At the very tail end of the clip you see the name "Douglas Aircraft Company" below the McDonnell Douglas name. Even after the two companies merged in 1967 to create McDonnell Douglas, they still existed as divisions of MDC.
It's an amazing aircraft, and beautiful at that. I flew on one in Finair livery back in 1994. I recently learned that Finair was the launching airline for the MD-11 passenger service. Back then I didn't think much of this airplane. I took the DC-10 for granted, and this new version with winglets looked a bit strange. I was even disappointed that it was not Boeing 747 I was going to fly. But it was then. Now, it's hard to believe that both DC-10 and MD-11 were retired from passenger service. To me personally, it's a second blow after the Concorde retirement. To put it short, 747 means nothing without the DC-10 or MD-11 by its side.
I set up that camera for the brake test ship 447 ...I was onboard for all flight testing phases at EAFB Ca. Yuma Az., Glasgow Mt. , Marana Az., & Moses lake Wa.
I really like this video. I also can't help but realize that many American aircraft manufacturers like MD and now Boeing, emphasize that despite all the automation and computers, the pilot still have full authority over the controls. Now, correct me if I am wrong, Airbus seem to have a different system whereby the automation overrides the pilots' command under some circumstances to reduce pilot error. This is quite interesting as there are advantages and disadvantages to the way that level of authority will have in the safety of the aircraft. Just a thought.
While there's some truth to this, I think the differences are overstated. Boeing FBW aircraft (777 and 787) have envelope protection like the Airbus does. While the Airbus won't let a pilot exceed some extreme attitudes, the Boeing will also resist them and there is no practical reason to ever have to exceed these limits. Pros and cons to both: The Boeing cockpit has a great layout and the heads up display is fantastic, and the Airbus sidestick is superior.
@@alhanes5803Probably the biggest advantage of the sidestick is how much room in front of the pilot it frees up. The autopilot is on for 98% of the flight and a yoke is in the way that entire time.
Well, the same people who run MD to the ground is now running Boeing which is how the 737MAX fiasco came to be, also fun fact, MD-11 actually have something similar to MCAS and have resulted few accident.
@@andreviana9677 Negativo, a história do MD-11 no Brasil começou em novembro e dezembro de 1991, quando chegaram as duas primeiras aeronaves (PP-VOP e -VOQ) da VARIG. Poucos meses depois, ou seja, em fevereiro e março de 1992, que a Vasp recebeu seus primeiros aviões do mesmo modelo (PP-SOW e -SOZ).
Why did it take them so long to catch up with the glass cockpit, and other technologies for the DC-10 successor, that Boeing already had with the Twin-jets 757 and 767 since the early 80s? The crazy thing was that the very first glass cockpit in American made jets was actually the MD-80 in 1982.
Flight deck commonality with the existing MD80/DC9 fleets. The MD-88 was the first “glass cockpit” from 1988, that allowed for easy cross training of existing non-glass MDs.
The winglets are a well-proven design? I should say so - just ask any eagle or vulture! This really is a most comprehensive promo - it's almost like a short familiarisation course. In my ignorance, I hadn't realised that the MD-11 was such a thorough upgrade over the DC-10. I only flew once in a DC-10 - from Heathrow to Kinshasa and thought the interior fittings rather cheap and tacky, as compared with a B-747. The KC-10 tankers - are they adapted from the DC-10 or the MD-11? Thanks, as always, for uploading.
MD-11 could've been a great aircraft if only McDonnell Douglas invested more in its product. The aircraft ended up being a flop when it first came out. It burned more fuel than promoted and it didn't meet its range targets. McDonnell Douglas lost a significant order from airlines such as Singapore Airlines and SAS, all of whom previously operated the DC-10. It's shame that the DC-10 lasted way longer and was even retire either the same time or later than the MD-11. American Airlines retired the DC-10 in 2000/2001 after operating the type since 1972 and the MD-11 in 2001 after operating it since 1991. Japan Airlines retired the MD-11 in 2004 and the DC-10 in 2005.. go figure. None the less, the MD-11 does look very sexy.
