NEW HISTORY PAGE IN PROGRESS.  CHECK BACK AGAIN LATER AS WE ADD MATERIAL!

During the 1960’s, an amazing array of new civilian aircraft were revealed to the public.  As the decade began, the groundbreaking 707 was seen at major airports everywhere, standing out from the sea of propeller transports that were commonly seen there since the end of World War II.  Douglas’ similar DC-8 was introduced just weeks before the decade began.  A populace used to crossing continents by train and seas via ocean liners discovered that traveling by air would soon become a lot faster and less expensive.

Boeing's 707 and the Douglas DC-8 were just being introduced at the dawn of the 1960's.  Economical jet airliners revolutionized worldwide travel.

During the next ten years, the early 4-engine jet transports were joined by a wide array of innovative variations on the jet-powered airliner theme.  Short-range aircraft for smaller markets such as the BAC 1-11 and DC-9 soon appeared with the 737 showing up later.

The first jet airliners with twin engines were designed for short-haul, low-density routes.  It was assumed at the time that the twin-jet would be relegated to short or medium air routes.

The announcement of the European Concorde early in the decade created a sensation and it was assumed that supersonic flight would become the future of long-distance air travel.  Like the Concorde, Boeing’s giant 747 almost seemed like science fiction as it was assumed that such a large aircraft could never fly, much less become a viable commercial transport.

Space: 1970.  As the decade dawned, the promise of high-efficiency mass air travel and supersonic intercontinental commuting emerged.  Could a Pan Am spaceliner to earth orbit be next?

As the 1960's ended, both 747 and Concorde had actually flown, if not yet entered service.  During this amazing ride, the various model companies released plastic kits of these aircraft.  Airfix made the decision to release its larger civilian airliner types in 1/144-scale and we saw the British Comet, Caravelle, VC-10, Trident, Bac 1-11, and a prototype version of Concorde.  Airfix also released models of American types in 1/144 during the 1960’s including the 707, 727, 737 and 747.

Airfix was really the pioneer for 1/144-scale.  They deemed a de Havilland Comet in 1/72 to be too risky as they weren't sure if such a large civilian aircraft kit would sell.  Dividing their bread-and-butter 1/72-scale by half for the Comet created a model at a reasonable expense.  It was popular enough that they continued a nice range of 1/144-scale airliner kits that are intermittently re-released to this day.  Revell  chose 1/144-scale for their 727, but it would be a while before Revell also opted to standardize their jet airliners in 1/144 "airliner" scale.  BoxArtDen.com images.

Revell's original 707 kit may be found today as an Atlantis Models kit.  We have a comprehensive history page about the Revell 707/KC-135 with information about the Atlantis kit.  Atlantis includes an excellent decal sheet with this kit that has separate windows that can be used for many of your other 1/144 narrow-body airliner projects.

Revell also released model kits of the early jetliners, but didn’t immediately settle on 1/144-scale.  The 707 and DC-8 happened to be close in their fit-the-box iterations, scaling in at 1/139 and 1/143 respectively.  Eventually, Revell’s airliners were done in 1/144 including the 727 and 747.
 
The major American competitors of the early Jet Age were Boeing and Douglas.  Both companies took different approaches for their next steps after the early 707’s and DC-8’s debuted.  Industry insiders half-derisively referred to Boeing as a “sausage factory” for its ability to cut the 707 fuselage into whatever convenient size suited the airline customer.  Adding in the KC-135, the aircraft had a half-dozen different fuselage lengths and about as many different wing configurations.

The DC-8 didn’t have as many variations.  However, sitting higher on its landing gear, the aircraft could be stretched far more than the 707 without it being substantially redesigned to prevent tail-strikes on takeoff and landing.  The 61/63 series planes received a stretch over 35 feet, an astounding 20% increase over the base length.  As the 1960’s closed, the Douglas Super DC-8 held the title as the world’s largest passenger jet--at least in operation.

The first Revell DC-8 from 1959 was a fit-the-box kit that scaled at 1/143 scale, nearly indistinguishable from later 1/144 airliner-scale.  In 1969, Revell stretched the fuselage and provided new engines to make a DC-8 Super 61.

As we know, Boeing wasn’t to sit on the sidelines as Douglas sold the largest passenger aircraft.  After losing competition for the outsize military transporter, which eventually became Lockheed’s C-5, Boeing took its concept for this aircraft and tweaked it into what we know today as the 747.  Perhaps Douglas knew instinctively that airlines wouldn’t need as many seats as the 747 would offer for their initial foray into the new widebody airliner market and the DC-10 was born.  While this new aircraft project used the same DC designation for the DC-10 that could be traced back to its legendary propliners even predating the revolutionary DC-3, Douglas merged with McDonnell Aircraft about the time that work on the DC-10 project began.

