Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wow, The DC9 -10 Is Small Compared To MD's  
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 10965 times:

I just got a Herpa model 1/500 of a DC9-10 Aero Mexico and was shocked to see how small it was compared to the MD 80 variants.

I have never thought about it until now.


DC9-10 : Lenght 31.82 m

MD-81 : Lenght 45.0 m

MD-87 : Lenght 39.75 m

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAviastar From Belarus, joined Nov 2000, 280 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 10950 times:

DC-9-40/50: 38,3 m like the MD-87

User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 10914 times:



Quoting Aviastar (Reply 1):
DC-9-40/50: 38,3 m like the MD-87

yes, I know. I was talking about the difference between DC-9-10 and the MD's


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10606 times:



Quoting Mortyman (Reply 2):
yes, I know. I was talking about the difference between DC-9-10 and the MD's

Well the DC-9-10 was meant to be a very short version in the DC-9 series, while the MD-80 series never had as short a version, so nothing to compare it to.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25358 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10562 times:

Interestingly, due to the high-tail, rear-engine design, the overall length of the DC-9-10 is about 4 feet longer than the 737-200. That's one reason why rear-engine designs are less efficient. The aircraft is longer but the usuable fuselage length is shorter due to all the structure at the rear that holds the engines.

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10547 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Interestingly, due to the high-tail, rear-engine design, the overall length of the DC-9-10 is about 4 feet longer than the 737-200. That's one reason why rear-engine designs are less efficient. The aircraft is longer but the usuable fuselage length is shorter due to all the structure at the rear that holds the engines.

It's of course also narrower, it holds 5 abreast in Y, while the 737 of course holds 6 abreast in Y. That's even more of an issue than the engines.

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 3):
Well the DC-9-10 was meant to be a very short version in the DC-9 series,

Well, de DC9-10 was also the very first DC9. Barring the MD87, every subsequent development of the DC9 was a stretch.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineSWABrian From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 299 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10523 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 5):
Well, de DC9-10 was also the very first DC9. Barring the MD87, every subsequent development of the DC9 was a stretch.

Except for the DC-9-20 which had the -10's body and the -30's wings


User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10510 times:



Quoting SWABrian (Reply 6):
Except for the DC-9-20 which had the -10's body and the -30's wings

Indeed, very true. Forgot about that one. Of course, not all MD80 versions were stretches. The MD80 series itself was a further stretch, with the exception of the MD87.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25358 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10417 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 5):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Interestingly, due to the high-tail, rear-engine design, the overall length of the DC-9-10 is about 4 feet longer than the 737-200. That's one reason why rear-engine designs are less efficient. The aircraft is longer but the usuable fuselage length is shorter due to all the structure at the rear that holds the engines.

It's of course also narrower, it holds 5 abreast in Y, while the 737 of course holds 6 abreast in Y. That's even more of an issue than the engines.

I was referring to the length as it relates to the high-tail, rear-engine design. You can also compare the 727-200 which is several inches longer than the longest 707-320 (both 6-abreast). The DC-9-10 of course has fewer seats than the 737-200, which is both due to the 5-abreast design but also in part because the passenger cabin is shorter although the entire aircraft is longer.


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10283 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Burger Collection


DC-9-14 (-10 series)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aaron Hall


MD-90-30 (final DC-9 derivative by McDonnell Douglas-not including the MD-95/Boeing717))


and talk about history repeating itself...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Robitaille


Canadair Challenger (CL-600-2B16)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Jones


Canadair CRJ-1000 (CL-600-2E25)



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25358 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10254 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 9):
and talk about history repeating itself...

Or the 737-100 vs. the 737-900.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert M. Campbell
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9627 times:

This is why I have said Boeing ruined a good thing. Douglas were way ahead of their time with the DC-9 series.

The 717 should have been offered in a -100 -200 -300 and -400 series. I find the DC-9 to be the quietest, most comfortable aircraft in the short/medium haul range.


If the product was sold correctly to their clients, they would have realised just how versatile it was.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5476 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

There's no question the DC-9 was one of the best, most farsighted airframe designs of all time. But...

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 11):
The 717 should have been offered in a -100 -200 -300 and -400 series.

... what good would a 717-300 and 717-400, which would have been 738 competitors with similar operating costs but less range, have done Boeing?

