THE DC-10 TAKES FLIGHT MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION PROMOTIONAL FILM 85114
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2016
- Support Our Channel : / periscopefilm
This film DIMENSION 10 THE DC-10 TAKES FLIGHT is a report on the design, construction and the first flight of the DC 10, the ground breaking jet passenger aircraft. The McDonnell Douglas DC-10 is a three-engine wide-body jet airliner manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The DC-10 has range for medium- to long-haul flights, capable of carrying a maximum of 380 passengers. Its most distinguishing feature is the two turbofan engines mounted on underwing pylons and a third engine at the base of the vertical stabilizer. The model was a successor to McDonnell Douglas's DC-8 for long-range operations, and competed in the same markets as the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, which has a similar layout. The DC-10 had a poor safety record initially that was continuously improved over the years.
Production of the DC-10 ended in 1989 with 386 delivered to airlines and 60 to the U.S. Air Force as air-to-air refueling tankers, designated KC-10 Extender. The largest operator of the DC-10 is U.S. cargo airline FedEx Express. The DC-10 was succeeded by the related McDonnell Douglas MD-11.
At mark 0:29, reporters introduce themselves. At mark 1:05 the president of McDonnell Corporation, James McDonnell, is presented. He talks about the construction of the aircraft and the countries where it was built. He talks about the great engineers in their company. He said the DC 10 is a nationwide effort and they’ve got reliable teams.
Prior to any first flight, its customary to roll the plane out and presenting it to the public and this happened a few days ago. There were many distinguished guests and they were welcomed by James McDonnell as seen at mark 2:28. He gave the welcoming address. The vice president took the microphone giving the significance of the new flight at mark 3:12. At mark 3:23 the vice president said the aircraft signifies the role of business in America, and also signifies the contribution of the aeronautic industry.
At mark 4:02, Mr. Jackson McGowan, President of the Douglas aircraft corporation, makes remarks. The DC 10 has been referred to as the new conception air travel. He talks about the plane being flexible, efficient and it serves as a new standard of comfort for passengers. He explains its flexibility in the sense that they have the ability to operate in variety of roles and also it has a spectrum of range from (200 miles to 6000 miles). He explains the efficiency of the plane in terms of cost per seat and cost per turn and it must be efficient to earn profit. At mark 5:04, he points out that the DC 10 is more advanced in that it has wider seat, better inflight service, and he thinks it will be well liked. At mark 5:34 he said DC 10 will be smokeless and produced less noise than predecessor aircraft. At mark 6:40, the V.P. of the program is introduced, and at mark 8:30 the vice president in charge of manufacturing.
At mark 10:25, we have the different manufacturing company that had worked together on building the aircraft. We see the processes, the teams each company has got and the sites of manufacture.
At mark 17:00, the chief pilot of Douglas Aircraft explains how the DC 10 will perform in flight and also explains how the plane will operate and the design objectives of the plane. He also comments on the take off specifications.
At mark 18:40, the plane is rolling and we have the public in awe. At mark 19:10, the public were asked to give their comment on the DC 10. At mark 20:25, we have the plane in the air. At mark20:50, we have the communication center. We have an interview with George Jackson. George who works at the control unit explained how the plane is controlled. He gives comments on the speed, the height at which the DC10 is flying. At mark 23:20, we have the DC 10 having a smooth and perfect landing. At mark 24:10, the crew, the pilot were questioned on the flight. At mark 25:05, we have a debriefing. The film was not exaggerating, at the time of it was made, the DC-10 was in a class of its own.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example like: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD and 2k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
Great historical video. The -10 is an amazing machine.
Say what you want about the "Big 10" the fact is after the engendering problems were fixed there still flying and the US air force has no plans to get rid of them anytime soon! Long live Douglas!
@Jess W can't handle the turth DC 10 still flying for fed x and UPS today. Air force having trouble with kc 46 the KC 10 is getting the job done today
@Jess W you know what, for that plane to be used efficiently as a cargo plane, shows you just don't have to junk a great plane because of a couple mishaps. By all accounts, this plane was a huge money maker for fedex and was beloved by pilots the world over.
