Boeing Super 80??!!??

[JTrain]

Was recently jumpseating on an AMR Eagle flight and flipping thru their inflight mag. In the back part where it talked about the airplanes AMR + AE flew, e.g. B737, B767, B777, it also described the MD-80 as the "Boeing Super 80."

As far as I'm concerned, an MD-80 is a McDonnell Douglas MD-80, irregardless of the fact Boeing did buy MD in '96. The only thing Boeing about the plane is that Boeing may be responsible for product upkeep. Pretty much all of AMR's MD-80s were delivered by then; they were McDonnell Douglas MD-80s when they rolled off the assembly line; shouldn't they be listed as McDonnell Douglas MD-80s or MD Super 80s now?!?

Along similar lines, my local town paper, whenever they write about the SwissAir 111 crash, they use the term Boeing MD-11 to describe the plane. Once, they even described the plane as a "Boeing-made" MD-11 (that particular MD-11 was NOT manufactured by Boeing, Boeing just acquired MD). This got me ticked enough to write a letter to the editor on the subject, but they still keep on calling it a Boeing MD-11. We don't call the DC-3 a Boeing DC-3. Heck, MD didn't even try to slap their name on that or many other fine Douglas commercial aircraft; they just updated the name beginning with the Super 80. Am I missing something here? Anybody? Alright - thats my rant for the day...

JTrain

 

[Chunk]

Take a look at the Blue Angels up close....on the turtle back it says,

"Boeing F/A-18"

Chunk

 

[chperplt]

Jtrain,

You're a lucky man if you have nothing better to worry about than what someone calls an aircraft. I guess it's a good thing we still call the Beech 1900 a Beech 1900, and not a Raytheon 1900..

 

[Hovernut]

I'm from STL and have friends working at McDonnell....er Boeing. They pretty much still consider themselves McDonnell Douglas employees. It's hard to accept change when you grow up with a product. Heck I even have to call TWA American now! What am I going to be calling Comair in the near future??

To me, it's still the McD F-15, F/A-18, AV-8B....and the airliners.

 

[typhoonpilot]

Jtrain:


I tend to agree it is hard to get used to calling the MD-80 a Boeing MD-80. The rational apparently was that the MD-80, MD-90, and MD-11 were still being produced after the Boeing acquistition in 1997. Since it was technically Boeing making the aircraft they wanted to call it by the manufacturer's name, thus Boeing MD-80, Boeing MD-90, etc.

Boeing management tend to be arrogant that way. At first they didn't know what to call the Long Beach facility. First it was the Douglas Products Division then, when they were thinking about building some 737s in Long Beach, it became the Long Beach Division. It still remains that to this day.

To be technically correct though it is not correct to call a DC-9-80 an MD-80. The MD-88 is the only model of the series that is designated as such. Just look at the data plate at the entrance of the aircraft to check that out. The aircraft was marketed as a DC-9 Super 80 by McDonnell Douglas and eventually the MD-80 moniker just seemed to fit.

There is a very well written book out now called " Douglas Twinjets " by Thomas Belcher. If you are a fan of the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90, as I am, then it is a must read. Great pictures also.


typhoonpilot

 

[LR25]

When the first 717's came out, I would always say on the radio,"We have the DC-9 insight" It would always get a responce from the crew over the radio.

The place I was flying DC-3's believe it or not, we would get updated with Boeing letter heads.

I think Douglas has more interesting desighns than Boeing does, whats so special about a twinjet, that all look alike.

But as far a sthe F-18 and other Douglas military aircraft, they are all reffered to as Boings, pretty sad I think.

Douglas can be proud I think, look at all the Douglas military products that were produced through the years, they pretty much dominated the field.

And the DC-8, no boing has done anything close to what that airplane has done.

 

[RJones]

S-80

I have relatives who are retired from American Airlines and ever since I can remember they have always called the MD-80, "S-80." I want to say it's something American did, not anything Boeing did.

I stand corrected, take a look at this link:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/mdc/md-80md-90.htm

RJ

 

[Typhoon1244]

Well, as long as we're talking about screwed-up aircraft names...

Is anyone else aware of the fact that "717" was Boeing's in-house name for the C-135? I've never liked the fact that they stuck that name on what will always be (in my mind) the MD-95...or more properly, I suppose, the DC-9-95.