"Airbus" was a generic term for a large airliner in the early 1970's and Revell used it as a nickname on the first release of their DC-10 kit, shown here.  By this time, the term was trademarked by Airbus Industrie, a multinational European company incorporated in 1970.  Airbus pioneered the twin-jet widebody with the A300 which first flew in 1972.

Instead of four large high-bypass turbofans used by the 747, McDonnell-Douglas went with three engines.  Their approach with the DC-10 was to balance economy and efficiency applied to their legendary philosophy of designing an extremely robust, low-maintenance airframe.  A simpler approach with a straight center engine nacelle was less expensive to develop and build than the S-duct executed on other trijet aircraft such as the 727 and British Trident.  The competing Lockheed L1011 would utilize the largest such S-duct yet designed and of course this remains the easiest way to tell the difference between a DC-10 and L1011 upon precursory glance.  As we’ll explore later, Douglas’ decision to cut a few corners created problems down the road.

Lockheed's L1011 competed head-to-head with the DC-10.  This photo shows how the middle engine uses an S-duct to transfer intake air downward to the main rear fuselage where the engine is mounted.

Viewed from the front, the straight-through middle engine and vertical tail on the DC-10 resemble a banjo.

Revell released an early DC-10-10 in 1972, a year after the airplane was introduced into domestic service on high-volume routes by American Airlines.  By the early 1970’s, Revell’s new models didn’t have the same level of intricate detailing that made them legendary from the 1950’s, but the upside to this was that the DC-10 kit wasn’t encrusted with oversized rivets.  The kit had open windows with clear strips intended to be glued inside the fuselage before closing it up.  This seemed to be a bit of an engineering shortcut compared to their 747 kits, which had clear window segments molded to fit flush with the fuselage.  Still, the DC-10 built into an impressive, reasonably accurate model that wasn’t at all hard to build. 

This is the Revell DC-10-30 plastic.  Note the three-strut main landing gear and extended wingtips.

Airfix also released a DC-10 kit in 1/144 scale, although it took them until 1980 to do it.  My personal preference is the Revell plastic  since the kit has the characteristic reinforcement strips across the rear stabilizer and engine.  Of course these could be added to the Airfix kit without a whole lot of effort if the modeler so wishes.  The Airfix DC-10 was also released by American manufacturer MPC in American Airlines’ livery circa 1982.

Clear parts.  The builder is supposed to glue the clear strips behind the window openings.  A window-maker such as Testors Clear Window Maker and Clear Parts Cement will be a better choice.

The front cockpit glass was pretty nicely done.  The DC-10 had big windows.  A scratch-built cockpit will be pretty easy to see inside the model.

American Airlines was the launch customer for the DC-10, eventually acquiring 55 DC-10’s, yet Revell chose Delta decals to include with the first release of the model kit in 1972.  The Revell DC-10 “Airbus” debuted in Delta’s legendary “Widget” livery.  The model depicted early GE CF6 engines with a bifurcated tail-cone.  Apparently this divider was a hot-stream split thrust reverser that didn’t work very well and was soon removed from all early DC-10’s.  Interestingly, Delta was better known for its use of Lockheed’s competing L1011 with 70 of these aircraft eventually in use.  Originally, Delta took delivery of 5 DC-10’s, which were only purchased as a stopgap anticipating delivery of the delayed L1011.  Delta later picked up 12 DC-10’s from their merger with Delta in 1987 but these aircraft were quickly passed on to other airlines once the merger was complete.

This early Western Airlines DC-10 has the hot-stream split thrust reversers.  Note that the engine nacelle covers are open for maintenance.

This slightly later Western DC-10, also in "Flying W" livery, has had the hot stream thrust reversers removed.  Compare the exit "spike" on the rear engine to the earlier aircraft.  Note that the cheatline stripe doesn't go all the way to the tailcone, either.  The "DC-10 Spaceship" titles were also added after initial delivery to Western.

Like most major airliner types, the DC-10 was released in more advanced versions as time allowed for further development.  The DC-10-30 had more advanced engines and was designed to carry more fuel to provide an intercontinental range.  Increased gross weight required addition of a center main landing gear.  Revell modified its DC-10 kit to portray accurately this version.  The hot stream thrust reverse detail was eliminated and a middle main gear strut was added.  The wingspan was lengthened.  This is a subtle detail not easily noticed on the real airplane yet Revell went to the trouble to depict it on their model by modifying the tooling.

Note that the later DC-10-30 kit has a center main landing gear strut.  On the -10 version, there are no doors there.

The wingtips on this -30 version have been extended compared to the -10; you can see a line where the tooling was modified.

Unfortunately, the DC-10 received a tarnished safety record early into its service.  Less than a year after the type debuted, a poorly designed cargo door latching system created first a close call with American Airlines Flight 96 in 1972 and catastrophe after a worse instance of door failure with Turkish Airlines Flight 981 a year and a half later.  Media reports that the plane was unsafe gave some passengers pause before booking a flight on a DC-10, something that had never happened before with a Douglas airplane, or more correctly, McDonnell Douglas, as the two companies had merged prior to completion of the DC-10.

