SJC ORD LDR

The cause of AA 191 was not a design flaw in the DC-10, but an improper maintenance procedure in the way they attached the engine to the pylon. However, there were other crashes of DC-10s that were due to a poor design especially the design of the cargo door. Delta has managed to not buy either the DC-10 or the 737-MAX. The L1011 was a much better airplane than the DC-10 and the A320neo is superior to the 737MAX.

jrl767

granted DL never purchased the DC-10, but they actually operated the type for awhile ~1970 while awaiting delivery of their first few TriStars ... I believe Lockheed actually arranged for the short-term leases

Tide_from_PAE

The Delta History Museum suggests that DL purchased the DC-10 and immediately sold and leased back the aircraft from UA. It also operated the DC-10 for a couple years after it merged with Western. Aircraft By Type

It's also worth noting that NW operated the DC-10 for many years on various routes, including SEA-AMS.

kiwicanuck

yes but another aircraft was never sold after reentry into service

readywhenyouare

That is not true. The DC-10 continued to be delivered until 1988.

BenA

But were those sales, or just deliveries of aircraft that were already ordered?

FedEx bought more freighters in 1985, but I can't find any records of a new order for a passenger variant of the DC-10 after the type certificate was pulled in July 1979...

readywhenyouare

I was responding to someone who said there were no more orders for the DC-10 after the accident. That wasn't true. I'm not sure what sort of point you are trying to make.

And for those who say there wasn't much publicity on the accidents. I don't agree. A photo of AA191 rolled over on its side seconds before crashing was on the front page of nearly every newspaper. You will also notice that after the DC-10 crashes McDonnell-Douglas switched to the 'MD' prefix; MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, MD-95.

Zorak

I think the question is the distinction between the 3 words I bolded above.

BenA

Exactly. Orders are placed and aircraft are sold by the manufacturer to airlines years before they're delivered. Even after cancellations so far, Boeing's sitting on an incredible 4700 airplane backlog for the 737MAX program. At the peak, Boeing was producing 52 a month. That's an eight year backlog - Boeing could stop now, never sell a single additional plane, and still be producing the 737MAX through 2028. To put that in perspective, it's as many airplanes as the entire lifetime production of the 737-800.

It's an important distinction because it means the purchase decisions for much of the 1980s production of the DC-10 were made before the type certificate was pulled in 1979, and there may not have been any additional passenger planes ordered/sold after that incident. I can't find definitive records one way or the other, although I did find an article confirming FedEx ordered DC-10Fs in 1985. (Boxes don't freak out at bad PR for an airframe, though!)

WhiskeyBravo

Can you elaborate or provide more examples of " even potential issues that have not come up in decades of commercial service are being found and corrected."? That sounds like an interesting read for an aviation nerd like myself.

BenA

The wiring issue is the most impactful. Basically, from things we've learned from accidents over the last few decades, there are new rules about how wires can be routed through an aircraft that the 737 design doesn't meet. https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...boeing-missed/

The concern here is that ripping out wiring and replacing it in an already-built airplane may cause more risk than leaving it the way it is. Basically nobody has an appetite for changing the 737NG based on the new rules, and Boeing's argument is that they shouldn't have to go change already built 737MAX aircraft, either, for the same reason.

They'll almost certainly make changes for future production going forward regardless, but the question is what to do about the frames that already exist. Not a cut and dry "correct" or "incorrect" situation, just a classic engineering risk tradeoff that the FAA has to work through and make a decision on.

This article has a nice rough summary of all the areas being focused on, but I'm sure there are other small things happening internally at Boeing that don't make the newspapers... https://www.barrons.com/articles/the...ng-51580752481

MCO Flyer

Well this doesn’t bode well for the future of the 717 at Delta.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhor.../#73a209b252d2

ReinaDeLaSelva

This is not a new strategy... there are many things in airliner design evolution of production versions that do not make the newspapers... critical ones sometimes. Speaking of the DC-10 the floor venting system was redesigned and changes implemented following a certain frame number of the -10 series. I cannot remember exactly the frame number, it has been a long time since I read the Subcommittee Investigation report into the AA191 accident. Anyway all DC10-30 series CF6 powered and -40 series JT9 powered frames were delivered with the significantly improved venting system which was designed to vent faster and reduce pressure delta in the event of sudden depressurization such as inflight cargo door failure, therefore avoid floor beam collapse - beams contained control cable runs that were implicated in the loss of control in the 1972 AA and 1974 THY events. The AA191 disaster was not a direct result of airframe design deficiency, as was clarified by another poster above. By the end of its service life the DC-10 had restored a good reputation. I flew on these planes many times with different airlines VARIG BCal NW KL and others. I did not worry about the basic design.

Previous Douglas commercial airframes had a very good reputation in the industry for robustness and longevity and the -10 also followed in these ways. Some other airliners would not be converted to freighters with the same zeal because of airframe fatigue limits and nontransparent strength concerns.

The MAX has other problems including a lack of basic aerodynamic stability within important segments of normal flight envelope and it would not be certificated without dubious automatic systems including the nightmare MCAS. The DC-10 did not have such basic problems, at least not before the MD-11 "enhancement."

I do not want to think of commander struggling against uncommanded pitchdown MCAS Kubrick was right so many years ago... claro! This system should be called HAL "I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that..." It is time to unplug HAL!

If somehow I could have direct choice today, with only MAX or DC-10, then I pick DC-10 every time...