The DC-10 variant that never got built that should have been built...

Sentinel Chicken · 02-10-2002, 01:09 AM

As the first DC-10 prototype was coming together in 1970 at Long Beach, MDC engineers were already working on three developments of the basic Series 10 airframe- a 35-foot stretch, a 50-foot stretch, and a long-range variant with the basic DC-10 fuselage but extended wings. However, a fourth study version was also under development which was a radical shortening of the basic DC-10, with an over 15-foot fuselage reduction and twin engines only, using the basic DC-10 wing. The in-house designation was D-969C but it came to be known as the "DC-10 Twin". It would have retained the horizontal tail, wings, engines, landing gear and fuselage section/nose as the DC-10 for commonality with the DC-10 line. A new, tall tailfin replaced the DC-10's distinctive fin/tail-mounted engine.

Throughout the early 1970s as the DC-10 entered service, McDonnell Douglas continued to refine the DC-10 Twin, with a further reduction in fuselage length and extensions to range performance. Development costs of the DC-10 Twin were estimated to be very inexpensive thanks to the commonality with the Series 10 and upcoming Series 30 models of the DC-10. However, no airlines were willing to commit by late 1972. Most airlines that had already ordered the DC-10-10 felt it was flexible enough and negated the need for another variant to purchase. Only Eastern was serious, but it felt the time frame was too soon.

At this point, Lockheed was also studying a Tristar twin, but development problems preoccupied them from pursuing their twin studies as well as they also felt a long-range version of the Tristar was more important. The new Airbus Industrie consortium in Europe had it's first airliner ready for launch, the A300B4 and by this time had already picked up 13 firm orders from three airlines.

By the end of 1972 the A300 had made its first flight and the DC-10 Twin studies proceeded in earnest. MDC targeted Swissair, Iberia, Delta, Allegheny, and Eastern as near-term customers. American, TWA, and United were also approached, and US airlines found the DC-10 Twin's ability to fly multiple short/medium sectors without refuelling attractive. Preliminary committments by the airlines were sought for mid-1973.

By 1976, MDC ceased work on the DC-10 Twin as it failed to win any orders in the proceeding three years. Airline managers in the end felt it was too large an aircraft for their needs. Further smaller-scale studies continued on a variant called the DC-X-200, but it, too, was shelved in 1978, ending any hope for the DC-10 Twin.

The rendering above is what the prototype DC-10 Twin might have looked like around 1979, when it might have first flown. The house colors are modeled after the DC-9 Super 80 prototype's colors, which first flew in 1979. The Super 80 featured cheatlines with two-tone blue and a lower cheatline of gold that swept up to the tail with the MDC logo in white on the tail. On this aircraft, I simplified the sweep of the cheatlines onto the tail, giving it a cheatline look similar to the Japan Air System's aircraft.

Below are livery depictions of airlines that were DC-10 operators and might have been customers for the DC-10 Twin.....

United was one of the launch customers for the DC-10 along with American and would have likely used the DC-10 Twin for heavily-traveled domestic sectors. I've always found Saul Bass' stylized "U" one of the classic corporate logos in graphics design. Interestingly, United was the launch customer for the 767-200 in 1979. Had United picked up the DC-10 Twin, perhaps the 767 might have been delayed or have been less successful? Hmmmmm.......

British Caledonian was also a DC-10 operator and might have been a European launch customer if Swissair hadn't delayed upgrading of its fleet in the mid-1970s. Plus, I really dig the tails of BCal's jets and it's one of my favorite non-US retro liveries. And for you nitpickers, G-BAWP was used on a 707-320 used by BCal...and yes, that plane was named "County of Inverness"....

And finally, from Asia, Japan Air Lines, also a DC-10 operator, might have put the DC-10 Twin into use on domestic and regional routes. Another classic logo in my book is JAL's "Tsurumaru" logo and is every bit as timeless as the stylized "U" of United. Interestingly, JAL was the launch customer for the 767-300. Again, had the DC-10 Twin come to fruition, it might have spelled trouble for the 767 program.