The plastic shown above is from this kit.  Actually, the DC-10-15 did not have the extended wing and third main landing gear strut.  The -15 was designed for hot-and-high airport conditions, a perfect match for Mexico City International Airport (MEX).

Revell made an L-1011 kit, both as a show-off model with a complete interior and a regular version that looks great if displayed with a DC-10.

With the cargo door latching issues corrected and the sensational news stories subsided, the DC-10 gradually received acceptance by the flying public.  A few early purchasers of 747’s found that these airplanes were just too big for their routes.  The DC-10 was a perfect replacement and airlines such as Continental, Lufthansa, Northwest, and United actually replaced at least some of their 747’s with DC-10’s.

Revell Germany released the DC-10-30 in Lufthansa colors.

Revell made and sold kits for the Brazil market.  Varig bought 15 DC-10-30's.

On March 25, 1979, the DC-10 was thrust into the news again after the crash of American Airlines Flight 191.  One of American’s original DC-10-10 aircraft with registration N110AA physically lost an engine on takeoff.  Damage to the left wing’s hydraulic lines thanks to the engine departing the aircraft caused the leading edge slats to retract, but only on that side.  Loss of cockpit indications of the uncommanded slat retraction left the pilot without knowledge of the sudden  asymmetric-lift condition and the aircraft stalled and crashed.  It was (and still is at time of posting) the worst aircraft accident in the USA.  An improper maintenance shortcut to remove the wing engines was blamed for the engine breaking away from the aircraft.  Additional issues such as the susceptibility for damage to the wing hydraulic lines and lack of safety measures to prevent the uncommanded flap retraction in the event of loss of hydraulic pressure were listed as factors that contributed to the loss of control that resulted in the accident.

Another fine BoxArtDen image showing Revell's DC-10 in Scandinavian colors.  Scandinavian bought 30 DC-10-30's.

According to Scalemates.com, this was a Lodela Mexico release.  We love the color scheme; it looks like a party-in-a-box.

After this, the folks at Revell likely assumed that demand for the DC-10 model kit would be reduced.  Perhaps they considered viable options for making money from existing DC-10 tooling by reengineering it to depict a military aircraft.  This is exactly what they did.  They experienced exactly the same thing nearly two decades earlier with their Lockheed Electra kit.  After the passenger Electra’s reputation was irreparably damaged by a series of accidents, Revell re-engineered the Electra into the military P-3 Orion model kit.  Read our interesting article about the Electra/P-3 kit here.

For 1983, Revell re-tooled the DC-10 kit into the military KC-10.  Like the Electra, the DC-10 airframe was deemed suitable for military application, in this case, a refueling aircraft with twice the capacity of the KC-135.  In 1982, as the Cold War was advancing into its final stages, the KC-10 entered service with the U.S. Air Force.  60 aircraft were purchased.  Revell saw the opportunity to get new life out of the decade-old DC-10 tooling and changed the molds to produce a very nice, fairly accurate KC-10 tanker.

Revell's KC-10 of 1983 came with a 1/144-scale F-15.  It was previously one of their "Squadron 144" series of 1982, most of which were from Crown tooling.

Unlike the mid-1960’s with the 1/115 Electra kit, Revell did not irreversibly change their DC-10 mold.  The changes were likely limited to removable mold inserts that preserved the ability to make further DC-10 kits.  As far as I can tell, the -30 changes that applied to the KC-10 kit (longer wings, 3rd main gear strut), were done during this time so that civilian DC-10-30’s could also be released.

Revell's KC-10 Extender is very similar to the DC-10-30 kit.  Note that the vast majority of cabin windows were smoothed over.  A new refueling station is tooled into the fuselage behind the wing.  A new sprue with refueling probe is included.  Sorry our "bargain" KC-10 didn't include the clear parts; in addition to a window for the refueling port, a pair of clear stands was included to depict the KC-10 in-flight while refueling the F-15 or Tornado.

The KC-10 came with a 1/144-scale F-15.  Other 1/144 military subjects were available at the time including Revell’s Squadron 1/144 series, a collection of mostly former Crown kits that included WWII subjects such as a B-17 and Spitfire and then-modern aircraft such as an F-111, F-14 and F-16.

Revell's C-5A, KC-135A and C-130 were just a few of the 1/144-scale kits that Revell released in the 1980's.

Revell-USA released their KC-10 in 1983 alongside a series of other larger military kits in or close to 1/144-scale.  During the period, you could create a pretty good collection of 1/144 aircraft with a C-5-A (and -B), KC-135, C-130, B-52, and E-4B as well as a few interesting civil types like the B-377 Pregnant Guppy and Space Shuttle with 747.

