Midsized longhaul widebodies

I’m also not sure of the benefit of the wing spans….you’re comparing Apples and Pears because each aircraft has a wing design based on the individual aircraft, so I’m not sure why we need this information. Payload, range, seat/mile costs, runway performance, purchase price, availability etc are probably better comparitors.

Wing design is a thing which is relatively hard to change, seeing how Boeing 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 have exact same wing but were able to tweak much else.

Also note that the wingspans of A340, Il-96 and B-777 are within 80 cm of each other, and 8…9 m longer than MD-11. Not a coincidence, I suspect: they are all designed to be slightly but not much bigger than 747 Classic wingspan of 59,6 m. This also means that they are all too big for airports built to fit DC-10-30…

And consider how DC-10-30 has larger wing than MD-11 at 368 sq m.

The MD approach was to increase wing loading by making the wing slimmer even while MTOW was increased, thus forcing high-speed approaches, cutting down tailplane size and sacrificing longitudinal stability – all of it with the aim to save cruise drag. Whereas Boeing designed a huge wing for 777 compared to MD-11 wing.

How did Boeing 777 avoid a drag penalty for a big wing? And which approach worked – the MD-11 one or the B-777 one?

Surprised you lot haven’t blew your tops yet like you usually do with other members when they ask similar questions :rolleyes: :diablo: ;).

Perhaps you mean me? I haven’t been on for months….but hold my hands up at having a slight urge to blow my top at chornedsnorkack’s when he/she posts questions like this……I especially love the bit half way down the thread where he/she goes on to inform us of the wing sizes…..although usually this would come in the question as a statement. I’m also not sure of the benefit of the wing spans….you’re comparing Apples and Pears because each aircraft has a wing design based on the individual aircraft, so I’m not sure why we need this information. Payload, range, seat/mile costs, runway performance, purchase price, availability etc are probably better comparitors.

In fairness to chornedsnorkack, this is more of a question than I usually flip at, as normally they are merely statements drawn from vast wikipedia searches, and then we’re expected to comment as if there is actually a question.

Ok, rant over. I think the 777 is the best ‘cos it is…no…wait, maybe the MD-11 ‘cos it’s better looking…..no…wait, I like the A340 more, except that I didn’t like the air conditioning on one of them that Gulf Air operate….so therefore that must leave the Ilyushin…except it’s Russian….so I can’t think that’s best…..oh, I’m confused :confused:

In what respect would you like to know which is best chornedsnorkack?

BA clearly think that the 777 is best..for THEIR needs. Air France are a little undecided, as are KLM. For Lufthansa they think the A340 is best for THEIR needs, whilst Aeroflot likes them cheap (i.e. without import tax) and also has to shake hands under the table, so they like the Ilyushin….but are not that disillushioned, so have in the past also liked the 777. The problem is there are a LARGE number of factors which determine why one is better than the other to any airline, and I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to actually single out (on here anyway) which one is best, because whilst one may appear technically superior in one area, that may be offset by something else, or simply a better financial or support deal, which may offset marginally higher operating costs over the life of the airframe. Delivery times and general availability may be big influencing factors. It’s a complicated area.

Let’s not forget that the A330-300 has a MTOW not far off the IL-96’s, and has a much greater seating capacity, and for shorter range long haul routes should perhaps also be considered.

I stand corrected, thanks.

You have shown that the MD-11 is even crappier than I thought. Not only is the tail smaller, but the wing also. No wonder it handles so poorly.

I never argued the MD-11 wing is smaller than the DC-10, in fact I think it is slightly bigger with the winglets. The wing loading is a lot higher though.

I do argue it. Sure, MD-11 wing is slightly longer, but it is also so much narrower that it has smaller area and higher loading.

DC-10-30 span 50,4 m, area 368 sq m, mean chord about 7,3 m
MD-11 span 51,7 m, area 339 sq m, mean chord about 6,6 m.

The tailplane on the MD-11 is so much smaller to save fuel (less drag). In terms of span only, the MD-11 H.S. span is 59′ 2″ (18m) versus 71′ 2″ (21.69m) for the DC-10.

