It was OK on the DC-9 and nobody considered the difference
on the DC-10. Yes it was a bad design as was not using
hydraulic fuses and not having essential power as is now
required on Part 25, perhaps because of what was learned
from 191.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Yes, a DC-10 at Tulsa had both wing mounted engines fail
| after sucking up about 10,000 sparrows. Came around on
just
| the tail engine.
|
| The problem with flight 191 was that the crew did not
know
| the slat had retracted. Since lift varies by the
sq.root of
| the speed, the wing would not be stalled at V2, but with
the
| slat retracted, the effect was greater than the combined
| effect of rudder and aileron anti-roll command. At 300
feet
| they just wasn't time to figure it out.
|
| Running both hydralic lines (allowing the slats to
retract) within
| inches of eash other was perhaps a questional decision.
|
| -Robert
|