View Full Version : MD90.. why it didnt succeded?
md-100
19th Apr 2007, 00:07
Any answer??
Brian Abraham
19th Apr 2007, 01:31
Boeing bought the company and why build something that competes with the 737.
md-100
19th Apr 2007, 01:54
comparing the A320 and MD90..which has the best performance??
TopBunk
19th Apr 2007, 04:11
Define performance.
Good rate of climb, good runway performance, fast in cruise. What?
What as pilots we consider good, might not be what the airline accountants want in an aircraft.
BA right now are looking at longhaul fleet renewal/expansion. What role do you think the Chief Pilot will have in the decision? I suggest he will be asked how many pilots he will need for various options and that is it. The bean counters will then plug in that small variable into their spreadsheet and decide.
So the MD90 didn't fit in with Boeings plans, nor the airlines.
Outdated technology...
Outdated FDK (even for the full EFIS version)...
Wings too small (and still those lame ailerons)...
Small cargo hold volume...
Noisy rear cabin...
Clear ice formation danger...
MDC vs Boeing...
md-100
19th Apr 2007, 15:03
well I buy the Air Bus.. and will change my nick to A-100
Ignition Override
21st Apr 2007, 05:02
No US-produced civilian airline aircraft (after the B-707 'dash-80') has received direct US government money for research, development, marketing etc.
This certainly makes it quite difficult to compete with foreign state-subsidized aircraft.
No names mentioned here.:)
received direct US government money for research, development, marketing
Ha ha ha.... we analyzed the 737, A320 and MD90, the A320 was picked by the airline as the most suitable.
Guess what? We ended up with the MD90 due to US Gov pressure, the aircraft selection was actually announced by President Clinton rather than the airline. Now we find ourselves with a heap of junk that we cant even give away!!
Mutt
Lack of success due to McDD running out of money and starving the project of R&D funds (notably on the aerodynamics side). So it was a pile of poo done on the cheap.
Same thing afflicted the other McDD aircraft of the 1990s, the MD-11, which you will notice has similarly vanished from mainstream passenger operators.
The MD-90 was the ultimate overstretch of the DC-9 with lots of elements (starting with a 5-across fuselage) unchanged from 30 years beforehand, while others advanced.
Final straw was the arrival of Harry Stonecipher at McDD as president, who killed the future of the company with poor management tactics all round. The only significant sale made after his arrival was to Saudia, which was done at government level.
Some MD-90s have been scrapped with less than 10 years service.
Boeing sensibly didn't continue it. It's lack of market appeal was apparent on the day of the merger.
The MD-90 was the ultimate overstretch of the DC-9
Erm. A little less of a stretch than the very sucessful MD82/83, a far nicer aeroplane than the 737 in most respects.
I'd suggest the demise is more to do with the similarity to the 737 figures. I don't think Boeing wanted it, but it was too far down the road to kill it outright.
Maui
lefthanddownabit
21st Apr 2007, 16:19
Erm. A little less of a stretch than the very sucessful MD82/83The MD-90 was the ultimate overstretch of the DC-9 with lots of elements (starting with a 5-across fuselage) unchanged from 30 years beforehand, while others advanced.
The MD-90 was 4.5 feet longer than the MD-80 series, higher weights, more powerful engines. So it was the most stretched variant of the basic DC-9 design.
Not sure why 5 across seating counts as a disadvantage. Only one middle seat per row is really a plus for the pax. It would be a big improvement for the BAe 146. :)
Carnage Matey!
21st Apr 2007, 17:14
No US-produced civilian airline aircraft (after the B-707 'dash-80') has received direct US government money for research, development, marketing etc.
Of course Douglas did benefit from technology transfer, research and manufacturing techniques from the rather large grey military freighter plant over the road!
Graybeard
21st Apr 2007, 17:34
"No US-produced civilian airline aircraft (after the B-707 'dash-80') has received direct US government money for research, development, marketing etc."
"Of course Douglas did benefit from technology transfer, research and manufacturing techniques from the rather large grey military freighter plant over the road!"
Now that's a crock. The DC-9() and DC-10() production facilities were old by the time the C-17 started. And for the most part, they weren't upgraded after that. The technology transfer was the other way around. Lots of commercial engineering people transferred to the C-17, as the other programs spooled down.
Since its beginning in about 1983, the most reliable plane in the USAF fleet has been the KC-10A tanker. It was a DC10-30 with tanks in the belly and a boom. That's another case of American commercial technology transfer to the govt.
GB
Lefthanddownabit
I stand corrected. I was thinking of the 717. I had been under the erroneous impression that the MD90 and 717 were one in the same.
Maui
Brian Abraham
24th Apr 2007, 01:46
maui, on the right path. Boeing 717 was originally the MD-95
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717
Graybeard
24th Apr 2007, 13:45
McDouglas seemed to have a talent for picking oddball engines for the later DC-9 series. The JT8D-209,17,19 is unique to the MD-80, so its costs are much, much higher today than the JT8D-7,9,15,17 that was on the DC-9. The BR-715 on the MD-95/717 was new territory, too.
McD also chose a single supplier for all avionics, APU and electrical for the MD-90/95. The cost of maintenance on those items is at the mercy of Honeywell, nee Allied Signal, nee Bendix. McD built the planes and the single source suppliers have made the profit.
The smartest thing done on the A-320 was to provide a choice of engines. Competition has been so hot that GE & Rolls were giving away the engines on airlines' initial orders. Negotiate to buy a 737 and you're at the mercy of GE.
GB
lefthanddownabit
24th Apr 2007, 15:34
McDouglas seemed to have a talent for picking oddball engines for the later DC-9 series. The JT8D-209,17,19 is unique to the MD-80, so its costs are much, much higher today than the JT8D-7,9,15,17 that was on the DC-9. The BR-715 on the MD-95/717 was new territory, too.Ironic then that the engine used on the "unsuccessful" MD-90 was the IAE V2500. ;)
McD-D sold over 1,000 MD-80s and MD-87s, so there have got to be plenty of JT8D-200 engines in circulation, not as many as the original JT8D, but hardly uneconomic quantities for spares, etc.