Enjoy!

justin · 02-10-2002, 06:57 AM

Fantastic work on those DC10 twin pictures, this must be one of the greatest "what iff's" of aviation history! With hindsight it's easy to see that the wide body twinjet was what the market wanted, certainly if Lockheed had developed a twinjet instead of the L1011-500 they may have had a better chance of staying in the airliner business, however I think they and MDC called it wrongly

If there had been 4 contenders in the market (A300, 767, DC10 twin and Lockheed twin) who knows what could have happened? Maybe they would all have been burnt in a repeat of the Tristar/DC10 war of too many airframes for not enough orders, maybe some of them would have dropped out and did other things, or maybe the market could have supported all four (doubtful I think). Take care,

Justin

aircanada · 02-10-2002, 01:17 PM

what would of been the specs of the DC10-twin,lockhead twin,overall length,range,seating capacity etc.?

ironrebel · 02-11-2002, 10:17 AM

Thanks for the sweet pics and great informational write-up! You're right, if these plans went through, it would've been tough competition between Douglas and Boeing.....

Thanks again!

JeffR · 02-13-2002, 03:03 PM

I would be appreciated if some artists here could answer my questions:

How do you create the illustration? What I basically mean is the aircraft (or the template) and not the livery. Do you first draw it on a piece of paper and scan or everything is made out from a computer? Where do you get the reference on the fuselage joint sectional lines, markings, the shape, accuracy etc etc.

Thanks.

AirDar · 02-13-2002, 05:18 PM

These are ALL great Doc! I LOVE them and really wish the DC-10 Twin had come to fruition. I especially like the shorter fuselage. It definately gives it that 767-200 look. And with all the old DC-10 customers over the years, there is NO DOUBT that these would have been a formidible opponent for the 767!

REALLY nice job on the renderings... I see you're ramping up on the detailing as I am! It gives them a nice finished look and takes the drawing from a color study to an aircraft illustration.

For some reason, the United strikes me as the nicest one persoanlly. I don't know why as the B-Cal and JAL are equally well done... I guess it's just that old Saul Bass talking to me.

BTW the panel break variations in the sliver bellies are a great touch! I've been planning on doing that too, but haven't gotten to it yet... maybe next time!

Keep 'em coming! I know I appreciate your hard work!

Travelin' Man · 02-13-2002, 07:04 PM

This would have really given the 767 some competition and pretty much have shut out Airbus from the widebody market. It would have also ment that MD most likely would still be building aircraft in Long Beach.

Sometimes you just have to go out and build it and screw the analysis. Just think what a strech version with bigger engines would have looked like. Hmmmm, kind of like a 777-200?

Strech it out Doc and lets see.

smoothjazz · 02-13-2002, 07:28 PM

Great job on the pictures...
This plane remind me a little of A380...
The top section of the cockpit and the long tail fin...

Benjamin

AirDar · 02-13-2002, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travelin' Man
Just think what a strech version with bigger engines would have looked like. Hmmmm, kind of like a 777-200?

Or just like the MD-14 I proposed!

Chansen · 04-01-2002, 11:51 AM

I hope you like it if he forwards it your way!

ANTHONY F DUVA JR · 04-02-2002, 12:01 AM

I remember seeing a drawing in Aviation Week of a DC-10 with the tail engine located near the trailing edge of the fin rather than having it go all the way to the front; however, I was unaware of any twin-engined variant. Thanks Suppenhuhn for the pretty color schemes - the ones I used to love way back when.

AirDar · 04-02-2002, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Craig H. Hansen
I hope you like it if he forwards it your way!

Fired it off to him Craig!

Always my pleasure!

Sentinel Chicken · 04-02-2002, 06:31 PM

That WAS an interesting piece of artwork, presumably done by McDonnell Douglas' marketing department sometime in the early to mid 1970s. It's a DC-10 Twin that looks very much like what I've done above, only it wears the original Bow and Arrow livery of Frontier Airlines.

Anthony, the variant you speak of was one of the early design studies for the DC-10 when they were trying to decide upon the location for the tail-mounted engine. I believe that particular variant would have suffered from airflow disruption problems to the engine (rough boundary layer air that rides close to any surface as I understand it...that's why you see those splitter plates ahead of the fuselage-mounted intakes on some jet fighters like the F-111, F-4, or MiG-23/27).

justin · 04-05-2002, 04:12 AM

As I recall, the boundary effect was first recognised as a big problem in WW2 when the great Sid Camm developed the Hawker Typoon, he basically shoe-horned the biggest engine he could find into a fighter airframe and expected to see sci-fi performance, however the airflow over the wing went supersonic at high speeds causing a huge reduction in wing efficiency and poor mid to high altitude performance. However, it must be said the Typhoon's low level performance was indeed incredible, and the fighter that was almost cancelled went on to become possibly the best tactical close air support and anti tank aircraft of the war whilst Camm went back to the drawing board and produced the Tempest, Britain's best (and a candidate for best from anywhere) piston engined fighter of the war, developed from the Typhoon with a new wing. Camm was one of the all time great aero engineer's, he developed the Hart and Fury bi-plane fighters, the immortal Hurricane, the Typhoon, Tempest, Sea Fury (arguably the ultimate piston engined fighter) and went on to lead the Harrier development team, a remarkable man. As SC says, boundary flow is a big problem on high performance military jets as supersonic air intake flow is not suitable, hence variable intake ramps, although these days those variable intake ramps add so much to the radar signature they try to avoid them and design the shape of the intake and airflow path to do the job instead. Anyway, again, great job on showing us these DC10 twins!