 

[DCitrus9]

and the current 717 is actually the 717-200 series because of that
Definitely a departure from the c-135-AKA 717-100
oh well, kick the tires and light the fires 'cause she'll fly fine no matter what you call it

 

[Ty Webb]

When the first 717's came out, I would always say on the radio,"We have the DC-9 insight" It would always get a responce from the crew over the radio.

You could call it the "Electric Jet", that's what we call it, or the McBoeing.

Not sure what to call it myself. SInce they removed over 350 lbs of cables from the thing, I am not sure it still qualifies as being made by the McDonnell Douglas Cable Company, especially since the windows don't leak, yet. Once the windows start leaking, it'll probably seem a lot more like a "9".


How's it going, D?

 

[Snoopy58]

>> Boeing management tend to be arrogant that way.

Ain't that the sad truth... ever heard of Boeing building a C-130? Me neither, but because Rockwell did the mod for the AC-130U gunship and then Boeing acquired Rockwell...

So the tech manuals all say "Boeing AC-130U," even though Boeing neither built the aircraft nor accomplished the mods.

Interestingly, the U-boat had some of the worst flight management system software imaginable. In fact, some of the back-end software is WORSE than I could have ever imagined. Once guys got trained on it, it finally worked okay, but from a human-factors / usability standpoint it was (and mostly still is) terrible.

Didn't stop Boeing from bragging about undertaking "the most complex modification ever to the C-130" in their ads to get the C-130X modification contract. I had to snicker every time I saw that one... If only they told the WHOLE story!

Of course, I actually really LIKE what Boeing did with the NG 737's, so maybe there's hope yet for the C-130X.

Sure hope so!

 

[bart]

It is about the same as calling an old Galaxy or Astra a Gulfstream 200 or 100. Pretty soon Westwinds will be called Gulstream 50s.

 

[Huck]

I went through MD-11 school in Long Beach in March 2001. One afternoon I made it (eventually) to the gift store, looking for a t-shirt or something.

There was not ONE item available with McDonnell on it. I could get a 777 model, but not an MD-11. The patches - you wouldn't believe it - they even had a patch for a "Boeing DC-8"!

I was totally confused and disheartened. The MD-11 is the best freighter ever built for what it does. Is Boeing that disgusted with it?

 

[LR25]

Boeing DC-8!!!

Them people are full of themselves arent they?

Boeing hates evey DC-8 out there, becuase its one less boeing doing the work.

Oh well.

 

[corky]

I went through MD-11 school in Long Beach in March 2001. One afternoon I made it (eventually) to the gift store, looking for a t-shirt or something.

There was not ONE item available with McDonnell on it. I could get a 777 model, but not an MD-11. The patches - you wouldn't believe it - they even had a patch for a "Boeing DC-8"!

I was totally confused and disheartened. The MD-11 is the best freighter ever built for what it does. Is Boeing that disgusted with it?

Yes, Boeing was disgusted with it. They canceled the program when we had customers begging Boeing to keep it going. In fact Luftansa sued Boeing for canceling it and not letting them exercise their options. FedEx was pretty pissed too. It is the best freighter out there and McD had a mods on the drawing board to take out the window belts and other passenger comfort features that added weight. At the time I believe they wanted to sell 777 freighters and the MD11 prevented that. I haven't seen the "Boeing DC-8" stuff but that's interesting.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I love the way the 707 is touted as the most successful and revolutionary alirliner of all time. A giant leap forward for technology, for travel...for mankind.

And they're all gone.

And Douglas DC-8's are everywhere!



(No disrespect intended toward you KC-135 drivers...but that's not the same thing.)

 

[LR25]

The 8

Agreed, the 8 is going into the history books for being in service for a long time. In 2006 it will have been flying for 50 years.

When I was at Air Transport International awhile back as a mechanic, we had a DC-8-63 that had 89,000 hours and something like 45000 cycles, some of you may know the airplane, it wasnt the best in the fleet but we coaxed that thing out every night, legally I might add.

The 707's have there place, but its no comparison to the 8 and what it can do.

I still love seeing the the 4 black smoke trails.

 

[Huck]

There's some 707's operating in Africa still....

And Boeing does own the right to screw up, unfortunately. Airbus is coming out with the A-330F next year, and it will be the next Big Thing in the freight world. DC-10-30 loads with 14 hour range on 2 engines. Boeing is missing the boat in the freight world - we can't all fly -400's!

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Well if Boeing uses that same logic and they buy out Cessna I can brag to all my non-flying friends that I fly Boeings (1)72's !

 

[LR25]

OK then, I really like those Raytheon BE-18's, there the best.