It really is a shame. If the MD-11 had lived on as long as the DC-10 did, they'd still be flying until 2030! Although it would have been very unlikely nonetheless since today's airliners are extremely advanced and cost a lot less to operate. Would still have been great if they had been kept at least 5-10 years longer.
I was assigned to first aircraft and went to Yuma the assigned to the second aircraft permanent test That tail strike was not a planned test it was caused by a aggressive Air Force pilot who over rotated and caused $300,000 damage to the rear bulkhead. Karl Hamilton
God damn, those cabin configurations... 2-2-2 in First, which looked bearable 2-3-2 in Business, which looked ridiculous 2-5-2 in Economy, which must have been absolutely dreadful for anybody in the middle seats. If any airlines actually used that seating configuration, then it's no wonder that the plane was a commercial failure.
This video starts with a mistake ...intentionally? "Very early in its history, McDonnell-Douglas established its reputation as a company that could deliver the products that airlines and passengers wanted to fly." do they say showing a DC-2. False : totally false!!! Talking of a McDonnell-Douglas DC-2 is like talking of a General Motors Studebaker or a Saturn Hupmobile. McDonnel had NOTHING to do with the DC-x (where x can be anything from 1 to 10). It is the same mistake as speaking of the McDonnell-Douglas F-101 Voodoo. The DC-2 was made by Douglas and the F-101 by McDonnell. Anyways : neither exist anymore. Oh! I forgot to tell you about the Boeing DC-3 Dakota!
I think you're missing the point, MD was appealing to the fact that the company was a merger between the two companies. The were trying to show that through the Douglas co. they had many years of experience in aircraft design. It is a shame the MD-11 has been relegated to cargo duty. It is a fantastic aircraft - if you look at the fuel burn figures vs acquisition cost it is a far better aircraft to operate than the 777 is, and even beats out a new 767.
The main reason for this is that, in the days they were conceived and built the international laws such as the 60-minute law were very limiting for twins. So tri-motors such as the DC-10, MC-11, Tristar, Trident, Tu-154 etc. were designed to compete against four-engines crafts. One less engine meant (they hoped) less fuel consumption and less maintenance. But Boeing was heavy enough to have a modification of the law approved after proving the reliability of the GE-90-equipped 777, a modification called ETOPS (Extended Twins OPerationS). Hence the decline of three-engined planes. And no : ETOPS does not mean Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming!
A very unfortunate part of the plane's history, but a very real one that deserves to be covered. The early DC-10s had bad cargo doors, which caused a couple decompressions at altitude and at least one crash, but it was the maintenance error that led to the 1979 crash that really hurt the plane, and that was not the fault of the designers or builders. The airlines had done things the manufacturer told them not to do in very strict terms. It did give Douglas a massive black eye, and they may have ended up getting bought out a decade or so later because of that. The "Death Capsule" or "Death Contraption" tag proved deadly to Douglas.
@@DEP717when it came to the crash in 1979, McDonnell Douglas was found to be at fault because the plane did not have adequate backup systems. An investigative reporter that was scheduled to be on Flight 191, decided to investigate the troubles that the DC-10 had at the time and he discovered that. McDonnell Douglas had an incentive program that paid bonuses for keeping costs down by any means necessary. They knowingly put a dangerous aircraft on the market. The F. A. A. Imposed fines and they were forced to do an almost complete re-design of the plane. In the 70's when you booked your flight, the aircraft type operating the service would be on your ticket. The investigative reporter, decided that the plane was too dangerous to fly on and he cancelled his reservation. That decision saved his life but he lost 3 colleagues. You can read the story in an archived issue of Chicago Magazine with the title ;" the ghosts of flight 191". American engaged in sloppy maintenance but if McDonnell Douglas had built the plane with adequate backup systems, those 273 people would not have died. It's public knowledge that McDonnell Douglas was skating on the edge of bankruptcy and they rushed the DC-10 into service in order to beat the Lockheed -1011 TriStar to market.
