For all you DC-10 fans!

[eolesen]

From what I've been told, both the DC-10, and the L1011, were both originally designed as two engine Aircraft. The number two engines were added to comply with FAA regulations for over water flights.

You're right that ETOPS was not adopted until the early 80's, but I believe the decision for the third engine was due to customer preference, not the government.

At the times, engine performance was nowhere near what it is today, and airlines were the ones uncomfortable with the idea of only two engines.

Specifically, AA's requirement to be able to take off at LGA helped drive the design decision.

Never had any particular problem with the MD Lemon, but I the Death Crates will always be a favorite of mine. The extra-high ceiling in the cabin made it feel just that much cooler...

 

[Bob Owens]

The question isnt whether the FAA mandated a third engine, its whether or not they would certify operations that far from an airport for the aircraft.

 

[eolesen]

Not questioning that, Bob, but in 1971, airlines weren't focused on international flying, and the restrictions on where AA, UA, or CO could fly were minimal in comparison to today.

Again, there's written history on this in one of the books written on Douglas or the aircraft leasing business (probably in "The Sporty Game" -- http://books.google.com/books/about/The_sporty_game.html?id=DTkiAAAAMAAJ). I've had it in hardcopy for about 20 years, but have no idea where it is boxed up...

It might also be detailed in one of Robert Serling's historicals -- perhaps "Eagle" (assuming you kept your copy?) or "Howard Hughes' Airline".

 

[1AA]

It was single engine performance that mandated a third engine. Thrust ratings were not sufficient for single engine takeoffs at that time and high-thurst engines to power a twin jet with continental range were not sufficient. You have to remember that high bypass ratio engine technology was new at the time. The DC-10 and L-1011 were new wide body aircraft next to the 747. So trying to utilize two engines in wide body aircraft at the pioneer days of high bypass ratio engines was insufficient. Only did it evolve later on with the A-300 but that wide body aircraft was smaller than the DC-10 and L-1011. There was a design from McDonnell Douglas for a smaller version of the DC-10 with two engines. It was designated the DC-10-J2. It was to compete with the Airbus A-310.
 
Good info from this source.
 
http://www.dc-10.net/

 

[MCI transplant]

Not questioning that, Bob, but in 1971, airlines weren't focused on international flying, and the restrictions on where AA, UA, or CO could fly were minimal in comparison to today.

Again, there's written history on this in one of the books written on Douglas or the aircraft leasing business (probably in "The Sporty Game" -- http://books.google.com/books/about/The_sporty_game.html?id=DTkiAAAAMAAJ). I've had it in hardcopy for about 20 years, but have no idea where it is boxed up...

It might also be detailed in one of Robert Serling's historicals -- perhaps "Eagle" (assuming you kept your copy?) or "Howard Hughes' Airline".

I have a copy of that, ("Howard Hughes Airline") signed by the author. And yes, both DC-10, and L1011, were similar in size, number of engines, and performance. But!---- That's where the similarity ends. The L1011 was engineered better than the DC-10, but cost more also. And was only engineered to handle the RR211 engine. That was a decision that almost put Lockeed out of business. Rolls had to reinvent their engine when ice was found to shatter the original carbon fiber fan blades that Rolls tried using in their first engines. The British Government had to bail out Rolls because of the fact that they had to re-engineer the engine to except metal blades in their place. The cost, and delay, of that would put the DC-10 into production before the L1011, and at a cheaper price! ----- I remember seeing pictures of rows of competed L1011's, minus engines, setting on the ramp at Palmdale, Cailfornia, waiting on engines!

 

[MCI transplant]

"E", let's keep something in mind! In 1971, AA, UA, or CO, weren't the only ones flying international!

 

[1AA]

"E", let's keep something in mind! In 1971, AA, UA, or CO, weren't the only ones flying international!

TWA, PanAm?

 

[JAFA]

As a ramp lead, ours (NW) tended to be bad for my blood pressure, but still...

OMG the memories, the calls from a lead asking me to change the load plan cause the locks somehow didn't arrive with the plane. I always assumed some day during the merger DL would just a big pile of locks at some station that hadn't seen 10's since a peanut farmer was in the White House.

 

[Kev3188]

Lol. 
 
Okay, that made my morning.  
 
I'm sure they're out there somewhere. Long locks, and short locks both...  

 

[WorldTraveler]

"E", let's keep something in mind! In 1971, AA, UA, or CO, weren't the only ones flying international!

indeed. Pan Am was an early, if not launch customer, for the L1011-500 to serve its long, thin int'l routes, a role the L15 did until the 767-300ER was introduced. The D10 had similar uses.

At the same time, the US domestic carriers needed an widebody that could fly from LGA. The third engine was a necessity for both roles of the early widebodies.

 

[texasreb]

I see, now. The location. I thought it might have been from an operational standpoint in the air.

When I worked in the CF-6 engine shop way back when, we always had number 2 engines damaged from compressor stalls. Usually caused by over rotation changing the air flow to the top motor.

 

[MCI transplant]

TWA, PanAm?

Yea! Between the two, I'd say they flow about 80+% of international flights in 1971.

 

[eolesen]

indeed. Pan Am was an early, if not launch customer, for the L1011-500 to serve its long, thin int'l routes, a role the L15 did until the 767-300ER was introduced. The D10 had similar uses.

Wrong on both counts.

DL were the launch customers, and PA didn't start service with the L1011 until 1980, a full year after the aircraft entered service.

In contrast, the DC10-30, which Lockheed had to compete with, was delivered starting in 1972.

As far as who was flying internationally in 1971, keep it in the context of the ETOPS discussion that had started. ETOPS didn't matter to Latin America or the Caribbean, and TransPac/TransAtlantic were pretty much locked in with PA/TW/NW, all of whom were heavily invested in the 747 at that point.

 

[700UW]

When I worked for UA in TPA, before PI and US, we had a DC-10 that went HNL-DEN-TPA, and when we opened the cargo doors all we could smell was the pallets of fresh Pineapples, that was a great smell.

 

[Kev3188]

Great smell is right!

When NW ran DC-10's between HNL & SEA, they would send an LD3 or 2 of pineapples down to PDX on the house truck.