Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Certifies First MD-80 Freighter  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24814 posts, RR: 46
Posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11781 times:

FAA has granted a STC certification for the first passenger to freighter conversion of the MD-80.

Converted MD-80s can carry either 12 smaller 88x108 inch pallets or 8 industry standard 88/96 x 125 inch pallets on its main deck with payload of up to 46,600lbs.

Miami based Aeronautical Engineers Inc (AEI) holds orders for 20 conversions and will deliver its first converted aircraft (ex AA c/n 49470) to Everts Air Cargo of Alaska later this month.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ozell Stephens Jr




As with many I remain skeptical as to the potential for the MD-80 as a freighter due to its narrow fuselage and contour limitations which forces use of the smaller ULDs and also the models lower efficiency compared models such as the Boeing 737.

Story:
http://cargofacts.net/profiles/blogs...new-freighter-type-joins-the-fleet

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11745 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
As with many I remain skeptical as to the potential for the MD-80 as a freighter due to its narrow fuselage and contour limitations which forces use of the smaller ULDs and also the models lower efficiency

Why? UPS, and many other cargo carriers seemed to have no problem using the DC-8.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11634 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 1):
Why? UPS, and many other cargo carriers seemed to have no problem using the DC-8.

Isn't the DC-8 6-abreast seating?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1617 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11619 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 1):
Why? UPS, and many other cargo carriers seemed to have no problem using the DC-8.

The DC-9 fuselage is narrower than DC-8



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24814 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11589 times:

The MD-80 and DC-8 don't share the same fuselage cross section.

DC-8 is significantly larger, and can take the industry standard 125 inch pallet.

The only way to fit the 125 incher on the MD-80 is to loose 4 entire pallet positions (33% of aircraft capacity) and also reduce the pallets cubic volume by about 24%. Its a lose - lose situation.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11520 times:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 3):
The DC-9 fuselage is narrower than DC-8

Well, I stand corrected. Having never flown on one, I figured it was the same deal as with the 707/27/37/57.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11465 times:

Per wiki, the width of the fuselage on the MD80 is 11ft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-80

The Dc-9 is 10ft 11.6in per wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9

I have always though the MD-80 would make a good replacement for aging DC-9 freighters. Also, with such a low aquisition price, it would be a good competitor to the 737 classic freighters. I'm guessing with the right set-up you could carry more cargo in a MD-80F versus a 733F.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2391 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11435 times:

Everts does a lot of non-standard and oversize hauling, so perhaps the Mad Dog is well-suited for their operation. Acquisition costs are dirt-cheap and, once converted, the -80s will have a capacity and operating cost advantage over the DC-9 freight conversion, which Everts already has in service.

I agree, however, that the MD-80 won't ever become a mainstream freighter, especially now that ABX no longer operates DC-9s with their specialized containers.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11346 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
As with many I remain skeptical as to the potential for the MD-80 as a freighter due to its narrow fuselage and contour limitations which forces use of the smaller ULDs and also the models lower efficiency compared models such as the Boeing 737.

I agree. AEI may only need a small number to break even though.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Miami based Aeronautical Engineers Inc (AEI) holds orders for 20 conversions and will deliver its first converted aircraft (ex AA c/n 49470) to Everts Air Cargo of Alaska later this month.

I wonder who the 20 are destined for (other than Everts).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24814 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11246 times:

Sure certainly the MD-80F feed stock acquisition cost is going to be lower then a 737-300/400, but in general cargo carrying capability the 737 can run circles around the MD-80.

For example using the standard pallets the MD-80 carries only 8 (with contour restrictions) while the 737-300F can do 9 and 737-400F 11.

For some niche operators the MD-80 might indeed be fine if they can use the smaller ULDs, but for the bulk of the industry the model is not very attractive, similar to how the DC-9 took a back seat to models like the 727 for freight operators.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8):
I wonder who the 20 are destined for (other than Everts).

Couple news stories I have seen say "undisclosed customers". Not sure why its hush hush.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 693 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10896 times:

Would it be possible to use these on gravel runways? Is it easier to certify for that with the engines on the tail?

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13032 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10781 times:

Just goes to prove how well engineered Mad Dog aircraft were that they are worth converting.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12883 posts, RR: 100
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm happily surprised at these conversions. I didn't think the maddogs had the economics. I'm glad to be proven wrong.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):

Just goes to prove how well engineered Mad Dog aircraft were that they are worth converting.