As nice of an airplane the MD-11 was, it was a mistake from the start. While Boeing was developing the 777, McDonnell Douglas just updated the DC-10 design rather than invest in the development of a whole new airplane...a business decision that was very short sighted and ultimately contributed to its demise.
yea the crt's were available at the late 70's with the new boieng 757, and from experience and logic theres no better pilot than the pilot itself, the computer is the last best pilot! just because it is not prepared for all scenerios and not so versatile such as if you are encountaring severe turbulance during approach or strong oposite wind changes (wind sheers) the autopilot and auto thrust do not respond in time to compansate on the loss \gain of airspeed, plus, it does not control the speed brake... todays AP systems still cannot manage a whole flight containing all scenerios, even on the new airbus models which are still the worst to fly on, sure they give a very fun flight but for safety, not so much since all systems are connected so if one part fails it immidatly effect the systems near it, i heard of the flight stick being broken and 4 airbus crashes due to the fact that they just didnt put an "full AP mechanical disconect" part for emergency and the pilot decide to go around for missing the runway\ bad weather while the autopilot was programmed by airbus to force land airplane by any mean, the poor pilots just did not know how to completely disconnect the autopilot. more than 400 lives were taken by airbus insecure cockpit\system planning, remember what they said about the dc-10 back at the times? this is now true for airbus.
Awesome! What a gorgeous airliner! The MD-11 was the DC-10's new lease on life.
Love this bird.... MD-11 ❤️
At the very tail end of the clip you see the name "Douglas Aircraft Company" below the McDonnell Douglas name. Even after the two companies merged in 1967 to create McDonnell Douglas, they still existed as divisions of MDC.
It's an amazing aircraft, and beautiful at that. I flew on one in Finair livery back in 1994. I recently learned that Finair was the launching airline for the MD-11 passenger service. Back then I didn't think much of this airplane. I took the DC-10 for granted, and this new version with winglets looked a bit strange. I was even disappointed that it was not Boeing 747 I was going to fly. But it was then. Now, it's hard to believe that both DC-10 and MD-11 were retired from passenger service. To me personally, it's a second blow after the Concorde retirement. To put it short, 747 means nothing without the DC-10 or MD-11 by its side.
Ah, those late-80's/early-90's synth-driven promo videos...
New version with clean cropping, corrected aspect ratio, and some improved colour.
is this Jackson McGowen speaking / narrating this? I enjoyed Honeywell guys but they seriously screwed the pooch on the VIA -11/-90/-95/717
The music from the beginning of this video is missing
it got copyrighted
I set up that camera for the brake test ship 447 ...I was onboard for all flight testing phases at EAFB Ca. Yuma Az., Glasgow Mt. , Marana Az., & Moses lake Wa.
I really like this video. I also can't help but realize that many American aircraft manufacturers like MD and now Boeing, emphasize that despite all the automation and computers, the pilot still have full authority over the controls. Now, correct me if I am wrong, Airbus seem to have a different system whereby the automation overrides the pilots' command under some circumstances to reduce pilot error. This is quite interesting as there are advantages and disadvantages to the way that level of authority will have in the safety of the aircraft. Just a thought.
While there's some truth to this, I think the differences are overstated. Boeing FBW aircraft (777 and 787) have envelope protection like the Airbus does. While the Airbus won't let a pilot exceed some extreme attitudes, the Boeing will also resist them and there is no practical reason to ever have to exceed these limits. Pros and cons to both: The Boeing cockpit has a great layout and the heads up display is fantastic, and the Airbus sidestick is superior.
Why do you think the side stick is superior?
@@alhanes5803Probably the biggest advantage of the sidestick is how much room in front of the pilot it frees up. The autopilot is on for 98% of the flight and a yoke is in the way that entire time.
@@mtoonsdale I would say the only thing that makes it slightly better is space otherwise they are quite equal
8:19 that's MD-11 dude. Boeing should watch this for it's MCAS fix on the philosophy side.
