Originally Posted by 990Convair (Post 851099)

Looks like the MD had no trace of onboard fire prior to landing and that initial reports are a hard landing followed by nose gear failure.:(

Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 Crash Raises Issues | AVIATION WEEK

Originally Posted by FR8Hauler (Post 851136)

The Mad Dog is on its last gasps I am afraid to say...Be gone sooner than later is my somewhat educated guess. It is a sticky booger for the insurance companies.

Originally Posted by 990Convair (Post 851099)

Looks like the MD had no trace of onboard fire prior to landing and that initial reports are a hard landing followed by nose gear failure.

Originally Posted by 990Convair (Post 851099)

Looks like the MD had no trace of onboard fire prior to landing and that initial reports are a hard landing followed by nose gear failure.

Originally Posted by md11retiree (Post 851171)

[I loved flying the MD11 for twelve years and yes, you do get the occasional firm landing. Obviously, you get worse if you don't stay completely focused throughout the landing regime. Here's a question: could've all/most of the MD11 landing accidents been avoided if the landing gear was designed similar to the 747 or A330 trucks (four main trucks, consisting of two body gear and two wing gear)? I've heard 747 pilots consistently praise the landing performance of their jet and not the same from the MD11 crews. What's your opinion about the gear structure?

Originally Posted by MD11 (Post 851191)

A change in gear design from the 10-30 config would have required a complete structural change in the fuselage structure negating the savings of indroducing a new design based upon an old airframe. Remember the biggest aerodynamic change from the 10's to the 11's was the 30% reduction of the horiz stab. Higher than normal approach angles due to inaccurate wgts, could cause the horiz stab to be near its max aoa/push down force during landing. Add the final flare with a bit of wing aero shadowing and you don't get a tail stall but instead an instant reduction in push down resulting in a dramatic pitch over. The rebound after striking the nose gear starts a somewhat uncontrollable situation. I believe when fully configured and on vref, the pfd shouldn't be more than 7 degrees. If so, the aircraft was telling you that it was heavier than the fms calculations. The fms calc could be inaccurate due to the weight declared by the loaders.
I was involved(technically) in repairing structural damage to an -11 after a landing, nose rebound incident. In working with Boeing, whenever questions were asked about the stab, fuzzy non-answers were given. They really didn't want to talk about it.

Originally Posted by wldplt (Post 851218)

The question you're replying to was about the gear design on the -11, not the horizontal stab. Your scenario for a nose gear strike presupposes a situation where the aircraft is substantially heavier than advertised. I've worked the Lufthansa contract and I can assure you that if there is any freight operator in the world who would be least likely to make that mistake it is Lufthansa. Also, if you're grossly over planned weight you will get a heads up long before the approach in the form of increased fuel burn and inability to climb to your planned cruising altitude.

Originally Posted by MD11 (Post 851223)

I realize the original question was regarding the gear design... I offered information based upon experience on this airframe. I don't believe the gear has anything to do with the multitude of landing accidents.

Personal experience... HKG ramp folks have loaded cans heavier than documented.

Originally Posted by wldplt (Post 851239)

The flight originated in Frankfurt.