Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5769551/

Topic: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: jetjack74
Posted 2013-05-21 09:02:09 and read 22677 times.

So is this airplane a DC9 rip-off or is Boeing somehow, some way in volved with this. It looks like a DC9-10

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Air Sheep


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © lihutao

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: KBJCpilot
Posted 2013-05-21 09:04:19 and read 22693 times.

I was thinking the same thing.

IMHO, this is Chinese reverse engineering/industrial espionage at its finest on display.   

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: ordpark
Posted 2013-05-21 09:14:33 and read 22569 times.

The latest in Chinese aviation technology! The Eastern block's best designs have always been knockoffs of western designed aircraft......

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: doug_Or
Posted 2013-05-21 09:14:47 and read 22585 times.

Back in the 80s MD opened up a Shanghai factory to build MD-80s... 20 years later- SURPRISE!

MD-80s Made In China (by Bruce Feb 29 2008 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: SpaceshipDC10
Posted 2013-05-21 09:17:32 and read 22539 times.

On the first picture, it looks a bit like a 717. The ARJ21 is just in between the DC-9-10 and -30. The nose and the tail look cleary "inspired" by the DC-9/MD-80 family. A number of MD-80s were assembled at Shanghai under license.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: NobleRT
Posted 2013-05-21 09:22:31 and read 22446 times.

There are only so many ways to make an effecient, effective t-tail without re-inventing the wheel. To me, the wing looks very different and the body looks chunkier. It's clearly a different species of the same genus.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: goosebayguy
Posted 2013-05-21 09:33:32 and read 22332 times.

Reminds me of the early reverse engineering they did of the jet engine. The RR Nene for their Migs. Sometimes they managed to last for 100 hours.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: doug_Or
Posted 2013-05-21 09:40:26 and read 22252 times.

Quoting ordpark (Reply 2):
The Eastern block's best designs have always been knockoffs of western designed aircraft......

  

Ridiculous assertion. The TU-154 is not the 727, the IL-96 is no A340, and the engine configuration of the TU-134 gives it no more in common with the DC-9 than the A320 has with the 737.

Quoting NobleRT (Reply 5):
There are only so many ways to make an effecient, effective t-tail without re-inventing the wheel. To me, the wing looks very different and the body looks chunkier. It's clearly a different species of the same genus.

The fuselage nose, empenage, and barrel all seem to be dirrect copies. Not sure exactly what you mean by chunkier, but the cabin has the same diameter as the DC-9 series. It might just look fat because it is so short.

You are correct that the wing is a whole cloth new design. Maybe I'm just used to longer engines on the DC-9 series, but those CF-34s look hilariously cartoony to me.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: ADent
Posted 2013-05-21 09:42:21 and read 22241 times.

The tooling for the MD-80s was left behind and this is made in the same buildings. Hmmmm.

It is not a total knockoff. The wing (and landing gear?) were redesigned with Russian help. These of course had problems.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-05-21 10:14:52 and read 22017 times.

They did improve on one thing with regard to the DC-9-10 to -50, and that is putting full sized doors in the back. That jettisonable tail cone of the early DC-9s, has always been a sore spot.

In almost 75% of ground evacuations, the tail cone could not be opened.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-21 10:34:18 and read 21859 times.

The fuselage is a derivative of the MD-90, built using the original MD tooling. No license needed apparently, or so says the official line.

Quoting ordpark (Reply 2):

The latest in Chinese aviation technology! The Eastern block's best designs have always been knockoffs of western designed aircraft......

Or so say the uninitiated...


Dan  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-05-21 10:52:23 and read 21731 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 10):
Or so say the uninitiated...

The clueless, ill-informed, simplistic observer might say so - 'uninitiated' is very generous in reference to such nonsense.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: PlymSpotter
Posted 2013-05-21 11:01:48 and read 21639 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):
The clueless, ill-informed, simplistic observer might say so - 'uninitiated' is very generous in reference to such nonsense.

Ignore the flag, I'm British - I have a duty to be overly polite  


Dan  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-05-21 11:23:12 and read 21487 times.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 12):
Ignore the flag, I'm British - I have a duty to be overly polite

Noted Dan. However, I am British too, and that idiotic suggestion always overwhelms my English polite streak!  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: rikkus67
Posted 2013-05-21 11:30:09 and read 21424 times.

The COMAC ARJ21 has come up in the forum many times since the mid-2000's.


The ARJ21 was developed using the original jigs from the MD-80, after a number of MD80 aircraft were built in China. This retooling of the DC-9/MD-80 series aircraft, is to help China jumpstart their Commercial Aircraft industry. The aircraft will allow for eventual Autonomy, by gaining experience producing an entire aircraft, rather than as a supplier of major components for other manufacturers. With a burgeoning need for Regional Aircraft, the ARJ21 was designed to answer the need for such aircraft.