It’s the McDonnell Douglas philosophy of retreading old designs and going cheap is what got Boeing into trouble.
Well, the same people who run MD to the ground is now running Boeing which is how the 737MAX fiasco came to be,
also fun fact, MD-11 actually have something similar to MCAS and have resulted few accident.
Such a beautiful aircraft!
Beautiful aircraft ♥️
look the VASP´s MD11 in the end of the video!
amazing!
VASP foi cliente de lançamento do MD11? não sabia...
pensei que a VARIG tivesse sido a lançadora no Brasil...
+Rodrigo Nogueira Mota foi a Vasp a primeira operadora do Brasil de MD-11
@@andreviana9677 Negativo, a história do MD-11 no Brasil começou em novembro e dezembro de 1991, quando chegaram as duas primeiras aeronaves (PP-VOP e -VOQ) da VARIG. Poucos meses depois, ou seja, em fevereiro e março de 1992, que a Vasp recebeu seus primeiros aviões do mesmo modelo (PP-SOW e -SOZ).
All dislikes are airbus :)
I want to know where that friggin winglet is now!
The pilots authority never overwritten by the computer, that's what I like in Boeing and Douglas unlike Airbus.
I love DC-10, MD-11 the beautiful aircraft
THANKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GE and Pratt & Whitney would later organize Engine Alliance, the joint venture which builds the GP7200 engines for the Airbus A380.
Just Pure beauty
What a great plane, i hope Lufthansa which owns the last ever made MD-11 and the other cargo carriers keep them flying
Finnair MD-11!
I wonder where that model ended up.
Man what a trip! Nothing the late 80s!
Why did it take them so long to catch up with the glass cockpit, and other technologies for the DC-10 successor, that Boeing already had with the Twin-jets 757 and 767 since the early 80s? The crazy thing was that the very first glass cockpit in American made jets was actually the MD-80 in 1982.
Flight deck commonality with the existing MD80/DC9 fleets. The MD-88 was the first “glass cockpit” from 1988, that allowed for easy cross training of existing non-glass MDs.
The winglets are a well-proven design? I should say so - just ask any eagle or vulture! This really is a most comprehensive promo - it's almost like a short familiarisation course. In my ignorance, I hadn't realised that the MD-11 was such a thorough upgrade over the DC-10. I only flew once in a DC-10 - from Heathrow to Kinshasa and thought the interior fittings rather cheap and tacky, as compared with a B-747. The KC-10 tankers - are they adapted from the DC-10 or the MD-11? Thanks, as always, for uploading.
The KC-10 Tanker was adapted from the DC-10.
Flew on an AA MD-11 from LGW-BNA back in 1994.
If I’m correct ,the MD-11 did meet the range and performance standards promised.
Some airlines said it didn’t
It eventually did and exceeded those standards between 1994-96.
My dads friend was a MD-11 pilot. He said the engines were so powerful they took off at half power most of the times. Beautiful aircraft.
Not exactly, but it depends on how you define power. Thrust? N1? 👍
2:14 P+W or GE engines? Which one would you choose?
GE
GE.
Late model GE were the superior planes.
What happened to the sound in the beginning and end of this film?
Was thinking the same
Ain't nuttin' purdier than a ''Three-Holer'' ---- 🥰❤👍
Sheer Majestic Beauty......
Back in 1997 McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing and all MD 11 Passenger Variant is Retired now
MD-11 could've been a great aircraft if only McDonnell Douglas invested more in its product. The aircraft ended up being a flop when it first came out. It burned more fuel than promoted and it didn't meet its range targets. McDonnell Douglas lost a significant order from airlines such as Singapore Airlines and SAS, all of whom previously operated the DC-10. It's shame that the DC-10 lasted way longer and was even retire either the same time or later than the MD-11. American Airlines retired the DC-10 in 2000/2001 after operating the type since 1972 and the MD-11 in 2001 after operating it since 1991. Japan Airlines retired the MD-11 in 2004 and the DC-10 in 2005.. go figure. None the less, the MD-11 does look very sexy.
