← Back to Squawk list

48

Last MD-11 ever built says goodbye to the skies

提交時間：大約一年之前

The last McDonnell Douglas MD-11 ever built was retired. The three-engine aircraft rolled out of the final assembly line in 2001, marking the end of the production of the aircraft. Lufthansa was the last customer for the MD-11 at that time. The youngest MD-11F with registration D-ALCN, carried out its last flight this week. Lufthansa was certainly not happy when Boeing, the new owner of McDonnell Douglas, decided to stop the production of the aircraft in favor of the Boeing 777. Nonetheless, the… (airlinerwatch.com) 更多...

33 個會員評論

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

EliteAirInc 大約一年之前 12

What a great aircraft that will be missed.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Kobe Hunte 大約一年之前 7

I agree. I wish they could of continued building these.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 大約一年之前 6

Doesn't Fed-Ex still fly the MD11's?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Dick Nieuwendyk 大約一年之前 5

Yes - they still do. Also the MD-10-30.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Quidnon 大約一年之前 2

Still have the MD-10-10s too.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

mattbna 大約一年之前 2

UPS still operates around 37 MD-11 frames, and FedEx still has around 56 of them in service. They have grounded over 50 of their oldest MD-10's in the past year or two (still around 30 in service), but they've only parked a few MD-11's (around 10-12).

I was at MEM two days ago and watched MD-11's depart one after another during the afternoon push.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

bdarnell 大約一年之前 1

They still do, but they are getting scarce. There used to be a bunch of them here at the hub at KIND, but last time I looked, there were only a few.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 大約一年之前 2

I remember.... Taxing A CFJ to the Hangar during a FED-EX push was quite interesting... Tons and Ton's of MD10's and 11's and a lot of everything else.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Kobe Hunte 大約一年之前 1

If not still very recently..

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Dick Nieuwendyk 大約一年之前 7

Sad to see this aircraft go. I have taken flights with this aircraft many times - one of the most comfortable planes to be on.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

soupy264 大約一年之前 3

I wonder if it will be sold to USAF and become a KC-10.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

James Simms 大約一年之前 1

Maybe but I doubt it. My understanding the USAF wanted to drop them 5-6 years ago (although I think they’re safe for now as major upgrades were recently implemented). I suppose never say never.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

soupy264 大約一年之前 1

My Bad, I believe the KC-10's are DC-10's I guess a fighter crew chief should be quiet. LOL

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Scott Brown 大約一年之前 3

There is a youtube video of two plots,one German and one Dutch, on one of their last flights on sister ship D-ALCM. Great cockpit video, atc audio, etc., with lots of remorse during the flight over the loss of their beloved 11...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzsGG-SPkVs

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

ADXbear 大約一年之前 2

The death if yet another widebody.... she will be missed..

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Markus Wolff 大約一年之前 2

My pop, Ziggy, took me to KLGB to see the 1st ones fly, our neighbor riveted the skins.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Robert Cowling 大約一年之前 3

For freight carriers, I'm sure the MD-11 had benefits over the 777, but you have to dance to the tune that is playing, or find another venue.

I liked the 11, from a passenger point of view because it was 'BIG', but I never had to sit in a middle of the middle seat for a 6 hour flight. I have had to fly in a trans-Atlantic flight on a 777 with a broken seat, and a 'flood' in the lav. YUCK!!!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

k l 大約一年之前 1

They remind me of 727-100 and 727-200. You can see the UPS and FedEx at KCLE I mean MD-11.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

James Simms 大約一年之前 1

Sad

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

MSU Sparty 大約一年之前 1

Tough aircraft on a crosswind but it hauled a lot of tonnage a long way

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

captpentland 大約一年之前 1

Read 'Destination Disaster.'

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Edward Bardes 大約一年之前 1

By Paul Eddy?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Doug Fehmel 大約一年之前 1

I've got a replica of same airplane from herpa Wings. I think that my little diecast is at least 10 years old.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Edward Bardes 大約一年之前 4

Only one MD-11 accident killed more than 10 people, and that accident had nothing to do with the aircraft design.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Spencer Hoefer 大約一年之前 2

Exactly. After the issues with the early model DC-10's were fixed, it was a safe aircraft. The MD11 had its own issues when it was released, but no major design flaws other than the center of gravity problems which were fixed years after most airlines had gave up on the aircraft. Most of the issues pertaining to the MD11 incidents were related to pilot error and/or poor training.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

william baker 大約一年之前 1

American Airlines 191 DC-10 that killed 273 people and the turkish airlines DC-10 that killed a further 346 people. How can you say that only one md-11 killed more then 10 people when if im not mistaken there were several crashes involving the Md-11 one notable one was Swiss air 111 which killed 229 persons on board there was also Korean Air 6316 which killed 8 people, Fedex flight 80 has 2 fatalities Avient Aviation had 3 killed on an MD-11. I mean the list goes on and on.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Edward Bardes 大約一年之前 1

Even with the DC-10's accident history, its safety record is comparable to most commercial planes. All but one MD-11 accident killed fewer than 10 people, (that one being Swissair 111) so one could argue that it's actually safer than most commercial aircraft.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

G Aldridge 大約一年之前 1

AA191 was caused by AA maintenance skipping several important steps to save time in changing the outboard engine pylon bearings. Other airlines that followed McD's procedure did not incur cracks in the pylons.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

william baker 大約一年之前 0

And Swiss air was caused by faulty design because they didnt simply install an off switch for the Entertainment system which overheated and caused the fire.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Edward Bardes 大約一年之前 3

That was an addition to the aircraft, not a fault with the aircraft itself.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

william baker 大約一年之前 -1

It was still an Aircraft design even thou it was an addition to the plane added later one. its just like adding new fuel tanks for a plane to give it further distance. Thats still designed and added to aircrafts later on in flight.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Edward Bardes 大約一年之前 2

If it could've happened on a different type of airplane, then it's not automatically a design flaw.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

登入

本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站，即表示您接受這一點。

退出

您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎？

通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告，您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性，同時不顯突兀，以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單，或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.

退出