Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Sioux City

I removed the statement that controlling the plane by its throttles is "a feature few other aircraft have."

I don't really know much about the DC-10, so I might be mistaken, but I am not aware of anything about the DC-10 which makes it any easier to control without hydraulics than any other commercial airplane. In fact, a DHL cargo A300 lost all hydraulics in Iraq after being hit by a SAM, and the flightcrew managed to circle the airport and land safely using differential thrust to control the plane. (You can find an article describing this by going to http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/ and entering "DHL A300" in the Search box.)


[edit] Safety record

I don't really like the sentence I added here..

"and the safety record improved as time went on (and in fact is now better than the 747s.".

It is true (witness http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm) but I think my wording is fairly clumsy. Hopefully someone can tidy it up.

Looks like this has already been cleaned up. Kevyn 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's not true. The DC-10 is "reasonably" safe but doesn't beat the 747; Whether you consider the hull loss percentage [1], the hull loss accident rate [2] or the fatal event rate [3]. Also, the 'airsafe' reference above uses a very odd calculation method that is biased depending on the number of seats and loading of the aircraft being analysed. -- FirstPrinciples 11:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MD-100

DC-10 variants include the MD-100 (originally the DC-10 Series 50 and 60), but I can't find any mention of it on Wikipedia. It should go here or on the MD-11 page. Any aviation historian-types want to tackle this? If not, I'll take a shot in the next few weeks. Kaszeta 13:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll check my books to decide where to edit these information, and add it. I'm pretty sure that the MD-100 should be added to the MD-11 page, but for the DC-10 Series 60 I'm less sure.

--EuroSprinter 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the MD-11 page. I've added origin details of the MD-11, including the MD-100 and DC-10 Super 60s. --EuroSprinter 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concorde crash

In the article about the Air France Concorde crash in 2000, apparently that jet was downed after "inhaling" some scraps of metal which had fallen off none other than a DC-10 which had taken off from that runway shortly beforehand. Sounds a bit similar to the engine trouble which doomed the one from Chicago in 1979. Does anyone think that might be worth noting?

The picture shown in Flight International of the suspected metal bits look suspiciously like the pieces from the DC-10's thrust reversers; the rubstrip. If reversers are poorly maintained, segments of rubstrip may fall of as they are held to the reversers only by small rivets. Fikr

[edit] RAF Order?

Does anyone have a source showing the RAF's order of the KC-10? I've never heard a cheep about it, and they must have cancelled it - they don't have any, and the future tanker is the A330. Is it possible that this could be confusion with the Tristar or visiting USAF KC-10s?

The RAF has never ordered any KC-10. In the early 1980s, during the Falklands war, the RAF realised it lacked such equipment so it began to evaluate urgently the wide-body alternatives. They had the choice between the TriStar and the DC-10 with aircraft of both types readily available on the secondhand market. British Airways was to be the source of the TriStar, and for the DC-10 the idea was to convert three DC-10-30CFs of World Airways and one DC-10-30F, belonging to Korean Air, to RAF's specification. McDonnell Douglas DC-10, by Alan J. Wright (ISBN 0711017506) On this book,Lockheed TriStar, by Philip J. Birtles (ISBN 0711018243), it is said that the DC-10s could have been the ex. Laker Airways aircraft.

To date, the only DC-10 ever used by the RAF was a -30CF leased from SABENA during the first Gulf War to transport troops.

--EuroSprinter 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fedex

"Later, in 1994, A FedEX DC-10 involved in a hostile takeover was flown at speeds exceeding Mach 1 and was made to perform barrel rolls at over 400 mph. It travelled faster than any DC-10 had ever gone. Despite severe buffeting and breakage of certain components, the plane was landed safely, despite being severely overweight. It also had to make tight turns to be able to land on a runway that would be long enough for it to stop whilst carrying so much weight. It stopped with just 300m of runway to spare."

This sounds unlikely. A cite, anyone? Guinnog 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The barrel rolls and Mach 1 sounds crazy. The rest could be possible. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The diving DC-10 accelerated past 500 miles per hour, then past the instruments’ capacity to register." from http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm Have you tried to search the NTSB site http://www.ntsb.gov . It seems to be down at the moment, but I'm pretty sure you'll find more informations there to answer your query. --EuroSprinter 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Refers to the following incident: FedEx Flight 705. -- C. Deelmann 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental retiring DC-10s?

