Shipbucket
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/

FD AU 3
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5291
Page 89 of 107

Author:  Rainmaker [ September 19th, 2017, 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

A fun project which kept me busy for an afternoon - what if McDonnell-Douglas had introduced an MD-11 Twin in the early to mid 1990s to compete with the Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 777-200? This concept is derived from the original DC-10 Twin concept but applied to the stretched MD-11 "Super 60" proposal. The result is a ETOPS-certified twin jet with seating for 350-400 passengers. Range would need to be somewhere between five and six thousand nautical miles in order to be competitive with Airbus and Boeing products.

BB1987, I hope you're okay with me mashing together your fine drawings. Many thanks!

[ img ]

Author:  odysseus1980 [ September 19th, 2017, 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

This could be a good idea. Nice drawning also.

Author:  adenandy [ September 19th, 2017, 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

GOOD effort Rainmaker. Jolly well done old sausage :)

Author:  BB1987 [ September 19th, 2017, 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

Looks cool, and a pretty interesting what-if model. If you like some suggestions, I'd personally try to implement some more of the aerodynamic improvements of the MD-11 (maybe except of the reduced horizontal stabilizer which made it much faster and tricky to be handled during landing).

The only true quibble might be that it probably need more powerful engines, like those of the A330 or the 777 (the latter more ideal given the plane size). Yet possibly only the RR ones for the A330 would be available for the early 90s.

Author:  trexslee [ September 19th, 2017, 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

Rainmaker wrote: *
A fun project which kept me busy for an afternoon - what if McDonnell-Douglas had introduced an MD-11 Twin in the early to mid 1990s to compete with the Airbus A330-300 and Boeing 777-200? This concept is derived from the original DC-10 Twin concept but applied to the stretched MD-11 "Super 60" proposal. The result is a ETOPS-certified twin jet with seating for 350-400 passengers. Range would need to be somewhere between five and six thousand nautical miles in order to be competitive with Airbus and Boeing products.

BB1987, I hope you're okay with me mashing together your fine drawings. Many thanks!

[ img ]
Wow! This looks nice!
(UPDATE) Hey guys, would any of you like to make a hypothetical stretched 550 passenger 747-9X and/or perhaps even a slightly widened 650+ passenger 747-10X?

Author:  Hood [ September 20th, 2017, 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

It looks good.
I would be tempted to make the wing roots a little more aerodynamic perhaps.

Author:  Toxic Loki [ September 21st, 2017, 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

More stuffs:
[ img ]

Author:  Rainmaker [ September 21st, 2017, 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

BB1987 wrote: *
Looks cool, and a pretty interesting what-if model. If you like some suggestions, I'd personally try to implement some more of the aerodynamic improvements of the MD-11 (maybe except of the reduced horizontal stabilizer which made it much faster and tricky to be handled during landing).

The only true quibble might be that it probably need more powerful engines, like those of the A330 or the 777 (the latter more ideal given the plane size). Yet possibly only the RR ones for the A330 would be available for the early 90s.
Noted - I'll look into the aerodynamics as you mentioned. Can you expand on the improvements McDonnell-Douglas made on the MD-11 vis-a-vis the DC-10?

Engine choice was based on what was available for the time for the 767-300ER which entered Service in 1988, which would probably be the most comparable to, albeit smaller and lighter than our hypothetical MD-11 twin. As you say, RR Trent 700s are also a viable option which I'll have to look into.

I imagine MD introducing this instead of the MD-11 trijet in the 1990-1991 timeframe. I think that two variants might be in order, a smaller MD-11-sized variant with increased range as well as this variant which might be underpowered as-is but could benefit from the improved engines available in the mid-90s.
Hood wrote: *
It looks good.
I would be tempted to make the wing roots a little more aerodynamic perhaps.
Agreed! This was a pretty quick cut and paste job and I'd like to go back and refine it further. In fact I'd like to move the entire wing section forward to offset the weight reduction from the lost #2 engine. I think that would help to make this design look more balanced overall.

Author:  BB1987 [ September 21st, 2017, 7:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

Rainmaker wrote: *
BB1987 wrote: *
Looks cool, and a pretty interesting what-if model. If you like some suggestions, I'd personally try to implement some more of the aerodynamic improvements of the MD-11 (maybe except of the reduced horizontal stabilizer which made it much faster and tricky to be handled during landing).

The only true quibble might be that it probably need more powerful engines, like those of the A330 or the 777 (the latter more ideal given the plane size). Yet possibly only the RR ones for the A330 would be available for the early 90s.
Noted - I'll look into the aerodynamics as you mentioned. Can you expand on the improvements McDonnell-Douglas made on the MD-11 vis-a-vis the DC-10?
Here are some possibilities: https://i.imgur.com/vSucGYl.png
Rainmaker wrote: *
Engine choice was based on what was available for the time for the 767-300ER which entered Service in 1988, which would probably be the most comparable to, albeit smaller and lighter than our hypothetical MD-11 twin. As you say, RR Trent 700s are also a viable option which I'll have to look into.

I imagine MD introducing this instead of the MD-11 trijet in the 1990-1991 timeframe. I think that two variants might be in order, a smaller MD-11-sized variant with increased range as well as this variant which might be underpowered as-is but could benefit from the improved engines available in the mid-90s.
I can imagine, the lack of adequate engines is a bit of an issue when tyring to turn the MD-11 into a what-if twinjet, an entry into service pushed back to 1993 would made available all other engine choices of the A330 (the more powerful PW and GE turbofans), but that might affect sales, unless MD decided to sell only RR ones from 1991 to 1993 and then add the other two powerplants.
I think the idea of the shorter long-range version would be pretty interesting, I can imagine taking the planned DC-10-62 and giving it all the MD-11 improvements.

Author:  trexslee [ September 21st, 2017, 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: FD AU 3

Toxic Loki wrote: *
More stuffs:
[ img ]
I was actually expecting this to be a stretch like the 747-600X but with newer and more powerful yet more fuel efficient engines. But this is good too. And would you like to make a stretched and full length double decker 280+ foot long 747-11X with a 250+ foot foldable wingspan and engines developed for the 777-200LR and 777-300ER?

Page 89 of 107 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/