I never argued the MD-11 wing is smaller than the DC-10, in fact I think it is slightly bigger with the winglets. The wing loading is a lot higher though.

The MD-11 is definitely difficult to handle, based on the direct input I have received from 30plus years Airline Captains.

The MD-11 horizontal stabilizer has only 59% the wetted area of the DC-10 even though the airplane is 20 feet longer and weighs from 40-100,000 lbs more. McD designed a longitudinal stability augmentation system which some pilots feel is poorly designed (it trims the stabilizer with no indication to the pilot flying).

DC-10-30 has 50,4 m wingspan, and 368 sq m wing area.

Why does MD-11 have so much smaller wing and tailplane?

Didn’t an empty IL-96 on a positioning flight crash at Domedovo a few years back? Or am I thinking of an IL-86?

Il-96 has no crashes at all

Yes, but there are only a few dozen Il-96s in operation, vs several hundred each of 777s, A340s & MD-11s.

Which is best? How long is a piece of string?

Aesthetically, I like the Il-96, & I like stretched/modernised aircraft, so I like the MD-11 too.

A one word (or numeric) answer for me,

777

The MD-11 is definitely difficult to handle, based on the direct input I have received from 30plus years Airline Captains.

The MD-11 horizontal stabilizer has only 59% the wetted area of the DC-10 even though the airplane is 20 feet longer and weighs from 40-100,000 lbs more. McD designed a longitudinal stability augmentation system which some pilots feel is poorly designed (it trims the stabilizer with no indication to the pilot flying).

I’ve posted about this before but I don’t have the link handly. There will be more MD-11 landing accidents.

If they were ‘liable’ to have accidents MD-11’s wouldn’t be in the air, but there’s certainly some truth that many pilots found them to be more difficult to handle than the DC-10.

Paul

Well, having a look at crash records…

MD-11 has lost 3 frames through botched approaches:
Fedex Flight 14 in Newark, 1997
China Airlines Flight 642 in Hong Kong, 1999
Fedex Flight 87 in Subic Bay, 1999

A340-300 has had 1 botched approach – AF A340 in Toronto, 2005.

Il-96 has no crashes at all, and the only 777 crash (BA in Heathrow) was due to double engine failure well up in air.

Could it be that the airframe design of MD-11 makes it liable to bad landings? Or are those 3 (and lack of similar accidents with 777) a mere coincidence?

small tailplane and rear CoG is allegedly liable to cause poor stability, such that MD-11 is liable to accidents due to botched high-speed approaches.

If they were ‘liable’ to have accidents MD-11’s wouldn’t be in the air, but there’s certainly some truth that many pilots found them to be more difficult to handle than the DC-10.

Paul

I have seen accusations that MD-11 is hard to handle.

The grounds:
the small wing leads to high wing loading
this combined to allegedly comparatively feeble high-lift devices leads to high takeoff and approach speeds

small tailplane and rear CoG is allegedly liable to cause poor stability, such that MD-11 is liable to accidents due to botched high-speed approaches.

Is there any truth to this?

Surprised you lot haven’t blew your tops yet like you usually do with other members when they ask similar questions :rolleyes: :diablo: ;).

You lot? don’t tar me with the same brush as those other lot 😉

Surprised you lot haven’t blew your tops yet like you usually do with other members when they ask similar questions :rolleyes: :diablo: ;).

Maybe we’ve grown up? :p

Definitely the 777-200.. all the other “wimps” need winglets to fly:dev2: 🙂 :dev2: :dev2: (and it has a far superior cup indent on the seatback tray in economy)

Surprised you lot haven’t blew your tops yet like you usually do with other members when they ask similar questions :rolleyes: :diablo: ;).

No, the Boeing 777 is best because it’s got the friendliest smile and the firmest handshake.

The MD-11 is best because it’s fitted out with brass plated fittings in the toilet

And your point is what exactly, chornedsnorkack? :confused: