Will we ever see another a/c like the MD-80 again?

PhatAJ2008

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Posts
218
Total Time
little
Seems like such a great workhorse... Why were no airlines interested in it it causing them to cease production of the 717?
 

CitationLover

Aw, Nuts!
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Posts
3,316
Total Time
1500+
simple: 737 is the reason.

Why would boeing continue production of an aircraft that was designed to eat into it's 737 market share?
 

MD11Drvr

Still Learning
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Posts
398
Total Time
Enough
Boeing is not interested in supporting anything Douglas designed. The DC-8 is still a major thorn in their a## and has been for 40 plus years and that is not to mention the DC-10 is still a better cargo aircraft (minus fuel) than the 767 is. As for the MD-11 it appears the 777 cargo is a close replacement and less fuel to operate. Older airplanes are still tough to beat as long as fuel stays in check.

Just my opinion and I look forward to getting to fly a Boeing product, won't say that about an Airbus though.
 

hockeypilot44

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Posts
893
Total Time
Boeing is not interested in supporting anything Douglas designed. The DC-8 is still a major thorn in their a## and has been for 40 plus years and that is not to mention the DC-10 is still a better cargo aircraft (minus fuel) than the 767 is. As for the MD-11 it appears the 777 cargo is a close replacement and less fuel to operate. Older airplanes are still tough to beat as long as fuel stays in check.

Just my opinion and I look forward to getting to fly a Boeing product, won't say that about an Airbus though.
I've flown Embraer's, Boeing's, and Airbus's. I'll take an Airbus any day over the previous two. I start flying a DC-9 soon. My verdict is not out on Douglas birds yet.
 

PhatAJ2008

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Posts
218
Total Time
little
simple: 737 is the reason.

Why would boeing continue production of an aircraft that was designed to eat into it's 737 market share?
Good point... Although there had to be things the MD-80 did better than the 737.
 

Patriot328

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
763
Total Time
~10000
I've flown Embraer's, Boeing's, and Airbus's. I'll take an Airbus any day over the previous two. I start flying a DC-9 soon. My verdict is not out on Douglas birds yet.

I agree, but I've never flown a Douglas bird, so I too cannot compare that to the others.
 

CitationLover

Aw, Nuts!
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Posts
3,316
Total Time
1500+
Good point... Although there had to be things the MD-80 did better than the 737.
Boeing might strip those things off and have put it into the -800/900 for all we know. I am sure it was purely an economic decision from Boeing's standpoint. 717 sales were declining, 737 sales booming. Why stretch the 717 to compete with themselves (which was what I thought McD wanted to do with it's MD-95).

I agree though, the DC-9 series was a tank, flew like a tank, and had a great dispatch reliability.
 

LandGreen

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Posts
195
Total Time
where?
Good point... Although there had to be things the MD-80 did better than the 737.
i'd rather sit in a md 80 cockpit anyday compared to 737. 1. noise level 2. limited range.

737 has way too much range for a cockpit designed for a 1.5 hour flight!

only bad thing about an 80 is landing on contaminated runways. bad brakes!
 

aa73

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Posts
2,075
Total Time
10K
Boeings build airplanes, Douglas builds character. You slow down in a Boeing to put flaps out.... you put flaps out to slow down in a Douglas.

4500hrs of MD80 time never diminished my opinion of the airplane - built like a tank, flew like one, too :) once you learned to finesse the flight guidance, it was actually a fun bird. It was very quiet and has lots of elbow room (compared to a 737, where the side window is right in your face.)

757/767 is a whole different world, makes it a much easier job.
 

Flopgut

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Posts
3,627
Total Time
15k
Boeings build airplanes, Douglas builds character. You slow down in a Boeing to put flaps out.... you put flaps out to slow down in a Douglas.

4500hrs of MD80 time never diminished my opinion of the airplane - built like a tank, flew like one, too :) once you learned to finesse the flight guidance, it was actually a fun bird. It was very quiet and has lots of elbow room (compared to a 737, where the side window is right in your face.)

757/767 is a whole different world, makes it a much easier job.
3000 hrs MD80. Completely agree with this sentiment although I've never flown the 757/767.

I will say the 737-800 is the best 737 IMHO.
 

~~~^~~~

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
6,137
Total Time
7,500+
The MD80 needs a new wing. It is literally a refinement of late 50's technology. It gets very draggy above M0.755 due to flow separation. Still the MD90 is an efficient platform on stage lengths of less than 600NM, or so.

That wing is also what held back the 717. Boeing was not willing to spend the money to design and certify a new wing. Other issues are that the airplane was labor intensive to build. Douglas never updated their production technologies like Boeing did.

The Chinese say they fixed the wing problem with Russian help and their labor is cheap. Here is the latest MD93/717/etc... with RJ engines and a Russian wing being built on Douglas MD90 jigs.

There are more than 150 orders for these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAC_ARJ21

General characteristics
  • Capacity: 78-85 passengers
  • First class: 38 in seat pitch with 2+2 seating arrangement
  • Economy class: 32 in seat pitch with 3+2 seating arrangement
  • Payload: 16.799 m³ (593.25 ft³)
  • Cabin length: 18.426 m (60 ft 5.43 in)
  • Length: 33.46 m (109 ft 9 in)
  • Wingspan: 27.29 m (89 ft 7 in)
  • Height: 8.44 m (27 ft 8 in)
  • Wing area: 79.86m² (859.61ft²)
  • Empty weight: 24.955kg (55,016lb)
  • Loaded weight: kg (lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 40,500 kg (89,300 lb)
  • Fuel tank capacity: 10,386 kg (22,897 lb)
  • Powerplant:General Electric CF34-10A turbofans, 68.20 kN (15,332 lbf) each
Performance
 
Last edited:

NuGuy

Ex-Commuter
Joined
May 30, 2003
Posts
2,375
Total Time
10000
Heyas,

DC-9-30 with the -15 engines

Best. Airplane. Ever.

Nu
 

Colonel Savage

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
DC-9-10F...woo-ha!
 

Hamburger

*************************
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
1,158
Total Time
5000+
simple: 737 is the reason.

Why would boeing continue production of an aircraft that was designed to eat into it's 737 market share?
Hubcaps are cheaper than Gear Doors.

Good point... Although there had to be things the MD-80 did better than the 737.
The tail deices a hell of a lot better!:eek:
 
Last edited:

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
What another large airplane with cables actually going to the controls? It was the last of the Douglas Cable Cars. Pull the floor up on a DC-3 then pull the floor up on a DC-9, the DNA is self evident
 

aa73

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Posts
2,075
Total Time
10K
Did they get rid of the "tail button" with the MD-80's? :eek:
Nope, tail deice button is still there. Every 15 minutes you shoot the tail, and once before final flap extension. On the newer MD80s it happens automatically anytime the wing anti-ice is on, but the button is still there for manual operation.
 

Fubijaakr

Seniority is Forever
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Posts
2,537
Total Time
Enough
Having extensive experience on the DC-9, MD-80 and 737, I'll take the 737.
 
Top