1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Boeing & McDonnell Douglas

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GIOV, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. GIOV

    GIOV Senior Member

    The latest experience in fly gives a good lesson. The monopoly is ever dangerous because all resource is concentrated in one point, if this fall, fall many, many years of effort. So I do like Boeing sell the McDonnell Douglas Company to achieve a good balance of safety and improve its product with healthy competition. DC8 and DC10 was very good products. The last one fell because a bold & screw specification was not observed in the building process. Why?. I don't know the answer.

    upload_2019-3-15_9-58-26.png upload_2019-3-15_9-59-14.png
  2. Lew_Merrick

    Lew_Merrick Alibre Super User

    Giov -- Actually it was Lockheed that, through the connivance to not meet safety standards by Voi Shan International, that they "lost out" of the airframe manufacture business. McDonnell-Douglas was "kicked out" for stealing their retiree's pension program -- and then the (mis-)management from McDonnell-Douglas came and took over Boeing in the latter half of the 1990's. I spent 5 years as a "Boeing-captive" and close to 20 years as a "Boeing contractor," so I know the in's & out's there quite well.

    At Boeing the first version of an airplane was "XXX-100." The second versionas "XXX-200". Etc. At McDonnell-Douglas each subsequent version was a Dash-X and look at how such things have been "named" at "Boeing" since the latter 1990's. The message has been clear for more than 20 years now to anybody paying attention.
    swertel likes this.
  3. GIOV

    GIOV Senior Member

    Voi Shan International..Is it a single Company or a Group of Companies? Is it Fairchild Industries?
    Some similitude, yes I agree.
    At the end I think will be good a product MD11 without the central engine likes 777. The best for me.
  4. Lew_Merrick

    Lew_Merrick Alibre Super User

    Voi Shan International was the company created by NACA (at the end of WWII to make the "ultra high strength fasteners" that had developed for WWII in support of the aerospace developments. They developed nearly all of the "National Aerospce Specification" fasteners in use from the 1950's into the 1980's. However, they started falsifying their Testing Documents in the late-1970's and, as a result, Lockheed L1011's started having their enngines fall off (which is how Lockheed was decertified from aircraft production) killing nearly 1000 civilians and nearly 2500 of the American military -- and the "blame" was publically pinned on the Japanese (completely false).

    The laws passed at that time required that I (and those like me) do our own testing to assure compliance with Standards and Specifications. The only person convicted and imprisoned was an inspector at VSI who tried to blow the whistle on them. It looks to me that such things are getting worse by the day. today...
    MKR likes this.
  5. scottsinclair

    scottsinclair New Member

    do you know the answer? I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA why
  6. GIOV

    GIOV Senior Member

    The answer might be that there was a serious lack of maintenance on the airline in charge of flight 191 and also a deficient inspection by the competent authority due to the difficult access to the parties involved of the engine support and its special anchorages. The other factor was the low performance of the model on headwind flights on the Asian route that latter led to a considerable decrease in orders.
    In my opinion, McDonnell Douglas had to advance in its DC10 Twin model that resembled very much to the Boeing 777. Instead of insisting on the DC11.
    On the other hand Boeing demonstrated in its history an entrepreneurial courage unprecedented in its time with the Dash 80. It is worthy of admiration how a whole team is organized and in 4 years they develop the first turbo-propelled passenger airplane. Bill Allen is worth imitating. Imagine that the control instruments were installed in plywood and the test pilot Alvin “Tex” Johnston wanted his boss to sell the model that with so much effort his team gave two barrel roll in front of the audience attending the air show. Everything went great but Tex won a tug of the ears of his boss for being audacious but the replica was a very safe maneuver by the capacity of the plane.
    I do like the healthy competition from Boeing & McDonnell Douglas that gives a lot of enthusiastic entrepreneurship. It is my humble belief.

Share This Page