It really is a shame.
If the MD-11 had lived on as long as the DC-10 did, they'd still be flying until 2030!
Although it would have been very unlikely nonetheless since today's airliners are extremely advanced and cost a lot less to operate.
Would still have been great if they had been kept at least 5-10 years longer.
KLM flew the MD-11 the longest.
JAL retired the MD-11 first to cash-in on the hot resale cargo market for the type at the time.
love quality
OH golly A model of MD-90!!!
Successor of DC10
The MD11 should have been a twin engined design. It was doomed by the 777 and ETOPS.
omg😲 28 button to just dump a fuel on dc-10
amazing in 1991
FINNAIR LIVERY!!! FINLAND! 0:00
True! The best airline in the world!!!
I was assigned to first aircraft and went to Yuma the assigned to the second aircraft permanent test That tail strike was not a planned test it was caused by a aggressive Air Force pilot who over rotated and caused $300,000 damage to the rear bulkhead. Karl Hamilton
So N311MDs tailstrike which was captured on video was actually an accident? That's crazy, they made it seem so intentional.
Who saw Swissair fl111 in the intro
Troll Nation Me! R.I.P
Too bad my grandfather retired before he was put to work to help with the design of the MD-11
Dangerous DC-10
More Dead Crusier 10
0:02 Finnair
hum at beginning they tried to avoid DC-10 reliably all together.... I wonder why...
3:04 MD 11 Garuda Indonesia
Unfortunately only 60 MD11s still flying now, all freighters 😢 I wish Boeing made modern tri jets…
Where is the sound track?
burning in hell
Bros speaking like I am about to buy one
God damn, those cabin configurations...
2-2-2 in First, which looked bearable
2-3-2 in Business, which looked ridiculous
2-5-2 in Economy, which must have been absolutely dreadful for anybody in the middle seats.
If any airlines actually used that seating configuration, then it's no wonder that the plane was a commercial failure.
Horizontal stabiliser is too small
Exactly, and that was a problem.
A weight savings IN EXCESS OF 2,000 POUNDS
双発機よりも、3発機の方が威厳と貫禄がある。
That's quite an instrument panel. Which one is the gauge that shows you when the plane is going to flip over and land on it's roof?
Ang MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10 ay matagal na ni yan.
Goodluck😊
I wish Qantas operated some. Why didn't they?
This video starts with a mistake ...intentionally?
"Very early in its history, McDonnell-Douglas established its reputation as a company that could deliver the products that airlines and passengers wanted to fly." do they say showing a DC-2. False : totally false!!! Talking of a McDonnell-Douglas DC-2 is like talking of a General Motors Studebaker or a Saturn Hupmobile. McDonnel had NOTHING to do with the DC-x (where x can be anything from 1 to 10). It is the same mistake as speaking of the McDonnell-Douglas F-101 Voodoo. The DC-2 was made by Douglas and the F-101 by McDonnell. Anyways : neither exist anymore.
Oh! I forgot to tell you about the Boeing DC-3 Dakota!
Exactly. In fact did Mcdonell Aircraft Co even exist then?
I think you're missing the point, MD was appealing to the fact that the company was a merger between the two companies. The were trying to show that through the Douglas co. they had many years of experience in aircraft design.
It is a shame the MD-11 has been relegated to cargo duty. It is a fantastic aircraft - if you look at the fuel burn figures vs acquisition cost it is a far better aircraft to operate than the 777 is, and even beats out a new 767.
itsumonihon oh, that makes sense. Also yeah it's a shame that it's stuck doing freighting jobs, to bad it's getting its death sentence these days.
The main reason for this is that, in the days they were conceived and built the international laws such as the 60-minute law were very limiting for twins. So tri-motors such as the DC-10, MC-11, Tristar, Trident, Tu-154 etc. were designed to compete against four-engines crafts. One less engine meant (they hoped) less fuel consumption and less maintenance.
