Quote:
Originally Posted by the Genral
I feel pretty safe, however, I'd feel even safer in a DC10, if only they were still around, loved that 3rd tail engine. I flew on DC10s on most of my trips over seas, and several times in and out of Robert Mueller to DFW. Those are still my favorite jets, and at least Federal Express still uses them so I can sometimes catch a glimpse of one flying over my house on route to ABIA.
|
Not me. The DC-10 was from an era where 3 engines were required for TATL and similar routes, because engines would fail (sometimes catastrophically) on a more regular basis. Today's twins are MUCH safer. The type of engine "issues" that would ground a 787 can be incredibly minor, and not the type of thing that would ever endanger a flight. The engines are light years ahead of what would be standard on a DC-10. The failure rate is incredibly low. Give me a twin like the 787 or 777 with an engine that might fail 1 time out of 10K cycles vs. a 3-holer like the DC-10 with engines that would fail 1 out of 1K cycles anyday. Not to mention the extra danger of having an engine integrated with the tail; should a catastrophic failure happen on that particular engine, the potential to damage other flight-critical systems is far higher than something hanging off the wing.
That said, I did fly the DC-10 and L1011 quite a few times, and have fond memories of that type. They are iconic aircraft, no doubt. But they do not approach the reliability and safety of today's twins, even with a redundant engine.