The repeated statement that it's no longer in commercial service is inaccurate. There are two cargo airlines that still operate the DC-10, and many more still operate the MD-11, which is just an updated and slightly enlarged DC-10. It's as though they're conflating "passenger service" with "commercial". Freight operations are also commercial!
If those are going to be our criteria, AI droning voice, repetition of the same five video clips ad infinitum, and marginal truths, what will we watch? Maybe we watch our hands holding books. Just a thought. Thanks for saving me the time to not watch this drivel.
I flew back from Stapleton airport in November of 1979. When checking in, I asked the agent what model of aircraft would we be flying on. She paused, then informed me it was a DC-10. After her reply, she asked if I wanted to take another flight because of passenger fear of the DC-10. I smiled and said no that I'd bet that aircraft was more scrutinized than any aircraft flying that day. There were 74 people flying back to Dayton International airport that day. Best flight I have flown in my life. I loved the 10, the cargo opening was caused by human error, the port engine ejected by shortcuts on ground support personnel. The DC-10 was a perfect aircraft killed by ignorance of human errors.
I AGREE! I was never asked if I wanted to fly on a different type, but I didn't have any reservations about flying on the DC-10 for the same reasons you didn't. I figured that, after all the scrutiny it had undergone, it was among the safest airliners in the early 1980s when I flew on them.
I was booked on AA191 on May 25th, 1979. A weird thing happened to me while waiting for the cab to the airport. I had him take me to our office instead and took on an assignment to South America beginning the next day. AA191 crashed and killed 271 people on the plane and 2 poor guys at work on the ground. I had not cancelled my reservations. Somebody in the Standby line was called and got my seat. I was unaware that it crashed until I called my mom and dad in Los Angeles to say that I was not coming home that afternoon. They were shaken badly thinking that I had been killed. It was all over the news. The very next morning I took a DC-10 to Miami, changed planes, took another DC-10 from Miami to Caracas, then a DC-9 from Caracas to Maracaibo. I was a frequent traveler back then and had absolutely no fear about flying on DC-10's even though one crashed the previous day. I enjoyed DC-10's and 747's. I took well over 500 commercial flights all over the world from 1978 to 1981. Rest in Peace 273 people who lost their lives that day including Captain Lux and Flight Attendant Nancy Sullivan.
I have to admit that my memory - albeit possibly starting to fade - is a little bit different... my recollection is that the C claws that secured the door latching could-and-did bend which resulted in the door being reported as secure when it was not. According the news reports and subsequent video accounts (still available on YT), the parents of one of the young female victims obtained the actual internal memos and documents during a court hearing... the father simply took the box and let with it... ultimately resulting in many millions of dollars in settlements to the victim families. Still, incredibly sad story.
@@kevinheard8364 That was a different crash than AA191 that I missed. The #1 engine broke off and skidded down the runway and the DC-10 crashed a few seconds later.
I did two return trips from NZ to the UK on an Air New Zealand DC10 back in the mid to late 70's, it was a very pleasurable trip both times on that lovely aircraft.
@@joec1774 That would be my guess. The AI voice pronounces the month of August as "a gust". Also note how none of the video matches the description about a historic first flight with specific pilots, etc..
@@johnfriend240 I wouldn't say it was a cheap knock off. It was very much a competitor with the L-1011 but while Lockheed was determined to make their aircraft technically better (which it was), it was also more expensive & delayed, which for an economist, is bad. But tekkies don't like economists! While we may look back now & say "so what", being first & cheaper are both very important at the time.
When the bulk cargo door blew off of the Turkish Airlines DC10 the loss in pressurization caused several rows of passenger seats to be blown through the cabin floor and out of the cargo pit. When those seats went through the floor, with passengers seated in them, they severed the flight control and the tail engine control cables that were under the cabin floor. The crew did not loose control due to hydraulic failure, they lost control due to severed flight control cables. The airplane nosed over into a dive, and hit the ground at over 500mph. A Turkish airlines mechanic forced the cargo door latch to the closed and latched position, bending that mechanism, and the locking pins never engaged the door latches.
@@Vanadeoit was going to London, and a huge chunk of the victims were British rugby fans who ended up on the Turkish aircraft due to BEA workers going on strike. And the mechanic who forced the door closed in Paris was an Algerian employee of the airport itself, who couldn't read the warning notice on the cargo door (which was in English and Turkish, while the mechanic's languages were French and Arabic).
Missing is the fact that regulations required airliners flying over most oceans to have more than 2 engines. Having 3 met the requirement without the extra weight and fuel consumption of 4
The 1st released DC-10 series 10 was range challenged. Our crews at Continental loved it, describing it as like a Cadillac. The series 30 increased take-off weight by 135,000 pounds, adding the center main gear. It also made the aircraft much more able to fly longer range flights comfortably. The airplane was reliable. The accidents that happened were mostly due to factors other than the aircraft itself. I was in 727 second officer training when it was grounded world-wide, and, our class, 79-1, was immediately cancelled.
The DC-10 gets a bad rap mainly from several high-profile accidents, many of which were not the direct fault of McDonnell Douglas. Put in simple, single cause format: American 191 and United 232 were due to faulty maintenance, World Airways 30 was due to pilot error and poor runway maintenance, Western 2605 was due to pilot error, National Airlines 30 was due to the flight crew possibly over-speeding engine number 3 while experimenting with the auto throttle circuit breaker mid-flight, Air New Zealand 901 was pilot error and poor route planning by the company... and the list goes on. All of these accidents were big news though, and because they featured the DC-10 each time, that was the main thing people paid attention to since most people don't read NTSB reports or watch documentaries about these events. The fact is that this plane was sold and used during a period of time before aviation was as well understood and managed as it is today. People at the time did not understand enough about things we take for granted today like weather conditions, ground proximity warning systems, strict adherence to flight manuals and standard operating procedures, crew resource management, strict maintenance procedures, strict ground crew procedures, strict flight planning and dispatching procedures, and how important redundancy is in regard to flight systems. Both McDonnell Douglas and some of the airlines mentioned had to learn some things the hard way. American Airlines and McDonnell Douglas both had to learn to not be cheap when it comes to safety and maintenance (do engine overhauls the way McDonnell Douglas tells you to, not the way that saves you time, and either pay the manufacturer the money for a co-pilot side stick shaker, or don't charge airlines extra for it), National Airlines had to learn not to screw around with circuit breakers mid-flight, Air New Zealand had to learn not to change airplane routing without communicating it properly with the flight crew, Logan airport staff and World Airways learned they needed to close the airport if they can't properly decontaminate the runway or the flight crew will need to make better decisions about go-arounds, and McDonnell Douglas needed to learn more about redundancy in its flight systems at different, critical failure points, no matter how unlikely they may be (United 232 severing all three hydraulic systems with one fan stray blade cutting through all of them). None of these crashes were caused due to an aircraft design that was inherently unsafe, but there were some oversights the engineers simply didn't think of, or points of failure that were deemed almost impossible to reach that further exploration into them wasn't necessary. In the time since then, it was thought to be impossible to have all engines out over a place like the Atlantic Ocean, but it has happened (Air Transat 236). Modern airplanes were thought to have sufficient fire prevention and suppression methods, but in many cases they don't (UPS 6, Swissair 111, Monarch 390, South African Airways 295). It was also thought to be highly unlikely that modern planes with skilled crews could still stall massive aircrafts with flight protections, or fly them straight into terrain, but both still happen from time to time (Air France 447, Birgenair 301, S7 Airlines 5220, Air Inter 148, American 965, Thai Airways 311... even an American Airlines plane, flight 298 in Hawaii on November 13th 2024 had what the FAA is calling a possible near-miss with a mountain). And modern planes are thought to be super safe because we've had so many decades to work out basic flight control and mechanical issues due to engineering oversights that have downed airplanes, but in some cases we haven't (Lauda Air 004, the Boeing MAX crashes). All of those crashes were high profile, but they all involved either Boeing or Airbus aircraft (except for Swissair 111) which were much more technologically advanced. So, this stuff still happens, it's just not treated quite the same these days As an aircraft the DC-10 was very well designed and built for its time, and from what I've read from most pilots who talked about the plane and what it was like to fly did so favorably. The Lockheed 1011 Tristar was better from a technical standpoint but didn't make it to market in time to beat the MD-10 to the punch so it sold poorly which meant Lockheed's demise in the private sector, and although McDonnell Douglas repeatedly flirted with the idea of a twin engine variant of the DC-10 for years, the higher ups in the company never ended up giving the green light to the engineers and manufacturing floor to go ahead and build it. They instead modified old designs and came out with aircraft like the MD-11 and the MD-80 which were good in some respects, but they didn't spend the money to truly innovate and as a result, quickly fell behind Airbus and Boeing who dominate the large jet airline market to this day. McDonnell Douglas's demise meant not only a drastic change in the landscape of commercial aviation, but through the "merger" with Boeing, also meant a negative company culture shift in aircraft design, development and production which we are feeling the effects of to this day with all of the issues Boeing is having. Airbus has its own set of problems with the way they design their flight controls and automation systems that rears its ugly head once in a while with a high-profile crash or notable flight incident, but a lot of aircraft and aircraft part production in the U.S. has turned into financial guys in suits with big salaries designing things instead of the engineers doing it, and these are the results.