These are additional 1/144-scale kits Revell released during the same period as the KC-10.  This A310 (1985) has aftermarket FedEx decals.  Concorde (1983) was a former Otaki kit.  The B-29 was the biggest model in the 1982 "Squadron 144" line; it was a former Crown kit and afterwards was a Minicraft kit for many years.  The B377 "Pregnant Guppy" (1985) was also an Otaki kit.  

Revell Germany released the KC-10 in the later “Shamu” gray scheme.  Instead of the F-15, it included a Tornado to appeal more to European kit buyers.  Unlike the Electra, it was still possible to mold a DC-10-30 and several additional releases were seen from Revell of Germany and Revell-Lodela of Mexico.

This latest issue of the Revell-Germany KC-10 in mid-1980's "Shamu" camo dates back to 1996.  It's not like you can find it at your local store, but it can be had on secondary market sources such as eBay.

This sprue, new for the KC-10, has two options for a stowed refueling boom or a boom deployed to refuel the 1/144 fighter jet that comes with the kit.

At time of posting, Revell’s DC-10 and KC-10 kits can still be found at secondary sellers and auction websites such as eBay.  Model contests and club swap-meets might also be places to find these kits at reasonable prices.  Since Revell didn’t irreversibly destroy the capability to mold DC-10 kits after creating the KC-10 option, none of the Revell DC-10 kits are highly collectible.  Some of the earlier versions may be more rare and thus pricier.  These are pretty good-sized kits so expect to pay in excess of $US40-50 or more.

Aurora models made a DC-10 in 1/144-scale.  It was briefly re-released by Monogram and we’d guess that Atlantis Models might have this tooling and could re-release the kit at some point in the future.  Many of the Aurora airliners weren’t quite as accurate as the Revell kits but they provide plenty of nostalgia value and Atlantis is well known for releasing the kits at low prices with excellent decals that could be used or adapted for similar kits from other manufacturers.  If Atlantis makes an announcement concerning this or other airliner kits, we’ll be sure to feature them in future articles.

Aurora's airliners were mostly fit-the-box efforts, but their DC-10 filled their big 1970's box in 1/144-scale.

Unfortunately, Aurora went out of business in the late 1970's and Monogram bought their tooling library.  In 1978, they released some of their airliners including the DC-10 in American Airlines colors.

BONUS FEATURES
BUILD A REVELL DC-10 OR KC-10

Revell’s DC-10/KC-10 kits were engineered to be easy to build by the average hobbyist.  They don’t have a high parts count.  Some filling and trimming of parts will likely be in order to improve fit and of course the model will always benefit from a nice paint-job.

This KC-10 was built from the 1983 issue of the Revell CK-10 Extender.  It was finished in 1998.

If the builder wishes to add to the kit, the best place to start is the cockpit.  The DC-10/KC-10) had very large cockpit windows and it will be easy to see an instrument panel console and seats.  The first step here is to make a rear bulkhead and floor.  The bulkhead should be set a few millimeters forward of the portside forward boarding door.

I’d suggest utilizing some seated N-scale figures painted as pilots in your scratch-built “front office” of your next DC-10 model.  They're pretty close to 1/144th-scale.
 
I’d recommend using Testors clear window maker for the passenger windows if you're building a DC-10.  The clear parts included with the kit won’t sit flush with the fuselage surface and the film-windows you can create with this product will just look better than the kit-supplied plastic.

Paint used was Testors enamel.  I believe the silver is SNJ spray-metal.  The model was clear-coated with a Floquil semi-gloss.

The model was an enjoyable build with no surprises.

Of course another option is to fill the windows with your favorite putty and use decals.  The DC-10 had larger passenger windows than Boeing or Lockheed’s widebody aircraft, but decal windows will still look just fine.
 
A decal will also suffice for the cockpit windows as well; the reason I’m partial to keeping the clear transparency and scratch-building a cockpit is because those windows are so large that any detail work done in the cockpit area will be easily seen and enjoyed by anyone who views the model.  Of course the decal is perfectly suitable if you don't care about a visible cockpit interior.

BONUS FEATURES

THE LONG-HAUL TRIJET VS ETOPS:  WHO WILL WIN?

Piston engines were notoriously unreliable.  Even during WWII, many engineering schemes were tried to increase horsepower of a radial piston engine.  Supercharging and turbo-compounding managed to squeeze more power and better fuel efficiency out of existing aircraft engines, but at the expense of complexity and lifespan.  A good example of this is the DC-7.  The DC-7 had a longer range than the DC-6 by as much as 30% and could fly across the USA non-stop (in about 8 hours!).  However, the more powerful engines weren’t nearly as reliable as those in the DC-6.  The DC-6 stayed in service much longer than the DC-7 because the engines created far less headaches for their owners.

