• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Twin-engined DC-10 project

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,695
Reaction score
3,482
Hi,

the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Twin was twin engined airliner project.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%201582.html?search=curve%20wing%20project
 

Attachments

  • DC-10 Twin.JPG
    DC-10 Twin.JPG
    38.2 KB · Views: 513

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
Performance approximately equivalent to an A300 with the lower hold stuffed with wet sacks of cement.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
932
Just another picture from Aviation Week 1972 :
 

Attachments

  • DC-10Twin.jpg
    DC-10Twin.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 418

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,290
Reaction score
1,246
LowObservable said:
Performance approximately equivalent to an A300 with the lower hold stuffed with wet sacks of cement.

I don't know about that. The article has a table comparing the DC-10 Twin and the A300B4. The weights and thrust are very similar, with the DC-10 Twin having a much lower wing loading.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
687


In the early 1970s, MDC also saw the benefits of two engines, and came up with a fairly simple solution – a DC-10 with a slightly shortened fuselage and the centre engine eliminated. Dubbed rather logically the “DC-10 Twin”, this airliner could arguably have stopped the Airbus A300 in its tracks – had the threat of the European twinjet been taken seriously at the time – but it posed a danger to the existing DC-10-10 trijet.The DC-10 Twin had a range of 4,000km with a load of 236 passengers, and an in-service target of 1975. However the company dithered over the decision to launch and never gave the Twin the go-ahead. Although the DC-10 became the benchmark long-haul airliner in its category, MDC had to sit by and watch the A300B4 mop up all the short-haul widebody business in the late 1970s. The concept of a twinjet derivative of the DC-10 and later MD-11 were revisited several times during the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, but none made it off the drawing board.
Source: Flight International - Clipped wings 20/12/05
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
26
Not just that, it would have ultimately beaten Airbus entirely with the idea of commonality. The DC-10 and the DC-10 twin would have had almost the same cockpits (except engine instruments and throttle, two instead of three) and would have required little transition time from one type to the next.

Kendra Lesnick
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
Not sure about all that... although it would be interesting to look at the claimed performance numbers.

Logically, compared with the A300 - which had a wing sized for fairly short sectors but eventually was developed in the high-gross B4 version to accomplish the key US transcon mission - the DC-10 Twin would have had a larger, heavier wing (sized for the trijet) and bigger tail (relatively shorter body, since it was 9x versus 8x, and a bigger wing) and everything else, like the main LG, would be heavier unless it was made less common. So you'd expect a higher OEW and given the same thrust, less performance.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
26
Wouldn't the DC-10 twin carry substantially less fuel as it would only need to fuel two engines?

KJ
 

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
KJ_Lesnick said:
Wouldn't the DC-10 twin carry substantially less fuel as it would only need to fuel two engines?

KJ

With a lower gross weight and only two engines, it could potentially achieve a range extension over the standard DC-10 if it carried the same amount of fuel.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
But then it would have to get off the ground with the same fuel load, with the same wing, half as much thrust in the critical one-engine-inoperative case and a more asymmetric thrust balance.
 

KJ_Lesnick

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
26
Yeah, but it was using the 51,000 lbf CF-6 models while the DC-10-10's which often flew the short range routes only produced between 40,000 lbf and 41,500 lbf. That combined with the lower fuel requirements to only fuel two engines, the smaller shorter fuselage and the need to carry less passengers should be do-able.

Am I wrong?


Kendra Lesnick
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
In the OEI case you had 51,000 pounds versus 80,000 pounds thrust, and worse asymmetry. And in the cruise given constant sfc and similar thrust, two engines will burn as much fuel as three.
The problem with such drastic cut-down surgery is that (like the 747SP) it is hard to get rid of all the weight that was associated with the original, heavier aircraft without losing the commonality that was the whole point of the exercise to start with. I suspect that, had the DC-10 Twin ever happened, it would have ended up as a very different aircraft.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,465
Reaction score
196
Flug Revue July 1977
 

Attachments

  • Twin DC-10.jpg
    Twin DC-10.jpg
    237.6 KB · Views: 342

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
512
Greetings All -

If only MDC had gone forward with this...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/McDonnel-Douglas-DC-10-Twin-1972-The-plane-that-was-never-built-Design-Catalog-/200784019801?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ebfa90159

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Pics.
 

Attachments

  • 100_8614.JPG
    100_8614.JPG
    30 KB · Views: 79
  • 100_8613.JPG
    100_8613.JPG
    35.9 KB · Views: 71
  • 100_8611.JPG
    100_8611.JPG
    43.4 KB · Views: 74
  • 100_8610.JPG
    100_8610.JPG
    27.7 KB · Views: 208
  • 100_8609.JPG
    100_8609.JPG
    29.1 KB · Views: 207
  • 100_8608.JPG
    100_8608.JPG
    27 KB · Views: 206
  • 100_8607.JPG
    100_8607.JPG
    35.9 KB · Views: 214
  • 100_8606.JPG
    100_8606.JPG
    31 KB · Views: 284

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
512
Good Day All -

Came across this Interavia article while sorting out a donation to our Museum.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zIntroducing the Twin DC-10 - Interavia Feb-1973.jpg
    zIntroducing the Twin DC-10 - Interavia Feb-1973.jpg
    790.9 KB · Views: 166
Top