Major changes include new GE powerplants, a new wing designed by Antonov, and all new avionics. Other changes include the simplification of the cockpit windows, a redesign of the tail to eliminate the rear stairs, and the addition of full size rear fuselage exits.

Although the MD80 jigs were used, this aircraft is quite a different beast than the original DC-9-10/20/30.

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 7):
Maybe I'm just used to longer engines on the DC-9 series, but those CF-34s look hilariously cartoony to me.

Most powerful JT8D engine is the -219 version, with a thrust of 21,000lbf. This version powered the large MD-80 series.

The strongest variant of the CFM34 has a thrust rating of 20,000lbf, which is powering a significantly smaller aircraft.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: delta88
Posted 2013-05-21 12:21:17 and read 20989 times.

The reason this intresting aircraft looks like a DC-9 is because it is made with the technology, as well as the machines, that built the MD-80s. MDC/Boeing never asked for the machinery back when production ended so they simply used what they had to produce a new aircraft.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: mtnwest1979
Posted 2013-05-21 12:44:21 and read 20357 times.

The future stretch version is what Denzel was flying....  

Guess they took the best parts and added what they thought could make it a good plane. Hope it is successful.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: pvjin
Posted 2013-05-21 12:58:02 and read 20031 times.

Quoting ordpark (Reply 2):
The Eastern block's best designs have always been knockoffs of western designed aircraft......



Have you ever heard of AN-24? AN-12? IL-76? No western counterparts for any of these, not from that time at least.

These widely manufactured good Soviet made cargo aircraft still carry majority of cargo in areas like Congo, in extremely bad conditions where very few western made commercial aircraft can operate effectively.

Also TU-154 has been successfully operated for decades and very much differs from 727 and other western competitors from that era.

I think quite a lot of AN-2's are still flying too.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 13:22:49 and read 19506 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
They did improve on one thing with regard to the DC-9-10 to -50, and that is putting full sized doors in the back. That jettisonable tail cone of the early DC-9s, has always been a sore spot.

All of the DC9 series up to and including the MD90 STILL have the jettison tail cone with an evacuation slide.

I know--every year we have to demonstrate proficiency on it.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-05-21 13:28:41 and read 19362 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 17):
Have you ever heard of AN-24? AN-12? IL-76?

AN-24 - F27, F50, HPR.7 Dart Herald

AN-12 - C-130

IL-76 - C-141

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 13:33:58 and read 19304 times.

I have a friend who was (and still is) a tech rep for Boeing. He loves to tell this story.

Back in the 70's when the CAAC bought their first western airplanes, they bought 10 B707-320's. Each, of course, came equipped with 4 brand new Pratt and Whitney JT3 fan jets. With a fleet of 10 airplanes, Boeing recommended they buy an additional 3-4 engines as spares. The Chinese listened politely and bought FORTY spare engines! Seems they were used to Russian reliability on their engines and were taking no chances.

They immediately reverse engineered a 707--it was jokingly referred to as the 708 by Boeing staff. It never actually flew--supposedly it was so heavy it couldn't. It was a plug ugly thing. It had been "improved". But, of course, under the wings were 4 nice new Pratts. Mark used to laugh that one day we would see an AN-2 biplane with a big Pratt and Whitney engine stuck under its belly.

It was reported that most of the engines remained in their original crates until the CAAC sold the fleet off. A few are still flying in Iran.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-05-21 13:39:36 and read 19160 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 18):
All of the DC9 series up to and including the MD90 STILL have the jettison tail cone with an evacuation slide.

Yes, but on the DC-9-10 to -50, the tail cone is the only exit aft of the over-wing exits. When the F100s were ordered by UA and AA, without the rear fuselage door, FAA apparently was reluctant to allow it ... until it was pointed out they allowed it with the DC-9-10 to -50, and by then the reliability record of the tail cone was known.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-21 13:39:53 and read 19149 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):

Most of those planes don't look anything alike except for a vague configuration similarity which is more of a byproduct of their mission, than stealing plans.

The last western plane the Russian really copied was the B-29. Since then, they've pretty much gone their own way.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-05-21 13:40:12 and read 19094 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 20):
They immediately reverse engineered a 707--it was jokingly referred to as the 708 by Boeing staff. It never actually flew--supposedly it was so heavy it couldn't.

Saw it on the Continental ramp outside the hangars in LAX, when the Chinese premier flew in to visit Reagan.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Taecoxu



[Edited 2013-05-22 05:58:04 by SA7700]

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-21 13:45:38 and read 18980 times.

Quoting doug_Or (Reply 3):
Back in the 80s MD opened up a Shanghai factory to build MD-80s...