It even mentions after the 9 minute mark that the dc 10 was an "instant " plane. They admit the thing was a rush job. They should've been pulled out of passenger service by 1980 and delegated to hauling boxes
engendering ???
Under engineered, but it flew nicely. Very much inferior as an aircraft to the L-1011, but thanks to troubles with the RB.211 it outsold the superior (and more expensive) product.
The reporters are all so damn professional
Yes, back when people actually had class and sophistication. Something these newer generations know absolutely nothing about!!
I remember when Larry Burrell was a news anchor on Channel 11 KTTV in LA and Art Balenger was playing captains and Lieutenants on Dragnet in the 60s. Once the DC-10's cargo hatch problems were fixed, it was an overall safe jet. I flew in a DC-10-40 a few times on Northwest Orient and felt perfectly safe. Had all of the airlines complied with the directive to fix the cargo door, I doubt the Turkish Airlines crash in 1974 would have taken place. Military DC-10s still roam the sky as tankers and MD-11s still are used as cargo transports. After the American Airlines crash in 1979 in Chicago happened, the fate was sealed but that was not McDonnell Douglas fault, it was American Airlines maintenance fault for not handling the engines like they were supposed to. The plane got a bad rep after that disaster.
The DC-10 had a few more design problems than just the cargo door. That was only the first issue. Sadly made the headlines for many years. I am unfortunately old enough to remeber (wish I was younger). The maintenance mistakes was the cause of the engine dropping off the Chicago crash, but loosing one engine on a multi engine aircraft does not doom it to crash, engine out training is one of the most basic aspects of pilot training. The other two engines were operating normally, the plane crashed because of a design flaw of the leading edge slats. The United crash was a design flaw in the routing of the hydraulic lines in the tail.
The DC-10's main competition the Lockheed L-1011 was a much better design but the DC-10 despite all the issues and crashes won the sales race because of production delays for the L-1011 caused by the financial troubles of Rolls Royce in the early 70s..
@@tonyseely6473 I thought the hydraulics issue was not unique to the DC-10, but also present in other aircraft, namely some Boeing aircraft - but maybe I am mistaken in my research.
@@tonyseely6473 - Spot on Tony!
A DC10 caused the AirFrance Concorde crash. A poorly made chunk of metal fell off the previous DC10, causing the Concorde’s tyres to burst. I wonder if they ever accepted their share of responsibility?
McDonnell Douglas and the FAA knew about the cargo door problems because of the AA flight 96 incident, but Nixon's head of the FAA worked out a "gentleman's agreement" that McDonnell Douglas would upgrade all the cargo doors to a better design in exchange for a major contribution to the Committee to Re-Elect the President. One of the aircraft on McDonnell's assembly line was sold to Turkish Airlines, along with documentation signed off showing that the cargo doors had been upgraded, but in fact, the upgrades had not been done. When this DC-10's defective cargo door blew out 346 passengers and crew were killed, which, at the time, was the worst crash in the history of aviation. It wasn't until after this tragedy that the FAA issued an airworthiness directive.The huge lawsuits based on the failure to rectify the provably known door defects brought publicity which to severely damaged the DC-10's reputation . The incident in Chicago which involved an engine coming off the wing which destroyed the hydraulics and killed another 271 people (still the worst crash in US history...) led to a worldwide grounding of all DC-10s until they had all thoroughly been inspected and any damages from "creative" maintenance procedures was repaired. The DC-10 went on to earn a good reputation for safety and reliability, but mostly as a freighter, because passengers were reluctant to fly on it. Sales stopped, and McDonnell Douglas never recovered the cost invested in designing and building the DC-10, which eventually led to the merger with Boeing and the end of McDonnell Douglas.
I can't imagine how amazing it would be to see a new plane, especially one as beautiful as the DC-10 roll out in front of your eyes for the first time. Nowadays, everything is steadily revealed online and there's no sense of surprise anymore
I flew Vancouver to Honolulu on Continental’s DC-10 Pub flight, they had a pub mid aircraft, with couches and a bar, enjoyed the free drinks and meeting other passengers. An incredible aircraft, and a wonderful flying experience, the only flight I ever flew on that I didn’t want to end.
