Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-10

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This page is not a forum for general discussion about McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about McDonnell Douglas DC-10 at the Reference desk.

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Accidents and incidents - Excessive detail

As the first two examples (American Airlines Flight 96 and Turkish Airlines Flight 981) directly relate to the cargo door design problem mentioned above, and describe subsequent modifications, I believe they should be left in. The rest could perhaps be moved to a dedicated page, as is the case for the Antonov An-12 --NthDegOp (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting to a dedicated article could be too much, I was thinking about trimming the summary for each accident to 1 paragraph each, and moving the details in individual articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a valid idea and I've gone ahead and done it with AA96 and UA232, but AA191 will be difficult to summarize in a single paragraph, because the summary actually discusses two separate but related topics: the crash itself, and the resultant withdrawal of the type certificate. Carguychris (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One incident which could be mentioned is the CP Air DC-10 V1 engine failure at CYVR in the early 1980s. It's memorable because real-life V1 engine failure data is so rare, yet so important for certification and pilot training. Henrilebec (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DC-10

The image I still retain in my mind of this aircraft is that of 4 twin engines attached to the body at the back behind wings .I always loved watching it fly over my primary school in the 1960s (70kms) north of Nairobi). What I see in your photo as dc10 is a 3 engine one of the 1970. Feel abit disappointed . 41.81.171.53 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably remembering the Vickers VC-10 (which did have four engines mounted on the rear fuselage, and would have flown over Kenya in the mid-to-late 1960s.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An early 1960s DC-10 concept had four engines on the wings and double-deck wide-body fuselage. The 3-engine DC-10 first flew in 1970 and entered service the next year. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or it might have been a Soviet Ilyushin Il-62M (similar in appearance to the VC-10) which was in regular service at that time.Henrilebec (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

For the move request see Talk:DC10 (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 May 2022. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Death Chamber 10"

I've seen vandalism of the DC-10's page in which it refered to the Douglas Commercial DC-10 as the Death Contraption. Please, do not place the planes nickname on the page, as it is opinionated. Forevernewyes (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to follow up stating that it is not an official nickname. Forevernewyes (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official" nickname, i.e. manufacturer's nickname. Just Revert and Deny recognition for obvious vandalism. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know that the DC-10 doesnt have a offical nickname, the person doing it was an unregistered user and got blocked from editing Forevernewyes (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was trying to agree and reiterate on that. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo

Hey, its me! The guy that made the bolivian 707 crash article and I love NWA DC-10s. They are my favorite plane, and besides the Nagato-class battleship they are my favorite vehicle. I was looking thru photos on Commons and I found this picture of a DC-10-30 (below). I like the Continental Airlines one but this one in my opinion is a better picture. What do you think? In my opinion there are pros and cons to this particular image.

Pros: Good view of most major areas of the aircraft, better view of wings, slightly better quality.

Cons: Like current pic, the tail engine is partially obstructed, and there is a shadow on the bottom making it harder to see the gear, even though the view is better. Also, there is another, mediocre picture of another NWA DC-10 on this page, being a -40 variant.

KingAviationKid (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current Continental picture better, because this picture seems very dark overall and the right wing almost completely obscures the center engine. The engine layout is one of the main things that makes the DC-10 unique, so the lead photo should show it off.

I'll admit I'm a bit biased; I never liked the NWA "bowling shoe" livery, and I don't think it photographs well while airborne, which this picture exemplifies. Carguychris (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I personally love the bowling shoe livery on DC-10s in particular and this is also my favorite angle for photos kinda like the old boeing 747 photo with the pan am plane. the problem with giving the dc-10 a photo of this angle is that the rear engine gets obstructed by the big wings of the plane.

KingAviationKid (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]