Does anybody have a cite for the second sentence in paragraph below about Continental quickly retiring all their DC-10s. I couldn't find anything related to that reason. They did get rid of them in Oct 2001 for age and to simplify their fleet. [4]

The Air France Concorde crash of 2000 was attributed to a fragment of titanium metal that fell from a DC-10 that had taken off some four minutes earlier. Continental Airlines, the operator of the DC-10 in question, quickly retired its entire fleet of DC-10s immediately afterward.
For what it's worth, it wasn't immediately afterwords, but more than a year later. Once the retirment started, though, not only did they retire the fleet fairly quickly, but the offending aircraft N13067, was one of the first to get parked at Mojave, and the only one rushed into the scrapping program - less than 3 weeks after arriving, it was already being torn down. I do have a citation for this, but I can't use it due to conflict-of-interest rules: there is a small chapter on this aircraft and its scrapping in a book I wrote. Akradecki 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the last sentence to this:

Continental Airlines was the operator of the DC-10 in question.

Thanks. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combining 2 similar sections

The Current Operators and The DC-10 in Service Today sections largely repeat the same information. I will move the DC-10 in Service content to the Current Operators section later on, provide no one has a problem with it. -Fnlayson 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. -- BillCJ 22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current operators

  • Good work on the Operators section, EuroSprinter. Good catch on the KC-10s total as well. One was lost in an accident. Also, ageing is the British spelling as I understand it. I should have listed consistent US spelling in my edit summary when I fixed those. -Fnlayson 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Regarding the spelling of ageing/aging, I thought at first that it was a mistake, but then I checked and found both spellings in my paper and on-line dictionaries for the same meaning. The Wiktionary provides both words too, and pinpoint that "ageing" is Commonwealth English. For my part, both are alright with no preference, as long as it is english, and perhaps both should be used as part of the English language. --EuroSprinter 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • There's a note in the Manual of Style about both spellings being OK, but consistent spelling (US or Commonwealth) should be used throughout an article. I prefer US cause that's what I learned in school but can deal with both. -Fnlayson 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents list

I am of the opinion that the list of incidents in the article should be "notable", with notability being conveyed by the incident having a wikipedia article, the standard we use in many other places. If others agree, I'll start culling the list, linking where applicable, deleting where applicable. Thoughts? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've done that myself recently on other articles. - BillCJ 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. But having an article doesn't automatically make it notable. Same for the converse. -Fnlayson 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing board variants

Any thoughts on the inclusion of drawing board variants like the DC-10 Twin shown at http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/12/20/203709/clipped-wings.html? Wtroopwept 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If more info can be found, sure. A subsection for an undeveloped variant could be added like in Boeing 747. To me, the DC-10 Twin's design changes from the basic DC-10 would need to addressed. Did it have the same length & span, but with 2 larger engines or was it shortened with 2 engines. Maybe a DC-10 book covers this some. -Fnlayson 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In one of my books about the DC-10, there are more infos about the Twin. --EuroSprinter 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Airlines Flight 27 - 3 November 1973

Unless there are objections, I am going to add NA Flight 27 paragraph to the section of incidents. For those who are not aware of what happened, the #3 engine fan assembly completely disintergrated in flight causing major damage to the aircraft and the death of one passenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.57.185 (talk • contribs)