The image of a crashed Turkish Airlines airplane in an open field is NOT one of the DC10 that crashed near Paris but one of a B737 that crashed much later in 2009 near Amsterdam approaching Schiphol Airport.
I hate when people create videos like these, then use inaccurate images.😣 Honor the people who died, by at least being accurate in both the pictures and the narrative. In another video,someone discussed American Airlines flight 191, but showed the wreckage of a DC-9 in a forest. We all know that flight 191 crashed in an open field just short of a trailer park on the perimeter of O'Hare Airport. And in other videos, they mix images of United Flight 232, the DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, with images from Chicago. To me, truth in journalism, means having the proper images, as well as the narration. By the way, 273 people died in flight 191, not 271.
In my opinion, the DC-10 was a wonderful airplane to fly on. It certainly was one of the smoothest flights I ever had. Compared to the 747, the DC-10 gives you that wide-body 747 feel. A truly great airplane this was.
@@FlightZoneAviation It wasn;t the only one, sorry to say. P&W engines powered less than 10% of DC-10s, most were GE powered. And Air France wasn't a launch customer, in fact they operated the 10 very briefly after they acquired UTA. And I didn't understand the comment about the placement of the underwing engines bring a design flaw..
7:09 Air France & Pan Am were not OOs of the DC-10; Air France inherited them when they bought out UTA; Pan Am ordered the L-1011-500 and inherited DC-10s from their buyout of National in 79/80.
Lousy video, barely mentions the L1011, does not explain that US carriers at the time were looking for a smaller widebody after the 747 was introduced, also gets the engines wrong.
I believe that the first ones completed had GE engines and that those were more efficient than the P & W engines mentioned. Also less noisy but had the famous buzz sound that I think when electronically modified became the sound effect for "warp drive" on the Star Trek television program. I think a few DC 10s were ordered with P & W engines. Also 747s may have been equipped with GE engines (a bit better performance and efficiency but perhaps a bit more maintenance demanding ? Did British airlines demand their 747s with Rolls Royce engines (built in England?)
@ The DC 10-40 was the only version certified with the P&W engines- Northwest ordered them. The GE CF6 was the second engine certified on the 747 and became very popular, and yes BA was the Launch customer for the RR powered 747, which was itself a variation of the RB211 that powered the L1011. So the Trijets helped develop more engine options for the 747\ (DC 10 with GE and Lockheed with RR)
That’s because the L-1011 was barely there. Entered service a year later, exited service decades earlier, sold a fraction of the airframes, flew a fraction of the hours. I mean… I guess you could say that if you develop an airliner like one of your cost-plus military contracts (losing you ten million dollars on each plane sold) made it safer for the short time it operated… but I think luck had more to do with why some of its spectacular mechanical failures weren’t fatal.
The French airline that operated the DC10 from the start was UTA - Union de Transports Aériens, which was later taken over by Air France. But the DC10 was not Air France's choice.
We really love seeing the DC-10 tanker flying in and out of Medford, Oregon every summer. Safety problems have been corrected and it's an elegant airplane to watch in operation. Patrick Cowdrey, Central Point, Oregon
As an expedient, Douglas routed crucial hydraulics and controls through the leading edge of the wings instead of the more challenging but less vulnerable trailing edge. This is what potentially doomed the aircraft if there were a major structural failure of an engine pylon. You could write a book about how profoundly flawed this airliner was. The Lockheed L-1011 was outstanding as the DC-10 was an engineering blunder.
The L-1011 was a piece of junk. Please.. explain to me how you can have hydraulically controlled leading edge devices without running lines through the leading edge? Especially when the engines themselves are supplying the hydraulic pressure. It’s like the Long Ez who’s builder didn’t want fuel lines in the cockpit.. so he made the fuel valve on the rear bulkhead-which not only made it run out of fuel but when the pilot tried to reach for it, he pressed the rudder pedal and went into a spin. RIP John Denver. No.. the L-1011 lost Lockheed 10 million dollars for every plane sold and still had all four hydraulic systems routed through the tail (again.. that’s where your engine and all your flight controls are) and still had all four systems impacted by shrapnel when the centre engine exploded on Eastern 935. It was only LUCK that kept one system intact and allowed the plane to safely land. If safety was more proactive, they would have mandated hydraulic fuses on airliners 8 years before United 232. Also please explain how maintenance deviating from a producer is MD’s fault. You NEVER install an engine with a forklift. You ALWAYS comply with manufacturer’s service bulletins. Was it Lockheeds fault that a cargo door blew on a C-5-causing one of the deadliest accidents in aviation history-due to the fact that misadjusted latches were not secure? The L-1011 entered service late because of problems, sold a fraction of the airframes, didn’t fly as many hours (it was a hangar queen), and exited service decades before the DC-10. That speaks for itself.
You missed one of the very important requirements for the DC-10, that being it being capable of operating into and out of New York's La Guardia airport with a full load.
I flew on the DC-10 many times into/out of LGA. At one time, American Airlines installed cameras in the cockpit so all the passengers could watch the takeoff. On one flight, the captain lit up his pipe (long before smoking was banned), and my first thought was, “put your hands back on the wheel!”
You made a number of mistakes in some of your statements. Better go back and review the things you said. There are too many for me to mention here, but most DC-10's (-10 and -30) were GE powered, and only JAL and NW had Pratts on their -40 airplanes. Air France and Pan American did not buy the DC-10 and thus did not introduce the DC-10 to the world at all, and there are many more wrong statements. You need to do more research before putting incorrect things out and ruining your credibility.
I was flying a ton back in the 70's, 80s and 90s. I don't know if it was personal bias based on the bad reputation the DC-10 seemed to have earned over the years but I came to have much more confidence in the L-1011 than the DC-10 when flying wide-body. I remember flying out of Honolulu in 1989 after completing my tour at Pearl Harbor and my family and I were on a DC-10. When that plane lifted off it felt like and sounded like a bucket of bolts being pulled up into the sky. It just had this "loose" feeling about it. L-1011s seemed to always have a cleaner, smoother feel to it. Again, it could have been preprogrammed bias in my mind, but that was my experience with the two planes.
Nope. None of them had engines mounted in the vertical stabilizer (the L-1011, 727, Trident, and Yak-40 had them mounted in the aft fuselage), and only the L-1011 combined it with wing mounted engines.
I recall reading that one of MD's fatal mistakes was not to re-engineer the DC-10 into a twin engine configuration.They were part of the way there in terms of design but management decided not to make that investment. If they had, I imagine that it would have had a massive affect on the industry both short and long term.
Too large of a risk. Airbus struggled for years with no sales because their A300 had two engines and a large capacity-greatly limiting its market before ETOPS. And in the 80s and early 90s, twin engine aircraft had to earn their ETOPS certification. No aircraft was ETOPS “out of the box” until the 777 in 1994. Boeing took the big risk for the 777.. but it also had the robust 747-400, 767, 757, and 737 lines to support it at the time should it fail. Airbus took a more cautious approach and made the four engine A340 at the same time as the twin engine A330-and was able to save on development costs by having a huge amount of commonality between them.. as well as shared design heritage with the A300 and A310. MD had no such option. To turn the DC-10 into a twin would require a redesign of the tail, repositioning of the wings, and reconfiguring of the landing gear (as now the tail would be longer and more prone to strikes) and it would be saddled with engines too close to the fuselage (a byproduct of the small rudder with the tail mounted engine) meaning it would be noisier than the competition (as it was with the L-1011). And MD might have faced years of no sales pending ETOPS certification or it might have been beat into the air by the 777. Unfortunately MD was likely doomed from the moment it made the DC-10.. stuck in a three engine lane like Lockheed from which it couldn’t exit.
1982, on the way to Australia from Europe, chatting to a fellow passenger. "Flying has improved a lot over recent decades. Some aircraft types hardly ever crash these days ... although, there is this 'DC-10', not the best one around." "THIS is a DC-10 ..." "-----------------(slowly turning white in the face, looking puzzled)" "The model you are talking about, is the DC-10-10. We are on a DC-10-30"
9:20 was not a DC10 but i think a 737 and that accident was near Schiphol airport. That plane didn't make it to the runway and touched down on farmland. As for the DC10, i once flew in an MD11, same basic 3 engined shape, and it flew very comfortable. One of the last passenger flights that Martinair did with it.
13:08 I don't understand how the placement of the engines from the wings to the fuselage is relevant. Most modern jet aircraft have the engines under their wings.
If you're going to give a real history of this plane it needs to be stated the maintenance of the engine was a total breach of safety practices. The left engine was lifted using a fork lift which caused damage to the pylon leading to a mass homocide by the illegal maintenance practices!! The quality of the DC-10 was fine. It was abused by I'll trained airline personnel!!!
The prescribed method was unpractical and costly. Prompting maintenance crews and airliner to take short cuts that saved multiple hours. That was just another one in the long list engineering failures in the DC-10
@@Blank00 Still does not absolve Douglas of crap engineering. You don't create a maintenance method so convoluted it encourages and promotes shortcuts. This is one of the basic fundamental golden rules in aerospace engineering/design.. Which Douglas FAILED to follow..
@ 8:54: Talking about THY's DC 10 accident near Paris, they show a photo of THY's B 737 crash near Amsterdam. Besides, TK 981 was flying from Paris to London on the second leg of an Istanbul to London flight, not from Paris to Istanbul.
somebody posted on YT years ago that the DC-10 killed a lot of people. Well so has the 747 and even notably the DeHavilland Comet. Several Comets crashed and the plane was taken out of service and stress analyzed in a large waterfilled tank. It was discovered the Comet used square windows (instead of circular ones) and was where the stress cracks started. Teething problems abound in all major aircraft. There were three 1979 crashes involving the DC-10 , one in April '79, the famous AA 191 Chicago O'Hare May '79, and Air New Zealand 901 November '79. There was also the 1989 UA 232 Sioux City crash. This AI only mentions the 1974 Paris Ermonville and AA191 Chicago.
I flew the DC-10 three different time as captain... it is in my opinion the absolute best aircraft I have ever flown, and I have 8 type ratings. In a distant 2nd place is the B-777 which I retired on ... ONLY BECAUSE 911 RETIRED ALL OF OUR DC-10'S AND B-747'S.
The initial and most of the DC-10s were powered by the General Electric CF6, the only JT9D powered variant was the DC-10-40, only operated by Northwest and JAL
sorry - I misspoke. The AA -30 version did use the GE CF-6-50 which was rated at 54K thrust. The CF-6-6 on the -10 aircraft was rated at 41.5K. AA had a route between AUS and DFW that used the -30 version and often had a light passenger load. That takeoff/climb was reminiscent of a tactical jet's performance !
No more deadly than most aircraft of the era. Remember, the L-1011 entered service later, didn’t sell as well, flew a fraction of the hours, and exited service early. The TU-116 is a more extreme of “safety” due to small sample size and lack of exposure. Also two L-1011s should have crashed but somehow didn’t. Delta 1080 when it lost stabilizer control which is usually fatal, and Eastern 935 whose last hydraulic system was hit by the centre engine explosion but somehow didn’t leak.
I flew across the Pacific in one in 1976, and then again from Melbourne to Thailand in 2004. Perhaps the second was an MC-11. But they did have a long life, after the cargo doors issue was fixed.
The U.S. Air Force just removed a modified version of this aircraft from inventory in September, 2024. I don't think that was ever involved in a "Class A Mishap." The first time I flew on one was when I caught a "Hop" from Eielson A.F.B. in Alaska, to K.I. Sawyer A.F.B. in Marquette, MI., with a stop at Plattsburg A.F.B. in Plattsburg, NY in December, 1984. Man, I was freezing in that cargo hold, as during that flight; the 1st leg's duration of greater than ten hours. But never once did I believe the plane was unsafe. My cost to fly: $10.00. I (still) don't understand how the engines being placed slightly forward of the wings was a design flaw.
Too Bad that the Tri-Jet became a thing of the past! Of course the design is obsolete now. What was that restriction that required Airliners had to have at least 3 to cross Oceans? "ETOPS" or something like that??
ETOPS, or Extended Twin-Engine Operations Performance Standards, is what now allows over-water with two engine aircraft. It was developed along with the twin-engine wide body aircraft such as the B-767 and A-300, and requires strict record keeping of reliability standards as well as fight planning to always be within single-engine range of a diversion airport. I flew the DC-10 for about 3 and 1/2 years, and it is still my favorite for it's perfectly balanced flight controls and handling qualities. I always likened it to a 300,000 lb J-3 Cub. I will say that I was never completely comfortable with the hydraulic systems and was glad to go the left seat of the B757/767.
McDonnell Douglas did only two wise things with the DC-10: 1. It was built like a brick shithouse, 2. You could pick between GE or P&W engines.. With the L1011 you were "stuck" with Rolls Royce engines, since the S duct was too narrow to use Pratt or GE motors. It would require a complete redesign of the rear fuselage and vertical fin assembly.
Mcdonnell Douglas faced Roval Competition fro. Lockheed, Airbus And Boeing lager that introduced the Larger Trihet Aircraft with Updated Avionics and Wingkets, MD11
It wasn't a design flaw that caused the failures; it was short circuit within the human brain that activated the non-complacency gene that lies deep within us all. This should serve as a reminder for all to talk to yourself and to perform your checks and balances. Also, I don't understand what problems their was to have engines mounted under the wings. I've seen a lot of plane designs with the engines mounted beneath their wings. Aren't all passenger jets like that?
The crash occurred when an incorrectly secured cargo door at the rear of the plane burst open and broke off, causing an explosive decompression that severed critical cables necessary to control the aircraft
The DC-10 series 20 was powered by Pratt & Whitney JTD9 turbofan engines, whereas the series 10 and 30s were powered by General Electric CF6 engines. aussieairliners.org/dc-10os/douglasdc10.html
There are no engines mounted under the fuselage on any aircraft. All aircraft have engines mounted under the wings! Also, McDonald aircraft and Douglas Aircraft merged long after the DC-10 was developed and produced. Most of the videos you show are the MD-11, not the DC-10.
I was hoping someone else noticed it. This sounds like a typical nonsense AI sentence. And only AI would "Thank you for your contribution" to a comment like this. If it weren't for the intelligent replies I would be dumber for having watched this.
I don't believe that there was anything wrong at all with the placement of the DC 10's engines as I understand the plane was quite powerful and able to take off from much shorter runways than the DC 8 or the early 747 of course a loaded plane needs a lot more runway than a nearly empty plane with a minimum amount of fuel in its tanks I understand that almost all commercial jetliners have engine mountings that are designed to allow the engine to "fall off" rather than allowing a severely vibrating failed engine to shake the rest of the plane to the point of total failure of the airframe
I want a DC-10 study level sim for MSFS 2024.... But it has to have a built in and non optional 0.001% of having its cargo door blow out on every flight that exceeds FL250
"Relatively quiet cabin" !!!! - Have you ever flown on on? Monkey class was a noise hell. I hated when my company put me on that plain from Asia to Europe.
Why? The lower rudder authority due to the smaller rudder was compensated for by having the wing engines closer to the fuselage. It met all of the same certification requirements as any other aircraft of the time.
This is the second clip from Flight Zone that i have watched. Both have basic errors along with dialogue and gramatical strangeness. Was this generated by AI?????
The real facts missing from this are this plane was less complex and less expensive than the superior L-1011 TriStar. It out sold the L-1011 because it was less expensive to purchase and operate. It came to money!! So did the cost cutting maintenance tricks by operators!!
I knew somebody killed in the Turkish DC10 disaster. I never flew in one but was a passenger on an MD-11 for 4 flights I was seriously not impressed, delayed take off due to technical issues. One look at the aircraft design with over sized horizontal tail even bigger on the MD-11 leaves the impression the design isn't right. The competing Lockheed L-1011 Tristar was a much superior but beset by ill fortune. The RAF made good use of its Tristar tanker conversions.
I hired on at McDonnell Douglas 4, 15, 85, working on the last 6 DC and KC 10'S was a great job for a 18 year old, minimum wage was 3.35 an hour, I started at 9.01 an hour! Employee # 320333
The DC-10 had several engineering problems and was not very reliable, no where as good as the Tristar or even the Boeing 767 to later appear. DC-8 had its problems as well and DC-10 continued to be compromised. Even putting an engine high up in the tail was a difficult design problem which would bring a torque forcing the craft to pitch down heavily as the trust was far fro the centerline, not a good choice. The tail needed to be higher and stronger, all to bring more drag. That is why when the Airbus A300 arrived with its twin engine format, it showed the way forward leading to B767, B777, A310 and A330.
