Tweet
Apart from reading, I heard from some guys on here that the MD-11 was not all that it was suposed to be. How did the MD-11 not live up to its expectations? Was the range not what McDonald/Douglass had marketed? Was the seat capacity not up to par? Why did it not sell as well as other contemporary airliners?
-
Whatever is necessary, is never unwise. -
We kinda had this discussion, but the way I see it is...Originally posted by AA 1818
- MDC was late in finishing the MD-11 project, I heard upto a YEAR
- It was to soon and to late in comming out
- There wasnt a market for this plane at the time
- The 777 beat it
- And Boeing Took MDC over before MDC could reach that projected 300 built
-Kevin -
It was supposed to have a range (on paper) similar to that of the 744 which made it look great on paper and attracted a lot of interest from airlines.
But during flight tests fuel burn turned out to be higher than expected. As a result the aircraft couldn't even make it across the Pacific with a decent payload. By the time McDonnell Douglas corrected these problems in 1996 it was too late. The A340-313X was already in service and the 772ER was not far off, thus making the MD-11ER obselete.
Can't confirm this but I hear the MD-11 program was also rushed a little to beat the 777 and A340 to the market. As a result the aircraft failed to say the least putting the last nail on the coffin for McDonnell Douglas.Comment
-
MD did not have the money to invest in a new wing, and essentially used the 1970 DC10 wing, instead of developing a more efficient one. As a result performance objectives were not met. Sorta sounds like the CV990.Comment
-
Actually, it was initially marketed as having a range more than 800nm superior to the 744's.Originally posted by A340_flyer
It wasn't fuel burn per se, as the aircraft's engines' SFC were more or less where they needed to be...Originally posted by A340_flyer
...the aircraft turned out to have a much higher drag coefficient than expected, as well as a (slightly) slower standard cruise-- all of which can be overcome by throttling up, but of course, impacts fuel consumption.Comment
-
I see, cheers for clarifying.Originally posted by ConcordeBoyComment
-
They didn't spend the money needed to make any.THE VOICE OF REASON HAS SPOKEN!
Pop quiz: Which US president said, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
George W. Bush is not correct. It was Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union speech. HMMMMMMMMM.Comment
-
To add to the quote above, it was a combination of:Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
- higher drag (major contributor)
- higher OEW
Although not really a major contributing factor for the missed figures, the Engine manufacturers actually improved fuel burn by almost 3% as part of the PIP.
The improved engine efficiency and the Aerodynamic redesign (among which used Computational Fluid Dynamics in collaboration with NASA) produced an 8% performance improvement meeting MDC's advertised range. This would prove too late as AA decided to switch to the 777
and SQ decided to get the A343.
adaequatio rei et intellectus Comment
Comment