Brucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3229 times:
Driving past KDEN recently and seeing a DL MD-90 depart like the proverbial "rocket" made me wonder:
My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines (which I think were later addressed and fixed, only to be too late to save the project). If Boeing, in the same timeframe, were making the B734 with the CFM-56 engines, and having great success, why didn't MD use that engine instead of a new RR product?
D950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
I believe the 717 uses RR, while the MD90 has IAE V2500
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 47 Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3165 times:
Quoting Brucek (Thread starter): why didn't MD use that engine instead of a new RR product?
As others have already mentioned, the MD-90 has the IAE V2500. This was not a new engine at the time, as it was first developed for the A320, and was already in use on that plane when the MD-90 came out.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3086 times:
Quoting Brucek (Thread starter): My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines
Most of the issues with the MD-90 have to do with the avionics and electronics, not the engines. The engines are actually quite efficient. Also, they are not solely RR. They are International Aero Engines V2500s, which is a joint venture between Rolls Royce and United Technologies (parent of Pratt and Whitney).
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
The IAE engines are one of the best features of the MD90 - good performance and reasonable operating costs.
The MD90 ended being a rather good airplane, but it did not sell that well and the program ended when when Boeing merged with McD - Boeing did not see a need to produce an airliner that competed with its own 737NG.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
The real problem on that a/c was the electrical system. Switching from ground power to APU to generator power was all but a breeze. The system and panel were completely different than what the 9 thru 88 flew with, so it had more than it's share of problems. They finally resolved the problem, but unfortunately too late to save the plane.
Funny, in my old aeronautics classroom, we had a poster on the back wall with a DL MD-88 on it, said "Our Aircraft of the Future"....with just a dozen of em nowadays.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
Quoting Brucek (Thread starter): My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines (which I think were later addressed and fixed, only to be too late to save the project).
The IAE V2500 D5 did have some teething issues at entry into service. Recall that *at that time* the V2500 had slightly better fuel economy than the CFM and that the V2500 promised and *eventually* delivered much lower maintenance costs.
Recall that the MD-90's entry into service was 1995 and Boeing bid for Douglas in December of 1996.
From what I've heard the MD-90 just had more teething issues than the airlines had patience for. I'm going to agree with Dutchjet that if Douglas had been stronger financially, the MD-90 program would have done ok.
BTW, who has ordered the 28k thrust option? With the capability to use 5,000ft runways with the standard 25k thrust, the 28k must be an absolute rocket! Ok, its 7,100 ft at MTOW with 25k. Data from:
D950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2963 times:
Hello ended up with all of their fleet(3) with the "28" option, as well as
all of the Saudi fleet and four for Uni/AMC
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7): The IAE V2500 D5 did have some teething issues at entry into service. Recall that *at that time* the V2500 had slightly better fuel economy than the CFM and that the V2500 promised and *eventually* delivered much lower maintenance costs.
There were also some teething problems resulting from manufacturing being spread across four companies. Engineers I know used to despair at early V2500 tech manuals!
It is also wrong to refer to the V2500 as a Rolls product, as Pratt have just as much in there as Rolls. The two are the senior partners in IAE but neither is the dominant force in the four way split.
If Boeing rumours are right it will also be great to see the IAE family on the 737 evolution aircraft as an engine choice.
Brucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
Thanks for the clarification, everyone, and the interesting info. I so love the MD-90 on take-off, with it's long cantilevered section forward of the wing!
D950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2939 times:
Off topic, but Nordic Leisure just took their second "90" from SAS. SAS actually wanted more 90's but did not pull the trigger before Lion took (and will eventually destroy) the ex AA/Reno 90's.
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9): If Boeing rumours are right it will also be great to see the IAE family on the 737 evolution aircraft as an engine choice.
It would need to be an entirely new IAE core, not the V2500. In no way is any engine currently in production efficient enough for a next generation airframe. The amount of progress that has occured (due to CFD, etc.) has been too great in the last 3 years. However, due to the IAE contract, Pratt and RR would be required to joint venture in the 24.2k to somewhere in the 35k range unless both opted out (unlikely, but possible). Could the V2500 be improved? Yes. (curbed blade fan, improved high turbine, new combustor, etc.) Is that good enough for a new airframe? Nope.
Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):
It is also wrong to refer to the V2500 as a Rolls product, as Pratt have just as much in there as Rolls.
Correct. 33% each with 34% in the hands of "other" risk sharing partners.
N60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 28 Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12): 34% in the hands of "other" risk sharing partners
Who, IIRC were MTU of Germany, Fiat Aviazione (sp?) of Italy and Japanese Aero Engine Corporation (another consortium of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi etc). Neil, (or anyone else for that matter), feel free to correct me.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 246 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1056 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
