You also have to remember that the MD-11 was ahead of the B777 in terms of computer/systems integration. In fact, I believe the MD-11 is more Airbus-like in that regard.

Airbus-like when it comes to the number of computers, not when it comes to their performance. The MD11 arguably has poor stability in landing configuration. The natural stability of the airframe is limited due to limited stabilizer size. Now, an A330 has even less stabilizer (while you cannot compare it 1 on 1) and flies very good, I haven’t heard any complains yet.

MDD build an aircraft and applied lots of technology, but apparently the technology was slightly over their head. MDD dropped out of business for a reason.

If you go by the number hull loses divided by the total fleet you get the following:
MD-11: 200 Delivered, 5% of Fleet Written-Off
A320: 4236 Delivered, 0.28% of Fleet Written-Off
B737NG: 3311 Delivered, 0.27% of Fleet Written-Off

If you go by the number of hull loses divided by the years:
MD-11: 0.45 Accidents Per Year
A320: 0.54 Accidents Per Year
B737NG: 0.75 Accidents Per Year

Thanks for making the effort, but there are two accepted means of comparing safety records:
> hull loss accidents per million departures
> hull loss accidents per million flight hours
The latter one normally makes all long-range aircraft very safe. The hull loss per departure is the best measurement, as landing and take-off are the most critical phases.

The MD11 currently stands at 3 losses per 1 million departures, which is about 10-15 times worse than A330 and B777. The nature of its operation will always result in more crashes (cargo pilots behave like ****heads), but still it does not reason a magnitude more crashes.

EDIT: two MD11 hull loss events are not yet included, the one in Shanghai last year and the LH from Tuesday. The MD11 now should have topped the “4 per 1 million departures” and soon passes the B707.

[ATTACH]187218[/ATTACH]

Read more infos here:
http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
It’s from Boeing, they hold the type certificate of the MD11.

lets not widen the conversation too far. I’m talking MD-11, not DC-10. The horizontal stabilizer is too small, the LSAS trims the stabilizer without pilot input or knowledge, PIO occurs, hard landing ensues, landing gear breaks off and airplane rolls over and burns. Has happened too many times already (though not perhaps in this case, it looks like this may have been a fire in the cargo but we shall see). As unfairly maligned as the DC-10 was, the MD-11 has gotten a relative pass considering it absolutely malicious handling characteristics on landing. They really are two different airplanes. And all this has been said before on this forum.

There will be more MD-11 landing accidents/incidents.

I am generally on your side, but we have to admit that these hard landings correlate with the nature of the payload. Freighters have high landing weights. MD-11 not only have stability issues, they also feature approach speeds in lieu of fighter aircraft. That combined makes an ugly combination.

However, as long as it flies only boxes and the pilots are master of their own fate I see no reason for grounding these aircraft. We will see more landing accidents, but we will probably not see any casualties other than pilots (which were in all “typical” crashes responsible).

This is I think the only MD-11 hull loss that wasn’t caused by the MD-11.

The MiG-23P is also quite a useful aircraft. More cost-effective than the -25, but with better capabilities and still very good performance. The performance of the -25 is overated.

The Lightning sucks: no real radar, limited in number of weapons.

If I am informed correctly, USN carriers are equipped with torpedos themselves to defend against a torpedo attack.

Rolls makes great engines…and I understand pretty good cars (Yes, I know it’s a seperate company but same heritage). A friend has a nice Phantom II and I once drove a 1990s model…but I digress.

Actually, current cars branded “Rolls Royce” are largely made from BMW parts, at least as far as suspsion and engine is concerned. When you buy a Rolls Royce these days, you pretty much buy a 7er BMW with a Rolls Royce look (which is a good combination, as BMW is arguably on of the best car makers in the world).

——————–

I never understood why Boeing never does Flight Display. Airbus does it with any aircraft, even when they are in their flight test phase. Maybe someone saw the A380 on flying display, just impressive even when you have seen it a couple of times (like I did).

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nUPnnfXack&feature=related

It has EA-Engines, but the RR-version flies just as good.
And no, the aircraft is not specially modified for it. Any A380 could do it.

How did he get the nose gear around that pod again?

I do not think so, here is an original Time Magazine report from June 21, 1982 US edition, where they mention an air battle of 150 aircraft, 90 israeli and 60 Syrian, where it says Israel said to have put down 29 Syrian planes while losing none of its own planes and Syria only acknowledging losing 16 planes and knocking out 19 Israeli aircraft.
http://www.mia.org.il/articles.html
here is an ABC news report that says the same, Israel knocked out 29 Syrian planes for no loss of its own, Syria said 16 of its own airplanes shot down but knocking out 19 Israeli planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykNSpx1w9lA&feature=relatedthis ABC news report also has video of the captured Israeli A-4 pilot Aharon Ahiaz who was shot down on 6 June 1982 and also mentions at least two israeli pilots were shot down
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm
additional link
http://www.liberty05.com/civilwar/civi2.html

Ever thought about that sources from back then might be less reliable than stuff wrote 20 years later? I wouldn’t trust the German broadcasted news on the Battle of Stalingrad either (following the news back then, the second half of WW2 was a serious of highly successful defensive operations with tremenduous losses for the enemies, then war was over).
Even today, if you want to learn something about an event, stay away from the news for a week and then look what people write.

And: captured pilots are the most reliable source because they have the time to count the aircraft when hanging on their parachute. :rolleyes:

One major disadvantage the Syrians had was in AAMs. They were limited to tail chase, short range, IR guided AA-2 (Atoll) and AA-8 A(Aphid).

They had no BVR, radar guided AAMs at all. Not even the AA-7 (Apex) as their MiG-23s were the downgraded export versions. Their most capable asset was the MiG-25 (which had BVR missiles), but they didn’t use it over the Bekaa valley.

Their SAMs were the same as the 1973 war.

Basically, the Syrians were fighting the 1982 war with pretty much the same weapons as in 1973. While the Israelis had moved to the next generation.

While the Israelis hardly used the AIM-7 and even without it, the result wouldn’t have changed much. “BVR-weapons” are mostly “frontal-aspect” weapons, as soon as you have an all-aspect IR-AAM you rather stick to that. An AIM-7 maybe gives you a range advantage at low level, but again: visual identification was necessary most of the time.