The A300 was in response to changes in regulations that allowed twinjets to fly out over ocean and farther from safehaven airstrips than had been allowed before .
@lucrolland7489 What in the world are you talking about? How could that explain the bigger longevity of the DC-10 compared to its age peers such as the 747 classic, the A300 and the l-1011? or even the longer commercial service life of the DC-8 compared to the 707?
@@sobelou Biman Bangladesh was the world's last passenger user of the iconic DC-10. In February 2014, the Bangladesh flag carrier flew the last scheduled passenger service from Dhaka to Birmingham. As of March 2024, there were 19 passenger and 213 cargo versions of the 747-400 in operation worldwide. As for the Tristar, it was not a great economic success but it was the most advanced of the wide bodies when it came out and the only one then that could self-land. The Airbus A300 was great success in Europe and around Asia and was quiclky replaced by the A310 and then A340 for a solution to the long range demand and compete against the B767. As for the Airbus A300, operated by Iran Air since 2011, it still remains as a passenger operator as of 2024. This information I found quickly on valid sources on the internet.
@ You're not paying attention. First, your mentioning the 747-400 is irrelevant, since on my comment I referred only to 747 classic machines (100/200/300) and other age peers, meaning contemporary aircraft. The only Airbus machines contemporary with the DC-10 are the A300 older series, and I doubt there are any still flying, even as freighters. The Iran Air machines (and a lot of freighters) are of the -600 type, a much improved second generation version with the A310 cockpit And finally, yes, the Tristar was very advanced, but it was more expensive to maintain and most importantly, while the L-1011s up to the series 250 could compete with the DC-10-10, Lockheed could never come up with competition for the DC-10-30, as the L-1011-500 had the range but only two thirds of the capacity.
unfortunately it will forever be associated with tragic and horrific accidents most notably American Airlines Flight 191 and a total of 1,261 fatalities throughout its history.
I'm pretty sure more people died from collisions of Ford F-150s, and it's not forever associated with tragic and horrific accidents. Fear-mongering media love sensational gore.
Probably not associated with unique body counts. The 747 has twice as many or so, but is not so remembered. I think it's not accidents. per se, it was the outrageous scandal with the Turkish crash, and the grounding in 1979 that made the difference.
An airline pilot who flew the L-1011 before moving to the DC-10 said in a comment elsewhere that it wasn't until after the switch that he realized how "needlessly complicated" operation of the L-1011 was. So opinions vary.
The story is nice but the video sucks. Turkish Airlines accident on 09:12 is TA flight 1951 with a Boeing 737-800 near Schiphol Amsterdam Airport. These videos need to be accurate. If not it discredits the rest of the story.
The United States 🇺🇸 Military Air Force used tge Mcdonnell Douglas DC10-30 as KC-10 Aerial Tanker refuelling Aurcraft that has a tail Boom Refuelling pod.
The competitive picture laid out at the beginning of the video is simply not accurate. Boeing, McDonnel Douglas and Lockheed were competing for lucrative military contracts, which were at the inception of the 747, DC-10 and L-1011 respectively.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 the accident wasn't due to aircraft design or failure but to improper handling of the engine during maintenance using a forklift to hold the engine. This caused damage which led to fatigue cracking 10:32
AI voice, repetition, and sketchy facts make this tedious to watch.
The repeated statement that it's no longer in commercial service is inaccurate. There are two cargo airlines that still operate the DC-10, and many more still operate the MD-11, which is just an updated and slightly enlarged DC-10.
It's as though they're conflating "passenger service" with "commercial".
Freight operations are also commercial!
At least they've chosen US English. When they choose British English it's often unwatchable - it's almost exactly like British English isn't.
Agreed. Way to test it is to listen while doing something else. You realise after a while there is a drone noise. It's the video you were watching.
Good thing this is the first comment I see so I can click off. Thanks for the warning. Boycott AI.
If those are going to be our criteria, AI droning voice, repetition of the same five video clips ad infinitum, and marginal truths, what will we watch? Maybe we watch our hands holding books. Just a thought. Thanks for saving me the time to not watch this drivel.
I flew back from Stapleton airport in November of 1979. When checking in, I asked the agent what model of aircraft would we be flying on. She paused, then informed me it was a DC-10. After her reply, she asked if I wanted to take another flight because of passenger fear of the DC-10. I smiled and said no that I'd bet that aircraft was more scrutinized than any aircraft flying that day. There were 74 people flying back to Dayton International airport that day. Best flight I have flown in my life. I loved the 10, the cargo opening was caused by human error, the port engine ejected by shortcuts on ground support personnel. The DC-10 was a perfect aircraft killed by ignorance of human errors.
I AGREE! I was never asked if I wanted to fly on a different type, but I didn't have any reservations about flying on the DC-10 for the same reasons you didn't. I figured that, after all the scrutiny it had undergone, it was among the safest airliners in the early 1980s when I flew on them.
I was booked on AA191 on May 25th, 1979. A weird thing happened to me while waiting for the cab to the airport. I had him take me to our office instead and took on an assignment to South America beginning the next day. AA191 crashed and killed 271 people on the plane and 2 poor guys at work on the ground. I had not cancelled my reservations. Somebody in the Standby line was called and got my seat. I was unaware that it crashed until I called my mom and dad in Los Angeles to say that I was not coming home that afternoon. They were shaken badly thinking that I had been killed. It was all over the news. The very next morning I took a DC-10 to Miami, changed planes, took another DC-10 from Miami to Caracas, then a DC-9 from Caracas to Maracaibo. I was a frequent traveler back then and had absolutely no fear about flying on DC-10's even though one crashed the previous day. I enjoyed DC-10's and 747's. I took well over 500 commercial flights all over the world from 1978 to 1981. Rest in Peace 273 people who lost their lives that day including Captain Lux and Flight Attendant Nancy Sullivan.
That's great. Thank you for your contribution.
I have to admit that my memory - albeit possibly starting to fade - is a little bit different... my recollection is that the C claws that secured the door latching could-and-did bend which resulted in the door being reported as secure when it was not. According the news reports and subsequent video accounts (still available on YT), the parents of one of the young female victims obtained the actual internal memos and documents during a court hearing... the father simply took the box and let with it... ultimately resulting in many millions of dollars in settlements to the victim families. Still, incredibly sad story.
@@kevinheard8364 That was a different crash than AA191 that I missed. The #1 engine broke off and skidded down the runway and the DC-10 crashed a few seconds later.
I did two return trips from NZ to the UK on an Air New Zealand DC10 back in the mid to late 70's, it was a very pleasurable trip both times on that lovely aircraft.
This video takes an awful long time to say very little. Content light...
yeaaaa. is this an AI channel? Lots and lots of repetition.
Oh, stop complaining!!
@@joec1774 That would be my guess. The AI voice pronounces the month of August as "a gust". Also note how none of the video matches the description about a historic first flight with specific pilots, etc..
@@RedneckSpaceman why? this was a complete waste of time.
The technical marvel was the L1011 Tristar. This aircraft was more technically advanced than DC-10
Thank you for this
The competitor was the L-1011, not the 747. The DC-10 was a cheap knockoff of the L-1011. This video didn't even mention the L-1011!
@@johnfriend240She was designed to compete with both !
@@johnfriend240 I wouldn't say it was a cheap knock off. It was very much a competitor with the L-1011 but while Lockheed was determined to make their aircraft technically better (which it was), it was also more expensive & delayed, which for an economist, is bad. But tekkies don't like economists!
While we may look back now & say "so what", being first & cheaper are both very important at the time.
They were not even close! The L1011 had all the technology and a far better design; The DC-10 was an ox cart in comparison.
When the bulk cargo door blew off of the Turkish Airlines DC10 the loss in pressurization caused several rows of passenger seats to be blown through the cabin floor and out of the cargo pit.
When those seats went through the floor, with passengers seated in them, they severed the flight control and the tail engine control cables that were under the cabin floor.
The crew did not loose control due to hydraulic failure, they lost control due to severed flight control cables. The airplane nosed over into a dive, and hit the ground at over 500mph.
A Turkish airlines mechanic forced the cargo door latch to the closed and latched position, bending that mechanism, and the locking pins never engaged the door latches.
I knew somebody killed in that disaster
I thought it was going to London too, not Istanbul?
@@Vanadeoit was going to London, and a huge chunk of the victims were British rugby fans who ended up on the Turkish aircraft due to BEA workers going on strike.
