Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	McDonnell Douglas MD-11 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Since MD doesnt exist anymore anyway, could someone please disclose what the performance shortfalls were? It seems quite of interest currently because the new airbus 380 is rumoured to have similar problems facing it......

MD is still around as part of Boeing. The article says the MD-11 didn't meet targets for range and fuel burn. There needs to be a reference for that statement though.. -Fnlayson 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanker section

Tanker Program is NOT NPOV: The language and tone of this section is definately not NPOV. --Tarpy 14:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It is a lot of speculation at the least. -Fnlayson 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MDC Boeing did provide retrofit kits which addressed some of the problems by reducing drag, especially around the engine pylons for the wingmounts. But by then the commercial damage was done. Overall the MD-11 was more suited to higher weight and shorter range operations as flown by freight carriers. The range and fuel burn problems were a direct result of using the DC-10 wing layout to save money at MDC. Later freight buyers such as Lufthansa Cargo would have added more newbuilds if the line was still going as it makes an excellent hauler for them. That's another pointer towards the KC-11 being a strong contender against the big twins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.42.212 (talk • contribs) .

Well, a KC-11 would be a fine tanker no doubt, but one in the "extra large" category, even larger that KC-10. Not a successor for the mid-sized KC-135.

Ok, I do agree with Boeing pushing its 767 against the MD-11. It is not a point of view nor an opinion that Boeing has not been a fan of the MD-11 but a fact. One major reason (out of many others) for Boeing's purchase of MDC was to shut down the MD-11 in order to sell more 777s. The MD-11 was not a huge threat, however Boeing did it anyway. Also, on many occasions the 767 has been heavily pushed for the tanker program. One executive was fired for taking bribes for this. The list goes on and on. Lufthansa and Fedex wanted more freighters late 1999, yet Boeing insisted on closing the production line. The Md-11 and DC-10 were the flagship of MDC and caused great pains at Boeing for over 3 decades. Getting rid of it was a combination of all these factors. Therefore I think the claims presented in the paragraph are sound and the tag needs to be removed, however I also think the paragraph should be worded differently to not sound so speculative. --Bangabalunga 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

With the way it is worded now I'm inclined to want to remove the Neutrality tag. It could use a cite or two would help. Anybody want the NPOV tag to stay? -Fnlayson