And 2 MD-90s.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 20):
They immediately reverse engineered a 707--it was jokingly referred to as the 708 by Boeing staff. It never actually flew--supposedly it was so heavy it couldn't.

If you're referring to the Shanghai Y-10, it most definitely did fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQ-7TtM4Kg


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Taecoxu

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 13:46:56 and read 20133 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 23):
Saw it on the Continental ramp outside the hangars in LAX, when the Chinese premier flew in to visit Reagan.

GREAT picture! I humbly stand corrected on the "never flew" part of my post. Do you recall what designation the Chinese gave to the aircraft?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 13:50:07 and read 19947 times.

Did you notice on the Youtube video that the forward entry door had no emergency evacuation slide?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-21 13:51:08 and read 20445 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 23):
Saw it on the Continental ramp outside the hangars in LAX, when the Chinese premier flew in to visit Reagan.

I don't believe it ever flew to the U.S. It only made a few test flights and was never developed to the point of carrying passengers.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-05-21 13:58:06 and read 20200 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 25):
Do you recall what designation the Chinese gave to the aircraft?

According to the photo database entry and the designation seen on its tail in the video, it's called the Y-10. Interesting find I'd never even heard of it!

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 14:04:14 and read 20120 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
In almost 75% of ground evacuations, the tail cone could not be opened.

The one time NW had to use the tailcone exit was when the B-727 sliced through the cabin of the DC9-10 in fog on take off in DTW.

Our flight attendant seated back there tried to deploy the slide and drop the tail cone but the cable that caused it to detach had been misrigged. Unfortunately, she did not survive the accident.

After that happened the FAA made NW drop the tail cone on every single DC9 in the fleet--they all worked perfectly. But as a result of this sad accident, NW installed a second deploying handle just inside the tailcone entry. Now you could stand in the cabin, pull the handle and if it did not drop you could redirect passengers forward to an overwing exit. In her honor we always referred to it as "The Heidi Handle." There is a narrow metal catwalk that leads back to the exit but there is a large, heavy duct of some kind that you have to bend over and duck under to reach it. The deployment handle was all the way in the rear. In the aftermath they found at least one passenger that also had succumbed with a large fracture to his skull where he apparently had rammed into it in the dark.

With the advent of the MD80/90 aircraft, an automatic slide deployment feature was incorporated in the design and now the handle in the tailcone is just a backup.

Flight attendants HATE going through that drill every year and (for me at least) it was the one that I easily made mistakes.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-05-21 14:11:03 and read 19889 times.

Following this logic of knock-offs, the original model in this series must surely be the BAC1-11.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: catiii
Posted 2013-05-21 14:12:25 and read 19863 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 9):
They did improve on one thing with regard to the DC-9-10 to -50, and that is putting full sized doors in the back. That jettisonable tail cone of the early DC-9s, has always been a sore spot.

In almost 75% of ground evacuations, the tail cone could not be opened.

There's a better video somewhere, but here's a good tailcone fail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D391ei3-s28

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: turn720
Posted 2013-05-21 14:26:56 and read 19508 times.

Just because it looks the same and almost has the same performance and it took flight after the original did does not necessarily mean that it's is a copy. That's just silly.

If Boeing installs a fbw side stick on it's next airliners it's definitely not a copy of Airbus.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 14:29:26 and read 19562 times.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 30):
Following this logic of knock-offs, the original model in this series must surely be the BAC1-11.

The BAC-111 and DC9-10 were developed almost simultaneously.

The French Caravelle was the forerunner with the two engines on the rear fuselage design. United was the only US airline to operate it. It made its first flight in 1955 and entered service with SAS in 1959. THE BAC and DC9 did not enter service until 1965.

[Edited 2013-05-21 14:35:03]

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-05-21 14:53:21 and read 18966 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33):
The French Caravelle was the forerunner with the two engines on the rear fuselage design. United was the only US airline to operate it. It made its first flight in 1955 and entered service with SAS in 1959. THE BAC and DC9 did not enter service until 1965.

Thank you, I'm well aware of that, however as you'll notice on observation of the Caravelle, it is distinctly different from this new Chinese variant, the DC-9 and the BAC 1-11.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33):
The BAC-111 and DC9-10 were developed almost simultaneously.

Whilst development time may have overlapped, the British jet was first to market and set the design blueprint for consecutive airliners including the DC-9 and F-28. The Brits were also first to market with a three-holer T-jet with Trident, later superseded by Boeing's 727.

The point I was attempting to make though initially is that there are many models in most layouts and these layouts are repeated for a reason. The most succesful of which is of course the 737-100.

Peace.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 14:57:18 and read 18946 times.