   But I'm assuming someone figured out a low cost conversion as the payload limits will reduce the value of the airframes. I expect the 734 and later the 738 to be very popular freight conversions.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
in general cargo carrying capability the 737 can run circles around the MD-80.

   Hence why I'm surprised. But I'm a happy surprised.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
the MD-80 carries only 8 (with contour restrictions) while the 737-300F can do 9 and 737-400F 11.

IMHO it will be the larger 737s (-4, and sometime in the future the -8) that make up the bulk of the converted fleet.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8):
AEI may only need a small number to break even though.

I expect 20 would be enough. Kudos to them for finding the niche.

As the OP link notes:
wondering if the MD-80’s lower acquisition and conversion costs, and reputation for ruggedness, would balance the somewhat narrower fuselage and lower fuel efficiency when compared to the 737 Classic family with which it would compete.

I think we've found a freighter for seasonal service. Which begs the question, is the acquisition/conversion cost low enough for FedEx for seasonal use?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTrucker From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 190 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
Would it be possible to use these on gravel runways? Is it easier to certify for that with the engines on the tail?

I think you bring up a good point SSTeve. For operating in Alaska, northern Canada, or anywhere else where gravel runways might be used the rear mounted engines must be an advantage.


User currently offlineB757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 395 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10517 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):
Just goes to prove how well engineered Mad Dog aircraft were that they are worth converting.

Agreed. I also think the low acquisition cost plus the ability to cheaply maintain the aircraft (much in the same manner as Allegiant) by using retired / continued time parts making the economics even more attractive.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24814 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10343 times:

Actually the MD-80 is quite susceptible to FOD with its tires kicking material up, or materials on the wing get ingested in the engines.

Remember SAS had the MD-80 crash due snow/ice ingested by the engines.

Here is a visual of what the rear engine aircraft can experience.




=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9801 times:

Surprised this took this long to get off the ground but I'm hoping to see some of the cargo players at CVG order some of these. The MD-80s roar like a tiger on takeoff and are an impressive sight..... but I wonder how far they can go on fuel...


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1154 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9714 times:

Apparently AEI sees more demand for the MD-80SF than the 737-400SF

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...for-md-80sf-than-737-400sf-377746/

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 8):
I wonder who the 20 are destined for (other than Everts).

Well here's a list of the the Countries the airlines that have purchased the MD-80SF are from,USA,Mexico, Uruguay, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Spain and Indonesia

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...8/first-md-80-freighter-set-fly-us

Love the statement where they describe the MD-80 as a pick-up truck with wings.

[Edited 2013-02-18 19:12:37]

User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9687 times:

It makes sense since there are so many MD-80 series aircraft kicking around, but a lot of them are getting on a bit in age, I wonder about how many are still in the "sweet spot" in terms of usage.

User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1154 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9650 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 18):
It makes sense since there are so many MD-80 series aircraft kicking around, but a lot of them are getting on a bit in age, I wonder about how many are still in the "sweet spot" in terms of usage

Well the first one is 26 years old, so I would say there's plenty of frames around that would be good candidates for conversion.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24814 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9613 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 17):
Apparently AEI sees more demand for the MD-80SF than the 737-400SF

Thats AEI - a single vendor.

The Global market for 737 conversions has been quite strong especially recently and offered by multiple vendors (PEMCO, IAI, etc)


Demand Surges For Boeing 737 Classic Cargo Conversions
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_10_30_2012_p0-511334.xml

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12883 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 17):
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...8/first-md-80-freighter-set-fly-us

Interesting quote from your link:
A 737-400 typically costs between $3.25 million and $4 million, while MD-80s sell for $750,000 to $800,000. A 737-400 conversion, which AEI also offers, itself costs $2.7 million to $2.8 million, compared with $2.35 million for the MD-82 it just finished.

So a 734SF is $6M+ while the MD-80 is a mere $3.1M+ or about half the cost. I really do wonder if that is low enough to be purchased for seasonal use by FedEx or UPS...?


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2898 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9388 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
So a 734SF is $6M+ while the MD-80 is a mere $3.1M+ or about half the cost. I really do wonder if that is low enough to be purchased for seasonal use by FedEx or UPS...?