I wish air carriers here in 2024 would go back to Inflight entertainment and pub/bars. Removing these things in order to add more seats, has taken away the pleasure and comfort of flying. If airlines brought them back, that would be a big step to winning back the people who have abandoned flying. If I'm not mistaken, were these Pub flights in the early 70's ? I remember when I wanted to be a stewardess and a friend bought me a career guide. I was fascinated with the pictures in the guide; especially the picture of a piano bar inside of an American Airlines 747. As the daughter of a Psychologist, I can't think of a better way to calm stressed out passengers, than to have someone playing Frank Sinatra's 'Fly me to the Moon' on the piano . Lol !! 😄 Also, bring back tasty and hearty inflight meals. I actually prefer travelling by train BECAUSE they still offer some of the same luxuries that airlines don't; comfortable seats and leg room. Meals ; both in the sit down dining car and at the snack bar. A car with giant plexiglass windows for sightseeing and another option that I like; booking a private suite. Some middle east airlines have private suites on their planes. I don't expect this on U. S. carriers but the other amenities would be nice to have back. !!!!
Such optimism in those times. I'm jealous. We only have one commercial manufacturer left in the USA and they can't even make a safe 737 any more.
It is true, wish Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas were still making planes, they made beautiful and fabulous planes. Please don't trash the whole Boeing Company for the 737, after all, their planes helped save the world from Nazis in WW2, protected the Free World from communists during the Cold War, and have carried billions of passengers SAFELY the past seventy years. I think that is a brilliant record.
That's a problem when you became the one and the only one !
That's Why Boeing made 737 max with the knowledge of it's problems !
The problems from Boeing stem primarily from allowing the Douglas corporate culture to pollute Boeing. The DC-10 was built to be less costly than it's competition and under-engineered as a result. It flew nicely, but it was definitely NOT the equal of the Lockheed and legacy Boeings (and I've flown all three brands).
@@bradcrosier1332 Couldn’t agree more. there’s an old saying, McDonell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing‘s money. also the DC 10, in my opinion, was one of the most unsafe commercial airplanes ever made.
This first test flights or Maiden Flights, have got something special and glamour taste. Its a look to an extreme crew team effort, time and sacrifice of almost, everything. The most elegant and gorgeus aircraft design in my opinion, ever, even above the Queen 747 jumbo. So sad could not last more years, and the Boeing Mc Donnell merger, finally, put it into the grave as MD11. But any way great plane, almost every pilot loved it, and I saw them in operations at El Dorado Bogota, with British Caldeonian and Iberia, the very first time back in early 1976 before Avianca`s 747 arrival in 5th December of that year, company`s birthday. Long live and lots of memories brought de DC-10 model.
Beautiful bird!
Such great reporting !
First time I saw one...June 13th 1972. Kennedy. Little did I know that same day over Detroit and Canada a DC 10 had a catastrophic failure of a rear cargo access door latch and lock assembly. You know the story. Lucky they wisely tried the autopilot system to control the aircraft after the flight control cables in the fuselage were severally damaged. A Turkish Air crew several years later didnt try it and many lost their lives.
Loved that GE engine mounted on B-52
GE CF6 series turbofans were the engines most airlines chose for their DC-10 fleets, with the Pratt & Whitney JT9D a close second.
I love it ..
I think the L-1011 was a better looking plane but development hell took its toll.
The L-1011 was by FAR the most advanced of the first generation widebodies. I flew it (and the DC-10, and MD-11, and B-747-400). All were pleasant to fly, but there was just no comparison to the technology of the Tristar. The DC-10's engineering was definitely lacking, but it handled nicely.
@@bradcrosier1332 I flew it many times as a passenger. Best aircraft I’ve ever flown. Spacious, comfortable and fast. I always remember taxiing out of Atlanta on Delta in the 90’s and right as we were 3rd in queue for takeoff you’d head the number 2 engine stat to come to life. No need to burn 3 engines for taxiing!
The design failures with those cargo doors make me always watch out to which kind of plane we vere to fly!
