UPS MD-11 crash at SDF

luke3 said:
And it's not from lack of trying on Boeing's part either. They would want nothing more than to sell the replacement. One day while sitting at my desk in the Airport Compatibility group I get asked to make a drawing of the ramps at MEM and SDF, re-pitching every Group IV wingspan parking spot for Group V, then stick a 777F there and see how many spots they would lose. If I had time they also wanted the smaller hubs like IND and ONT. Apparently it was in support of a sales campaign to replace the MD-11. Then they asked me to lay out the regular ramps but everywhere an MD-11 could park, put a 767-400. I did a double take. A 767-400, that hasn't been in production since 2005, not -300F? My lead engineer confirmed that he did not stutter. Some crazies much higher up were willing to offer a 767-400F, re-engined with GEnX engines, if they could get FDX and UPS to commit to get rid of the MD-11s. Something about having a closer cargo capacity and the -300F being too small. I did the study but it ultimately went nowhere. Either they didn't get interest or figured spending all that design capital for such a niche product wasn't worth it even if they could sell it 1:1. Although I'm sure Southernjets would have ordered 100 if they offered a passenger version, they love a niche, orphaned aircraft that nobody else wants.

Sorry to derail the discussion on this tragic incident. It hit me hard too, and today was my first day back on a trip after it happened, but this anecdote suddenly popped into my mind seeing all the MD-11 replacement talk.
Click to expand...
Interesting about the -400. My understanding is any viable alternative ( not a 763) has such a bigger wing span that both shops simply don't own the real estate to make it happen.
 
luke3 said:
And it's not from lack of trying on Boeing's part either. They would want nothing more than to sell the replacement. One day while sitting at my desk in the Airport Compatibility group I get asked to make a drawing of the ramps at MEM and SDF, re-pitching every Group IV wingspan parking spot for Group V, then stick a 777F there and see how many spots they would lose. If I had time they also wanted the smaller hubs like IND and ONT. Apparently it was in support of a sales campaign to replace the MD-11. Then they asked me to lay out the regular ramps but everywhere an MD-11 could park, put a 767-400. I did a double take. A 767-400, that hasn't been in production since 2005, not -300F? My lead engineer confirmed that he did not stutter. Some crazies much higher up were willing to offer a 767-400F, re-engined with GEnX engines, if they could get FDX and UPS to commit to get rid of the MD-11s. Something about having a closer cargo capacity and the -300F being too small. I did the study but it ultimately went nowhere. Either they didn't get interest or figured spending all that design capital for such a niche product wasn't worth it even if they could sell it 1:1. Although I'm sure Southernjets would have ordered 100 if they offered a passenger version, they love a niche, orphaned aircraft that nobody else wants.

Sorry to derail the discussion on this tragic incident. It hit me hard too, and today was my first day back on a trip after it happened, but this anecdote suddenly popped into my mind seeing all the MD-11 replacement talk.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the 777 be a nice replacement for the MD-11?
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I’ve always sort of wished that time to V1 was a thing routinely calculated, as it is probably the most accurate way to measure degraded acceleration.
Click to expand...

Sort of a normal thing in seaplanes, as you don't have any runway distance references. The seaplane can also do a "confined area take-off" though - you can always just turn in a circle building airspeed.
 
arkflyr said:
Dassault uses a calculated minimum G and during takeoff displayed a G meter during takeoff for an acceleration check once T/O thrust was set. At least for the EASy 900.
Click to expand...
Some of the fancier later Airbus airplanes are all “ACCELERATION DEGRADED” and you reject then and there.
 
Two 767’s sitting next to each other or a767 and a 757 sitting next to each other going to the same city take up more space than 1 777.

Always thought the “we don’t have the space” argument was a weird one.
 
What happened to Kalitta and 777-300 freighters? I was flying with a former Connie pilot and they claimed it would have the same capacity as a 747.
 
///AMG said:
Only airplane I’ve ever done this in, but in the T-45, we calculated line speed checks on the takeoff roll. It’s been so long i cant remember any of the details, but it was something like “at the 5 board you need to be at XXX knots to continue” kind of thing. I guess maybe the 1/4 mile trap version of what you are saying
Click to expand...
Marine Herks did it on short field takeoffs. We had a spaghetti chart to figure out the time/distance. We also didn’t use V1 and Vr. The charts were built for VMCa and T/O refusal speeds. Under normal circumstances those numbers coincided with each other. Only when you got into extreme weights or density altitude or short runways did they start to separate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top