Ummmm....seeing as it's an undewhelming A350, they won't give you a JFK report....only DTW. 😁

The problem with the MD11 was, it was 100,000lbs heavier than the DC10, but used the same wing, plus the winglets and the center gear. It was a pig when you filled it up with people and gas. We would leave ATL for NRT at MGTW and could only climb to FL280 until we burned off enough gas to climb, which took about 3 hours. It was burning a lot more fuel than the advertised number, AA even sued MD over the higher fuel burns and won.


To get the fuel burn down MD installed that moving CG thing I talked about, where the fuel would be moved aft into the horizontal stabilizer, to move the CG back to 32 for cruise, which was supposed to be the best aerodynamic CG. The problem with that was, now it was less stable, so they had to add on the LSAS to help keep it under control at altitude. It flew ok as long as you didn't exceed the +/- 2lbs of stick pressure and waited for the auto trim to catch up, but if you weren't gentle, you'd get into a PIO and then hold on!:eek:

You tell them you are not in a position to make that flight. You have no obligation to be within 12 hours of your base on a day off. If they are desperate, they might offer you positive space on the first available flight.

Day care, alcohol consumption, and out of position are all valid reasons to decline an assignment. Many of these issues are covered very well in the Scheduling Reference Handbook on your tablet.

Yikes. I also recall the feds saying the APU could not be used with fuel in the horizontal stabilizer unless someone was in the cockpit to monitor (due to lack of shielding). That was AA as I recall. Maybe it was just urban legend. Also heard there was a MX function that would shut down the avionics after a certain period. I just happened to be when on the return trip from NRT. Maybe another urban legend. More great MD engineering if true.

It sounds like it's time for a "When the MD-11 was new..."

1990 Promo Video

https://youtu.be/HML-cWNoLu4

Why couldn't they just install a flap connected to a series of levers and pulleys that actuates a metal finger to reset the avionics CB in the E&E compartment?

Think someone gave Mike Tyson a leg going into KLAX one morning.

Wonder why they didn't use the Airbus approach. When I ham fist that thing it just says "nope" and continues doing whatever it wanted to do in the first place.

Hope they stick a Douglas Heading Knob in a museum. That thing is an absolute work of a genius.

Douglas products (the MD11 and the 717) have taught me that their engineers had nothing but utter disdain for the input of pilots.

The biggest landing mistake you could make in that thing was to get a little slow below 100' and then lower the nose to try to get the speed back, then try to flare. That would guarantee you a hard landing! That, and pulling the power off too soon in the flare.

It just didn't have enough wing to give you much ground effect/float in the flare, a lot like a 727. Some guys would keep the power up on 1+3, and just pull back #2 in the flare, which would also pitch the nose up just a little bit and you could still push 1+3 up if you needed some last second airspeed.

It and the MD88 are just a DC10 and a DC9 that have been stretched and over-weighted on the same -too short- wing, oh, and had an FMS shoved up their butts too!

Is it any wonder they ain't quite right?:eek::D

This thread unofficially changed to “The Underwhelming MD 11” or
“Even More Underwhelming MD Engineering”