The DC-6 first flew in 1946 and competed with the Lockheed Constellation in airline service.  Even with the advent of the Jet Age, the DC-6 soldiered on in airliner service and later, cargo operations.

A stretch too far?  The DC-7, which first flew in 1953, could carry more passengers further than the DC-6.  However, the engines were less reliable and more costly to maintain than the DC-6.  With the delivery of Boeing and Douglas jetliners, the DC-7 quickly disappeared.

Piston engine shutdowns in flight were common.  A near-nightmare scenario occurred with Pan Am Flight 6, a Boeing Stratocruiser that lost multiple engines between Hawaii and San Francisco.  Luckily, a Coast Guard ocean station ship was in the vicinity and managed to rendezvous with the stricken plane as it burned off fuel for an open-ocean ditching near the ship.  The pilot opted to move passengers forward, aware that in a similar incident a year before, the aircraft’s tail broke off.  Even though this repeated, the ditching had no casualties.  It was a given that you’d want at least four engines on a transoceanic flight in a propliner!

The debut of the 707 nearly cut in half the travel times of the fastest piston-prop planes.  Early turbojets had their own reliability issues but they quickly improved.  The outsized 747 used four large turbofan engines and airlines and aviation experts wondered if there would be enough passenger demand to fill the early 747’s.  On many routes the early jumbo jets flew, there was not.

A Pan Am Boeing 377 Stratocruiser similar to the Flight 6 aircraft.  While an advanced aircraft, the Strat had similar issues as the DC-7 with overly complicated engines.  Relatively few were built.  Boeing totally turned the tables on its fortunes with the 707.

Flight 6 ditches at sea between Hawaii and the U.S. Mainland after two engines failed in-flight.  Fortunately, a rescue ship was nearby to catch this dramatic photo and then save all passengers and crew.

It's really hard to land a large aircraft in the water in one piece.  The captain knew the tail broke off an aircraft that landed similarly a year before and he wisely chose to move passengers away from the tail, which broke off as he predicted.

Douglas and Lockheed both calculated that a trijet would fill then-current airline needs, and they were right.  It was assumed that a trio of engines would provide plenty of backup capability if one engine quit in flight during an overseas flight.
 
The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) came up with safety recommendations and each nation’s civil aviation board (the FAA in the United States) would often follow their advice and create policy.  In 1953, the FAA restricted operation of a twin-engined civil transport to within 60 minutes of a diversion airport in the case of an engine failure.

The early 737 of the late 1960's could carry 102 passengers in a 2-class configuration.  It had a range of 3000 miles but was never considered for long over-water routes.

30 years later, the 737-800 could carry 160 passengers in a 2-class layout with a range of nearly 3500 miles.  This aircraft has received ETOPS-180 certification meaning it can fly from the U.S. West Coast to airports in Hawaii!  To me, it's still a little trippy to get on a narrow-body aircraft and fly over-water for that long.

With the advent of reliable turbine engines, there was room for exceptions to this rule and by 1964, the 60-minute rule was waived for 3-engine trijets.  It was after this that Douglas and Lockheed began study of their widebody trijets.
 
While the first DC-10’s didn’t have intercontinental capability, the DC-10-30 did.  Once this aircraft was available along with the competing L1011, the airlines enthusiastically embraced the new widebody trijets on overseas routes.  I recall trips to Honolulu through the 1980’s and 1990’s and seeing many 747’s and widebody trijets at the terminal there.  The twin-engined airliners you’d see there were the short-hop interisland variety.
 

That third main landing gear strut identifies this American Airlines DC-10 as the -30 Intercontinental model.  This aircraft could make it from the West Coast to Hawaii without any sort of ETOPS considerations thanks to the three-engine configuration.

Airbus struggled to sell the A300 in the USA initially.  But when American received an offer they couldn't refuse, complete with the engines of their choice where they got resistance from Boeing for the same flexibility, AA eventually acquired a number of twin-engine A300's.  The challenge to the widebody trijet was in place!

Crazy trivia:  Early Airbus A300's didn't use Alclad aluminum, which was easy to polish into a nice, fairly long-lasting sheen.  That's why early A300's that went to AA and Eastern were painted gray instead of polished natural metal.

In 1974, the first widebody twinjet joined airlines, the Airbus A300.  Initially, it was assumed that the new Airbus would perform domestic service and high-density short routes.  However, the reliability of the aircraft allowed  for a 90-minute single-engine diversion for the A300 in 1976.  Boeing’s twin-engine widebody 767 first entered service in 1982 and the stretched Boeing 767-300ER in 1986.  By this time, the acronym ETOPS was becoming known; Extended-range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards.  Pilots quickly came up with their own simplified version of the acronym as “Engines Turning Or Passengers Swim,” spoken only amongst themselves.