Justin

DLtheASAconx · 04-09-2002, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Great job on the pictures...

Ben,
I was thinking the same thing about the twin DC-10 and A380

Louis · 04-28-2002, 07:31 AM

Nice DC10 twin. It also looks like a shortened IL86 twin

04-29-2002, 10:00 PM

So now I know what my DC-10 looks like without the back engine. I was curious what it would look like.

Thrillos_1 · 04-30-2002, 10:52 AM

If I am not mistake Lockheed had plans (I've seen pictures)
of a twin L-1011

It was going to be the L-1011-600

Shame it was never built!

Tony Sepanski · 05-02-2002, 01:01 PM

It's fascinating to look back on what could have been. However, I think despite the potential of a twin DC-10 and/or L-1011, Airbus is the only one who could have pulled this off. They didn't really sell a whole lot of A300's during the first 5 years of production, but profitability didn't count at all (and is still at least a nebulous concept with them). They could go on producing 5, 10 or 20 airframes a year and not have to worry about the financial ramifications of building a plane that is not turning a profit.

I think MDC probably would have been stuck with a plane that was either ahead of its time (similarly to the 747SP) or locked in competition with the A300 for too little market share....

02-10-2002, 01:09 AM	#1
Sentinel Chicken Go-Getters Go Ozark Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: DFW/THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS Posts: 4,167	The DC-10 variant that never got built that should have been built... As the first DC-10 prototype was coming together in 1970 at Long Beach, MDC engineers were already working on three developments of the basic Series 10 airframe- a 35-foot stretch, a 50-foot stretch, and a long-range variant with the basic DC-10 fuselage but extended wings. However, a fourth study version was also under development which was a radical shortening of the basic DC-10, with an over 15-foot fuselage reduction and twin engines only, using the basic DC-10 wing. The in-house designation was D-969C but it came to be known as the "DC-10 Twin". It would have retained the horizontal tail, wings, engines, landing gear and fuselage section/nose as the DC-10 for commonality with the DC-10 line. A new, tall tailfin replaced the DC-10's distinctive fin/tail-mounted engine. Throughout the early 1970s as the DC-10 entered service, McDonnell Douglas continued to refine the DC-10 Twin, with a further reduction in fuselage length and extensions to range performance. Development costs of the DC-10 Twin were estimated to be very inexpensive thanks to the commonality with the Series 10 and upcoming Series 30 models of the DC-10. However, no airlines were willing to commit by late 1972. Most airlines that had already ordered the DC-10-10 felt it was flexible enough and negated the need for another variant to purchase. Only Eastern was serious, but it felt the time frame was too soon. At this point, Lockheed was also studying a Tristar twin, but development problems preoccupied them from pursuing their twin studies as well as they also felt a long-range version of the Tristar was more important. The new Airbus Industrie consortium in Europe had it's first airliner ready for launch, the A300B4 and by this time had already picked up 13 firm orders from three airlines. By the end of 1972 the A300 had made its first flight and the DC-10 Twin studies proceeded in earnest. MDC targeted Swissair, Iberia, Delta, Allegheny, and Eastern as near-term customers. American, TWA, and United were also approached, and US airlines found the DC-10 Twin's ability to fly multiple short/medium sectors without refuelling attractive. Preliminary committments by the airlines were sought for mid-1973. By 1976, MDC ceased work on the DC-10 Twin as it failed to win any orders in the proceeding three years. Airline managers in the end felt it was too large an aircraft for their needs. Further smaller-scale studies continued on a variant called the DC-X-200, but it, too, was shelved in 1978, ending any hope for the DC-10 Twin. The rendering above is what the prototype DC-10 Twin might have looked like around 1979, when it might have first flown. The house colors are modeled after the DC-9 Super 80 prototype's colors, which first flew in 1979. The Super 80 featured cheatlines with two-tone blue and a lower cheatline of gold that swept up to the tail with the MDC logo in white on the tail. On this aircraft, I simplified the sweep of the cheatlines onto the tail, giving it a cheatline look similar to the Japan Air System's aircraft. Below are livery depictions of airlines that were DC-10 operators and might have been customers for the DC-10 Twin..... United was one of the launch customers for the DC-10 along with American and would have likely used the DC-10 Twin for heavily-traveled domestic sectors. I've always found Saul Bass' stylized "U" one of the classic corporate logos in graphics design. Interestingly, United was the launch customer for the 767-200 in 1979. Had United picked up the DC-10 Twin, perhaps the 767 might have been delayed or have been less successful? Hmmmmm....... British Caledonian was also a DC-10 operator and might have been a European launch customer if Swissair hadn't delayed upgrading of its fleet in the mid-1970s. Plus, I really dig the tails of BCal's jets and it's one of my favorite non-US retro liveries. And for you nitpickers, G-BAWP was used on a 707-320 used by BCal...and yes, that plane was named "County of Inverness".... And finally, from Asia, Japan Air Lines, also a DC-10 operator, might have put the DC-10 Twin into use on domestic and regional routes. Another classic logo in my book is JAL's "Tsurumaru" logo and is every bit as timeless as the stylized "U" of United. Interestingly, JAL was the launch customer for the 767-300. Again, had the DC-10 Twin come to fruition, it might have spelled trouble for the 767 program. Enjoy! __________________ *Piss on noise abatement!*

