MD-80 Freighter
 

Converted MD-80 lifts off on maiden flight

15 orders 'lined up' with customers based in the USA, South America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe, and 'ultimately predicts demand for as many as 200'.

I see one major advantage of the MD-80 freighter over a 737; much easier access for loading equipment, and far less chance of damage to the #1 engine. Another couple of slight advantages would be less chance of FOD ingestion when visiting unimproved (or deteriorating) airports, plus the lower ACN, enabling visits to a lot more airports.

All secondary advantages hardly can beat primiary disadvantages: fuel burn, non-standard ULDs and possibly tricky W&B. I would be surprised to see any sizeable demand.

Any idea what can type are used on it?

"After conversion the aircraft can carry twelve 88”x108” or eight 125”x88” ULDs or eight 125”x96” ULDs. This is the world’s first MD-80 passenger to freighter conversion."

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/aei_specsheet_md80.pdf

With standard ULDs they can't load 125" across thus making MD80 freighter more comparable to -300 rather than -400. Probably still better than using non-standard ULDs.

Actually, it's closer to an Electra than a 737. You can load 125 laterally on a 737, but only longitudinally on a MD80 (and Electra, among others).

I appreciate the conflict between loader and no. 1 engine on a 737-300 is an issue; we've had 3 nacelle damages in 2 years. But from my point of view that's just about the only advantage the MD80 has over the 737, and I'm not sure that's enough.

I always like to see an STC for a new cargo aircraft but wonder about marketability. Other than the aircraft being extremely inexpensive to buy upfront. I had wondered about all of the B717's hitting the bone yard, I know a few start up pax operators have picked some up. They are shorter but much more fuel efficient to operate, I think of the possibility of a package carrier picking up more business in lower demand markets being able to operate at capacity.

Delta is getting them. At least the eight-eight Air Tran ships. The other strays are finding homes as well.

What most people will not know, is that MD80, CAN load 96" pallets, along the aircraft , and you can transfer a standard wide body lower deck 96" pallet direct to the MD80 , you cannot do this with a B737! Might guzzle alot of fuel, but engines are half the price of the CFM on a 737, and the cost of buying the aircraft is also alot cheaper. You will find the aircraft being converted are mid 90's built aircraft, also younger than alot of the B737's. I think there could be a market for this aircraft?

All this ignores the fact that the '80 is a crap airplane. I have many hours in them.

Anyone who calls a MD or DC aircraft a "crap airplaine" lacks testicular fortitude. Great aircraft of a different era.

MD 80 is a chapter II noise aircraft, while the 737 conforms to chapter III. I don't know about other regions but no way it would fly in Europe, especially not in the night hours.
Many airports demand at least chapter III compliance, some even limit it further (by means of a list of approved aircraft).

MD80 is indeed genuine stage III aircraft, don't mix with DC9

I stand corrected, they managed to officially certify it chapter III.
But in some countries it is not accepted in the night hours, as it is considerably louder than most other Chapter III aircraft. Some don't even count it as Chapter III as it is one the very edge of satisfying the Chapter III noise limits. Strictly measured it doesn't.
Germany for example prohibits MD8X departures after 10 pm on most airports, as it is not in the "bonus list" (most other Chapter III aircraft are).

Must be a type that's ripe for a re-engine

Been tried. It's called the MD-90. Didn't really work.

Always found it hard to believe the MD80 was stage 3 :eek:

And the point is? There is a small market for these aircraft. They are not expensive and operators will purchase them based on their market, or not!

Crap plane !!! - I fly one now and I really enjoy it - did 721,752 and 762 + Biz Jets - Its great. They target 3 world countries so night or late departures out of European airports not a major concern - It is Stage 3 and with bolt on conversion hush kit, stage 4 - Cheers

How's the success of this aircraft been?

Stage II, not susceptible to FOD, cheap engines, built like a tank, low aquisition cost, low-tech hydraulics and electrics/computers.

Figure we'll see a lot of them in Africa!

Anil

They've delivered one or two. Claiming to have orders for 20 but customers are not disclosed, apart from USA Jets and Everts (without specifying even a number of their respective orders). Looks a bit fishy

Wing ice is a pain in the *** crappy brakes, leaks in the rain, or when being deiced, enjoy the glycol in your lap. Weak ineffective air conditioning.


Sluggish and unresponsive in roll, way oversensitive in pitch, totally the opposite of what most Pilots like. Poor / non existent high altitude performance.


That's the bad, good, very simple and reliable, quiet cockpit.

Man, I sure feel sorry for the pilots who fly for Everts Air Cargo.. Talk about a hard, underpaid situation to be in..:yuk:

When i was flying DC-9 freighters in Africa, our "chief pilot" said that the MD-80 freighters (they are all the long-bodied aircraft, not MD-87 conversions) were better, overall, as freighters than the 737s. He thought they would do a fantastic job on the shorter routes (those requiring something smaller than a 757).

cliff
PVG

Airframe Cost
 

The largest advantage (IMO) is the initial airframe cost. Even modest total hour/cycle frames are are easily had a garage sale prices and the Dog series was made with lots or real metal, so major mods in the conversion are minimal. As others have noted, fuel burn at near MTOW will be high, but package carriers are used to that. For a specialty carrier, perhaps on a fixed schedule with light loads and small containers, I can imagine a few of them. Two hundred MD-80F conversions seems like some salesman's wet dream. (And sadly, MD-80 drivers in need of work are cheap.)

I think there could be a big demand in developing areas: Africa, SE Asia, South America....especially places where it takes a LONG time to deliver stuff via ground, and air transport is the only viable solution.

Flying an MD freighter is WAY less expensive than flying a 757. It is also less expensive than a DC-9, as they can hold a lot more, fly further, and burn less fuel. I think that they hold more than the 737 freighters, and between the initial cost and the cost to pay pilots, I think the MD is the way to go.

cliff
ANC

Mexican cargo carrier Aeronaves TSM is one of the customers of the type with 2 on order, one is currently undergoing conversion in Miami, it's expected to begin flying with the company next summer.

just a couple of points


leaking while deicing...well, you stuff paper towels in the DV window and no problem

you see, when you deice, the plane isn't pressurized and the windows do leak...but if you know what to do, it won't hurt you.

as to noise...we were the launch customer of the 737 with the CFM56 engines and it turned out that they were noiser than the MD80s we had...as we operated many segments out of Washington National we found we could land later with the MD80 than the 737...(washington has some very strict noise rules)

And anyone that has heard an MD90 takeoff, it stage 4! wow is it quiet.


This type will be a fine freighter and I am glad that they are being converted.