Mason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 748 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 6821 times:
With the winglet craze, raked or otherwise, especially on a few 727s and 757s as of late, anyone know if any airlines are interested in kits for the DC-9 series (any variant)? Aesthetics aside, they do seem to be popular with the 737s. Also, anyone besides CO ordered them for their 757s? Thanks.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (8 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 6811 times:
I doubt the DC-9's fly long enough routes to warrant the development of winglets. Just wouldn't be economical. Plus, with the DC-9's aging and starting to be replaced, there is little point in developing winglets for a plane that is going to be gone in the near future.
Mason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6543 times:
I know some airlines (AS) had tanks for the -80s long flights to Russia. Not sure how much range this offered. Although no longer produced, the MD-80/90 will be flying for many years to come, for better or worse.
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6500 times:
DC-9s are "gas guzzlers" that's a bigger problem than just a simple reduction in drag provided by winglets. It's synonymous with putting a lighter frame on an 1980 Cadillac. Sure you would save the weight and increase fuel economy, but you still have an inefficient engine on the car.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16527 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6476 times:
Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 7): DC-9s are "gas guzzlers" that's a bigger problem than just a simple reduction in drag provided by winglets. It's synonymous with putting a lighter frame on an 1980 Cadillac. Sure you would save the weight and increase fuel economy, but you still have an inefficient engine on the car.
You're quite right, but since the airlines are going to keep them anyway, in particular AA...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6364 times:
I take offense to the "DC-9s are gas guzzlers comment"!!!
If they were such gas guzzlers, why would NW be so content to keep them?
Granted, they burn more fuel than newer types, but they must not be THAT bad.
And, the MD-80 is said to burn less fuel that the 737-800, by merit of its lighter weight. It won't hold as many people, true.
So, I don't think that one can make a sweeping statement that "DC-9s are gas guzzlers."
As far as winglets, someone pointed out that most of them aren't flying long flights. Well, that's true for the most part. But, Northwest is bringing -9s in to Dallas from Detroit and Memphis, and maybe MSP too. AND American is flying their nearly 400-strong MD-80 fleet on long flights: Dallas to Seattle (about 4 hours), Dallas to DCA, Boston, et cetera. So I think the advantages of winglets would be realized in these applications.
Particularly when we consider the weaknesses of the MD-80 are its wings. The MD-80 is known for having to burn off fuel to before it can climb up to the mid 30s. On a recent flight from California to DFW (also over three hours), our MD-80 cruised at FL290 for an hour before climbing up to FL330, and the captain explained that we had to burn fuel before we could reach our final cruising altitude.
SO- I think winglets would help, and I think American would be a prime customer. Heck, they could be the only customer, and the project would still be worthwhile, with 360 of the of the bloomin' things.
And really, no matter how INefficient the plane may be, if you can save 5% on your fuel burn, that's 5%. Come to think of it, 5% translate to MORE fuel saved on an inefficient plane than on an efficient one:
Let's say the MD-80 burns 3000 pounds per hour.
3000 X .05 = 150 pounds SAVED.
Now let's say the 737-700 burns 2800 pounds per hour.
2800 X .05 = 140 pounds SAVED.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6353 times:
Well, to answer the question as to why Northwest keeps them--because they are paid for. The DC9s are gasaholics-but at this point it is cheaper to keep paid for aircraft than pay lease/finance rates on top of gas; this is a huge part of the reason why NW has been able to stay out of financial trouble like US or UA.