Boeing 747 also had cargo door problems
LoL 16:32 Jaime Heimerdinger ... love that name
I blame his parents.
I think its some type of genital wart. Learned that at Med school.
Sad isn't it.
Convair, which built the fuselage for the DC-10, never really recovered from the 880/990 fiasco. McDonnell Douglas acquired the aircraft structure and space booster operations in 1994.
We also built the fuselage for the MD11 (DC10XL)
The DC10-30 was the 'complete' package of the '70s
The Series 30 was the long-range version of the DC-10. There was also the Series 40, which MDC built for Northwest Airlines. The latter was essentially a Series 30 powered by P&W JT9D engines.
It was also called a "Three Holer".
Can someone comment on the collaboration between McDonnell Douglas and the USAF? I flew the DC10 dash 10 and dash 30 models as an engineer, but had no idea of the USAF involvement at an early point. Had the KC-10 already been on the drawing board?
Engineer position on the DC 10 was the easiest job I’ve ever had. Well laid out panel. Works good, lasts a long time….DC stands for direct cable😂. Great times….
Ive looked everywhere trying to find out the date of this event, and Nada, It's history people, please date in the description.
DC-10 is still going strong with Fed Ex
So is the MD-11, which was based on the DC-10.
FedEx retired their remaining 10’s on 12/31/2022. I already miss those babies.
When was this film originally made / published? 🤔
I remember flying in MD80s & mabe a dc10? as a child, and young adult (MD80s). 🛩 A lot of Boeing's though, too. (Late 70s through 80s. Still fly occasionally..)
23:16 using C-5's TF-39 (also made by GE)
You mean CF-6 . TF39 does have the same core components but other then that its much different.
The DC-10 became one of, if not the most Safest Aircraft in the industry after the engineering problems were corrected. We all know who was at fault for the AA191 tragedy. Especially when it was never in The McDonnell Douglas maintenance procedure to do the maintenance to the Aircraft in that fashion. And for those who said that the L-1011 was a better Aircraft?? Not one L-1011 is in the skies, as Cargo, Fire Fighting Tankers, or Refuelers for our United States Military. But you will find plenty of L-1011's in the Victorville Bone Yard!🤣Fly On DC-10'S!! Fly On!!🛫💞
It was a great plane . Shame it had the unsafe cargo door which was a bad oversight.
15:30 Reporter: How did you about creating the amazing feel of openness inside the DC10?
Ray: Easy, we forgot to put proper locks on the cargo door. And when the FAA threatened to ground the planes, we did a slimy deal with them and did a botch job that still didn’t work!
LOL "We feel it's safer too"
Simon Coles little did they know . . . 🤦🏻♂️
To be fair, yes, there were some horrendous oversights but it should be borne in mind that not all of this was MD fault. AA191 as an example was because of poor maintenance practice by most of the American airline industry.
The cargo door was a disaster that they should've seen coming but, there are DC10's still in operation today despite having their certificate to fly withdrawn. Unlike the 737MAX, I think the shit really sticks with that one and the 737MAX issues I believe are far worse anything MD did.
Death Contraption-10. I wonder how enthused they would be if they knew how many people the plane would kill
@@Hertfordshire247 - Not having the slats designed to lock was 100% on Douglas. Lockheed foresaw such a possibility. That said, you are correct it was Forklift Joe at AA that directly caused the problem.
The cf6 and any high by-bypass engine will smoke .. even today they smoke .. it's the refineries producing cleaner fuel and the Improvements in combustion efficiency make them appear smokeless
By this time, DC10 had already bagged the vital long range market by clinching the Northwest, ATLAS and the KSSU order. The L1011 was never able to catch up until the L1011-500 came out almost 9 yrs later. It had become too late by then. When the DC10 was finally crippled by its own safety issues, there was assurance that no widebody Trijet would ever be commercially viable, the MD11, with its DC10 DNA included.
Long Beach from Long ago
To be fair, yes, there were some horrendous oversights but it should be borne in mind that not all of this was MD fault. AA191 as an example was because of poor maintenance practice by most of the American airline industry.