And the mechanic who forced the door closed in Paris was an Algerian employee of the airport itself, who couldn't read the warning notice on the cargo door (which was in English and Turkish, while the mechanic's languages were French and Arabic).
Great point. Thank you for this.
We are sorry for this. It was a mistake. It occured during research and scripting process.
Missing is the fact that regulations required airliners flying over most oceans to have more than 2 engines. Having 3 met the requirement without the extra weight and fuel consumption of 4
Thanks for your contribution
I flew it for maybe 10 years at AA. wonderful a/c and great memories
That's great
R.I.P. Dave Drach 100 mile footrace winning airline Captain 1956 - 2018
The 1st released DC-10 series 10 was range challenged. Our crews at Continental loved it, describing it as like a Cadillac. The series 30 increased take-off weight by 135,000 pounds, adding the center main gear. It also made the aircraft much more able to fly longer range flights comfortably. The airplane was reliable. The accidents that happened were mostly due to factors other than the aircraft itself. I was in 727 second officer training when it was grounded world-wide, and, our class, 79-1, was immediately cancelled.
That's great
It was an iconic plane
The DC-10 gets a bad rap mainly from several high-profile accidents, many of which were not the direct fault of McDonnell Douglas. Put in simple, single cause format: American 191 and United 232 were due to faulty maintenance, World Airways 30 was due to pilot error and poor runway maintenance, Western 2605 was due to pilot error, National Airlines 30 was due to the flight crew possibly over-speeding engine number 3 while experimenting with the auto throttle circuit breaker mid-flight, Air New Zealand 901 was pilot error and poor route planning by the company... and the list goes on. All of these accidents were big news though, and because they featured the DC-10 each time, that was the main thing people paid attention to since most people don't read NTSB reports or watch documentaries about these events. The fact is that this plane was sold and used during a period of time before aviation was as well understood and managed as it is today. People at the time did not understand enough about things we take for granted today like weather conditions, ground proximity warning systems, strict adherence to flight manuals and standard operating procedures, crew resource management, strict maintenance procedures, strict ground crew procedures, strict flight planning and dispatching procedures, and how important redundancy is in regard to flight systems. Both McDonnell Douglas and some of the airlines mentioned had to learn some things the hard way. American Airlines and McDonnell Douglas both had to learn to not be cheap when it comes to safety and maintenance (do engine overhauls the way McDonnell Douglas tells you to, not the way that saves you time, and either pay the manufacturer the money for a co-pilot side stick shaker, or don't charge airlines extra for it), National Airlines had to learn not to screw around with circuit breakers mid-flight, Air New Zealand had to learn not to change airplane routing without communicating it properly with the flight crew, Logan airport staff and World Airways learned they needed to close the airport if they can't properly decontaminate the runway or the flight crew will need to make better decisions about go-arounds, and McDonnell Douglas needed to learn more about redundancy in its flight systems at different, critical failure points, no matter how unlikely they may be (United 232 severing all three hydraulic systems with one fan stray blade cutting through all of them). None of these crashes were caused due to an aircraft design that was inherently unsafe, but there were some oversights the engineers simply didn't think of, or points of failure that were deemed almost impossible to reach that further exploration into them wasn't necessary.
In the time since then, it was thought to be impossible to have all engines out over a place like the Atlantic Ocean, but it has happened (Air Transat 236). Modern airplanes were thought to have sufficient fire prevention and suppression methods, but in many cases they don't (UPS 6, Swissair 111, Monarch 390, South African Airways 295). It was also thought to be highly unlikely that modern planes with skilled crews could still stall massive aircrafts with flight protections, or fly them straight into terrain, but both still happen from time to time (Air France 447, Birgenair 301, S7 Airlines 5220, Air Inter 148, American 965, Thai Airways 311... even an American Airlines plane, flight 298 in Hawaii on November 13th 2024 had what the FAA is calling a possible near-miss with a mountain). And modern planes are thought to be super safe because we've had so many decades to work out basic flight control and mechanical issues due to engineering oversights that have downed airplanes, but in some cases we haven't (Lauda Air 004, the Boeing MAX crashes). All of those crashes were high profile, but they all involved either Boeing or Airbus aircraft (except for Swissair 111) which were much more technologically advanced. So, this stuff still happens, it's just not treated quite the same these days
As an aircraft the DC-10 was very well designed and built for its time, and from what I've read from most pilots who talked about the plane and what it was like to fly did so favorably. The Lockheed 1011 Tristar was better from a technical standpoint but didn't make it to market in time to beat the MD-10 to the punch so it sold poorly which meant Lockheed's demise in the private sector, and although McDonnell Douglas repeatedly flirted with the idea of a twin engine variant of the DC-10 for years, the higher ups in the company never ended up giving the green light to the engineers and manufacturing floor to go ahead and build it. They instead modified old designs and came out with aircraft like the MD-11 and the MD-80 which were good in some respects, but they didn't spend the money to truly innovate and as a result, quickly fell behind Airbus and Boeing who dominate the large jet airline market to this day. McDonnell Douglas's demise meant not only a drastic change in the landscape of commercial aviation, but through the "merger" with Boeing, also meant a negative company culture shift in aircraft design, development and production which we are feeling the effects of to this day with all of the issues Boeing is having. Airbus has its own set of problems with the way they design their flight controls and automation systems that rears its ugly head once in a while with a high-profile crash or notable flight incident, but a lot of aircraft and aircraft part production in the U.S. has turned into financial guys in suits with big salaries designing things instead of the engineers doing it, and these are the results.
Thanks for this. This is great.
@unr3alGaming Thanks. This couldn't have been said any better. Great comment!
The image of a crashed Turkish Airlines airplane in an open field is NOT one of the DC10 that crashed near Paris but one of a B737 that crashed much later in 2009 near Amsterdam approaching Schiphol Airport.
Errors like that are common in YT documentaries.
@@RedneckSpaceman calling this a documentary is generous. It's an AI recap of the DC10s service history, at very best.
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
I hate when people create videos like these, then use inaccurate images.😣 Honor the people who died, by at least being accurate in both the pictures and the narrative. In another video,someone discussed American Airlines flight 191, but showed the wreckage of a DC-9 in a forest. We all know that flight 191 crashed in an open field just short of a trailer park on the perimeter of O'Hare Airport. And in other videos, they mix images of United Flight 232, the DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, with images from Chicago. To me, truth in journalism, means having the proper images, as well as the narration. By the way, 273 people died in flight 191, not 271.
@@jocelynharris-fx8ho Yup. Seems like not everyone stick to your standards.
In my opinion, the DC-10 was a wonderful airplane to fly on. It certainly was one of the smoothest flights I ever had. Compared to the 747, the DC-10 gives you that wide-body 747 feel. A truly great airplane this was.
So true. It was an iconic plane
ah, sorry to correct you but Turkish 981 was flying from Paris to London, not Istanbul
Thank you very much for this correction. The mistake came in from the research process
@@FlightZoneAviation also the pic is not for that flight, it is another Turkish airlines accident. Are the videos AI generated?
@@christianclaudel6521 They won't admit it but yes - this is AI-generated crap.
@@FlightZoneAviation I hope the microchip responsible has been given a research-process upgrade or retired to Agbogbloshie
@@FlightZoneAviation It wasn;t the only one, sorry to say. P&W engines powered less than 10% of DC-10s, most were GE powered. And Air France wasn't a launch customer, in fact they operated the 10 very briefly after they acquired UTA. And I didn't understand the comment about the placement of the underwing engines bring a design flaw..
7:09 Air France & Pan Am were not OOs of the DC-10; Air France inherited them when they bought out UTA; Pan Am ordered the L-1011-500 and inherited DC-10s from their buyout of National in 79/80.
This whole thing is AI garbage
Lousy video, barely mentions the L1011, does not explain that US carriers at the time were looking for a smaller widebody after the 747 was introduced, also gets the engines wrong.
I believe that the first ones completed had GE engines and that those were more efficient than the P & W engines mentioned. Also less noisy but had the famous buzz sound that I think when electronically modified became the sound effect for "warp drive" on the Star Trek television program. I think a few DC 10s were ordered with P & W engines. Also 747s may have been equipped with GE engines (a bit better performance and efficiency but perhaps a bit more maintenance demanding ? Did British airlines demand their 747s with Rolls Royce engines (built in England?)
@ The DC 10-40 was the only version certified with the P&W engines- Northwest ordered them. The GE CF6 was the second engine certified on the 747 and became very popular, and yes BA was the Launch customer for the RR powered 747, which was itself a variation of the RB211 that powered the L1011. So the Trijets helped develop more engine options for the 747\ (DC 10 with GE and Lockheed with RR)
That’s because the L-1011 was barely there. Entered service a year later, exited service decades earlier, sold a fraction of the airframes, flew a fraction of the hours.