Be sure to include your sources, and make sure that the incident is notable. I couldn't find an article on the incident in Wikipedia, which is a good sign that it is not notable. However, incidents can be notable to aircraft articles without being notable enough for their own page, and this may be one of those. If you're not sure, feel free to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, as they deal with such issues. - BillCJ 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Here's the page aviation-safety.net National Airlines Flight 27. Also, the airline's link is National Airlines (NA). There have been several National Airlines it seems. -Fnlayson 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this gets a subsection. A one line entry seems more appropriate. Also, a lot was added without references. -Fnlayson 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur. Not sure why the question was asked, then the guidance given not followed in any way. THe item is better listed under the other "Other incidents" section, as the major sub-sections are for those incidents that were crucial in the history of the DC-10. Perhaps it's notable enough for it's own article, but again, sources are needed, and the incident should have ramifications extending beyond just the immediate incident. THis apperas to be so at this time, but I'd again recommend approaching the Aviation Task force, and getting their input on this. If this is not done, the article would be a good candidate for deletion, and the Task FOrce members will help you avoid that by doing it right from the start. - BillCJ 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If Flight 232 is included in this list, which once again brought up problems with inherent CF6 engine issues (failed fan disk) and not directly related to the DC-10 design, then why not Flight 27? Leeveraction 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Flight 232 was a much worse accident and they managed to control the plane by varying engine power (rare thing). The loss of hydraulic pressure was a plane design flaw putting the lines close together near the center engine. -Fnlayson 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • one again, the ROOT cause was engine failure, not hyrdaulic failure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.57.185 (talk) 02:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, the other major incidents sections are also too long. But, as Jeff (Fnlayson) pointed out, they were much worse, and they also had far reaching conequences. THis page is a summary overview of the entire aircraft's history, and we cannot cover every incident in such detail, else the article would be extremely long and unwieldy. In addition, most of the other articles have their own pages, which is where the details should be. Since the originator of the details does not seem inclined to listen to suggestions that don't fit his preconceived notions of what should be included in the text here, I will be asking at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, and see if there is a consensus that the incident is notable enough for its own incident article. Whether it is or not, I will be trying to cull back the section here this week, either to one sentence if it gets its own page, or a SHORT paragraph if it does not. - BillCJ 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
THis incident may only be borderline notable, as it did not result in the loss of the aircraft directly, as the landing was uneventful (fate not stated, but it could have been written off). If the incident is so similar to Flight 232, it may be that some on the info should be included there, as an example of "warniong signs" that were not heeded. - BillCJ 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the current content from this article.

At 1640 local time 3 November 1973, a DC-10-10 (S/N N60NA) aircraft cruising at 39,000ft experienced an uncontained failure of the #3 engine fan assembly. The cabin was penetrated by shrapnel from the engine and lost pressure. One seatbelted passenger was violently ejected out the cabin through a failed window. The shrapnel penetrated the #1 engine oil tank which began to leak oil and had about one minute of usable oil left upon landing. Two of the aircrafts three hydraulic systems were also inoperative. The #2 engine sustained minor damage from ingested shrapnel. The aircraft made an uneventful landing in Albuquerque NM.[5]
The subsequent investigation revealed some interesting facts.
During the flight, while on autopilot, the flight deck crew decided to experiment with the relationship between the fan speed indicator (N1) and the automatic flight control systems. The engineer disconnected the electrical circuit breakers for all three N1 tachometers while the pilot reduced the airspeed by 5 knots. Once the throttles automatically retarded, the pilot disconnected the autothrottle. The crew then heard the explosion.[6]
The CF6-6D engines used on the aircraft were designed to be "red-lined" at 111% N1. The #3 engine failed at 100% N1 while the other two engines reached a maximum 107% N1. While the failure mechanism that triggered this event was never reached conclusively, enough was learned to prevent the occurrence of similar events. The speed of the engine at the time of the accident caused a resonance wave to occur in the fan assembly when the fan blades began to make contact with the fan shroud. This, compounded with the fact that no significant axial locking mechanism existed for the blades at the time allowed the blades to "walk" towards the front of the aircraft and part with the fan disk. The engine fan assembly was subsequently redesigned by GE. [7]
It is important to point out that although the pilots were the initiators of this accident, had this event not happened, it would have taken place sometime in the future due to the design limitations of the CF6 engine. [8]

I think that much detail should go in a separate article (National Airlines Flight 27?). I'll be rewriting a summary version in the Other accidents section a few days. -Fnlayson 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC-10 former operators list

I've had the idea of making a whole detailed list of every operator's DC-10 fleet on a separate page that could be linked to the main article, and at the same time reduce the length of this one. What do you think of it ? Like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A340_operators. --EuroSprinter 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it as you can only improve the information, I would stick to a simple list of current and former operators based on the information in this article. Numbers operated can probably be lost as this could be difficult to maintain and is probably not really a notable fact.MilborneOne 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At last, I've created a whole new list with every past and present DC-10 operators. Some details are still missing, but I couldn't remember all of them. So when I'll be home I'll do the rest with my papers and sources. --EuroSprinter 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Band

Stop adding the blurb about some band named DC-10 and adding their web page. That's not significant enough to include and certainly does not belong in the History section. See Wikipedia:Notability for Wikipedia policy in this regards. -Fnlayson 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg

Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

Currently this image Image:Ghana.airways.1.arp.750pix.jpg is used in the Infobox. This image Image:Aircraft.dc-10.750pix.jpg is similar but at a little better angle, imo. What about switching them? There's room in the article for both really. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)