Quoting turn720 (Reply 32):
If Boeing installs a fbw side stick on it's next airliners it's definitely not a copy of Airbus.

Boeing pooh-poohed Airbus when they flew aircraft sections to Toulouse for final assembly. Now they are doing the exact same thing.

Boeing sniffed when Airbus had a constantly moving assembly line instead of the weekly "shuffle" they did. Now Boeing does the same thing.

There will come a time when Boeing uses the sidestick controllers.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: HBGDS
Posted 2013-05-21 15:21:43 and read 18431 times.

When AWST asked the Chinese about it, the response from one of the engineers was simply that it was a proven formula that worked, and they simply improved upon it. They make no bones about it. Reverse engineering can be done, but it is costly, inefficient, and often misses major features. That said, yes, the Chinese aircraft industry has reverse engineered some fighters as well as the 707. In the latter case, the Y10 is the result, and not a very good one at that:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/0521801/L/

See also an earlier thread on reverse engineering:
Was Y-10 Really A B-707 Copy? (by KC135TopBoom Dec 12 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: dc1030cf
Posted 2013-05-21 15:35:45 and read 18141 times.

The ARJ-21 actually had it's basic airframe designed by ex-Douglas engineers mated to wings designed by the Russians. The Chinese took those design and tried to expend on them, but found out they didn't know how. COMAC had to hire some retired Douglas engineers for help. So this airplane is NOT a reverse-engineered copy of the DC-9

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-21 15:38:23 and read 17998 times.

So what's the certification status of the ARJ-21?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-21 15:40:14 and read 17939 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
So what's the certification status of the ARJ-21?

Not yet certified as far as I know.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-05-21 16:49:37 and read 16782 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33):
The French Caravelle was the forerunner with the two engines on the rear fuselage design. United was the only US airline to operate it. It made its first flight in 1955 and entered service with SAS in 1959. THE BAC and DC9 did not enter service until 1965.

Douglas actually offered to market the French Caravelle in the United States. It never happened   

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: PEK777
Posted 2013-05-21 17:02:18 and read 16477 times.

These should be available on the second hand market just about the time Delta is ready to retire the MD-90/717 fleet.

  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: dc1030cf
Posted 2013-05-21 17:06:32 and read 16405 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 40):


"Douglas actually offered to market the French Caravelle in the United States. It never happene"

I believe that was to be powered by the CJ805-23C aft-fan engines, but as you mentioned, DAC and Sud never came to agreement and after the DC-9 the French actually accused Douglas of copying their rear engine design.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: UA735WL
Posted 2013-05-21 17:10:30 and read 16359 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 40):

Douglas' original plan was to actually BUILD Caravelles under license from Sud and sell them to US customers. The plan fell through, but the Douglas engineers liked the twin rear engine configuration, which they retained for the DC-9 family (the Caravelle was the first aircraft to use the configuration. )


Source: Bill Gunston's Aviation Year by Year (must own book for a.nutters- lots of info and great pics!  )


Cheers,  


Jonas

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: longhauler
Posted 2013-05-21 17:13:35 and read 16286 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 29):
After that happened the FAA made NW drop the tail cone on every single DC9 in the fleet--they all worked perfectly.

Yes, I understand that in the hangar, with a perfectly well functioning aircraft ... the tail cone always worked. Put that tail cone in an accident, and it's a different story. Even simple shifting of the rigging, or twisting of the fuselage or tail and that tail cone is jammed ... at witnessed in actual ground evacuations, during actual accidents.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 29):
Flight attendants HATE going through that drill every year and (for me at least) it was the one that I easily made mistakes.

At least NW's had full doors back there, leading to stairs, when used. At AC, as there were no stairs, there was just the catwalk back to the cone. The biggest difference though was the actual door.

When you opened the door in the back (behind the F/A jump-seat), instead of a full door, the exit was revealed. It was an oval, through which you had to climb to reach the catwalk. I can't imagine even when working, that the rate of exit would be all that quick! I don't recall how big that oval was, but it reminded me of Viscount or Vanguard windows, which were minimum exit size.

NW had many many DC-9s. Do you remember any which had this tail cone arrangement? AC had one DC-9 which was leased which had stairs, that had the full door in the back ... and a special safety card!

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: nwa757boy
Posted 2013-05-21 17:24:48 and read 16004 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 44):
NW had many many DC-9s. Do you remember any which had this tail cone arrangement? AC had one DC-9 which was leased which had stairs, that had the full door in the back ... and a special safety card!

I think almost all of the ex-EA -30 birds had this type of exit and a few of the Hughes Airwest -30s had this exit as well. It was the most comfortable jumpseat! It was like a little loveseat back there

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-21 17:40:11 and read 15723 times.