I mean… I guess you could say that if you develop an airliner like one of your cost-plus military contracts (losing you ten million dollars on each plane sold) made it safer for the short time it operated… but I think luck had more to do with why some of its spectacular mechanical failures weren’t fatal.
The French airline that operated the DC10 from the start was UTA - Union de Transports Aériens, which was later taken over by Air France. But the DC10 was not Air France's choice.
We really love seeing the DC-10 tanker flying in and out of Medford, Oregon every summer. Safety problems have been corrected and it's an elegant airplane to watch in operation. Patrick Cowdrey, Central Point, Oregon
As an expedient, Douglas routed crucial hydraulics and controls through the leading edge of the wings instead of the more challenging but less vulnerable trailing edge. This is what potentially doomed the aircraft if there were a major structural failure of an engine pylon. You could write a book about how profoundly flawed this airliner was. The Lockheed L-1011 was outstanding as the DC-10 was an engineering blunder.
Thanks for this
The L-1011 was a piece of junk.
Please.. explain to me how you can have hydraulically controlled leading edge devices without running lines through the leading edge? Especially when the engines themselves are supplying the hydraulic pressure.
It’s like the Long Ez who’s builder didn’t want fuel lines in the cockpit.. so he made the fuel valve on the rear bulkhead-which not only made it run out of fuel but when the pilot tried to reach for it, he pressed the rudder pedal and went into a spin. RIP John Denver.
No.. the L-1011 lost Lockheed 10 million dollars for every plane sold and still had all four hydraulic systems routed through the tail (again.. that’s where your engine and all your flight controls are) and still had all four systems impacted by shrapnel when the centre engine exploded on Eastern 935.
It was only LUCK that kept one system intact and allowed the plane to safely land. If safety was more proactive, they would have mandated hydraulic fuses on airliners 8 years before United 232.
Also please explain how maintenance deviating from a producer is MD’s fault. You NEVER install an engine with a forklift. You ALWAYS comply with manufacturer’s service bulletins. Was it Lockheeds fault that a cargo door blew on a C-5-causing one of the deadliest accidents in aviation history-due to the fact that misadjusted latches were not secure?
The L-1011 entered service late because of problems, sold a fraction of the airframes, didn’t fly as many hours (it was a hangar queen), and exited service decades before the DC-10. That speaks for itself.
Great work! Subscribed 😊
Thank you so much
You missed one of the very important requirements for the DC-10, that being it being capable of operating into and out of New York's La Guardia airport with a full load.
Thanks for contributing. This has been noted.
I flew on the DC-10 many times into/out of LGA. At one time, American Airlines installed cameras in the cockpit so all the passengers could watch the takeoff. On one flight, the captain lit up his pipe (long before smoking was banned), and my first thought was, “put your hands back on the wheel!”
You made a number of mistakes in some of your statements. Better go back and review the things you said. There are too many for me to mention here, but most DC-10's (-10 and -30) were GE powered, and only JAL and NW had Pratts on their -40 airplanes. Air France and Pan American did not buy the DC-10 and thus did not introduce the DC-10 to the world at all, and there are many more wrong statements. You need to do more research before putting incorrect things out and ruining your credibility.
This is typical for AI. AI doesn't care about credibility, just clicks and views.
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
We are sorry for every inconveniences, please bear with us. It won't repeat itself in our next videos
I was flying a ton back in the 70's, 80s and 90s. I don't know if it was personal bias based on the bad reputation the DC-10 seemed to have earned over the years but I came to have much more confidence in the L-1011 than the DC-10 when flying wide-body. I remember flying out of Honolulu in 1989 after completing my tour at Pearl Harbor and my family and I were on a DC-10. When that plane lifted off it felt like and sounded like a bucket of bolts being pulled up into the sky. It just had this "loose" feeling about it. L-1011s seemed to always have a cleaner, smoother feel to it. Again, it could have been preprogrammed bias in my mind, but that was my experience with the two planes.
How can you claim the tri engine layout is unique? The Boeing 727, the HS Trident and the Lockheed L1011 which was launched at the same time.
Yak 40 too.
Nope. None of them had engines mounted in the vertical stabilizer (the L-1011, 727, Trident, and Yak-40 had them mounted in the aft fuselage), and only the L-1011 combined it with wing mounted engines.
I recall reading that one of MD's fatal mistakes was not to re-engineer the DC-10 into a twin engine configuration.They were part of the way there in terms of design but management decided not to make that investment. If they had, I imagine that it would have had a massive affect on the industry both short and long term.
Great point. Thank you for this
Too large of a risk.
Airbus struggled for years with no sales because their A300 had two engines and a large capacity-greatly limiting its market before ETOPS.
And in the 80s and early 90s, twin engine aircraft had to earn their ETOPS certification. No aircraft was ETOPS “out of the box” until the 777 in 1994.
Boeing took the big risk for the 777.. but it also had the robust 747-400, 767, 757, and 737 lines to support it at the time should it fail.
Airbus took a more cautious approach and made the four engine A340 at the same time as the twin engine A330-and was able to save on development costs by having a huge amount of commonality between them.. as well as shared design heritage with the A300 and A310.
MD had no such option. To turn the DC-10 into a twin would require a redesign of the tail, repositioning of the wings, and reconfiguring of the landing gear (as now the tail would be longer and more prone to strikes) and it would be saddled with engines too close to the fuselage (a byproduct of the small rudder with the tail mounted engine) meaning it would be noisier than the competition (as it was with the L-1011).
And MD might have faced years of no sales pending ETOPS certification or it might have been beat into the air by the 777.
Unfortunately MD was likely doomed from the moment it made the DC-10.. stuck in a three engine lane like Lockheed from which it couldn’t exit.
But then it would not have been allowed to fly intercontinental until 1982.
09:00 - that Turkish wreck is the 737 at Amsterdam. 13:12 - I wasn't aware McDD ever considered mounting the engines under the fuselage.....
I flew in a DC10 flight from Los Angeles to Sweden and found it great.
Wow, that's so great
Please get your facts right! The DC-10 used the GE CF6 engines on the Series 10 and 30 models. The PW JT9D on the Series 40.
We are sorry for every inconveniences, please bear with us, we actually forgot to include that. We are deeply sorry.
4:50 JT9D? Every DC10 I've flown on had GE logos on the engines.
Returning from Vietnam in 1972 flew on one only had about 30 people. It was a very good plane to fly on. Only two flying today.
8:50: DCT 10 (?!) Have you ever seen this airplane?! ✈️😊
1982, on the way to Australia from Europe, chatting to a fellow passenger. "Flying has improved a lot over recent decades. Some aircraft types hardly ever crash these days ... although, there is this 'DC-10', not the best one around." "THIS is a DC-10 ..." "-----------------(slowly turning white in the face, looking puzzled)" "The model you are talking about, is the DC-10-10. We are on a DC-10-30"
Great point. Thank you for your contribution.
It was a lemon.💛😅
Wow, that's awesome. Very juicy to fly
9:20 was not a DC10 but i think a 737 and that accident was near Schiphol airport. That plane didn't make it to the runway and touched down on farmland.
As for the DC10, i once flew in an MD11, same basic 3 engined shape, and it flew very comfortable. One of the last passenger flights that Martinair did with it.
That's great.
Didn’t include the United crash in Iowa.
So sorry we forgot to include it
The crash of United DC-10 Flight 232 in Sioux City Iowa appears in the 8:36-8:53 segment of the video.
As a passenger this was an extremely comfortable and quiet aircraft. Its technical problems were very unfortunate.
We are sorry about that. We hope for upgrades in the future.
@TheFlightZonechannel
Learn English.
13:08 I don't understand how the placement of the engines from the wings to the fuselage is relevant. Most modern jet aircraft have the engines under their wings.
Thank you for drawing my attention to that, it will be rectified in the next videos
Thank you for drawing my attention to that, it will be rectified in the next videos
If you're going to give a real history of this plane it needs to be stated the maintenance of the engine was a total breach of safety practices. The left engine was lifted using a fork lift which caused damage to the pylon leading to a mass homocide by the illegal maintenance practices!! The quality of the DC-10 was fine. It was abused by I'll trained airline personnel!!!
The prescribed method was unpractical and costly. Prompting maintenance crews and airliner to take short cuts that saved multiple hours. That was just another one in the long list engineering failures in the DC-10
@@matthewq4bit was the airline’s decision to take this shortcut. Therefore the airline needs to take the brunt of the responsibility.