02-10-2002, 01:17 PM	#3
aircanada Collector Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 136	what would of been the specs of the DC10-twin,lockhead twin,overall length,range,seating capacity etc.? __________________ 767 rules the skies

02-13-2002, 05:18 PM	#6
AirDar I'm watching you... Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Land of BBQ & thin chips Posts: 1,787	A great idea who's time passed it by... These are ALL great Doc! I LOVE them and really wish the DC-10 Twin had come to fruition. I especially like the shorter fuselage. It definately gives it that 767-200 look. And with all the old DC-10 customers over the years, there is NO DOUBT that these would have been a formidible opponent for the 767! REALLY nice job on the renderings... I see you're ramping up on the detailing as I am! It gives them a nice finished look and takes the drawing from a color study to an aircraft illustration. For some reason, the United strikes me as the nicest one persoanlly. I don't know why as the B-Cal and JAL are equally well done... I guess it's just that old Saul Bass talking to me. BTW the panel break variations in the sliver bellies are a great touch! I've been planning on doing that too, but haven't gotten to it yet... maybe next time! Keep 'em coming! I know I appreciate your hard work! __________________ Dar~ Yours is not to question why, Yours is but to BUY or DIE!

02-13-2002, 07:28 PM	#8
smoothjazz More Korean Air in 1/200! Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: SEOUL KOREA Posts: 6,379	Great job on the pictures... This plane remind me a little of A380... The top section of the cockpit and the long tail fin... Benjamin __________________ BENJAMIN MY COLLECTION http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...tion-1179.html

04-01-2002, 11:51 AM	#10
Chansen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Parker, CO Posts: 3,024	Doc I am sent an email to Dar of this type a Frontier Airlines! I hope you like it if he forwards it your way! Last edited by Chansen; 04-01-2002 at 12:52 PM.

02-10-2002, 06:57 AM	#2
justin Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 2,005	Fantastic work on those DC10 twin pictures, this must be one of the greatest "what iff's" of aviation history! With hindsight it's easy to see that the wide body twinjet was what the market wanted, certainly if Lockheed had developed a twinjet instead of the L1011-500 they may have had a better chance of staying in the airliner business, however I think they and MDC called it wrongly If there had been 4 contenders in the market (A300, 767, DC10 twin and Lockheed twin) who knows what could have happened? Maybe they would all have been burnt in a repeat of the Tristar/DC10 war of too many airframes for not enough orders, maybe some of them would have dropped out and did other things, or maybe the market could have supported all four (doubtful I think). Take care, Justin

02-11-2002, 10:17 AM	#4
ironrebel Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Honolulu, Hawai`i Posts: 246	Thanks for the sweet pics and great informational write-up! You're right, if these plans went through, it would've been tough competition between Douglas and Boeing..... Thanks again!

02-13-2002, 03:03 PM	#5
JeffR Master Collector Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 575	I would be appreciated if some artists here could answer my questions: How do you create the illustration? What I basically mean is the aircraft (or the template) and not the livery. Do you first draw it on a piece of paper and scan or everything is made out from a computer? Where do you get the reference on the fuselage joint sectional lines, markings, the shape, accuracy etc etc. Thanks.

