DC-10 Projects and Variants

[Boxman]

Barring a KC-10 Extender (which is a DC-10-30CF variant) topic, this would appear to be the place for this. If not, I'd request the mods move this to appropriate place.

Posted by Periscope Film today (7-May-2020), a circa-1981(?) McDonnell Douglas promotional film for the McDonnell Douglas KC-10A Extender aerial tanker, including development and flight test footage. Film of the flying boom's structural testing, and its ability to operate "off-center" (for lack of a better term) is particularly interesting.
YouTube - Periscope Film: "U.S. AIR FORCE KC-10A EXTENDER REFUELING TANKER AIRCRAFT PROMO FILM MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-10 66544"

 

[fightingirish]

Dear Boys and Girls, here is an article about the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10 Super 60 series airliner "projects"; the DC-10-61, DC-10-62 and the DC-10-63. The projects are analogous to the DC-8 Super 60 series of 1965; the DC-10-61, DC-10-62 and the DC-10-63 bear the same basic relationship to the baseline McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-30 as the the DC-8-61, DC-8-62 and the DC-8-63 did to the original Douglas DC-8-53/54/55......
The DC-10-61, DC-10-62 and the DC-10-63 remained "projects", but the "project" work done would lead in due course to the McDonnell-Douglas MD-11......
The article comes from the January 1980 issue of Air International......
Terry (Caravellarella)

From the Great Airliners Volume Six, McDonnell Douglas DC10, by Terry Waddington:
[...]
STRETCH REFINEMENTS
By September 1979, continued trade-off studies had modified the stretch DC10 design in a number of ways.
A long range version dubbed DC-10-62 featured a fuselage with a 100inch plug ahead of the wings and retained the 220-inch rear plug. The tail cone had been extended by 40inches to reduce drag in line with the latest changes to the DC10. New active ailerons reduced wing bending movements, allowing an increased wing span of 175 feet, 4 inches. To eliminate the nose-up flying attitude, the wing box was rotated two degrees nose-up, providing a level floor and improved performance in cruise. But the biggest change was to the flap system. Its small, vaned version of the standard DC10 was replaced by a double-hinged flap that increased the chord during takeoff and landing. Fitted with GE CF6-50C1 or P&W JT9D-7R4H engines rated at 56,000 pounds thrust, takeoff distances were reduced by 800 feet and larger ground spoilers helped reduce landing distances. The MTOW had increased to 620,000 pounds with Maximum Landing Weight of 446,000 pounds. With an overall length of 206 feet, 11inches, the Series 62 could carry 353 passengers (versus 275 in the standard DC10) in a mixed class layout over 5,500 miles.
Two variants of the 40-foot stretched Series 61 for the domestic and Series 63 for the intercontinental versions were also updated. Both could carry 393 mixed-class passengers in an upper gally configuration. The Series 61 utilized the existing wing of the Series 30/40 with the increased angle of incidence and called for GE CF6-50C2 engines derated to 46,500 pounds of thrust with an MTOW of 520,000 pounds. The Series 63, which combined the fuselage of the Series 61 and the wing, engines and associated weights of the Series 62 had a range of more than 4,800miles. Another proposal, the DC10VLR (Very Long Range) incorporated a DC10 fuselage with the Series 62 wing, engines and MTOW, creating a range of 6,600 miles. [...]

Copied from https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129151

Here a screenshot from Mike Machat's lastest Youtube video at 9min 10sec:

https://youtu.be/7YMdd7xn4Dg

 

[jrlucariny]

View: https://youtu.be/ApCXO4tpSD0

 

[publiusr]

I would think this tri-jet might avoid the pitfalls of up-rating. Larger engines mounted a bit farther forward? Shove the tail-engine back a tad to keep CG and keep coders away from it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1608575187892699136

View: https://twitter.com/ilove_aviation/status/1608575187892699136

 

[Kiltonge]

Av Week, 18 March 1974. Proposed DC-10 ALCM carrier. Release bays forward and aft of wing.

 

[Kiltonge]

Mentioned in AvWeek 11 Feb 1985:

"HeavyLift Cargo Airlines of Britain is studying both lighter-than-air aircraft and turbofan transports as potential replacements for its fleet of Short Brothers Belfast turboprop transports.

One of the turbofan transports under consideration is a stretched version of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, modified to have a swing-nose for straight-in loading of bulky cargo."

Seem to be referring to the Clark Aircraft Corporation proposal for the DoD and NASA with a 27ft fuselage stretch.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

It seems like they would have had to remove the floor for such a proposal to work, as it doesn't seem like there is any increase in fuselage volume, at least from what I can tell. I wonder whether this was possible, and what modifications to the aircraft structure were required?

 

[Kiltonge]

Can't find much about Clark Aircraft except they operated the 377MG Mini Guppy from 1987 to 1988 or 1989 under the trading name of Outsize Air Cargo. Intention was to fly "satellites, space hardware and production tooling" per AvWeek Oct 1987.

 

[BlackBat242]

It seems like they would have had to remove the floor for such a proposal to work, as it doesn't seem like there is any increase in fuselage volume, at least from what I can tell. I wonder whether this was possible, and what modifications to the aircraft structure were required?

Well, since the text of the article mentions several times "passenger floor removed between the main wing and the swing-nose", and an extended-length version, why don't you just read it first?

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Well, since the text of the article mentions several times "passenger floor removed between the main wing and the swing-nose", and an extended-length version, why don't you just read it first?

Yeah I missed that bit, I had only given it a very quick glance. Sorry about that.

 

[Ordovician]

According to Vaclav Němeček in his book “Civilní letadla 2” the drawing gives an impression of a DC-10 variant, but he didn’t mention a D-… number. Is anyone able to supplement the designation?

Douglas had designations for two, four and six engines ranging from the C-2 to the C-6 for some drawings, but the 3-engine ones, I couldn't say.

 

[aim9xray]

According to Vaclav Němeček in his book “Civilní letadla 2” the drawing gives an impression of a DC-10 variant, but he didn’t mention a D-… number. Is anyone able to supplement the designation?

Information indicates that as far as Douglas Aircraft Company Advanced Design was concerned, many, many studies were done using D-950 to D-970 "D-numbers"*.
Within this group:
D-966 (and sub-numbers) were twinjet studies.
D-967 was the base number for trijet studies

D-967C-1 to D-967C-137 were the range for DC-10 (as we know it) studies.​

D-967C-138 and subsequent were MD-11.​

D-968 (and subnumbers) were four-jet studies.

D-967C-33 became the commercially designated DC-10-10.
D-967C-38 became the commercially designated DC-10-30/40.

*Confusingly, other numbers in this range looked at two, three, four and six engine designs as well.

Edit: Fixed indentation.

 

[Maveric]

Are there one or more model photos of four-engine variants of the DC.10?

 

[hesham]

Are there one or more model photos of four-engine variants of the DC.10?

Drawings only,

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-proposals-leading-to-the-mcdonnell-douglas-dc-10.4441/#post-235745

 

[Kiltonge]

AvWeek 18 Mar 1974, proposed DC-10 tanker with wingtip boom pods. Text refers to them as "drogue refueling booms" which is rather garbled.