View Full Version : Monarch DC-10 now a classroom

Buster the Bear
20th Dec 2003, 00:26
Retired DC10 has a second lease of life as its turned into a classroom

Monarch Airlines has donated the front fuselage section of its retired DC-10 aircraft to Manchester Airport to become a classroom with a difference. The 60 foot section includes a flight deck and 70 passenger seats, and will offer children exclusive access to areas previously open only to flight crew. The interior will look exactly as it did when it flew long and short-haul flights from Manchester and will be positioned in the airport’s visitor park as a permanent memorial to the DC10.

Much loved by air enthusiasts, the 23 year-old aircraft was no longer economically viable within Monarch’s fleet. Sister company’ Monarch Aircraft Engineering’s line maintenance team at Manchester has been carrying out a care and maintenance programme since the aircraft’s final flight in October 2001. The final breaking down of the airframe took six weeks and was carried out by a 12-strong team of ground staff, engineers and specialist contractors. Heavy cutting equipment was used to remove the front section, which weighs 20 tonnes.

Peter Brown, chief executive Monarch Airlines said; ” The DC10 aircraft was much loved by aviation enthusiasts and by all the crew that operated it. It will be greatly missed, but we are delighted that a part of it can be put to such a good use. We hope it will bring great enjoyment to visitors to the park for many years to come.”

The new ‘classroom’ is due to open to the public in spring 2004. Visits to the DC10 by school parties can be booked by contacting the Airport Tour Centre 0161 489 2443.

- ends –


Purchased from Zambia Airways in spring 1996 the DC10 was the first dedicated long range aircraft with non-stop capabilities introduced to the Monarch fleet. The DC10 was instrumental in helping Monarch build up its non-stop-long haul programme, alongside leased MD11s, before Monarch acquired two new A330s in 1999. Towards the end of its time in the Monarch fleet it was largely used as a standby aircraft.

DC10 facts:

Aircraft type: McDonnell Douglas DC10 – Series 30

Date of Manufacture: November 1980

Obtained from: Zambia Airways, spring 1996

Monarch registration: G-DMCA

Previous registration: N3016Z

First Monarch flight operated: London Gatwick to Alicante, 17 March 1996

Last Monarch flight operated: Manchester to Orlando Sanford, 26 October 2001

Flight deck crew: 3

Cabin crew: 11

Seating capacity: 361

Length: 158’7” (48.33m)

Wing span: 165’4” (50.39m)

Height: 57’9” (17.60m)

Cruising speed: 550mph (885kph)

Maximum range: 6200 st m (9978km)

Engines (three): CF6-50C2

Maximum take-off weight: 260,815 kgs

Maximum landing weight: 259,455 kgs

Empty weight: approx. 120,000 kgs

Fuel Capacity: 110,000 tonnes

Galleys: Seven

Toilets: Nine

20th Dec 2003, 01:04
"Fuel Capacity: 110,000 tonnes", bloody hell

20th Dec 2003, 01:27
and you can still fly the real thing with mytravel's dc10! book early

20th Dec 2003, 01:39
Haven't the MYT 10's been converted to cattle sheds?

20th Dec 2003, 18:55
Don't know if it's true, but I had heard that that particular DC-10 was not "economically viable" not only for fuel/maitanence etc. reasons, but more importantly it was uneconomical to repair the broken wing spar it suffered as a result of a heavy landing.

Was based in Manchester during it's break up, and I was surprised that I got mixed feelings each time I passed the plane on the perimeter road. Partly excited to see the day's progress in the break-up, and partly sad at such a beautiful bird at the hands of a JCB.

20th Dec 2003, 20:06
Heavy landing? Isn't it amazing that somebody from Malta knows what those of us working for Monarch don't!!!!!!

20th Dec 2003, 20:26
To my knowledge, the DC-10 never suffered a heavy landing in Monarch service. (It suffered a lot of other things including being hit by ground servicing vehicles with monotonous regularity!)The 'Previous Owners' stalled it at high altitude, due to climbing it in Vert Speed on the autopilot. Whether this was the cause of the hairline cracks in the tailplane spar is a moot point. However, it was deemed allowable up to the next D check, which it was due. In the aftermath of Sept 11 and with the check costing £1.2 million, or somesuch, the decision was made to ground the aircraft. All the crew who worked on it loved it, perhaps less so the ground engineers! Also, it did have its detractors high up in the company.

20th Dec 2003, 22:23
Cracks in the tailplane is not uncommon on the 10's.

21st Dec 2003, 01:39
Monarchs A300-600's also carried 361 pax, so why did they not lease an extra one of these , rather than (expensively) introducing a thirsty tri-jet into the equation , plus all the associated training costs/type ratings/engineering etc....... ?

21st Dec 2003, 02:35
Because a DC-10-30 can go a hell of a lot further than an A300-600 can with 361 punters on board and it is not affected by ETOPS rules.

21st Dec 2003, 03:06
It was acquired as a cheap 'stop gap' to provide UK- Florida non-stop capability until the A330-200s were delivered. The A300-600R had to tech stop BGR westbound and frequently couldn't guarantee non-stop eastbound. Additionally, the DC-10 carried 6.5 tonnes of cargo. Volumetrically and performance-wise it could've carried at least 8 tonnes, but sadly it wouldn't trim. Also, there were other long-haul routes in prospect: Denver, Las Vegas and the Caribbean, which the DC-10 opened up for the A330s.

When it first entered service, it seated 358 and flew the first summer in that config. A toilet was then taken out to find room for an extra triple, making it compatible with the A300s, seating-wise. The A300/DC-10 Fleet Manager was just that - he was current on both types.

All the staff thought it was the barmiest rumour ever when news about getting a DC-10 trickled out from the mill. There are people in Monarch who still fervently wish it had remained exactly that! This does not include the flightdeck and cabin crew who loved it to bits.

codpiece face
21st Dec 2003, 05:58
The aircraft was not nice to work on from an engineering point of view, having said that it was very versatile from the airline side, although very thirsty.