@@Blank00 Still does not absolve Douglas of crap engineering. You don't create a maintenance method so convoluted it encourages and promotes shortcuts. This is one of the basic fundamental golden rules in aerospace engineering/design.. Which Douglas FAILED to follow..
Great point. Thank you for your contribution.
@matthewq4b
The Airbus A300 had a nearly IDENTICAL pylon that was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas.
And yet…..
@ 8:54: Talking about THY's DC 10 accident near Paris, they show a photo of THY's B 737 crash near Amsterdam. Besides, TK 981 was flying from Paris to London on the second leg of an Istanbul to London flight, not from Paris to Istanbul.
Yeah. Noted. It was a mistake
somebody posted on YT years ago that the DC-10 killed a lot of people. Well so has the 747 and even notably the DeHavilland Comet. Several Comets crashed and the plane was taken out of service and stress analyzed in a large waterfilled tank. It was discovered the Comet used square windows (instead of circular ones) and was where the stress cracks started. Teething problems abound in all major aircraft. There were three 1979 crashes involving the DC-10 , one in April '79, the famous AA 191 Chicago O'Hare May '79, and Air New Zealand 901 November '79. There was also the 1989 UA 232 Sioux City crash. This AI only mentions the 1974 Paris Ermonville and AA191 Chicago.
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
Pelase do a one about the Lookheed TriStar 🙏
YES!!!!
Okay. We will make a video on the Lookheed Tristar soon, please subscribe and turn on the notification bell to stay updated when we upload it.
Please no, no! Spare us.
3:20: McDonald Douglas? Never knew that McDonald's makes burgers inside aircrafts. 😊
Who did the proofreading for the text in this video?
I flew the DC-10 three different time as captain... it is in my opinion the absolute best aircraft I have ever flown, and I have 8 type ratings. In a distant 2nd place is the B-777 which I retired on ... ONLY BECAUSE 911 RETIRED ALL OF OUR DC-10'S AND B-747'S.
No humans used in the making of this video, or responding to comments.
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
Flew from Toronto to San Juan on one and gotta say was one of the quieter liners i'd ever flown on.
That's great... Thank you for this.
What about the flight out of Chicago
So sorry we forgot to include that. Please bear with us.
9:07 It was enroute from Istanbul to Paris...not Paris to Istanbul...
The initial and most of the DC-10s were powered by the General Electric CF6, the only JT9D powered variant was the DC-10-40, only operated by Northwest and JAL
From memory the Air New Zealand DC10 fleet were equipped with Rolls Royce engines.
Correct. AA operated both the -10 and -30 models, GE on the -10 and P&W on the -30 (overwater) version
sorry - I misspoke. The AA -30 version did use the GE CF-6-50 which was rated at 54K thrust. The CF-6-6 on the -10 aircraft was rated at 41.5K. AA had a route between AUS and DFW that used the -30 version and often had a light passenger load. That takeoff/climb was reminiscent of a tactical jet's performance !
Great
@@AlteFleiger Did the CF- 6- 6 actually make a bit more thrust if pushed than its rating ?
NW west model was known as the DC-40, and yes it was powered by P & W
Thanks for your contribution
DC-10/MD-11 is one of the most iconic and deadly aircraft to ever exist.
Really?... We are sorry for the bad experiences you had with it
No more deadly than most aircraft of the era.
Remember, the L-1011 entered service later, didn’t sell as well, flew a fraction of the hours, and exited service early. The TU-116 is a more extreme of “safety” due to small sample size and lack of exposure.
Also two L-1011s should have crashed but somehow didn’t. Delta 1080 when it lost stabilizer control which is usually fatal, and Eastern 935 whose last hydraulic system was hit by the centre engine explosion but somehow didn’t leak.
“Rather than under the fuselage”?
Yes
Because the A 320 and every other plane nowadays puts its engines underneath the fuselage, right?
I flew across the Pacific in one in 1976, and then again from Melbourne to Thailand in 2004. Perhaps the second was an MC-11. But they did have a long life, after the cargo doors issue was fixed.
Maybe they did an upgrade to the plane
@@FlightZoneAviation the third engine was steamed powered on the earlier models
The U.S. Air Force just removed a modified version of this aircraft from inventory in September, 2024. I don't think that was ever involved in a "Class A Mishap."
The first time I flew on one was when I caught a "Hop" from Eielson A.F.B. in Alaska, to K.I. Sawyer A.F.B. in Marquette, MI., with a stop at Plattsburg A.F.B. in Plattsburg, NY in December, 1984. Man, I was freezing in that cargo hold, as during that flight; the 1st leg's duration of greater than ten hours. But never once did I believe the plane was unsafe. My cost to fly: $10.00.
I (still) don't understand how the engines being placed slightly forward of the wings was a design flaw.
Every Airplane comes like that, the engines placed under the wings is not a design flaw.
Too Bad that the Tri-Jet became a thing of the past! Of course the design is obsolete now.
What was that restriction that required Airliners had to have at least 3 to cross Oceans?
"ETOPS" or something like that??
ETOPS, or Extended Twin-Engine Operations Performance Standards, is what now allows over-water with two engine aircraft. It was developed along with the twin-engine wide body aircraft such as the B-767 and A-300, and requires strict record keeping of reliability standards as well as fight planning to always be within single-engine range of a diversion airport. I flew the DC-10 for about 3 and 1/2 years, and it is still my favorite for it's perfectly balanced flight controls and handling qualities. I always likened it to a 300,000 lb J-3 Cub. I will say that I was never completely comfortable with the hydraulic systems and was glad to go the left seat of the B757/767.
the crashed aircraft shown at 9:57 is not a DC10 but the boeing 737-800 of Turkish who crashed at Amsterdam
Still 1 of the nicest aircraft I've had the pleasure of flying in. Quiet, smooth and comfortable
Thats interesting. The DC -10 is a wonderful commercial aircraft.
McDonnell Douglas did only two wise things with the DC-10: 1. It was built like a brick shithouse, 2. You could pick between GE or P&W engines.. With the L1011 you were "stuck" with Rolls Royce engines, since the S duct was too narrow to use Pratt or GE motors. It would require a complete redesign of the rear fuselage and vertical fin assembly.
The 10 was anything but quiet and smooth compared to other wide bodies....
Once it was debugged it was a good airliner.
That's true
No mention of UA 232???
Thanks for drawing our attention to this, please don't be offended, we forgot to include it
Thanks for drawing our attention to this, please don't be offended, we forgot to include it
Sounds like the culture of MD is in Boeing now. Since both company merge long ago. The cutting corners method still exist.
I have the Only Surviving Revell Aircraft model of this Mcdonnell Douglas DC10-30 series Aircraft model of Defunct Northwest Airlines
Mcdonnell Douglas faced Roval Competition fro. Lockheed, Airbus And Boeing lager that introduced the Larger Trihet Aircraft with Updated Avionics and Wingkets,
MD11
Wow, that's great.
It wasn't a design flaw that caused the failures; it was short circuit within the human brain that activated the non-complacency gene that lies deep within us all. This should serve as a reminder for all to talk to yourself and to perform your checks and balances.
Also, I don't understand what problems their was to have engines mounted under the wings. I've seen a lot of plane designs with the engines mounted beneath their wings. Aren't all passenger jets like that?
Thanks for drawing our attention to this. We are sorry for the error, please bear with us, it won't happen again in our next videos.
The crash occurred when an incorrectly secured cargo door at the rear of the plane burst open and broke off, causing an explosive decompression that severed critical cables necessary to control the aircraft
Great point. Thank you
There is an ERROR in this video. Almost ALL of the DC-10’s were powered by GE Engines, NOT Pratt & Whitney (Thank God)……………..,
The DC-10 series 20 was powered by Pratt & Whitney JTD9 turbofan engines, whereas the series 10 and 30s were powered by General Electric CF6 engines.
aussieairliners.org/dc-10os/douglasdc10.html
The Northwest Airlines' DC-40 was powered by P&W JT-9-D-7B turbofans. It was also a long-range airplane like the DC-10-30 type.
🤡 uhhh actually...
Clown.
CP Air/Canadian Airlines operated 14 DC10-30's from 1979-2000 with absolutely no issues.
Great point. Thank you for this
I flew them during all these "events and never once experienced a problem nor delay
There are no engines mounted under the fuselage on any aircraft. All aircraft have engines mounted under the wings! Also, McDonald aircraft and Douglas Aircraft merged long after the DC-10 was developed and produced. Most of the videos you show are the MD-11, not the DC-10.
