BAsteward From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
According to the Virgin A340 pilots I used to fly with, the 340 was given the A-300 nose gear to help keep development costs down. Hence the" tilt ". Anyway as a veteran of over 100 flights as cabin crew on the things, I can tell you you can only tell on touchdown which is very hard on the nose gear, and your spine!!
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1044 times:
You could do something yourself if you have the opportunity (which you should have if you are, as you write, a F/A): see and compare. But I wouldn't mind too much. If some people quite more experienced than us fitted it there, it is 'cause it fits. Don't worry or feare while flying or proceeding to land.
I mean: the point in reducing costs (in both spare parts and crew training) is commonality. There are lots of examples in the whole aviation industry:
.-The 340 (and the 330) have also some of the fuselage sections of the 300, too, if I recall correctly.
.-The wings are exactly the same in 330s and 340s, in spite of the engine number.
.-The same way a M11 is a longer D10, wich in the -30 and -40 versions are heavier than the -10.
.-All the 737s have also the same fuselage (in different lengths).
.-The 717 is a DC9-10 with new avionics and more powerful engines.
.-The whole M80/90 family is again the same airplane.
.-Also all the 32Xs (318, 319, 320 & 321) are the same airplane.
The 777 has a lot of commonalities with the 767, and in -200 & -300 series the avionics are being fitted to the "glass" instruments, as the newest -400s are already having.
This is the present and the future of aviation, and the airplanes are tested to the limits before they are given the CoAW (Certificate of Air Worthiness). It does not mean of any danger possibility.
BAsteward From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1036 times:
Thanks for the info Turbulence, dont worry I feel safe on any aircraft or I wouldn't do my job!! Just one thing, is the 717 not derived from the MD90 and not the Dc9 as you state? I seem to remember it starting life as the MD-95
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 24 Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1031 times:
Yes, the McDonnell Douglas project, taken by Boeing after the merger / absorbtion or whatever it is called, was going to be comercialized as M95. Yes, you're right. But I made reference to the DC9-10 because of the size. Later, even other versions of the same DC9 were longer (DC-9-20 & -30) and/or more powerful (-25 & -40, if I'm right) Actually, all the DC9s, all the M80s (80 aka "DC9 Super 80", 81, 82, 86, 87, 88) and the M90s, including the 95, later called 717, are all evolutions or adaptations of the same concept, with more efficient engines and wings, and newer avionics... but sharing fuselage sections
Someone else will be able to be more accurate than I can, tough.
NRA-3B From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 159 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
Turbulence is essentially correct in his characterization of the 717. The only point on which I disagree is that the 717 is an updated version of the DC-9-30 rather than the -10. I think you will find that the wings are DC-9 wings and the fuselage length is the same (or nearly) as the -30. The -10 is a real shorty and it would show if the 717 shared that length.