1970-2010 - 40 years of McDonnell Douglas DC-10

[DC-10]

I've found nothing about it on this forum, so lets not forget this historic moment in commercial aviation, even almost a week too late.


On August 29, 1970, N10DC, the very first McDonnell Douglas DC-10 made the aircraft type maiden flight.

40 years later, the type is still flying, mostly as cargo hauler, but also as a passenger aircraft as well as a flying hospital for Orbis.

Though the aircraft has been involved in many accident over all these years, only a few could directly be linked to a faulty design of the airframe.

[Curtis Malone]

Though the aircraft has been involved in many accident over all these years, only a few could directly be linked to a faulty design of the airframe.

Oh, this should be good.

[IberiaMD-87]

Despite the accidents the DC-10 proved to be a very fine equipment for a large number of airlines. I often heard that crews liked their DC-10s very much and my flights with DC-10s were very smooth and I like DC-10 very much!

Bye!

[DAIRD]

So me. I enjoyed every flight in DC-10s of Lufthansa and later Condor.

[IberiaMD-87]

Your avatar is an impressive verdict of your claim

Regards

[CathayPacific]

Have flown DC10 many times on Canadian Airlines on HKG-YVR-YYZ. It definitely feels different than the 747-400 that was used to replace the trijet on the route.

The 2-5-2 seating is not something that is friendly to passengers though.

[akerosid]

Only ever flew on the DC10 with one carrier - Northwest Orient (as it was then), back in 1987 - although it was actually four separate flights: DUB-SNN/SNN-JFK and v.v. The 2-5-2 wasn't two bad - as long as you were on the "2" at the aisles!

I do think, in all fairness, that the DC10's forty years should be measured from the date of entry into airline service, which was August 5, 1971, with American Airlines.

As we know, barely a year later, the first cracks (almost literally) began to appear in the DC10's safety record, with the Windsor Locks incident. From then on, ill luck (the AA crash in 1979 and the NZ Erebus crash a few months later were hardly the fault of the aircraft itself), bad press and negative passenger reaction effectively put paid to the DC10. How things might have been different, with a few minor design changes ... and how a design which was closely considered might have changed civil aviation history altogether ...

At one stage, McDD considered a twin engined version of the DC10 ... imagine how this would affected the then embryonic Airbus. I guess McDD must have thought ... "a twin engined widebody ... it's impossible"!

[IberiaMD-87]

The 2-5-2 seating is not something that is friendly to passengers though.

I think that this was one only of the options and this arrangement was often used to offer "the best solution for couples and big groups".

...as long as you were on the "2" at the aisles

This was the intention

Most sources say that the bad public relation of the initials "DC" due to the DC-10 accidents had a direct influence of the change from "DC" to "MD" in 1983. It is - however - remarkable - that the DC-10 lasted very long at some carriers and they fullfilled their missions accident-free. I have a "DC-10 report" published by McDonnell Douglas in 1980 or so in the aftermath of the crashed DC-10s in Chicago and Mount Erebus. This pamphlet was an Q&A-brochure with the aim to direct passenger-opinions in a more positive way.

Bye!

[Peter Kesternich]

I loved the DC-10. Flew with them on Condor, KLM, LAM and Northwest Airlines and enjoyed every single trip.

As for the safety aspect - some of the accidents involving DC-10-10s had to do with problems in the design of some of the aircraft systems, but as far as I know, no DC-10-30/40 ever came to grief because of a problem related to the aircraft systems.

[IberiaMD-87]

...no DC-10-30/40 ever came to grief because of a problem related to the aircraft systems.

Yes, you are right. This was the main reason that DC-10-30-operators "ignored" the grounding of the DC-10 in 1979 after a thorough investigation of their DC-10-30s. The grounding affected some carriers very much, for example Finnair and Swissair. They scheduled DC-8s to and from the USA as long as the ban was in effect.

Bye

[DAIRD]

If the DC-10 (or each other "well-hated" aircraft) would have been a bad construction, it probably never would have survived its first flight.
No bad aircraft, only a combination of a bad press and a high motivated "consuments lawyer" ... and don't forget the money they made with the trouble...

[IberiaMD-87]

Well said!

[Peter Kesternich]

If the DC-10 (or each other "well-hated" aircraft) would have been a bad construction, it probably never would have survived its first flight. (...)

Well, there were indeed some flaws in the construction of the DC-10-10. A badly designed rear bulk-cargo door caused the crash of a Turk Hava Yollari DC-10-10 near Paris and the loss of over 300 lives. A problem with the design of the hydraulic system played a part in the infamous 1977 Chicago/American Airlines crash. There is also evidence that the Sioux City crash landing was at least partly caused by a design weakness of the DC-10-10.

However, generally speaking you are right, DAIRD. If there had been a major design problem the aircraft would never have received a certificate of airworthiness.

[HalcyonDays]

...some of the accidents involving DC-10-10s had to do with problems in the design of some of the aircraft systems, but as far as I know, no DC-10-30/40 ever came to grief because of a problem related to the aircraft systems.

Just curious, are there any design or systems differences between the -10 and the -30/40 which could account for this ?

[DAIRD]

Responsible in last stage for all the accidents and incidents involving the DC-10 are humans. To save money they made a lot of rubbish: eg. removing the engine with a forklifter to save time and money or constructing and producing the hatch of the cargo door in poor quality (to weak and they knew about!).
Other aircraft faced different problems, I remember the JAL 747 which crashed in Aug 1985 after the bulge broke and the aircraft was only to control by engine thrust or the crash-landed TriStar, which came down in the Everglades in 1972: a cheap control-lamp caught attraction to the cockpit-crew so they cared more for it, than for the glide path. Humans only ruin an aircraft.
If not by pilots, then by ground crew or even passengers.