Probably this one, C-FBKT, FIN 754, a DC-9-31 leased from Eastern for a little over a year, June 1988 to August 1989. It had non-standard bare metal livery.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Kim



It later spent many years with Northwest.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darcy Stevens
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: md80fanatic
Posted 2013-05-21 18:15:14 and read 15190 times.

It may have a new wing ... but it clearly is using the same airfoil shapes (DSMA-4xx).

I think it's great that at least someone knows about this superior design and is willing to keep producing it. BRAVO!

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: A320FlyGuy
Posted 2013-05-21 18:17:48 and read 15181 times.

Quoting catiii (Reply 31):
There's a better video somewhere, but here's a good tailcone fail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D391ei3-s28


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAndXzhgurI

Here is a decent video that documents the MD-80 exits.....in this video, the tail slide looks extremely steep....was it always this way?

Also....notice how the F/A struggles to manhandle the overwing hatch....

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: lewis
Posted 2013-05-21 18:31:21 and read 14936 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):

If you're referring to the Shanghai Y-10, it most definitely did fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQ-7TtM4Kg

Is it just me or does the logo at 0:20 look extremely similar to the Boeing logo? They couldn't even be original for that?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-21 18:34:43 and read 14843 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 49):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):

If you're referring to the Shanghai Y-10, it most definitely did fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQ-7TtM4Kg

Is it just me or does the logo at 0:20 look extremely similar to the Boeing logo? They couldn't even be original for that?

Yes, not identical but very similar.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: A320FlyGuy
Posted 2013-05-21 18:43:46 and read 14708 times.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 47):
It may have a new wing ... but it clearly is using the same airfoil shapes (DSMA-4xx).

I think it's great that at least someone knows about this superior design and is willing to keep producing it. BRAVO!

Agreed....I've always felt that the DC-9 had a graceful and rugged appearance that just seemed to look right....in every version/series, the DC-9 has always had a solid appearance that seems to be the physical manifestation of Bill Lear's philosophy: "If it looks good, it will fly good".

When you look at other aircraft like the 737-100 or 747-SP, the aircraft look stubby and unbalanced....for whatever reason, (at least to me) the DC-9 has always looked like it belongs at 31,000ft....everything about the aircraft has an appearance of belonging. The aircraft was vectored by the sure hands of technology and guided by years of Douglas/McDonnell Douglas knowhow.

The DC-9/MD-80/717-200 may not have invented the clean wing/aft engined design (that distinction goes to the very sexy Caravelle)...but I think that McDonnell Douglas did it best....any single aspect of the DC-9 design isn't outstanding; rather it is the combination of all of the little things that make the DC-9 an exceptionally good looking aircraft....the 757 is another airplane that just looks right...the L-1011 is another....the DC-10 always had a "clunky: appearance to me....it always looks like the #2 engine is balanced on the tail with a hope and a prayer and lots of speed tape...the L-1011 had a grace and elegance to the widebody trijet design that is lacking in the DC-10.

As for the aft engine/clean wing/T Tail configuration, there are many variations on a theme:

- Fokker F-28/Fokker 100 - I've always felt they look like a watered down version of the DC-9....it's like the Atkins Diet DC-9

- Canadair CRJ Family - From the front, the CRJ has a confident look, but the CF34s look comical....they are too small and don't seem to suit the airframe like the JT8Ds do the DC-9.

- Embraer 135....They just look like a CRJ had a one night stand with an F-28 during Carnival and the offspring is the E-135.

The bottom line is that the DC-9 was an aircraft that did it's job extremely well....it has functioned in virtually every market sector...regional, mainline, transcontinental....it has been a passenger pleasing profit maker for the airlines for over 40 years...the basic robustness of the airframe has been demonstrated by the sheer number of aircraft that remain in service today....I don't recall seeing any 1970s vintage 737s still in service with any North American carriers....as for the DC-9-50s....I seem to recall that Delta still has them in service over 35 years after their first flight...that's an impressive long life that hasn't been matched.....well, except for maybe the DC-3, I don't think that there is another jet powered aircraft that has served in as many different market sectors for as long as the DC-9...love it or hate it, the DC-9 is a remarkable aircraft that is a testament to the Douglas philosophy of excellence through evolution.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: A320FlyGuy
Posted 2013-05-21 18:48:53 and read 14294 times.

Quoting lewis (Reply 49):
Is it just me or does the logo at 0:20 look extremely similar to the Boeing logo? They couldn't even be original for that?

Wasn't that logo originally the Douglas logo that morphed into the McDonell Douglas logo that was finally worked into the Boeing logo?





to



and finally:

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-05-21 18:50:45 and read 14233 times.

I think it's a very interesting looking aircraft - kind of like what the DC-9 would have looked like had it went through one more update.

