Cargo MD-11 crash in Shanghai

Aug 20, 2002
3,270
306
www.usaviation.com
http://avherald.com/h?article=423638d8&opt=0
An Avient Aviation McDonnell Douglas MD-11 freighter, registration Z-BAV performing flight Z3-324 from Shanghai Pudong (China) to Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) with 7 crew, overran runway 35R (4000 meters/13123 feet long) on takeoff and burst into flames at about 08:12L (00:12Z). All occupants received injuries and were taken to local hospitals, where three died. Three of the survivors received serious, the fourth received critical injuries but is in stable condition.....
 
The MD-11 is racking up one heck of an accident rate. Seven hull loses of out of the 200 built.
 
To compare....any idea what the hull loss rate was on the 1011 - which I think had about 250 manufactured. I can think of two write-offs offhand; TW843 in 1992 at JFK and TW778(?) operating LAS-JFK in the late 90s landed short and damaged the rear pressure bulkhead resulting in a hull write off.

Any others?
 
I always thought the MD products were well-engineered and durable.

Don't know why these MD11s are having problems.

However when I read the previous answer was Varig that left me suspicious of previous maintenance.

Varig=IndianAirlines=Africanbanana airlines for reliability.
 
I always thought the MD products were well-engineered and durable.

Don't know why these MD11s are having problems.

However when I read the previous answer was Varig that left me suspicious of previous maintenance.

Varig=IndianAirlines=Africanbanana airlines for reliability.

Look at the horizontal on the MD-11 compared with teh DC-10. In order to save wieght they made it smaller. Yet the MD-11 is longer in length and wingspan, you have to wonder what that does for pitch stability. Three crashes where the MD-11 flipped on it's back while attempting to land.

Douglas at one time did make well engineered and durable aircraft. Just look at all the DC-3, DC-8 and DC-9's still flying around.

However the MD-11 is an example of what happens when a company tries to build an aircraft on the cheap. They could have made it with FBW controls along with a new wing. Unforanetly they tacked on winglets on the old DC-10 wing and thought that would do. The perfromance shortfalls proved otherwise. Then there were the relaiblity issues with the aircraft. Those two things conspired to effectivley kill the MD-11 in the market place.

The MD-90 is another example. If they had done that program right IMO Douglas would still be around.
 
Look at the horizontal on the MD-11 compared with teh DC-10. In order to save wieght they made it smaller. Yet the MD-11 is longer in length and wingspan, you have to wonder what that does for pitch stability.
I did not know that. That is interesting.

I thought the MD-11 was basically a DC-10 hull with the flight engineer built into the upgraded avionics package.
 
I did not know that. That is interesting.

I thought the MD-11 was basically a DC-10 hull with the flight engineer built into the upgraded avionics package.

The fuselage was stretched out 22 feet and the wingspan increased by about five feet with the addition of winglets. When the MD-11 entered service Douglas was left scrambling to make up for the perfromance short falls. They instituted PIP, Performance Improvement Program. How ever by then it was to little to late. The real killer happened when Singapore cancelled their order.

What might have been I guess. Unfortanetly the McDonnel mafia in St Louis never wanted to spend the money necessary on the commercial side. The rest is history.
 
To compare....any idea what the hull loss rate was on the 1011 - which I think had about 250 manufactured. I can think of two write-offs offhand; TW843 in 1992 at JFK and TW778(?) operating LAS-JFK in the late 90s landed short and damaged the rear pressure bulkhead resulting in a hull write off.

Any others?
Delta 191 and Eastern 401