This AeroGuard ETOPS map demonstrates how ETOPS-180 rules barely make it possible for an aircraft certified for ETOPS-180 operations to fly from LAX (Los Angeles, CA) to HNL (Honolulu, Hawaii).

I'm skeptical that a scenario like this will turn out OK if the failure happens in that small area where the ETOPS-limit circles barely overlap as on the diagram at left.  A core-lock failure with loss of aerodynamic nacelle covers could conceivably reduce range below the ETOPS limit distance.  A dead engine like this acts as a very effective air-brake.

During  this era, terms like ETOPS-120 and ETOPS-180 became common.  Airliner manufacturers and the airlines themselves were required to demonstrate that they were capable of meeting the strict maintenance requirements to be allowed to schedule these flights using twin-engined aircraft.  Engines in ETOPS aircraft must also have as many built-in redundancies as possible.  ETOPS-certified engine components are more costly than their non-certified equivalents and a non-ETOPS part may not be substituted for an otherwise identical non-ETOPS part on an ETOPS aircraft.
 
In 1987, Airbus announced its replacement for the A300 in the form of the A330 and A340.  These aircraft were intended to replace aging DC-10’s and L1011’s.

The A330 and A340 were very similar with the significant difference that the A340 had four engines instead of two like the A330, and the A340 was intended for long-distance overwater routes.  Thanks to competition from Boeing and even the exceptional reliability of the A330 itself, the A340 has been long-since discontinued.  New versions of the A330 have been approved for ETOPS-180, that is up to three hours operation on a single engine away from a diversion airport.

The twin-engine A330 was originally intended for shorter, domestic flights.  However, it proved it could fly ETOPS routes and gradually received extensions on the distance it was certified to fly long over-water routes.

The A340 was originally sold as a long-range intercontinental aircraft and performed admirably in the role.  However, as the A330 received approval for longer over-water flights, the A340 couldn't economically compete with it and the twin-engine Boeing 777.  The A340 was discontinued in 2012.  Orders for the twin-engine A330 continue at time of posting.

It was really the advent of the Boeing 777 that was the beginning of the end for the widebody trijets.  Of course the DC-10’s and L1011’s were aging anyway with aircraft approaching 20 years old as new 777's entered  service starting in the mid-1990’s.
 
In addition to Airbus, McDonnell Douglas had come up with its own competitor to the 777.  The trijet MD-11 was a modernized version of the DC-10.  With the DC-10 only being not much better than a break-even deal for MDD, it didn’t have the resources for a clean-sheet design or even a twin-engine version of the DC-10. 200 MD-11’s were eventually sold but a 1997 merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing pretty much brought the widebody trijet era to an end; Boeing completed MD-11 orders that MDD had received prior to the merger and continued designing and building variants of its 777 making it the most popular twin-engined widebody aircraft to date.  Boeing and Airbus are locked in stiff competition to this day to produce long-range twinjets and ETOPS rules extend to flights an astounding 370 minutes, or over six hours away from a diversion airport while flying on one engine!

McDonnell Douglas' MD-11 was an attempt to continue sales of passenger aircraft in an evolving industry.  It was hoped that many airlines with trijets would replace their aging DC-10's and L1011's with the MD-11.  The aircraft did not meet its targets for range and fuel economy and the widebody trijet era came to an end after delivery of just 200 aircraft.

Boeing's 777 entered service in 1995 with United Airlines.  American also was an early customer for the 777-200.  The 777 was prepared by Boeing as a replacement for the remaining widebody trijets.  The airlines were heavily involved with its development and this strategy has turned out to be very successful for Boeing.  

To date, there have been a few close calls on ETOPS.  The standards assume an aircraft can safely continue on single-engine power with no further difficulties.  At time of posting, ETOPS is not a topic of concern among the vast majority of travelers, but one incident involving a serious accident could certainly change that.  Is ETOPS a safety casino-in-the-sky?

DC-10'S WITH TWO OR FOUR ENGINES?

A DC-10 WITH TWO ENGINES:  DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Throughout its development, McDD considered a smaller DC-10 with two engines.  However, it remained a “paper airplane” only. 

FOUR-ENGINE DC-10???  YUP--KINDA

A few of the early jets were designed with the capability of ferrying a spare engine.  Of course this engine did not have power or fuel connections

Several studies were done to create a DC-10 with two engines.  However, we'd guess that the modifications needed to eliminate the third engine and adjust for the considerable shift in center-of-gravity would have required modifications to all flight surfaces and did not make this practical for MDD.  Later, as the MD-11 design was considered, McDonnell Douglas didn't have the resources for the considerable design and testing work that it would have taken to create a twin-jet based on the DC-10's design.

