DC-10. That was never proven and is kind of beside the point in any case. Aeroplanes are supposed to survive a tyre bursting on takeoff; a design that can't is unsafe, regardless of what runway debris did or didn't cause the burst tyre.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I'd like to point out that Concorde had a perfect 30 year safety record up until this incident.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It made so few flights in those 30 years that this is irrelevant. That one crash gave it the worst fatality rate in the industry, by far, just because the denominator was small.
  - lmm 8y ago
    What do you think that proves? Remember that the number of Concordes flying was a tiny fraction of most aircraft types you've heard of. AIUI the part of the fuel tank at the front where the tyre debris hit withstood the initial hit (as it was designed to), but the shape of the tank focused the pressure wave from the impact so that it ruptured the rear of the tank. Bad luck? Yes. An understandable oversight? Yes. But there's still no way to see it as anything other than a Concorde design flaw.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - xaqfox 8y ago
    I'd like to point out that the airport failed to complete the required FOD check of the runway before takeoff (required only because of the Concorde's failure mode when having a flat tyre).
notahacker 8y ago
DC-9s kept operating with mainstream airlines until long after they were obsolete and the DC-3 is by some measures the most successful aircraft of all time, Even the Douglas brand was considered to have enough value for Boeing to merge logotypes.
- arnon 8y ago
  DC-9's direct descendants still operate as the 717 with a number of European, Australian, and even American companies like Delta. There are a handful of MD-82/83 still operating in Europe. The DC-10 and MD-11 still operate for cargo, and are the backbone of UPS, Lufthansa Cargo, FedEx, and several other smaller cargo airlines
jboles 8y ago
> DC-10 are not transporting passengers anymore. Neither MD-11. Perhaps because they’re known? They were up until the 2010's. The design problems that led to the crashes had long been solved. The reason they're not flying anymore isn't because they were unsafe or because people are scared of them, but because over time it eventually becomes impossible to find replacement spare parts, and because 3 engines are more expensive to run and maintain than 2.

lmm 8y ago

> The Concorde crashed because of a piece lost by a DC-10. That was never proven and is kind of beside the point in any case. Aeroplanes are supposed to survive a tyre bursting on takeoff; a design that can't is unsafe, regardless of what runway debris did or didn't cause the burst tyre.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I'd like to point out that Concorde had a perfect 30 year safety record up until this incident.
- mikeash 8y ago
  It made so few flights in those 30 years that this is irrelevant. That one crash gave it the worst fatality rate in the industry, by far, just because the denominator was small.
- lmm 8y ago
  What do you think that proves? Remember that the number of Concordes flying was a tiny fraction of most aircraft types you've heard of. AIUI the part of the fuel tank at the front where the tyre debris hit withstood the initial hit (as it was designed to), but the shape of the tank focused the pressure wave from the impact so that it ruptured the rear of the tank. Bad luck? Yes. An understandable oversight? Yes. But there's still no way to see it as anything other than a Concorde design flaw.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- xaqfox 8y ago
  I'd like to point out that the airport failed to complete the required FOD check of the runway before takeoff (required only because of the Concorde's failure mode when having a flat tyre).

notahacker 8y ago

DC-9s kept operating with mainstream airlines until long after they were obsolete and the DC-3 is by some measures the most successful aircraft of all time, Even the Douglas brand was considered to have enough value for Boeing to merge logotypes.

arnon 8y ago
DC-9's direct descendants still operate as the 717 with a number of European, Australian, and even American companies like Delta. There are a handful of MD-82/83 still operating in Europe. The DC-10 and MD-11 still operate for cargo, and are the backbone of UPS, Lufthansa Cargo, FedEx, and several other smaller cargo airlines

jboles 8y ago

> DC-10 are not transporting passengers anymore. Neither MD-11. Perhaps because they’re known? They were up until the 2010's. The design problems that led to the crashes had long been solved. The reason they're not flying anymore isn't because they were unsafe or because people are scared of them, but because over time it eventually becomes impossible to find replacement spare parts, and because 3 engines are more expensive to run and maintain than 2.