Apparently, this is a very real airliners, having just completed crosswind testing:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-completes-crosswind-tests-385255/

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: A320FlyGuy
Posted 2013-05-21 18:55:39 and read 14152 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 53):

I think it's a very interesting looking aircraft - kind of like what the DC-9 would have looked like had it went through one more update.

Wouldn't the 717 be considered the ultimate modern DC-9?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-21 19:13:37 and read 13903 times.

I was asking the same question but I was wondering if the designers for the DC-9 were working on this project.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-05-21 19:34:46 and read 13678 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 27):
I don't believe it ever flew to the U.S. It only made a few test flights and was never developed to the point of carrying passengers.

Yeah, thinking back, there was a 4 engined Chinese jet out on the ramp that we could see from a distance. One of the old timers said it was a copy of the 707, it may well have been a 707.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-10.htm

"The Y-10 made it's first flight in 1980 but the only flyable Y-10 made 130 flights before being retired in 1983."

If this is the case that the Y-10 was retired in 1983, it couldn't have been the aircraft I saw in the summer of 1985.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-05-21 20:12:19 and read 13153 times.

Quoting A320FlyGuy (Reply 54):
Wouldn't the 717 be considered the ultimate modern DC-9?

I was thinking beyond the MD-95 (717).  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-21 20:28:45 and read 12976 times.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 44):
At least NW's had full doors back there, leading to stairs, when used. At AC, as there were no stairs, there was just the catwalk back to the cone. The biggest difference though was the actual door.
Quoting nwa757boy (Reply 45):
I think almost all of the ex-EA -30 birds had this type of exit and a few of the Hughes Airwest -30s had this exit as well. It was the most comfortable jumpseat! It was like a little loveseat back there

The DC9-10's and -30's that were former EA aircraft did indeed have the dreaded "hatch" in the tail. Eastern compensated by having an enlarged forward galley service door. You had to lift the hatch out, lay it on the floor and climb into the tail. I always joked that the airplane would have to be burning like hell to get me to do that. There was a tiny little area for the f/a to stand to usher pax off the airplane--and heaven help you if the instructor did not see you physically hanging on to the airplane structure while you did this, all the while shouting your exit commands.

The former EA DC9-10's were a godsend for commuters because they had a double jumpseat in the front. I can't tell you how many times that made the difference between getting to work or getting home. They were deeply padded--unlike the 757 which was nothing but a board covered by a piece of cloth. If I was commuting I would always check the ship number to see if it was a former EA aircraft.

We had some former RW DC9-15CF's that had a freight door in the front and only one lav in the rear and one in the front.--the other was a coat closet. They were gone pretty quickly after the Republic merger.

I think the "loveseat" is a tad over stated. It was NOT designed for two men with shoulders to sit side by side. We basically strapped in and half sat on the jumpseat facing one another.

NW spent a fortune redoing the interiors of the 9's--best of all adding a third lav in first class.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: fanofjets
Posted 2013-05-21 21:12:20 and read 12413 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 24):
If you're referring to the Shanghai Y-10, it most definitely did fly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQ-7TtM4Kg

Thank you for posting these links. What great videos! So far, all I have been able to find are black-and-white photos from Jane's All the World's Aircraft. You made one airliner nerd a very happy guy.

Yes, when this bird first flew in 1980 (only one aircraft made a few flights; a second example was a static test airframe), it may have been some 20 years out of date. Yet, I have always thought the Y-10 had a lot of personality. Even Boeing's Joe Sutter expressed his admiration of the Y-10 in his book on designing the Boeing 747. (Sutter did not like the Il-86, however). When I first saw the color photo on Airliners.net, I was elated to find that this most unusual aircraft has been preserved.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: pvjin
Posted 2013-05-21 22:08:18 and read 11841 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):
AN-24 - F27, F50, HPR.7 Dart Herald

AN-12 - C-130

IL-76 - C-141

Really none of the aircraft you just listed look anything similar to their soviet counterparts, also C-130 and C-141 have been mainly in military use, I'm quite cure C-141 couldn't really operate in conditions where IL-76 operates all the time still today.

Thus you can't blame Soviets for copying any of these designs any more than you can blame Airbus for copying 737 with their A320 project which just serves similar purpose.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-05-22 05:14:47 and read 7820 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 60):
Really none of the aircraft you just listed look anything similar to their soviet counterparts, also C-130 and C-141 have been mainly in military use, I'm quite cure C-141 couldn't really operate in conditions where IL-76 operates all the time still today.

Had my vision checked, it is 20/16. Really, they do. Aeroflot was a adjunct to the Soviet Air Force and Aeroflot was a part of the strategic air transport reserve for the USSR. The Minister of Civil Aviation in the USSR was always a general or marshal of the Soviet Air Force. Most Aeroflot pilots also were commissioned in the Soviet Air Force. Most of the aircraft you originally cited were military designs with high wings and cargo loading ramps.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: pvjin
Posted 2013-05-22 05:21:10 and read 7723 times.