However, the capability to ferry a spare engine was built into the DC-10.  As one might imagine, transporting a large, spare turbofan engine over long ground distances would be expensive and slow.  If, for example, an engine failed in a remote airport destination, it could conceivably put an airliner out of service for days or weeks if waiting for a replacement engine to arrive by ground or sea.  Using the engine-ferry option could possibly put a spare engine onsite the same day!  An interesting aspect of the "four engine DC-10" is the aerodynamic fairing.  It greatly helps with fuel economy when transporting the spare.

REVELL'S FREDDIE LAKER SKYTRAIN DC-10

Revell’s Freddie Laker Skytrain DC-10 was released in 1979.  It was one of only a few Revell kits to feature a photo of a personality on the box top (a couple other examples are the Cousteau 1/72 PBY and Billy Carter’s “Redneck Power Pick-Up”).
 
Sir Freddie Laker’s Skytrain was an early low-cost airline with deeply discounted service between London and New York City.  Laker obtained a handful of DC-10-10’s, some at bargain prices.  The -10 was intended to be a short-to-medium route domestic airliner, not designed for overseas routes.  However, Mr. Laker implemented two weight-saving policies that allowed his DC-10-10’s to cross the Atlantic!  By removing seats to restrict the number of passengers carried and restricting the weight of baggage allowed per-passenger, the aircraft was able to make it safely between London and New York.  With three engines, there was never any concern about anything related to ETOPS considerations.  Laker was able to do this at a price today approximating a low-cost regional flight.  And no customers likely complained about the spacious seating arrangements.  Laker soon obtained intercontinental DC-10-30’s, eventually flying 11 DC-10’s.  Laker Airways and Skytrain succumbed to the early 1980’s recession.  The Revell Freddie Laker DC-10 is remembered perhaps as the first no-frills discount airline to rate being depicted in a model kit.  I would have bought a Revell L.A. Lakers DC-10 even if it was fictional.

A DC-10 QUIRK

The DC-10 was known for cruising nose-high.  This meant that it was an uphill walk from the back of the plane to the front when it was at cruise altitude.  This issue was loathed by flight attendants when it came to providing cabin service.  Imagine pushing heavy meal and drink service carts up an incline while feeding hundreds of passengers multiple times on a full widebody intercontinental flight.  This is exactly what happened with the DC-10.
 
Many pilots on the other hand, loved the DC-10 and some said it felt like driving a big luxury car.

Note the KC-10's nose-high cruise attitude compared to the KC-135, at left.

DC-10 AIRLINE LIVERY COMPARISON - AMERICAN AND UNITED

This is essentially how American Airlines' DC-10's looked for the couple decades or so that they flew for the airline.  On the nose is "American Airlines Luxury Liner."

Two hints reveal this as an early photo of an American DC-10.  First, you probably noted the previously discussed hot stream reversers.  Secondly, the "DC-10 Luxury Liner" nose titles.  After the highly publicized cargo door loss incidents, American chose to remove DC-10 reference.

American Airlines’ DC-10’s were delivered in the iconic red-white-and-blue stripe over polished aluminum livery.  They wore that livery for their entire careers with American.  When American took delivery of the DC-10’s in 1971, the “Scissor-Eagle” livery was familiar, having debuted in 1968.  Prior American aircraft used variations of the “Lightning Bolt” livery with the last being referred to as “Astrojet.”  Astrojet livery used an orange lightning bolt over polished aluminum.
 
American hired famous designer Massimo Vignelli to completely change its aircraft branding.  Vignelli created the first modernist subway map for the New York City Transit Authority in a style that has been widely copied and used almost universally to this day, among many other accomplishments.

This is how the DC-10 appeared when rolled out by McDonnell Douglas for the first time.  Of note are the cheatline stripes, which somewhat resemble American's.  Remember that the American Airlines scheme with stripes over polished aluminum had been around for a few years when the DC-10 was first revealed.

Vignelli stuck with the traditional cheatline (a horizontal line following and covering an airliner’s passenger windows.  However, he innovated it by widening it considerably and dividing it into three stripes of contrasting colors.  In American’s case, of course, those colors were blue, white and red, from top to bottom.  Another innovation was to make the fuselage titles much larger than was customary at the time.  An aircraft tail was considered a billboard surface by the airlines and their marketing executives expected a tail graphic that would boldly identify their brand in an artful way.  Vignelli chose the block-lettered “AA” in contrasting red and blue.  He resisted American’s insistence that their eagle logo be included, and American eventually won out with the so-called “scissor eagle” being a late addition to the scheme.  And of course American would continue to leave their airplanes unpainted, occasionally giving the aluminum exteriors a good polishing while the aircraft was hangared for scheduled deep maintenance downtime.

American’s DC-10’s wore this striking scheme for their entire existence.  Another benefit of a polished metal exterior was that it saved weight, certainly eliminating hundreds of pounds of paint for a DC-10.  This would add up as considerable fuel savings over the lifetime of the aircraft.  The MD-11’s which replaced the DC-10's wore this scheme as well.  In fact, Vignelli’s iconic American Airlines bare-metal “Scissor-Eagle” scheme was in use by American for a staggering 45 years—from 1968 to 2013. 
 