The cargo door was a disaster that they should've seen coming but, there are DC10's still in operation today despite having their certificate to fly withdrawn. Unlike the 737MAX, I think the shit really sticks with that one and the 737MAX issues I believe are far worse anything MD did.
The maintenance mistakes are to blame for the engine dropping off but the plane still had 2 good engines, loss of one engine on a multi engine aircraft does doom it to crash. 191 crashed because of a design flaw of the leading edge slats. Sometimes poor designs become big sellers.
The 737's problems with the rudder anomoly and the more recent issues were less compared to the DC-10.
Too bad it got off to a bad start!..You can blame the bean counters for that!!!!
6:43 Mr Brizendine along with 3 other MacAir execs pleaded guilty in 1992 for offering bribes to Pakistan for DC10 purchases.
11:11 "Yes even the Amish assisted in the manufacturing of the DC-10"
Don't tell the parson
Too bad about that pesky cargo door.
you wouldnt see that today an exective smoking on camera
imagine this campaign happening today in the manufacturing of airplanes? Engineering and all those VP jobs don't exist today.
Compared to the far superior Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, the DC-10 is a STOVE-PIPE with wings.
Yet the 10 was in service when the l-1011 was in the boneyard
@@bogenious8474 Nasty business tactics by McDonnell Douglas ... !
The L-1011 was a far superior and safer plane. The DC-10 was plagued with engineering issues, especially in the earlier planes. Plus they had some really freakish crashes. United flight 232 and the Chicago O’Hare engine separation. yes, the latter was caused by maintenance error, but an engine separation should’ve never of brought that plane down.
DC-10/MD-11 outsold the L1011 by almost 3 to 1. 646 to 250. So, tell me again how superior the L1011 was.
@@itjustlookslikethis From a safety and technology standpoint? Leaps and bounds my friend. The L-1011 had the first CAT-III auto land over 50 years ago. Meanwhile MD suffered from in flight hydraulic failure, ruptured cargo door X2 that lead to fatalities, the infamous landing “bounce” it was plague by. McDonnell Douglas was notorious for cutting corners. That’s why they were “acquired” by Boeing. Unfortunately the management that survived were the MD folks. Leading to the famous line “ McDonnell Douglas, bought Boeing with Boeing’s money.” Hence decades later the 737 Max fiasco. All MD protégés. What domed the L-1011 was the R&R bankruptcy resulting from the Trent engine development. Aside from looking at production numbers, read up on the development and evolution of each aircraft.
In the Chicago crash, the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA cited McDonnell Douglas for failing to install backup systems that would have warned the pilots about a stall and warned them about the hydraulic damage to the slats. I read a story from a man that was an investigative journalist in 1979. He was employed at one of the top magazines and was due to travel to Los Angeles with his boss, the boss's wife and 2 colleagues to a book sales convention. He had been investigating the Turkish Airlines crash, when he came across internal memos that McDonnell Douglas sent out, offering employees bonuses and pay raises if they came up with ways to save money during the DC-10's production. The journalist told his boss that he was not going to fly on the plane because it was unsafe. He stayed behind; the boss, the boss's wife and his other 2 colleagues were killed in the crash. So sad, and what's worse, a lot of the McDonnell Douglas executives infiltrated Boeing after the merger and now they are ruining Boeing. Remember that before you board another Boeing jet. 😮
@@jocelynharris-fx8ho You probably know the old saying. McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s own money. Lol.
Mc Gowen Was A crook as was Brisendine . My Dad rejected the design and was replaced by Cleveland. Many deaths were the result.
owen
Death Contraption-10. I wonder how enthused they would be if they knew how many people the plane would kill
Of the 32 hull losses, very few were caused by any design flaws (hydraulic issues not being unique to the DC-10, present in Boeing aircraft of the time too IIRC, and component flaws that could be pinned on the people who made those parts).
And that's 32 hull losses across every subtype - the A320 has triple that across subtypes, same with Boeing 737s and 747s, without factoring in ALL the causes.
The fact that from 1972 to present day there were only 32 hull losses across thousands of flights should say something.
You don't know what you're talking about.
fantastic! film makes everything look better
Especially the cargo door.
Lovely job.