Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-10
|
|
Safety record
I don't really like the sentence I added here..
"and the safety record improved as time went on (and in fact is now better than the 747s.".
It is true (witness http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm) but I think my wording is fairly clumsy. Hopefully someone can tidy it up.
- Looks like this has already been cleaned up. Kevyn 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's not true. The DC-10 is "reasonably" safe but doesn't beat the 747; Whether you consider the hull loss percentage [1] (http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/aircraft.html), the hull loss accident rate [2] (http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf) or the fatal event rate [3] (http://www.airdisaster.com/statistics/). Also, the 'airsafe' reference above uses a very odd calculation method that is biased depending on the number of seats and loading of the aircraft being analysed. -- FirstPrinciples 11:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
MD-100
DC-10 variants include the MD-100 (originally the DC-10 Series 50 and 60), but I can't find any mention of it on Wikipedia. It should go here or on the MD-11 page. Any aviation historian-types want to tackle this? If not, I'll take a shot in the next few weeks. Kaszeta 13:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)