The primary reason for the change to the current (at time of posting) Futurebrands scheme was the pending delivery of the Boeing 787 jetliner.  This aircraft had a fuselage made of carbon-fiber composite and had to be painted.  American did not want this prestigious new aircraft type to wear the same colors as its original A300’s delivered decades before (instead of brightly polished aluminum, the first batch of A300’s were light gray).  A new livery with a light-gray pearl coat and a striking tail treatment with billboard titles at the front debuted to great fanfare and did look good on their new 787’s.

United’s DC-10’s are another story.  For a number of years, even pre-jet age, United’s aircraft had a white top with a blue cheatline and a spear logo on the tail.  As the DC-10 came on board there, the “Friend Ship” livery had been established with a bold red stripe replacing the former narrow gold stripe that divided the white-top fuselage from natural metal below floor-level with four large stars.  It was this scheme that debuted United’s DC-10’s.

United's "DC-10 Friend Ship"

By the 1970’s, this scheme was seen as antiquated, particularly compared to competitor American’s.  So United tried a similar approach, in this case hiring a trademark designer with a track record for innovation at other airlines.  They chose Saul Bass.  Bass had made a name for himself in Hollywood by creating title sequences for films (like Hitchcock's Psycho!).  He also created many corporate logos and had already designed the exteriors for Continental’s aircraft in 1968 which debuted a month after American’s.  So he was seen as a safe bet to update the look of United’s aircraft.

Red, white and blue--and orange!  Saul Bass' beloved "Tulip Scheme" modernized United's planes for the 1970's.

Perhaps the folks at United asked Mr. Bass to give their planes a look that was similar to both Continental and American.  Pictured here is a Continental DC-10 wearing Bass' 1968 "Contrails" livery.

Interestingly, Bass used the same concept he had used previously for Continental that was also utilized at American to rebrand all of United’s aircraft.  In fact, the two schemes are so similar in concept that many mistake American’s livery as a Saul Bass design.
 
Of course Mr. Bass couldn’t copy American’s cheatline exactly.  His variation was to substitute orange for white in United’s version.  Interesting here is that it was American that previously used orange significantly in their branding with their Lightning Bolt livery dating back to their early days even predating the DC3 era.  A large, rearward-sweeping “U” that observers compared to a tulip graced the tails of United’s aircraft with the sweep emphasizing that United had fully embraced the Jet Age.

For the 1980's, Saul Bass' scheme received a minor refresh with the cheatline moved down so the orange covered the windows instead of red as before.  This allowed more room to increase the size of the United titles on the fuselage.

United's "Battleship Gray" was the final paint scheme for their DC-10's.  It was the 4th and final livery that the aircraft wore.

Titles were relatively small.  Other than American, this seemed to be customary at many airlines and this was how he’d done it for Continental.  On a Pan Am 747, the titles appeared miniscule.  By the 1980’s, many airlines including Pan Am saw the need to increase the size of their titles to increase brand awareness in a new world where loud corporate branding was becoming de rigueur.
 
A few years later, United’s popular Tulip Scheme received a minor tweak to get the titles bigger.  The stripe was moved down leaving more space above for larger titles.  The tail logo was unchanged.
 
This scheme sufficed on United’s aircraft until 1993 when it was replaced with the so-called Battleship Gray scheme.  Elements of Saul Bass’ beloved design were kept with the tail logo essentially unchanged and the gray fuselage top divided by a narrow orange and red stripe transitioning into a dark blue at floor level and below.

Continental's DC-10's were retired in the 1990's wearing the "Globe Scheme."

Today (2020's), this same Globe Scheme, slightly updated, is worn by United's aircraft.  This is a Boeing 787.

I liked this distinctive livery but it didn’t last long.  The gray paint selected aged badly and the aircraft gave the impression of being old as it faded and became blotchy too quickly.  Within about five years, United hired Pentagram to reimagine the gray-top scheme into a white-top scheme that frankly didn’t have the same visual impact as the classy gray exercise.  United’s DC-10’s were sold off before they could receive this new scheme.  United has since adopted Continental’s Globe livery and the last vestiges of the 1974 Saul Bass Tulip Scheme have disappeared.

After their DC-10’s were retired by 1998, United gave its Battleship Gray scheme a good tweaking, swapping out gray for white and enlarging the Tulip logo until it literally overflowed the tail.  This livery sufficed until a merger with Continental airlines was finalized in 2010.  Then, United adopted Continental’s Globe livery, which had replaced the Contrails livery in 1991.  Continental’s DC-10’s were retired wearing this livery.  If the DC-10 were still flying passengers for United today, they would look very similar to this scheme!

MORE COMING SOON - STAY TUNED AS WE ADD TO THIS ARTICLE!