Thank you for your contribution
I was hoping someone else noticed it. This sounds like a typical nonsense AI sentence. And only AI would "Thank you for your contribution" to a comment like this. If it weren't for the intelligent replies I would be dumber for having watched this.
Is this all original content? Amazing stuff regardless
Thank you so much
I don't believe that there was anything wrong at all with the placement of the DC 10's engines
as I understand the plane was quite powerful and able to take off from much shorter runways than the DC 8 or the early 747 of course a loaded plane needs a lot more runway than a nearly empty plane with a minimum amount of fuel in its tanks
I understand that almost all commercial jetliners have engine mountings that are designed to allow the engine to "fall off" rather than allowing a severely vibrating failed engine to shake the rest of the plane to the point of total failure of the airframe
Great point. Thank you for your contribution.
Lost me at 8:55. 737 🤔 That Turkish 737 accident was part of the infamous 3. Do we really need AI?? Seriously?
Also, can anyone talk me though just how the DC-10 was based on the DC-8?? I just don't see it: structures, powerplants, flight management...??
We will work on it
The picture of the Turkish Airlines crash at 9:57 is a picture of a Boeing 737.......
Thank you for drawing our attention to this. We are deeply sorry, as it was a mistake. It won't happen again in our next videos.
90% of DC10s were actually poŵerèd by GE CF6 50 turbofams (10 & 30 series)
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
I want a DC-10 study level sim for MSFS 2024.... But it has to have a built in and non optional 0.001% of having its cargo door blow out on every flight that exceeds FL250
We are still hoping for better upgrades in the future.
"Relatively quiet cabin" !!!! - Have you ever flown on on? Monkey class was a noise hell. I hated when my company put me on that plain from Asia to Europe.
So sorry about your experience.
Interesting at this video omitted mention of the Sioux City crash caused by the tail-mounted engine fan blade failure.
The engine on the vertical stabilizer was a bad idea in case of engine failure
So true. Indeed it was.
Why?
The lower rudder authority due to the smaller rudder was compensated for by having the wing engines closer to the fuselage. It met all of the same certification requirements as any other aircraft of the time.
This is the second clip from Flight Zone that i have watched. Both have basic errors along with dialogue and gramatical strangeness. Was this generated by AI?????
The real facts missing from this are this plane was less complex and less expensive than the superior L-1011 TriStar.
It out sold the L-1011 because it was less expensive to purchase and operate. It came to money!! So did the cost cutting maintenance tricks by operators!!
Great point. Thank you for your contribution.
And because it could fly intercontinental long before Tristar.
The DC10 was McDonnell Douglas first MAX!
Great point. Thank you for your contribution.
It was on its way to London
Ghana airways dc10 😊
I think had they taken just a bit more time to work out the kinks it would've been the king of the sky. It was a beautiful aircraft.
Indeed it was
I knew somebody killed in the Turkish DC10 disaster. I never flew in one but was a passenger on an MD-11 for 4 flights I was seriously not impressed, delayed take off due to technical issues. One look at the aircraft design with over sized horizontal tail even bigger on the MD-11 leaves the impression the design isn't right.
The competing Lockheed L-1011 Tristar was a much superior but beset by ill fortune. The RAF made good use of its Tristar tanker conversions.
Great point
The DC10 Had design faults know from the start they were many, the FAA and Douglas chose to ignore them!
I hired on at McDonnell Douglas 4, 15, 85, working on the last 6 DC and KC 10'S was a great job for a 18 year old, minimum wage was 3.35 an hour, I started at 9.01 an hour! Employee # 320333
The owner of this channel is also surely a bot because it's not responding to the nasty comments below. AI is truly all we've imagined it to be.
Sorry for not responding to comments on time. We love to hear from you, and to serve you better in any possible way we can.
@@FlightZoneAviation Ok, bot.
DC10 never had a JT9. That was a 727 engine. In fact the DC10 never came with a PW engine. The 10-10 and 10-30 all had GE engines.
We would have liked to see images of DC10s from successful operators such as the Venezuelan VIASA, the Spanish Iberia or the Italian Alitalia.
We are really sorry, we forgot to include that.
The DC-10 had several engineering problems and was not very reliable, no where as good as the Tristar or even the Boeing 767 to later appear. DC-8 had its problems as well and DC-10 continued to be compromised. Even putting an engine high up in the tail was a difficult design problem which would bring a torque forcing the craft to pitch down heavily as the trust was far fro the centerline, not a good choice. The tail needed to be higher and stronger, all to bring more drag. That is why when the Airbus A300 arrived with its twin engine format, it showed the way forward leading to B767, B777, A310 and A330.
Yeah. That's true... Thanks for this
The A300 was in response to changes in regulations that allowed twinjets to fly out over ocean and farther from safehaven airstrips than had been allowed before .
@lucrolland7489 What in the world are you talking about? How could that explain the bigger longevity of the DC-10 compared to its age peers such as the 747 classic, the A300 and the l-1011? or even the longer commercial service life of the DC-8 compared to the 707?
@@sobelou Biman Bangladesh was the world's last passenger user of the iconic DC-10. In February 2014, the Bangladesh flag carrier flew the last scheduled passenger service from Dhaka to Birmingham. As of March 2024, there were 19 passenger and 213 cargo versions of the 747-400 in operation worldwide. As for the Tristar, it was not a great economic success but it was the most advanced of the wide bodies when it came out and the only one then that could self-land. The Airbus A300 was great success in Europe and around Asia and was quiclky replaced by the A310 and then A340 for a solution to the long range demand and compete against the B767. As for the Airbus A300, operated by Iran Air since 2011, it still remains as a passenger operator as of 2024. This information I found quickly on valid sources on the internet.
@ You're not paying attention. First, your mentioning the 747-400 is irrelevant, since on my comment I referred only to 747 classic machines (100/200/300) and other age peers, meaning contemporary aircraft. The only Airbus machines contemporary with the DC-10 are the A300 older series, and I doubt there are any still flying, even as freighters. The Iran Air machines (and a lot of freighters) are of the -600 type, a much improved second generation version with the A310 cockpit And finally, yes, the Tristar was very advanced, but it was more expensive to maintain and most importantly, while the L-1011s up to the series 250 could compete with the DC-10-10, Lockheed could never come up with competition for the DC-10-30, as the L-1011-500 had the range but only two thirds of the capacity.
Watch ' aircrash investigation' for events resulting from the "design"
Okay. Thank you for this.
unfortunately it will forever be associated with tragic and horrific accidents most notably American Airlines Flight 191 and a total of 1,261 fatalities throughout its history.
I'm pretty sure more people died from collisions of Ford F-150s, and it's not forever associated with tragic and horrific accidents. Fear-mongering media love sensational gore.
So tragic.
Probably not associated with unique body counts. The 747 has twice as many or so, but is not so remembered. I think it's not accidents. per se, it was the outrageous scandal with the Turkish crash, and the grounding in 1979 that made the difference.
The Lockheed L-1011 was a more advanced and safer aircraft.
The L10-11 was indeed technically superior. It was also more expensive & delayed, which was important to customers at the time.
An airline pilot who flew the L-1011 before moving to the DC-10 said in a comment elsewhere that it wasn't until after the switch that he realized how "needlessly complicated" operation of the L-1011 was. So opinions vary.
Turkish Boeing 737-800 at 09.15......
The story is nice but the video sucks. Turkish Airlines accident on 09:12 is TA flight 1951 with a Boeing 737-800 near Schiphol Amsterdam Airport. These videos need to be accurate. If not it discredits the rest of the story.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this. We are sorry for every inconveniences. The issue will not be found again in our next videos
@@FlightZoneAviation I am afraid this answer is also AI generated
@@FlightZoneAviation
HA
Too much repetition
Thank you for drawing our attention. The issue will not be found again in our next videos. Please bear with us.
The United States 🇺🇸 Military Air Force used tge Mcdonnell Douglas DC10-30 as KC-10 Aerial Tanker refuelling Aurcraft that has a tail Boom Refuelling pod.
Great point
The competitive picture laid out at the beginning of the video is simply not accurate.
Boeing, McDonnel Douglas and Lockheed were competing for lucrative military contracts, which were at the inception of the 747, DC-10 and L-1011 respectively.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 the accident wasn't due to aircraft design or failure but to improper handling of the engine during maintenance using a forklift to hold the engine. This caused damage which led to fatigue cracking 10:32
Thanks for this, you've made a great point. The issues will never repeat itself in our next videos
Thanks for this, you've made a great point. The issues will never repeat itself in our next videos
Iconic airplane
But for the #2 engine, a very robust plane.
Dont think dc10 was meant to compete wt 747
They are both iconic and unique airplanes.