DC-9 Hard Landing

[DispatchDragon]

I enjoyed the ten years or so I was associated with Dc9/Md80s -- there are however several ADs as the thread sort of referred to on the carry throughs especially the forward spar which is prone to fatigue.
Of course me favorites were the Diesel 8s (specifically the 50 series which was the worlds best aerial eighteen wheeler!


Leif

[Garry Russell]

The One-Eleven, billed as the Bus Stop Jet, was built for frequent landings and much flight at lower levels and was said to be very strong.

I'm not suprised if Airbusses aren't as strong as their peers as the concept of is a cheaper aeroplane designed to last maybe 15 years by which time the next generation will make them, obsolete anyway.

You can't build a cheap throw away aeroplane as such but no there's real need to build a modern airliner to last 50 years

I don't mean to suggest they are weak, just don't contain the overbuild added to ensure thousands of landing the aeroplane will never get near to.

[WhisperJet]

Consider this - do the same thing with a 727 and you'll get the same result. Do it with a 737 and you'll get a broken plane (wing root joins likely to fail with that kind of impact, if they don't, there a good chance the engine pylons will).

Then do it with a British aircraft and you will have to adjust your tie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSDzsSdPwTo

As for the aircraft, generally the DC's are built like brick sh*thouses. (...)
They're good planes, and most of the crews adore them.

I cannot echo that from what I know. Talk to pilots that picked them up at Long Beach when they were new. They were so poorly assembled that many European DC-9 and (later even) MD-80 pilots would call them the "Fiat" of planes. At the end Swissair and Austrian had their own mechanical teams on site to supervise assembly to their standards. So I'd say one can admire them for their sleek lines and for their power but not for the build quality.

However in the Aeropostal case we don't know in how far poor maintenance and/or corrosion issues were contributing factors...

Cheers,

Nick

[Chris Trott]

Consider this - do the same thing with a 727 and you'll get the same result. Do it with a 737 and you'll get a broken plane (wing root joins likely to fail with that kind of impact, if they don't, there a good chance the engine pylons will).

Then do it with a British aircraft and you will have to adjust your tie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSDzsSdPwTo

That's cheating. Trailing link gear forgives a helluva lot more than straight struts.

As for the aircraft, generally the DC's are built like brick sh*thouses. (...)
They're good planes, and most of the crews adore them.

I cannot echo that from what I know. Talk to pilots that picked them up at Long Beach when they were new. They were so poorly assembled that many European DC-9 and (later even) MD-80 pilots would call them the "Fiat" of planes. At the end Swissair and Austrian had their own mechanical teams on site to supervise assembly to their standards. So I'd say one can admire them for their sleek lines and for their power but not for the build quality.

However in the Aeropostal case we don't know in how far poor maintenance and/or corrosion issues were contributing factors...

Cheers,

Nick

Nick, I'm sorry, but you've been misled. Most airlines have representatives on hand to supervise final assembly of their airplanes. That's just part of the process. As well, "their standards" can mean anything. Just because SAS (for example) has "standards" it doesn't mean they're right or realistic. The aircraft are built to a type certificate with a production standard. The FAA makes sure all aircraft meet that spec at minimum. If the airline wants more, then its their job to specify it and put in place whatever quality control measures in the contract. The number of Airworthiness Directives show that the DC-9 series isn't any more "defective" than any other airplane. It has about 375 AD's in its history while the 727 has slightly more. The BAe-146 series, however, has about 575. What I suspect happened with those you talked to Nick was that they didn't want the DC-9 anyway and their "experiences" reflect that. It's happened here in the states too, so it's not a unique phenomenon. There's a reason the DC-9 didn't sell as well in Europe as it did in the US - there was a lot of nationalistic pride on both sides. The US guys wanted to buy the US plane, the European guys wanted to buy the BAC 1-11, Fokker 28/70/100 and Caravelle. As such, there was a lot of "panning" of the other planes by the crews when their airline chose the airplane from "the other side of the pond". There weren't a lot of American Airlines crews that liked the BAC 1-11, and there weren't a lot of United guys who liked the Caravelle. Doesn't mean they weren't well built planes or they didn't perform as promised.

[DarrenL]

"The airplane slowed safely, stopped on the runway and was shut down."

I think that might have happened the moment it touched down.

[Chris Trott]

I dunno, with one of the reversers fully deployed, the engines may have kept running for a bit after touchdown. (scary thought though if they'd let go completely)

[airboatr]

the engines may have kept running for a bit after touchdown.

engines cann't run... they don't have legs!

[Chris Trott]

I'm sure they did their best impression flapping around with nothing really holding them on.

[tonymadge]

The video I have seen before we had it at work a while ago. It was hard in fact you can see the windows pop! But amazingly it was put back together and later operated by an airline I am led to believe!! I guess it shows how strong the airframe was!

[WhisperJet]

Nick, I'm sorry, but you've been misled. Most airlines have representatives on hand to supervise final assembly of their airplanes. That's just part of the process. As well, "their standards" can mean anything. Just because SAS (for example) has "standards" it doesn't mean they're right or realistic.
(...)
What I suspect happened with those you talked to Nick was that they didn't want the DC-9 anyway and their "experiences" reflect that. It's happened here in the states too, so it's not a unique phenomenon. There's a reason the DC-9 didn't sell as well in Europe as it did in the US - there was a lot of nationalistic pride on both sides. The US guys wanted to buy the US plane, the European guys wanted to buy the BAC 1-11, Fokker 28/70/100 and Caravelle. As such, there was a lot of "panning" of the other planes by the crews when their airline chose the airplane from "the other side of the pond". There weren't a lot of American Airlines crews that liked the BAC 1-11, and there weren't a lot of United guys who liked the Caravelle. Doesn't mean they weren't well built planes or they didn't perform as promised.

Hi Chris,

as for the both airlines mentioned above I happen to know some of the pilots involved. They experienced quite hair-raising things there - from forgotten screwdrivers between slats up to non-working control columns on taxi to test flight, the list of horrors is endless. These men say they have never experienced such a "mess" elsewhere - not at Boeing nor at Fokker sites. These reflections/memories aren't mine and from what I can tell it's not very likely that they're based on patriotic feelings (and I doubt that you can compare the Caravelle to the DC-9, and the F70/100 came very much later). Moreover they didn't go into judging the performance or airworthiness of the aircraft but its mere assembly.

But there's another interesting aspect in what you write - when fishing around in history books and docs I do get the impressios that this EU/US technology/success rivalry was only fueled by Airbus rising up to become a relevant player. Was that really already an issue in - say the sixties? Comparing Douglas/Boeing and BAC? Or was the challenge only focuses on supersonic air travel - as that's what it seems like? Maybe one of the historians here can drop a line...

Best wishes,

Nick