02-13-2002, 07:04 PM	#7
Travelin' Man Insane Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Aspen USA!!! Posts: 1,919	This would have really given the 767 some competition and pretty much have shut out Airbus from the widebody market. It would have also ment that MD most likely would still be building aircraft in Long Beach. Sometimes you just have to go out and build it and screw the analysis. Just think what a strech version with bigger engines would have looked like. Hmmmm, kind of like a 777-200? Strech it out Doc and lets see.

04-02-2002, 12:01 AM	#11
ANTHONY F DUVA JR ^~.. Maximum R & B ..~^ Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Land of a thousand dances Posts: 3,064	I remember seeing a drawing in Aviation Week of a DC-10 with the tail engine located near the trailing edge of the fin rather than having it go all the way to the front; however, I was unaware of any twin-engined variant. Thanks Suppenhuhn for the pretty color schemes - the ones I used to love way back when. __________________ FLY DUVA AIR's LUXURIOUS, DOUBLE-DECK BOEING "STRATO" CLIPPER !

04-02-2002, 06:31 PM	#13
Sentinel Chicken Go-Getters Go Ozark Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: DFW/THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS Posts: 4,167	Craig and Dar, thanks! That WAS an interesting piece of artwork, presumably done by McDonnell Douglas' marketing department sometime in the early to mid 1970s. It's a DC-10 Twin that looks very much like what I've done above, only it wears the original Bow and Arrow livery of Frontier Airlines. Anthony, the variant you speak of was one of the early design studies for the DC-10 when they were trying to decide upon the location for the tail-mounted engine. I believe that particular variant would have suffered from airflow disruption problems to the engine (rough boundary layer air that rides close to any surface as I understand it...that's why you see those splitter plates ahead of the fuselage-mounted intakes on some jet fighters like the F-111, F-4, or MiG-23/27). __________________ *Piss on noise abatement!*

04-05-2002, 04:12 AM	#14
justin Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 2,005	As I recall, the boundary effect was first recognised as a big problem in WW2 when the great Sid Camm developed the Hawker Typoon, he basically shoe-horned the biggest engine he could find into a fighter airframe and expected to see sci-fi performance, however the airflow over the wing went supersonic at high speeds causing a huge reduction in wing efficiency and poor mid to high altitude performance. However, it must be said the Typhoon's low level performance was indeed incredible, and the fighter that was almost cancelled went on to become possibly the best tactical close air support and anti tank aircraft of the war whilst Camm went back to the drawing board and produced the Tempest, Britain's best (and a candidate for best from anywhere) piston engined fighter of the war, developed from the Typhoon with a new wing. Camm was one of the all time great aero engineer's, he developed the Hart and Fury bi-plane fighters, the immortal Hurricane, the Typhoon, Tempest, Sea Fury (arguably the ultimate piston engined fighter) and went on to lead the Harrier development team, a remarkable man. As SC says, boundary flow is a big problem on high performance military jets as supersonic air intake flow is not suitable, hence variable intake ramps, although these days those variable intake ramps add so much to the radar signature they try to avoid them and design the shape of the intake and airflow path to do the job instead. Anyway, again, great job on showing us these DC10 twins! Justin

04-28-2002, 07:31 AM	#16
Louis Master Collector Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Hong Kong, Hong Kong Posts: 770	Nice DC10 twin. It also looks like a shortened IL86 twin __________________ Visit my homepage at www.angelfire.com/empire/an887/

04-29-2002, 10:00 PM	#17
Romania is #1 Guest Posts: n/a	So now I know what my DC-10 looks like without the back engine. I was curious what it would look like.

04-30-2002, 10:52 AM	#18
Thrillos_1 Senior Collector Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 180	If I am not mistake Lockheed had plans (I've seen pictures) of a twin L-1011 It was going to be the L-1011-600 Shame it was never built! __________________ IF IT AIN'T BOIENG I AIN'T GOING Somebody resurrect CP AIR!!!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

05-02-2002, 01:01 PM	#19
Tony Sepanski Master Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 798	It's fascinating to look back on what could have been. However, I think despite the potential of a twin DC-10 and/or L-1011, Airbus is the only one who could have pulled this off. They didn't really sell a whole lot of A300's during the first 5 years of production, but profitability didn't count at all (and is still at least a nebulous concept with them). They could go on producing 5, 10 or 20 airframes a year and not have to worry about the financial ramifications of building a plane that is not turning a profit. I think MDC probably would have been stuck with a plane that was either ahead of its time (similarly to the 747SP) or locked in competition with the A300 for too little market share....