Well yeah they have seen a lot of military service, however still their design is very different from any of their American counterparts and they by no means aren't knockoffs or anything like some people suggested.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-22 06:20:00 and read 6944 times.

A bad copy... the wrong cross section for the size of the aircraft.

And trending to be 8 years late at EIS...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):

So what's the certification status of the ARJ-21?

Botched. They now have issues with the landing gear that have delayed certification for 18 months from an early 2014 EIS date that is already 7 years LATE!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ns-point-to-further-delays-383095/

How does one find an interface issue this late in flight testing? Or the problem was identified, but the responsible manager was too well connected to be brought to task...

A plane that would have been so-so if introduced into service in 2007 as planned will enter the fleet in 2015 *at best!* In other words, the airframe will enter service after the C-series and MRJ but 3 years before the re-engined e-jets. By the time the ARJ-21 finishes going through 'teething issues' it will be out of date in the market.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CiC
Posted 2013-05-22 06:56:40 and read 6374 times.

No surprise.
Same happened after WW2 with some Junkers designs  

Why did the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre look so similar?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: CALTECH
Posted 2013-05-22 07:45:24 and read 5775 times.

Quoting CiC (Reply 64):
Why did the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre look so similar?
http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/Ta183/boxart.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/mlart/ml250-5.jpg

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Acheron
Posted 2013-05-22 07:51:29 and read 5672 times.

Quoting CiC (Reply 64):
Why did the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre look so similar?

They do?.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2013-05-22 08:21:56 and read 5259 times.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 36):
That said, yes, the Chinese aircraft industry has reverse engineered some fighters as well as the 707. In the latter case, the Y10 is the result, and not a very good one at that:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/0521801/L/

See also an earlier thread on reverse engineering:
Was Y-10 Really A B-707 Copy? (by KC135TopBoom Dec 12 2007 in Civil Aviation)


Classic thread. I love the denial that DL would ever look at more MD-90s!

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-05-22 08:28:34 and read 5140 times.

[deleted, as somebody has posted the same point about the MDD vs Boeing logo in the meantime  Smile ]

[Edited 2013-05-22 08:29:33]

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2013-05-22 09:07:57 and read 4613 times.

The Chinese have also produced a series of props, the current model being the Xian MA60, which are all derived from the An-24.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: dc1030cf
Posted 2013-05-22 09:38:03 and read 4471 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 63):

"How does one find an interface issue this late in flight testing? Or the problem was identified, but the responsible manager was too well connected to be brought to task...

A plane that would have been so-so if introduced into service in 2007 as planned will enter the fleet in 2015 *at best!* In other words, the airframe will enter service after the C-series and MRJ but 3 years before the re-engined e-jets. By the time the ARJ-21 finishes going through 'teething issues' it will be out of date in the market."


How true......and they are talking about the C-919 to grab orders from the NEO and MAX? Pure wet dream   On the other hand, they did build the IL-76 lookalike which IIRC, the Y-20?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: wjv04
Posted 2013-05-22 11:06:28 and read 4305 times.

Quoting A320FlyGuy (Reply 51):
....I don't recall seeing any 1970s vintage 737s still in service with any North American carriers....

Im a fan of the DC9 as well and I can agree with the majority of your post. IMO the 737, old and current generation are the most natural looking aircraft in the sky. There are plenty examples of 70's 737s still in service. Being Canadian you shouldnt have to look to far.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Pineau Photography



C-GFPW Delievered 23-12-1976...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Connor



C-GNAU Delivered 26-09-1979


Lets not forget the countless cargo 727s still in service...

N221FE Delivered 25-09-1974.


Deltas oldest in service DC9 was delivered 25-08-1975.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-22 15:58:19 and read 4009 times.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 56):
Yeah, thinking back, there was a 4 engined Chinese jet out on the ramp that we could see from a distance. One of the old timers said it was a copy of the 707, it may well have been a 707.

The aircraft in your first photo (B-2406) is a 707-320B, one of the 10 707s delivered to CAAC in 1973-74 (4 -320B and 6 -320C). They were the first 10 U.S.-built jets sold in China.

[Edited 2013-05-22 15:59:25]

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-05-22 20:58:24 and read 3692 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 72):
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 56):
Yeah, thinking back, there was a 4 engined Chinese jet out on the ramp that we could see from a distance. One of the old timers said it was a copy of the 707, it may well have been a 707.

The aircraft in your first photo (B-2406) is a 707-320B, one of the 10 707s delivered to CAAC in 1973-74 (4 -320B and 6 -320C). They were the first 10 U.S.-built jets sold in China.

