717fan From Switzerland, joined Nov 2001, 2017 posts, RR: 7 Posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
Why is the MD-80 so succesful in Scandinavia? Especially in Sweden there were/are a lot of operators like Transwede NordicEast both gone and SAS, NordicAirlink, MDAirlines, Transjet and Finnair from Finland. So this must be a key target for Boeing and the 717...
Trident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1292 times:
Long association with Douglas products going right back to the early post war period. SAS had a huge fleet of DC-9's (Srs 21 and Srs 41) so the MD 80 series was a natural progression. I think they ordered MD80's before any of the Airbys A320 variants were available and it was only in the 90's that they stated ordering Boeing 737's.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1238 times:
A big success in the US as well. IMHO if MD had somehow transitioned the MD80 to high bypass turbofans in the same relative time period to compete with the 737-300/+ while MDD was still viable, I bet MDD would srill be around today. It just seemed to me at the time that as good an improvement the JT8-200's were, it was still a thirsty JT8 and just not efficient enough to compete long term with the Boeing. The MD90, again IMHO, was too late and wasn't a good MD80 followup. They should've kept it simple in the Douglas tradition.
But for a time in the 80's and early 90's it just seemed to me to be extraordinarily popular and numerous.
Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1216 times:
Could the engine positioning also have had anything to do with it ??? By that I mean that them being where they are, there is less chance of them sucking in any snow and ice on take off / landing, as I imagine they spend alot of their time on contaminated runways, (compared to other carriers) thereby reducing the potential for damage ???
Just a thought.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5541 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1167 times:
Actually, it is my understanding that tail- mounted engines suffer from debris being kicked up by the wheels on takeoff/ landing.
It makes sense, if you think about it. The wheels/wing area being closer to the tail like it is on the Mad Dogs... if they kick up any foreign objects, it's likely to get sucked right in.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 37 Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
The MD80 was the most FOD prone airplane I've ever seen, not including ice ingestion from the wings. The wings had a tendency to form clear ice on top of the wing roots from being cold soaked by frigid fuel. When I last worked the MD80, the mech (CO) or pilot (AA) had to physically check the wings for clear ice accumulation by moving tufts of yarn on top of the wings with a long pole.