Caller Bob wrote:
The engines were serviced wrong no doubt, but a single engine serviced all electronics (in this case it was the engine they lost)which was definitely a design flaw. Because of that the crew didn't know of the stall. Even in single engine failure, that thing should have been able to land with minimal injuries at that height/speed.
Having the electronics serviced by a single engine would be a problem today in an era where airplanes are engineered to have multiple back-ups. With 2nd generation jetliners, it would be more of the norm. The contemporary L-1011 (which was a commercial failure) was really the only 2nd generation jetliner to be built with multiple back-up systems. It's kind of a shame the Lockheed wide body didn't do better as it was revolutionary in many ways.
Another flaw with the DC-10 though is that the hydraulics all ran through 1 section so if a failure would cut 1 line, it would also cut all 3 lines. This happened with 191 and it happened with United 232. Even if the DC-10 kept its electrical power, the lack of hydraulics would've killed them before they ever could land, and unlike 232, with no left engine, there was no way to control via asymmetrical thrust even if they could climb out.
EDIT: I should also add that the DC-10 had an APU so the loss of electrical power if an engine went wasn't as much of a concern since the APU would restore power to the systems. Loss of hydraulics though, as mentioned, ensured this plane would crash no matter what transpired once the engine broke free.