Richard Nixon was president then and he was trying to one up China. The US government may have allowed China to buy these aircraft from Boeing as a way to encourage the opening up of China to "the west."   

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: ordpark
Posted 2013-05-22 23:53:32 and read 3546 times.

WOW! ....rough crowd.....I'll really have to watch what I respond to from now on.....The insults were really not warranted folks. You can disagree with someone without slamming them....

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: Cessna172RG
Posted 2013-05-23 06:17:58 and read 3281 times.

So when should we expect Delta (nee Northwest) to order 200 or so of them?

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: B727FA
Posted 2013-05-23 08:53:08 and read 3101 times.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 58):
The DC9-10's and -30's that were former EA aircraft did indeed have the dreaded "hatch" in the tail. Eastern compensated by having an enlarged forward galley service door. You had to lift the hatch out, lay it on the floor and climb into the tail. I always joked that the airplane would have to be burning like hell to get me to do that. There was a tiny little area for the f/a to stand to usher pax off the airplane--and heaven help you if the instructor did not see you physically hanging on to the airplane structure while you did this, all the while shouting your exit commands.

IIRC, even a few of (if not all) the -40's had the hatch. I remember when the '11 hires came through they were learning the hatch and the door on the -40 as well as (just) the door on the -50 (as it was the door only). There is an interesting placard on the -50 door indicating the mod for the primary jettison handle on a/c L of the tailcone area.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-23 13:51:09 and read 2836 times.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 76):
IIRC, even a few of (if not all) the -40's had the hatch. I remember when the '11 hires came through they were learning the hatch and the door on the -40 as well as (just) the door on the -50 (as it was the door only). There is an interesting placard on the -50 door indicating the mod for the primary jettison handle on a/c L of the tailcone area.

No--the -40's were all doors. A few -30's had the hatch (all former EA) and all the -10's.

Remember "FDS?" Flashlight, door, (restraining) strap. For the non-airline people, you had to grab a flashlight before you opened the tailcone door because it blocked the compartment. This was our little "memory jogger" for going through training every year. It was pitch black back there--no lighting. And about a 12" wide metal grid catwalk. Ugh.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-23 14:22:35 and read 2763 times.

Quoting dc1030cf (Reply 70):
By the time the ARJ-21 finishes going through 'teething issues' it will be out of date in the market."

What it does, though, is provide invaluable experience to the Chinese. Their next plane will be produced faster and better.

Just because they are behind now, doesn't mean they'll be behind forever.

Even if their stuff just sells to the Chinese market, every one is a lost sale for Airbus and Boeing...also BBD and Emb.

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: tugger
Posted 2013-05-23 14:35:15 and read 2733 times.

Quoting jetjack74 (Thread starter):
DC9

I think the real question on everybody's mind is will Northwe.... err Delta buy them and how long will they operate the type?  

Tugg

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: PEK777
Posted 2013-05-23 14:59:04 and read 2690 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 79):
I think the real question on everybody's mind is will Northwe.... err Delta buy them and how long will they operate the type?

Bythe way, when is Delta retiring the DC-9s?
  

Topic: RE: DC9 Rip-off Or What?
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2013-05-23 16:36:47 and read 2594 times.

They keep delaying the departure of the DC9-50's--I think that once they start to seriously receive 717's and 739's they will go. I'd give it early 2014.

The DC9 is built like a tank--you can't hurt it unless you really screw up. I'll be sorry to see the old girl go but I guess that is progress. We are doomed to be crammed into airplanes like the 739 for eternity. I am just glad that I had a chance to work on really GREAT aircraft like the 707, 720, DC8 and 727. They were comfortable, you could actually cross your legs without risking spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair. Today it is all about "mood lighting", wifi and electronic toys. I am glad that I had a chance to work in the days when we actually cooked Chateau Briand in FC, slicing it table side and Y customers got a hot meal on virtually every leg. We ran our legs off but it was fun, incredible teamwork and I will cherish those memories. You have not lived until you had to serve 145 hot meals on a 707-320 between DFW and MCI in 50 minutes--with a full cocktail and beverage service and 3 (count 'em) THREE flight attendants--and NO meal carts. Everything was run out and picked up by hand. My female colleagues loved it when they had a guy working because we had long arms and they could "body stack" us with meal trays. My preferred inflight entertainment is a window seat and a great book. Of course we were a lot younger, skinnier and faster then.

But more to the thread--NEVER underestimate the Chinese. They are smart, sophisticated and have superior engineering skills. One day in the not too distant future their aviation industry will be an international force to be reckoned with along with Boeing and Airbus.

I just wish Lockheed would get back into the passenger aircraft business.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/