- This topic has 19 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Looking for some images recently, I came across a few images of the possible DC-10 Twin that never came to fruition. I couldn’t help it wonder if things would’ve turned out completely different had Douglas opted for two engines instead of three for the DC-10, or even released a twin version after Airbus had firmed up the design and configuration of the A300 in the early 70’s.
I know things really changed after Douglas merged with McDonnell right around the time of the DC-10 entry into service, I’m not sure of the exact year, and they never really invested in any new projects. Everything that came out after the DC-10 was a derivative, from the MD-80 to the MD-11.
What do you guys think? Would Douglas be around today if the DC-10 Twin was actually released and sold like hotcakes?
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFOAhmed, McDonnell Douglas is alive and struggling today! They took the name of Boeing. McDonnell successfully wrecked two of the best civil aircraft builders in the USA.
I’m too lazy to find it right now, but Brad built a great what if of the DC-10 Twin, it should be in the database. Would be a good add to the thread.
I don’t always say “Proceed as requested”
But when I do, it is because I have no clue what you just said.I think the DC-10 did ok as a trijet, partially because they went for GE and PW for the engines, which allowed them to have higher GW versions sooner than the Tristar did with the troublesome RR engines.
Not sure how a DC-10 twin would have done given that it was a shrink of a larger design versus a purpose-designed clean-sheet like the A300. A lot would have depended on how the two stacked up against one another, but my guess is that the A300 would have had better numbers on shorter routes.
A DC-10 twin might have discouraged Boeing from doing the 767 in that segment, who knows.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
You both have good points. McDonell Douglas is still alive as Boeing. They really haven’t done anything right since the merger, the 777 was the last great Boeing airplane. 🙂
I guess we can speculate as to what could’ve happened, but the playing field may have been drastically different today.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFOIIRC, there was serious interest from several non-US carriers, but without a US carrier wanting to commit, MDC tabled the Twin project. Which, of course, meant the A300 got a clear opening, and we all know the rest!
Jodie Peeler
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." - Sayre's Law
Speaking of DC-10s, The Sporty Game by John Newhouse is an excellent book on the competition between Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas with the L1011 and DC-10. I learned much about backroom wheeling and dealing from the book.
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
It would be interesting, if one could do a WhatIf DC-10 Twin model out of a regular DC-10 model.
Perhaps the aft section with the tailplane would be the most difficult part. What about the wings?
Which airline: United?
Hm. Interesting project.
Greetings
Uwe
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Sure would make for an interesting model. Just a little shorter than the DC-10, but pretty much everything else the same. For the tail, you can just extrapolate down to where it would meet the fuselage. Nonetheless, that might be the biggest challenge.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFOYeah, it would be a cool model to try and make. Anyone have ideas on what the dimensions could have been? I’m tempted to hack a Hasegawa kit… 🙂
George
AKL NZWell, it would be a flight of fancy, so nobody can pick on the length of the fuselage. I would remove 2-3 windows ahead and aft of the wing. That should make it about right.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFO
Done by Brad.
I don’t always say “Proceed as requested”
But when I do, it is because I have no clue what you just said.Ok. So the challenge starts ….
If I would take Brads example, I can see beside the lengh of the fuselage he modified the wings and the tailplane, which is higher than the “rest” above the engine. Could be a 777 tailplane could help. But the wing….hm.
Found that, not sure if it is proufed…
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Thanks Uwe! Very interesting. That wing looks very different, more L-1011ish than a DC-10 wing.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFOI’m very late to the topic, but I found these specs on the DC-10 Twin in my files. It’s from Interavia, ’73. Very good on the fuselage length, Ahmed! It’s six frames shorter.
Judging from the DC-10 ACAPS, the vertical tail would have been basically identical in height to the original DC-10. The span is odd, though; it’s about halfway between a -10 and a -30, which rather begs the question of why they’d make the change at all, since it was boasting about the high commonality between the Twin and the -10 (93%) and -30 (90%).
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Thanks @acapsreader! Some very good info. That is strange with the wingspan, should’ve just kept it the same as the -30 series. I’m really tempted to try this conversion now.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFOI recently ran across this thread and have also been thumbing through Terry Waddington’s McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Great Airliners book. There are 12 pages of different “what -if” DC-10 designs. Prior to the DC-10 there was a triple decker D-918 to complete with the 747. The D-956-13 was a double decker that looked like a cross between a Globemaster and 747. the DC-10-84 was a widebody version of the DC-8 powered by JT9Ds. The J-2 version of the 968 looks like a twin engine 747 with the cockpit over the first class cabin. LOTS of ideas and modelling possibilities.
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I don’t think I’m the one to do it but the DC-10-84 could be a fun build. Use a 1/100 scale DC8 fuselage and 1/144 scale DC8 or 747 wings and engines. 1/144 scale window decals. Thomas Lewis made some funny looking regional jet L1011’s using 1/200 kits and 1/144 scale windows.
Ken
The DC-10-84 was a widebody version of the DC-8 powered by JT9Ds.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
What would a widebody version of a DC-8 even look like? It would need a new wing in all likelihood, so what part of the original would remain?
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
As I mentioned earlier there are pages of drawings in the book for for DC-10 variants. Here’s the wide-body DC-8. Just a painting and said to be a stopgap effort to compete with the 747 by offering the same number of seats. What a beast 🙂 I don’t think any parts would remain from the original other than the basic design only BIGGER. Makes me think that using 1/144 landing gear on a 1/100 fuselage would be a really odd way to force perspective that it wasn’t a “normal” model.
Ken
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
As I mentioned earlier there are pages of drawings in the book for for DC-10 variants. Here’s the wide-body DC-8. Just a painting and said to be a stopgap effort to compete with the 747 by offering the same number of seats. What a beast ???? I don’t think any parts would remain from the original other than the basic design only BIGGER. Makes me think that using 1/144 landing gear on a 1/100 fuselage would be a really odd way to force perspective that it wasn’t a “normal” model.
Ken
That looks like a blend of an DC-8 and an A380…. Yuck!!
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.