But Boeing was heavy enough to have a modification of the law approved after proving the reliability of the GE-90-equipped 777, a modification called ETOPS (Extended Twins OPerationS). Hence the decline of three-engined planes.
And no : ETOPS does not mean Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming!
The F/A-18 Hornet and C-17 Globemaster, originally developed by McDonnell Douglas, are mentioned as Boeing products today.
What is the name of the airline at 0:36?
China Eastern
Thank you.
It took about an hour to figure it out LOL
+Nick Elzinga Good thing you figured it out because I was stumped about what this airline was.
It looks like China Eastern
DC aka death capsule
A very unfortunate part of the plane's history, but a very real one that deserves to be covered. The early DC-10s had bad cargo doors, which caused a couple decompressions at altitude and at least one crash, but it was the maintenance error that led to the 1979 crash that really hurt the plane, and that was not the fault of the designers or builders. The airlines had done things the manufacturer told them not to do in very strict terms. It did give Douglas a massive black eye, and they may have ended up getting bought out a decade or so later because of that. The "Death Capsule" or "Death Contraption" tag proved deadly to Douglas.
David Powell Even the 747 had a faulty door which killed people
Heh, Death Contraption. Funny.
@@DEP717when it came to the crash in 1979, McDonnell Douglas was found to be at fault because the plane did not have adequate backup systems. An investigative reporter that was scheduled to be on Flight 191, decided to investigate the troubles that the DC-10 had at the time and he discovered that. McDonnell Douglas had an incentive program that paid bonuses for keeping costs down by any means necessary. They knowingly put a dangerous aircraft on the market. The F. A. A. Imposed fines and they were forced to do an almost complete re-design of the plane. In the 70's when you booked your flight, the aircraft type operating the service would be on your ticket. The investigative reporter, decided that the plane was too dangerous to fly on and he cancelled his reservation. That decision saved his life but he lost 3 colleagues. You can read the story in an archived issue of Chicago Magazine with the title ;" the ghosts of flight 191". American engaged in sloppy maintenance but if McDonnell Douglas had built the plane with adequate backup systems, those 273 people would not have died. It's public knowledge that McDonnell Douglas was skating on the edge of bankruptcy and they rushed the DC-10 into service in order to beat the Lockheed -1011 TriStar to market.
the lavatory incorporates many features to assist the handicap passenger. lol
Liked the md11 but, think the md10 damaged the reputation of the company
As nice of an airplane the MD-11 was, it was a mistake from the start. While Boeing was developing the 777, McDonnell Douglas just updated the DC-10 design rather than invest in the development of a whole new airplane...a business decision that was very short sighted and ultimately contributed to its demise.
What is Boeing doing today with the 777X and 737MAX?
So much BS* from salesman, their product never delivered their company promised performance. But their aircraft was the best of course.
yea the crt's were available at the late 70's with the new boieng 757, and from experience and logic theres no better pilot than the pilot itself, the computer is the last best pilot! just because it is not prepared for all scenerios and not so versatile such as if you are encountaring severe turbulance during approach or strong oposite wind changes (wind sheers) the autopilot and auto thrust do not respond in time to compansate on the loss \gain of airspeed, plus, it does not control the speed brake...
todays AP systems still cannot manage a whole flight containing all scenerios, even on the new airbus models which are still the worst to fly on, sure they give a very fun flight but for safety, not so much since all systems are connected so if one part fails it immidatly effect the systems near it, i heard of the flight stick being broken and 4 airbus crashes due to the fact that they just didnt put an "full AP mechanical disconect" part for emergency and the pilot decide to go around for missing the runway\ bad weather while the autopilot was programmed by airbus to force land airplane by any mean, the poor pilots just did not know how to completely disconnect the autopilot. more than 400 lives were taken by airbus insecure cockpit\system planning, remember what they said about the dc-10 back at the times? this is now true for airbus.
12345678992928 you're full of it.
In an Airbus you can override the Fly by wire Protections by disabeling 2 of the 3 ADR's
80's porn soundtrack?
LOL