I don't understand. UPS and Fedex don't purchase airframes for seasonal use now. During Christmas rush they just add extra segments and hire in contractors. Why would they change?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9099 times:

I would imagine that an existing DC-9F operator might be attracted to these. It boils down, which a/c will make the most profit: The 733/4F or the MD80F as far as decision time. USA Jet has a MD83 F on order per wikipedia. While I said in my earlier post the MD80 is a good competitor, I still believe the best option in the market is the 733F/ 734F. Maybe more expensive, but I believe those extra pallets it takes will offset the extra cost.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 793 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8871 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 16):
Surprised this took this long to get off the ground but I'm hoping to see some of the cargo players at CVG order some of these. The MD-80s roar like a tiger on takeoff and are an impressive sight..... but I wonder how far they can go on fuel...

The range really depends on how heavy of a payload she is required to carry. A fully loaded -83 or -88 can fly for 3.5 hours plus :30 minute alternate and reserve. Mid weights, say 25-30k payload, will see about 5 hours, and light weight, say 10-15k payload could see 6 hours. This assumes being able to climb straight to optimum altitude and stepping to maintain optimum. It is a pretty similar profile to what the 727's are currently flying. The big difference is any operator wishing to cut their fuel burn in half with and MD-80SF will have to accept the addition of the smaller LD containers in their system.

727forever



727forever
25 Deltal1011man : Also believe the JT8D has some of the lowest OH cost of any engine out there. Also real good time between OH
26 LAXintl : According to G4 its cheaper to simply scrap a timed out JT8D-200's and replace it with another used one versus spending money on overhauls. So beside
27 Darksnowynight : Actually, that photo is demonstrating the usage and effectiveness of tire chines in deflecting water away from the engines. This is harder to see giv
28 woodsboy : Everts likely wont be operating the MD80Fs into gravel runways, all of the major airports they serve in Alaska such as Barrow, Bethel, Dillingham, Kot
29 Post contains links AndyEastMids : http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...8/first-md-80-freighter-set-fly-us Quote: "Everts plans to use its MD-80 in the lower 48 states of the U.S."
30 SpaceshipDC10 : Yes, but the important thing to know is how many cycles, and while we are at it, how many hours in the air ?
31 FlyDeltaJets : I thought that there was some sort of bar on the back of the nose tire to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
32 captainstefan : It's more of a custom mudflap-cage device, and there are similar (but less obvious) device on the main gear as well. I assume for use on unimproved/g
33 Post contains links 727forever : The MD-80 does have very robust spray deflectors that are a combination of metal and rubber. The deflectors are strong enough to deflect both liquid
34 dtw9 : Wouldn't take more than a day to find 100 good candidates. Plenty of mid-cycle /mid-hour MD-80 airframes out there. As an example, most of the MD-80'
35 FWAERJ : G4 is no longer buying old MD-80s for new service - all future in-service aircraft for G4 will be A319/A320s with CFM56 engines and 757s with Rolls R
36 SpaceshipDC10 : I believe you, My remark was more intended as an answer to the notion people have very often regarding the number of years since the airframe was bui
37 Post contains links SSTeve : There are some interior photos here: http://tinyurl.com/byz5wm2 I find myself wondering what determines whether the sidewalls are bare aluminum girder
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...
MD-80 Freighter posted Thu Sep 18 2008 17:36:16 by Ovrpowrd727
Alaska To Retire First MD-80 This Weekend posted Sat Sep 9 2006 00:38:52 by Nonfirm
Why No MD-80 Freighter STC's? posted Mon Jul 25 2005 19:21:05 by AndrewUber
First MD-80 posted Wed Aug 16 2000 09:08:36 by SierraAir
AA Facing Huge Fine From FAA On MD-80 Wiring Issue posted Fri Aug 20 2010 03:36:16 by ltbewr
MD-80/90 Freighter Conversions posted Fri Feb 27 2004 08:48:53 by Flying-Tiger
First Class On AS MD-80 SEA-SMF? posted Fri Apr 4 2003 04:44:53 by United777
N813ME - First YX MD-80 In New Livery! posted Thu Mar 13 2003 06:43:42 by Ilyushin96M
AZ MD-80 Farewell Flight With Frecce Tricolori posted Mon Dec 17 2012 13:35:40 by 777
AA 738/MD-80 Ratio posted Fri Nov 30 2012 14:13:01 by 727LOVER