Was the MD-11 a failed inheritor of the Dc-10? or just extremely underrated?

i know the tristar was a failure because complicated engineering and ahead-of-time features, and the dc-10 was a very great plane during the 70s and the 80s, but the MD-11 had it last commercial flight on 2015 with KLM ( only 25 years after entering service) ; while the Dc-10's last commercial flight was on 2014 with Biman Bangladesh ( almost 40 tears after entering service), so i dont understand.

Also, a md 11 would be easier to maintaince than a 747 or a380, since those have 4 engines, and the 777,although very effective and that, was always a very expensive vessel.

Somebody please enlightenme please.

MD-11 and DC-10 were not the same aircraft, i.e. the MD-11 didn't have the bad doors that plagued the DC-10.

From avgeekery.com:

"The problem was that the MD-11 failed to meet initial performance targets meaning that some airlines had to either bump passengers to take on extra fuel for the journey or make technical (fuel) stops in order to reach their intended destinations. Further hurting MD-11 sales was the fact that the Boeing 777, which had only two engines but better performance, entered service less than 5 years after the first MD-11s rolled off the line. Still, the MD-11 eventually found a niche as a freighter aircraft. As airlines offloaded their passenger versions for more modern twin-jets, air freight companies like FedEx and UPS picked up the MD-11 aircraft at reduced prices. Lufthansa Cargo even added new MD-11 airplanes all the way until Boeing closed the production line in 2001 as part of their merger with McDonnell Douglas."

Mainly due to its bad reputation following the high profile DC10 crashes.

Also, I would imagine that maintenance on the rear engine (high up on the tail) would have been more difficult than four wing mounted engines, which can be reached from a pair of steps!

The MD-11 initially failed to meet performance stipulations, the death knell for a commercial airliner...

The MD-11 had its first flight in 1990, after having it's design frozen in 1986. ETOPS replaced EROPS in 1985 with an initial requirement for a years service of a twin engined aircraft before it would be approved for Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes. This was later amended to include multi-engine aircraft with more than the specified two engines, but by then the die was cast.

The Boeing 767 used less fuel and was significantly cheaper to operate. So when Boeing bought MD in December 1996 (completed in Aug 1997) with plans to launch their own Boeing 777 long range wide body mid-size twin there was no reason to support the MD-11. The last few were sold off to freight operators.

So the real reason was `politics` and `commercial gain`, as by then the MD-11 was meeting and exceeding all performance goals.

Eh, in terms of commercial airlines, reputation plays a big role in choosing new planes. If a plane by Company X has had a lot of accidents, buying their productis might scare away potential clients, no matter whether they produced a new, better, more reliable plane. Companies will rather buy Company Y's plane, which may not perform as well as X's new design, but doesn't have a terrible reputation carried over from its predecessor.

It's like if one of McDonalds' burgers made everyone sick, people would rather go to KFC or Burger King if they're hungry and have both restaurants around even if they're not planning to buy THAT exact McD burger.

It's the same for the MD-11 and Boeing's contenders.

Eh, in terms of commercial airlines, reputation plays a big role in choosing new planes. If a plane by Company X has had a lot of accidents, buying their productis might scare away potential clients, no matter whether they produced a new, better, more reliable plane. Companies will rather buy Company Y's plane, which may not perform as well as X's new design, but doesn't have a terrible reputation carried over from its predecessor.

 

It's like if one of McDonalds' burgers made everyone sick, people would rather go to KFC or Burger King if they're hungry and have both restaurants around even if they're not planning to buy THAT exact McD burger.

 

It's the same for the MD-11 and Boeing's contenders.

A rather simplistic view. After all, a considerable higher number of Boeings have crashed than McDonnell Douglas in world-wide setting.

But it does give rise to commercial advantage to buying a competitor, then collapsing them through clever PR and Marketing. After all, the F-18 Hornet began as a McDonnell Douglas project, only to become subsumed into the Boeing empire, when it absorbed M-D.

Must have been a delicate line to tread to trash-talk the airliner, while nicking the name pf their highly successful military projects...

The DC-10 It was obviously good enough to meet USAF requirements as the KC-10. I bet that rankled Boeing...