The 717-200 made more sense, but not enough to sell in sufficient numbers to keep the line open. The 73G is heavier and more expensive, but much more versatile.


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9176 times:

oops...my bad...Canadair has been part of Bombardier for some time!


AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineJetjeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6914 times:

The 10 series was a good fast plane , the only problem i ever knew of ,was the engines were to close to the wings and they acted like a funnel pouring snow ice,hail and rain right into them
causeing some to stall on the runway. and on take off if not deiced properly.. the stretched versions didnt have that problem that i know of



i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineN53614 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6713 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 12):
... what good would a 717-300 and 717-400, which would have been 738 competitors with similar operating costs but less range, have done Boeing?

Well...since Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas (and along with it, the MD-95/717-200), and considering that airlines wanted Boeing to make a stretched 717, it might have done them some good.

Also, can you really call the 737-700 and 717-200 "competitors" if the money from purchases ends up in the same place?

The 737 is an awesome airframe but it is not the end all/be all decision for every airline.

Of course, this is all moot seeing as the 717 line is no more.



B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B73G B738 B739 B742 B752 B772 A320 A319 CRJ2 DHC8 E135 E140 E145
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6519 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 12):
what good would a 717-300 and 717-400, which would have been 738 competitors with similar operating costs but less range, have done Boeing?

More choice, engine choice, which can directly be transferred to more sales to Boeing and less sales to Airbus. Boeing ending all MD-planes was the biggest boost Airbus ever got, boosting them form 30% to 50%.


User currently offlineSRforever From Switzerland, joined Dec 2006, 129 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6319 times:



Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
shocked to see how small it was

You've abviously never seen this one  Wink

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00000004


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4756 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
That's one reason why rear-engine designs are less efficient.

I'd tend to disagree with this blanket statement - if you did indeed intend this to be across-the-board. the fact that rear engine a/c are still being designed/produced leads me to believe your statement may have more leverage if you are applying it on a case-by-case basis.


I have one logged flight on a Midwest Express DC-9-10 from Dulles to Milwaukee. I have the t/o, some at-altitude, and the landing on videotape...it is really a fun reel to watch. I sat just in front of engine #2. If I can ever find the time, I'll get this footage on flightlevel350.com for everyone to see. Loved every minute on that shorty.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3053 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 11):
I find the DC-9 to be the quietest, most comfortable aircraft in the short/medium haul range.

On the inside, yes...

Not so much if you're under it-even with the hushkits.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25358 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2859 times:



Quoting DIA (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
That's one reason why rear-engine designs are less efficient.

I'd tend to disagree with this blanket statement - if you did indeed intend this to be across-the-board. the fact that rear engine a/c are still being designed/produced leads me to believe your statement may have more leverage if you are applying it on a case-by-case basis.

I was referring to large airliners, not regional jets and business jets where the need to keep the fuselage closer to the ground seems to still make a case for rear-engined aircraft.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2356 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16):
More choice, engine choice, which can directly be transferred to more sales to Boeing and less sales to Airbus. Boeing ending all MD-planes was the biggest boost Airbus ever got, boosting them form 30% to 50%.

 checkmark  It's true. Not long after Boeing announced that production of MD airliners would cease did Airbus pull even at 50/50, which has been pretty close give or take ever since. The same could not be said about Airbus just a few short years before the merger.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta's fleet of 777s is rather small compared to... posted Sat Mar 20 2004 10:40:02 by JeckPDX
How Similar Is The MD-11 To The DC-10? posted Sun Jan 2 2000 05:15:21 by Happy-flier
Is the A345 a rocked compared to the A343? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 06:57:17 by Dc863
How Big Is The A330 Compared To Say The 747 posted Thu Sep 6 2001 09:25:04 by BA-747
Is G4 Going To Buy AM's MD-87's? posted Thu Mar 27 2008 08:51:50 by Wedgetail737
Is It Cheaper To Run Written Down MD's? posted Tue Mar 25 2008 03:08:54 by Beaucaire
Is It Time To Use The Big F Word On Here! posted Sun Mar 16 2008 09:07:37 by YamahaR1
What Is The Purpose Of Qantas Flight 8 LAX To SYD? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 21:21:47 by Access-Air
When Is Condor Going To Change The 767? posted Sat Feb 9 2008 19:14:02 by Plairbus
Turbulence On 345 Compared To The 346 posted Thu Aug 30 2007 16:43:30 by Deaphen