PC/WI 4 Engine Stretched DC-10 variant?

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
With a pre-1970's pod, how plausible would it be for McDonnell Douglas to invest further finance to develop a stretch to the air frame of the DC-10 to compete directly with the Boeing 747 in capacity and range?

When I specify further development, I'm thinking of in terms of Airbus's development of the A330/A340 series which share a common fuselage but have different wings.

Would this be plausible?

How many sales could this achieve from the 747?

Regards filers.
 
Sure, MD might have built a 4-engines variant of the DC-10 or MD-11 but it was a limited market.

Remember that 3-engined and 3-crewed airliners were just one step in the development towards modern twin-engined airliners flown by only two pilots.

Back in the good old days (1930s and 1940s) long-range airliners needed four engines just to loft huge amounts of fuel. Alex piston-engines needed flight engineers to coddle them and balance the massive amounts of fuel, pressurization systems, etc. Celestial navigation required drifted navigators, etc.

Once jet engines had proven reliable enough, civil aviation authorities allowed airlines to replace 4-engines airliners flying the longest routes. Trinkets were just a short, intermediate stage in the development. Now twin-engines jets routinely fly over the North Pole with Extended Twin Engined Operations certification. Twins routinely fly more than 90 minutes from alternate airports.

Now FADEC has replaced flight engineers, GPS has replaced navigators, etc. airlines can reduce the number of crew members and the number of unions.
 
The selling point of the DC-10 and L-1011 over the 747 was one less engine, which meant less maintenance/lower operating cost. I'd have to check, but I believe Trippe of Pan Am did approach Douglas about his jumbo project and they didn't bite.

In any case, going up to 4 engines is the wrong direction. Down to two would be the way to go and had that been done early enough in the 1970s, you'd have a 777 type airplane a decade or more earlier as well as a 767 program that would have sold far fewer airframes. The basic DC-10 airframe was quite robust and is still flying cargo today. Easy to imagine a modernized 2 engine DC-10 variant still flying today, much the same way the DC-9 variant MD-88/90 is still in service.

If you really want a 4-engine DC-10 variant, perhaps Douglas does 4, 3 and 2 engine variants for various niches. A 4 engine stretch (and it would need a stretch for additional fuel) for transoceanic, the 3 for overwater (i.e. Hawaii, Caribbean) and the 2 for domestic. I don't believe the GE CF-6 engine could have supported a 2 engine airplane at program inception, but a shorter fuselage/lower weight version might. In any case, the engines weren't far away that would make it work.
 
With a pre-1970's pod, how plausible would it be for McDonnell Douglas to invest further finance to develop a stretch to the air frame of the DC-10 to compete directly with the Boeing 747 in capacity and range?

When I specify further development, I'm thinking of in terms of Airbus's development of the A330/A340 series which share a common fuselage but have different wings.

Would this be plausible?

How many sales could this achieve from the 747?

Regards filers.

The DC-10 and L1011 were built for different uses then the 747. The 747 was limited in certain markets that had high passenger demand. The east coast NY, LGA was a prime market. It not to say they did not have other uses. TWA had high traffic from NYC west in the summer and Eastern had high traffic in the winter north to south. At one point they were switched to save money.

Also who is going to buy the plane. MD-11 was an updated DC-10 and it was worse in every way.
 
If you really want a 4-engine DC-10 variant, perhaps Douglas does 4, 3 and 2 engine variants for various niches. A 4 engine stretch (and it would need a stretch for additional fuel) for transoceanic, the 3 for overwater (i.e. Hawaii, Caribbean) and the 2 for domestic. I don't believe the GE CF-6 engine could have supported a 2 engine airplane at program inception, but a shorter fuselage/lower weight version might. In any case, the engines weren't far away that would make it work.

Douglas did a lot of studies, and some designs, for a two-engine DC-10. I think the only reason they didn't go forward with it was a lack of funds to do it(and later, the fact Airbus and Boeing had already taken over that market).
 
With a pre-1970's pod, how plausible would it be for McDonnell Douglas to invest further finance to develop a stretch to the air frame of the DC-10 to compete directly with the Boeing 747 in capacity and range?

When I specify further development, I'm thinking of in terms of Airbus's development of the A330/A340 series which share a common fuselage but have different wings.

Would this be plausible?

How many sales could this achieve from the 747?

Regards filers.

a330 / a 340 wing is more common than you;d think - one of the reasons the A330 is so 'easy' to adapt into a 2 point hose and drogue refuler
 
Sure, MD might have built a 4-engines variant of the DC-10 or MD-11 but it was a limited market.

Remember that 3-engined and 3-crewed airliners were just one step in the development towards modern twin-engined airliners flown by only two pilots.

<snip>

3 engines only made sense before ETOPS ...
 
Top