Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC9-21: Why No 717-100  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Ok, I know the answer would probably be Economics, but if McDD produced the DC9-21 for only 1 customer and 10 frames, why won't boeing produce a 717-100 for a customer. Basically all they would have to do is take a -200 and take a section out and voila. Any thoughts??

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2395 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Nowadays certification requirements are a lot more stringent. As for Boeing we are incredibly lucky that the 717 is still in production, considering the close size of the 737-600. The days of heavy customer influence, such as with the 707-138, are gone. Customer input is used through the design phase, the 'Working Together' bit, but unless significant orders (read Airtran or Qantaslink) can be obtained the RJs (EMB, CRJ etc.) will continue to rule the lower end of the market.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

The DC-9-21 was not a new design. It was basically a DC-9-10 with some improvements such as more powerful engines & leading edge slats. Hence, the development cost of the -21 was minimal as it had the same basic fuselage as the -10.

A 717-100 (aka 711) would be a entirely new fuselage....hence would require a more expensive development & certification. Although, Boeing would probably launch the aircraft with a sizeable order.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Isn't the -21 a combination of the fuselage of the -10 and the wing of the -30 or -50 (if there is a diff.)?

Max


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Douglas persued the -21 because there was thought that there was a larger market for it. Specifically, it was designed around the shorter runways of the time. But as fast as the plane was developed, people ended up lengthing runways, even in Japan, and the idea kind of fizzled.

Douglas was willing to launch with limited orders, especially from a good customer like SAS. If they made or lost money is unknown. However, overall, one has to remember that Douglas (and post merger McDD) always lived on the financial ropes, so using them as a guideline for a profitable business would be unwise.  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Godbless - to answer your question I was told that a 20 series, was a 10 series fuselage with 30 series wing... leading edge flaps difference... the 10 had a "hard wing" like these DC9 pilots say...
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

MDD was famous to develop or customize planes for each airline.
By doing this, you just increase development, certification and production costs.
And the final result ???
MDD doen't exist anymore.
That's very sad, but today, the world is runned by finance, not customer care or creativity
Teva



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

In addition to slats,the -30 wing also had a longer span.
Just for the record: Boeing 717 is the model designation for the KC-135 Stratotanker series.When the MD-95 was redesignated 717,Boeing gave it the -200 suffix and started to refer to the KC-135 as the -100.



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

A 717-100 (aka 711) would be a entirely new fuselage...

Why is that? Can't they just shorten the fuselage by a few frames?

I think it would be an interesting idea - They could create a 75-90 pax version which could compete with Embraer, and take up the slack of BAe dropping their RJ line. There MUST be a lot of airlines out there that could use aircraft in the 75-105 pax region, which two versions of the 717 could fill nicely. The 717 is wonderfully efficient, and is one of the highest technology planes in the air. It looks like a DC-9, but is nothing like it under the skin.

It would also put Boeing, for better or worse, into a market segment they have never been in - the sub-100 seat jet business. I don't think that Airbus could create a A317 to compete - the A318 already looks damned wierd.

Charles


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Cfalk:

The problem is with certification and development costs. If Boeing were to get firm orders for, say, 50 of the 711, the might do it. But right now, the CRJ-700/900 and the larger ERJ-145 (and the larger variant the designation of which escapes me at the moment) are filling the market for a 70-90 seat aircraft.

Also, landing fees would probably be higher for the 711 than the CRJ-900, so unless someone is looking for fleet commonality requirements (say FL looking to operate its own JetConnect service instead of Air Wisconsin operating it), then I could see Boeing developing the 711, 712ER, and maybe even a 713 in addition to the current (and only) 712. But right now, FL and the other 712 customers seem happy with what they have.

Oh, one more thing: The current 717-200 used to be the MD-95-30. The MD-95-10 was going to fill this market. Boeing looked at the in-production CRJ and the upcoming ERJ and decided not to try to compete with them. The MD-95-50, what would now be called the 717-300, was on the board and I assume is waiting for an airline to give Boeing a firm order, though it's unlikely this will happen any time soon.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineLGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

The DC-9-21 also had larger, more powerful engines from the -30.

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

Another thing that comes to mind is weight, and balance. Back in the days of yore, Douglas had actually toyed with a DC-9-5, a shorter version of the -10. But one of the 'killer' issues was engine weight, and shortening the fuselage would have caused some balance issues, and they might have had to ballast the aircraft (not bad for flying, but balast is essentially dead weight, an anathema for an airline).

I wonder if the 717, with the much larger BR715 engines, might not also have issues if you shortened it up. I know that Travis (the AirTran F/A) has alluded to using ballast in lightly loaded 717's -- that issue might just be worse if you shorten the fuselage.

Steve


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1385 times:

The design for the 717-100 would most likely still be powered by the BR-715 powerplant, just derated some more (the versions of it on the 717 are derated from the baseline engine). The BR-710 (powerplant used on the G-V, the G500, the G550, the Global Express, the Nimrod MRA4, and the Tu-334-120) has also been mentioned as a potential powerplant for as well.

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...
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:17:11 by Albird87
Why No 717 Or 757 For AF? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 12:45:24 by Airtrainer
Why No 717 Before The 727? posted Mon May 29 2000 01:51:05 by Samurai 777
Why No Boeing 757-100? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 11:13:26 by AirworldA320
Valujet: Why Did AirTran Get Rid Of DC9-21 posted Tue Nov 12 2002 00:35:57 by BR715-A1-30
Why No -100 Series? posted Thu Dec 21 2000 13:26:22 by DVP
Why No DC9-60 And DC-9-70? posted Tue Sep 26 2000 00:29:42 by Fjnovak1
Why Was There No 717? posted Tue Jun 13 2000 22:44:51 by UK FLY
Why No F-100's Out West? posted Thu Dec 30 1999 23:34:20 by Matt D
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO