Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
717 Stretch/MD90 Shrink: Airfoils And The McD Team  
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 463 posts, RR: 4
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

When McDonnell Douglass designed the 717, did they change the airfoil from the design of the MD80 series? I noticed that the 717 wingspan is shorter than the MD80. It almost seems as if McDonnell Douglass would have been able to compete with the A32X/73X if they had lengthened the wingspan and created stretched versions. Or maybe they should have shrunken the MD90 to add more range? I know that the 717's is basically an uprated version of the BMW-RR engine on the Gulfstream V/G550, but that wouldn't have given the 717 many options for stretches/increases of Takeoff weight, unless McD had chosen to re-engine the plane. But, with the same fuselage design, why wouldn't MdDD have simply introduced shorter versions of the MD90 with more range that would have been able to accomplish a 737-700 or A319 type of transcon? This seems feasible, but they should have introduced it from the start, if they ever had the plans. Did they McDonnell Douglas have plans to make a US transcon (3,000nm range) version shrink of the MD90?

How does the Md90 and 717 wing perform compared to the 737NG/A32X wing? Was it just a re-design of the older DC9/DC9-"Super80" airfoil? Or was it a new, more efficient design? Could McD have created a viable competitor to the A32X/737NG with their 717/MD90 lineup, given the chance?

Obviously, with Boeing being the dominate entity in the Mc+B merger, Boeing opted to optimize it's 737 for the mission, which made economical sense. What would McDonnell Douglas have needed to do to accomplish this with either the MD90 (re-engined and stretched MD80), or the 717?

I have asked many questions because I don't know much about this (specific) topic, but I feel that there is a wealth of information available from this forum! Feel free to answer any/all questions with any thoughts.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 463 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

I'm sorry that the name sounds like a topic of answers, when really this is a topic of questions that I'd like to be answered to fuel more possible discussion...

[Edited 2009-12-10 17:52:36 by elpinDAB]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4165 times:



Quoting ElpinDAB (Thread starter):
When McDonnell Douglass designed the 717, did they change the airfoil from the design of the MD80 series? I noticed that the 717 wingspan is shorter than the MD80

If memory correct, the 717 wing is identical to the DC-9-30 wing that first flew in 1966.


User currently offlineNws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 883 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

The 717 is more economical for flights within its intended range because it doesn't carry around extra structure that would increase the weight. It was designed as a DC-9 replacement, not as a competitor to a trans-con capable 737NG.

User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4045 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
If memory correct, the 717 wing is identical to the DC-9-30 wing that first flew in 1966.

I think you are correct, Viscount.
Also, if memory serves me correctly, the longer-span wing used on the MD-80's was the same as the DC-9 wing, only with extensions added at the root to give it greater span.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3465 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Wow, this is like.... where to begin?

Quoting ElpinDAB (Thread starter):
When McDonnell Douglass designed the 717,

MD did not "design the 717." MD designed the MD95. It was only AFTER Boeing purchased MD, only AFTER Boeing decided to continue offering the MD95 acft and only AFTER Boeing engineers made hundreds of changes that the MD95 became (finally) the Boeing B-717.

Quote:
...did they change the airfoil from the design of the MD80 series?

IIRC, Boeing did NOT change the MD95 airfoil and MD only slightly modified the internal structure of the -30 model DC9 wing to come up with the original MD95 design.

Quote:
It almost seems as if McDonnell Douglass would have been able to compete with the A32X/73X if they had lengthened the wingspan and created stretched versions. Or maybe they should have shrunken the MD90 to add more range?

The MD95 was targeted at short-med range high cycle operations. It's nickname was "Trunkliner" --supposedly denoting lots and lots of short flight operatons. The wing design was optimized for that market. Longer distance operations were supposed to be driven toward MD90 series planes... according to MD's marketing department.

Quote:
I know that the 717's is basically an uprated version of the BMW-RR engine on the Gulfstream V/G550, but that wouldn't have given the 717 many options for stretches/increases of Takeoff weight, unless McD had chosen to re-engine the plane.

One of the FIRST "major system design changes" Boeing did was to dump the VSCF electrical system which was pretty much "tied" to the V2500 engine. Once the electrical system options opened up, the choice of engines became available and Boeing engineers decided upon the BMW-RR. Engine choice was supposedly based upon the best engine to suit the mission requirement --short range high frequency ops.

Quote:
But, with the same fuselage design, why wouldn't MdDD have simply introduced shorter versions of the MD90 with more range that would have been able to accomplish a 737-700 or A319 type of transcon? This seems feasible, but they should have introduced it from the start, if they ever had the plans. Did they McDonnell Douglas have plans to make a US transcon (3,000nm range) version shrink of the MD90?[quote] NO. There were plans to increase fuel capacity on MD90 to meet the US Transcon market... IF such a market opened itself to MD acft (pretty much already taken by B-737/A-320 by that time). [quote]How does the Md90 and 717 wing perform compared to the 737NG/A32X wing? Was it just a re-design of the older DC9/DC9-"Super80" airfoil? Or was it a new, more efficient design?

Previously asked and answered.

Quote:
Could McD have created a viable competitor to the A32X/737NG with their 717/MD90 lineup, given the chance?

Possible, but not likely to be a good business decision as the A320(series) and B737(series) had already saturated that particular airliner market.

Quote:
Obviously, with Boeing being the dominate entity in the Mc+B merger, Boeing opted to optimize it's 737 for the mission, which made economical sense. What would McDonnell Douglas have needed to do to accomplish this with either the MD90 (re-engined and stretched MD80), or the 717?

Not sure what your question is here. MD was trying to find a "niche" in order to sell its planes. History shows MD was unsuccessful at doing so with Airbus & Boeing filling virtually all new airliner orders in the markets they offered. The "niche" MD was after was simply too small to "save" MD.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6343 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

I'm still wondering: was the 717 certified under the DC-9 type certificate?  Wink


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3968 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
One of the FIRST "major system design changes" Boeing did was to dump the VSCF electrical system which was pretty much "tied" to the V2500 engine. Once the electrical system options opened up, the choice of engines became available and Boeing engineers decided upon the BMW-RR. Engine choice was supposedly based upon the best engine to suit the mission requirement --short range high frequency ops.

Surely the MD-95 already had the BMW-RR engine before the Boeing takeover?

Press release about ValuJet's MD-95 order:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17644285.html



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1451 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3966 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
MD did not "design the 717." MD designed the MD95. It was only AFTER Boeing purchased MD, only AFTER Boeing decided to continue offering the MD95 acft and only AFTER Boeing engineers made hundreds of changes that the MD95 became (finally) the Boeing B-717.

I take exception to this since the merger time line and how Boeing kept Douglas Products Division separate does not bear this out.

First MDD really did design it since the name change was just that, a name change. The merger occurred on Aug 1, 1997, the MD-95 name change announced Jan. 8, 1998, and the first roll out of the 717-200 on June 10, 1998 so its not possible that "Boeing" engineers made any major changes in that time frame. In addition and to this very day, Boeing has not integrated the divisions in that the Long Beach division, then known as Douglas Products Division retained design responsibility for the aircraft designed and built there and Boeing "North" design philosophy had little to no impact especially in this design. Lastly, the 717 type certificate was issued on Sept. 1, 1999 so any major design changes as alluded to after its June 10, 1998 roll out would have significantly delayed the issuance of its TC which was less than 15 months thereafter.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
IIRC, Boeing did NOT change the MD95 airfoil and MD only slightly modified the internal structure of the -30 model DC9 wing to come up with the original MD95 design.

Again, Boeing did not do this, MDD chose the airfoil before Boeing even came along.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
It's nickname was "Trunkliner" --supposedly denoting lots and lots of short flight operatons.

I have not heard the MD-95 referred as this. The MD-90-30T that was built on the Chinese production line was known as the Trunkliner hence the T, but only 2 were built.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
One of the FIRST "major system design changes" Boeing did was to dump the VSCF electrical system which was pretty much "tied" to the V2500 engine. Once the electrical system options opened up, the choice of engines became available and Boeing engineers decided upon the BMW-RR. Engine choice was supposedly based upon the best engine to suit the mission requirement --short range high frequency ops.

Boeing didn't do this, the BR715 was chosen well before Boeing came along. Yes, there were various wing and engine versions of the MD-95 early on, but all MDD iterations.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6):
I'm still wondering: was the 717 certified under the DC-9 type certificate?

Yes, it is under TC A6WE.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...4876886256B1400759D25?OpenDocument



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3843 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 5):
Possible, but not likely to be a good business decision as the A320(series) and B737(series) had already saturated that particular airliner market.

The A320 didn't have huge market penetration when the MD-90 was first offered and the 737NG didn't exist yet. If the McDonnell family hadn't been skittish about investing in commercial airplanes and the MD-90 had gotten the 737NGesque new wing that it deserved and needed--the MD-90 likely would've been somewhat more of a success. Delta alone ordered and optioned 150 of them to begin with. It was the ideal 722 replacement before the 738 existed--and would've had better range with a new, larger wing.

If only...

I recently bought a used copy of "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse and it opened my eyes as to what really happened when McDonnell bought Douglas and how James McDonnell Sr. did not care for marketing and selling commercial airliners.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3465 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3786 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 7):
Surely the MD-95 already had the BMW-RR engine before the Boeing takeover?

Perhaps, I only stated what Boeing stated in its advertisements to its customers --found multiple copies in AA's SAN operations.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
First MDD really did design it since the name change was just that, a name change.

MDD designed the MD95. Boeing decided to keep the design and "claimed" to have made at least 13 major system design changes to include "new engines, new electrical system and new APU." Who actually decided on BMW/RR engines? I haven't got a clue, but Boeing claimed to have applied "new engines" to the MD95 design prior to its being marketed as the "new B-717." If you have a problem with that, talk to Boeing.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
Again, Boeing did not do this, MDD chose the airfoil before Boeing even came along.

Again, Boeing claimed to have made small changes the "internal structure" of the wing to make it stronger and lighter. Nothing about the shape or overall design. Perhaps a more accurate description would have been to say Boeing "tweeked" the wing design, but I doubt Boeing marketing folks would agree to that.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
I have not heard the MD-95 referred as this. The MD-90-30T that was built on the Chinese production line was known as the Trunkliner hence the T, but only 2 were built.

Correct... to a point. The original "Trunkliner" program produced an aircraft that was too heavy and too long-ranged for the Trunkliner concept. The idea was simplified to a much smaller, lighter and (supposedly) more robust design that became the MD95. "Trunkliner" remained the moniker for the new plane until MD decided it was NOT going to be a (primarily) China-built aircraft. "Trunkliner" was a marketing name MD used in asian markets. Not too good to keep that when you want to sell to... "the world."

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
Boeing didn't do this, the BR715 was chosen well before Boeing came along. Yes, there were various wing and engine versions of the MD-95 early on, but all MDD iterations.

Boeing made the claim that it applied "new engines" to the original MD95. Perhaps it was just a different model engine. I don't know, but that is what Boeing claimed in its advertisement to customers.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
I recently bought a used copy of "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse and it opened my eyes as to what really happened when McDonnell bought Douglas and how James McDonnell Sr. did not care for marketing and selling commercial airliners.

Did MD "miss" any number of commercial airliner marketing opportunities? Sure. Could they have gotten the MD90 series to be a commercial success? Sure. But MD missed both marketing opportunities and design/build quality issues with the MD90. The question concerned 717 AND MD90 so based upon that timeframe both Boeing (737NG) and Airbus (A320) were well established and adding a third airframe into that market would not have been a good decision --even if MD could have built competitive airframes. Had MD planned the MD90 for transcon capabilities AND MD95 for short-haul markets at the same time (a few years earlier), and had MD attempted to market them (a few years earlier), MD MAY have had an opportunity for success; however, MD's reputation in the commercial airliner market was already hovering just above "zero" so it remains questionable if MD could have ever sold enough plane to remain commercially viable.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 10):
Perhaps, I only stated what Boeing stated in its advertisements to its customers --found multiple copies in AA's SAN operations.

Here's what airliners.net data section has to say

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=111

Quote:
Initially MDC studied powering the MD-95 with Pratt & Whitney JT8D-218s or Rolls-Royce Tays. In February 1994 however MDC announced it had chosen the new BMW Rolls-Royce (now just Rolls-Royce) BR715 over the JT8D-200 and an engine from the proposed "Project Blue" teaming of General Electric, Snecma, MTU and P&W.

Regardless of what Boeing's marketing may have said at the time of the 717 re-launch, the MD-95 was launched by McD-D with BR715 engines. The same engines, give or take a dash number, that the 717 has.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...126/is_n607_v52/ai_n28685947/pg_2/

http://www.kls2.com/cgi-bin/arcfetch...ers.1995.1703@ohare.chicago.com%3E

[Edited 2009-12-12 21:04:43 by jetlagged]


The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1451 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3705 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 10):

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 7):
Surely the MD-95 already had the BMW-RR engine before the Boeing takeover?

Perhaps, I only stated what Boeing stated in its advertisements to its customers --found multiple copies in AA's SAN operations.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
First MDD really did design it since the name change was just that, a name change.

MDD designed the MD95. Boeing decided to keep the design and "claimed" to have made at least 13 major system design changes to include "new engines, new electrical system and new APU." Who actually decided on BMW/RR engines? I haven't got a clue, but Boeing claimed to have applied "new engines" to the MD95 design prior to its being marketed as the "new B-717." If you have a problem with that, talk to Boeing.

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 8):
Again, Boeing did not do this, MDD chose the airfoil before Boeing even came along.

Again, Boeing claimed to have made small changes the "internal structure" of the wing to make it stronger and lighter. Nothing about the shape or overall design. Perhaps a more accurate description would have been to say Boeing "tweeked" the wing design, but I doubt Boeing marketing folks would agree to that.

I do have a problem with it because it certainly takes liberty with the time lines. I take much of what is in marketing brochures with a grain of salt. A huge factor here in my opinion is almost right after the merger, Boeing made a huge effort to immediately bury the McDD name altogether and started referring to every McDD product as Boeing; Boeing MD-80, Boeing MD-11, even out of production aircraft I saw referred to as Boeing DC-10, Boeing DC-9 and I even saw a Boeing DC-3 for heaven's sake. Now that is a helluva stretch to assume all McDD history as your own and perhaps when the marketing brochures say that 'Boeing" made these changes, it really refers to McDD as they wish to acknowledge the product now as their own rather than a former competitor's.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 10):
Correct... to a point. The original "Trunkliner" program produced an aircraft that was too heavy and too long-ranged for the Trunkliner concept. The idea was simplified to a much smaller, lighter and (supposedly) more robust design that became the MD95. "Trunkliner" remained the moniker for the new plane until MD decided it was NOT going to be a (primarily) China-built aircraft. "Trunkliner" was a marketing name MD used in asian markets. Not too good to keep that when you want to sell to... "the world."

I do not even understand this explanation at all as it makes no sense and I have never heard it anywhere. The Trunkliner was never associated with the MD-95 and only used to market the special Chinese built MD-90-30T. From where did you read or hear this?



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3638 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 10):
The question concerned 717 AND MD90 so based upon that timeframe both Boeing (737NG) and Airbus (A320) were well established and adding a third airframe into that market would not have been a good decision --even if MD could have built competitive airframes.

Ah, I misunderstood the point about both the MD-90 AND the 717. You're certainly right about the timing. What might have been...


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3634 times:



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 12):
A huge factor here in my opinion is almost right after the merger, Boeing made a huge effort to immediately bury the McDD name altogether and started referring to every McDD product as Boeing; Boeing MD-80, Boeing MD-11, even out of production aircraft I saw referred to as Boeing DC-10, Boeing DC-9 and I even saw a Boeing DC-3 for heaven's sake.

Boeing and MD *agreed* to operate under the Boeing name as part of the merger. It's not like a bunch of Boeing managers ran around "stealing" marketing material from legacy-MD products. The merged company was called Boeing, hence all products built and supported by the merged entity are referred to as Boeing products.

Tom.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3465 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3601 times:



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 12):
From where did you read or hear this?

In Boeing's advertising and customer relations publications.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1451 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3498 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):
Boeing and MD *agreed* to operate under the Boeing name as part of the merger. It's not like a bunch of Boeing managers ran around "stealing" marketing material from legacy-MD products. The merged company was called Boeing, hence all products built and supported by the merged entity are referred to as Boeing products.

I never said anything was "stolen" as Boeing was the purchaser and I think its reasonable to rename the MD-11 and MD-80 as Boeing aircraft since they were still in production at the time. However, it is re-writing history to call any Douglas product from the DC-2 to the 10 as a Boeing especially since the Type Certificate and aircraft data plate states otherwise, marketing material notwithstanding.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2421 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3222 times:



Quoting ElpinDAB (Thread starter):
Did they McDonnell Douglas have plans to make a US transcon (3,000nm range) version shrink of the MD90?

Yes, it was dubbed the MD-90-50. Although range was 2785 nm. but should have been more than capable.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/md90/

Never left the "think tank" room unfortunately. I personally would have loved to see this bird with blended winglets.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 717 Stretch/MD90 Shrink: Airfoils And The McD Team
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Raked Wingtips And The 737 posted Thu Jun 11 2009 14:50:16 by SXDFC
Pilots And The Love Of Flying? posted Sun Nov 30 2008 01:56:20 by Allpress
SEA And The Blue Angels posted Fri Aug 1 2008 18:28:31 by Therock401
737, DC-9 And The Two-man Crew posted Fri Jul 25 2008 11:39:02 by LY744
Global Warming And The Effect On Aviation? posted Fri May 9 2008 11:51:33 by ZuluAviator994
Hydraulic Fluid And The 757 posted Sat Jul 7 2007 18:02:29 by Jeffry747
F-15/F-18/F-22 Multi Vertical Fins And The Angles posted Wed Jun 13 2007 18:34:20 by CF188A
Lockheed And The New FSSs: Not So Smooth... posted Fri May 11 2007 22:46:56 by FLY2HMO
DC-9s And The Screwdriver Shaped Tail posted Fri Apr 13 2007 03:18:10 by LTU932
Polarized Windows And The ERJ-190 posted Mon Feb 19 2007 22:26:55 by YWG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format