Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3606 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

The MD90 is in the same class as the A320 and 737 NG, but it could not really compete due to it's slower cruing speed and lack of range. So my question is, what would have made the MD90 a plane that could have competed with the A320 and 737 NG?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5417 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So my question is, what would have made the MD90 a plane that could have competed with the A320 and 737 NG?

Not being purchased by the manufacturer of the 737NG for one thing. The other is more range, since even the MD-90-30ER didn't match the 737NG or A320.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 5395 times:

MD-90 mechanics also loathe doing common repair and maintenance tasks on the IAE V2500's...apparently, the fuselage mounting system that McDD designed for the V2500 makes maintenance and on-fuselage repairs to the engine much harder than it is on the A320.


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5411 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 5395 times:

1) A better early reliability record.

2) A slightly bigger wing. More fuel capacity, more range, more available MTOW. Done in moderation, that could have made the MD-90 fully competitive with the 738 and A320.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

1. A new, competitive wing.
2. A new, competitive wing.
3. A new, competitive wing.


User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5280 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The other is more range, since even the MD-90-30ER didn't match the 737NG or A320.

But if Boeing had gone through with the MD90-50, I think it would have put it up there with the 737NG.



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 5):
But if Boeing had gone through with the MD90-50

What was the difference (customer point of view) from the MD90-50 and the 717?

Tom.


User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
What was the difference (customer point of view) from the MD90-50 and the 717?

Customer point of view I think, would be the flip-down tv screens. I see your point though, reading the aircraft info page, it looks like Boeing did go ahead with the MD-95 production but renamed it. I don't understand why they shortened it though. Has the 717 has the same reliability as the MD-90, is that why is was dropped?



"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
What was the difference (customer point of view) from the MD90-50 and the 717?

According to this website, the MD-90-50 would still have been the longer length with 150 seats in two class.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-90/product.html

Quoting c5load (Reply 5):
But if Boeing had gone through with the MD90-50, I think it would have put it up there with the 737NG.

According to the link above, the MD-90-50 would have still fallen a few hundred miles short.

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
it looks like Boeing did go ahead with the MD-95 production but renamed it.

   That is what became the 717.

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
I don't understand why they shortened it though.

The MD-90 and MD-95 were different projects. The MD-95 (later 717) was a replacement for the DC-9 and was very close in size to the DC-9-30/40. It was optimized for shorter flights and did not have the range of the MD-90.

The MD-90 was a follow on to the MD-80 and was more intended to compete with the 737 and A320. It had a longer range and was 20 feet longer and had an extra 15 feet on the wingspan. The empty weight of the MD-90 was about 10,000 lbs heavier than the MD-95 and 35,000 lbs at MTOW.

In short, the difference between them is a bit like the difference between an E-195 and a 737.

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
Has the 717 has the same reliability as the MD-90

I don't know that, but I can tell you that they have completely different engines. The 717 is powered by Rolls Royce BR715s and the MD-90 by IAE V2500s. The IAE engines provide at least an extra 4,000 lbs of thrust more than the Rolls.

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
is that why is was dropped?

Again I can't say for sure, but it seems pretty clear to me: The MD-90 was a 737 competitor and the MD-95 was not.

Had the MD-90 been left in production, I doubt that it would have done as well either the 737 or A320. That said, I think that it could have been a very nice plane (well is for some airlines) for airlines that don't need the full performance of the A320 or 737. The MD-90 has an MTOW roughly equal to a 73G but capacity closer to a 738. Combined with 2-3 seating, I think that the MD-90 certainly could have carved out a nice niche and become popular with both airlines and passengers. However, I really cannot fault Boeing for dropping it and keeping their own, superior in terms of performance, product.

The MD-95/717 may have just been a bit ahead of its time, arriving before big RJs were in style. In terms of size it sits between the E-190 and E-195 though it is a bit heavier and has less range than the E-jets. Again, I think that a more advanced wing could have helped it. The other major factor that would have worked against it is the fact that it would have been very difficult for airlines to get regional pilots to fly it, unlike E-Jets.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6494 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
Customer point of view I think, would be the flip-down tv screens. I see your point though, reading the aircraft info page, it looks like Boeing did go ahead with the MD-95 production but renamed it. I don't understand why they shortened it though. Has the 717 has the same reliability as the MD-90, is that why is was dropped?

IFE is specified by the airline, not the manufacturer. Not all MD-90s are IFE-equipped; the only ones that I know of that do have IFE with the drop-down screens are those of Delta, Saudia, and JAL. However, DL will be adding PTVs to their used MD-90s they purchased from Hello and China Eastern. I don't know of any airlines who offer video IFE on their 717s (neither overhead nor in-seat), however, AirTran offers XM audio channels on their 717 fleet.

Also, the 717 overhead bins are MUCH larger than those on the MD-90. In fact, I believe they are larger than those on the 737NG.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2434 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

The MD-90 is becoming one of my top favorites. (thought I'd throw that in)  

Yes, a new wing would have helped. A 717 style cockpit would have been beneficial. Maybe blended winglets on the actual MD-90 wing might have shown improvements. I know I just ordered 100+ for my fantasy TWA fleet.   


Aviation-Designs.Net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Bluewhale
Template © Bluewhale


Aviation-Designs.Net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Andre Bourgeois
Template © Andre Bourgeois




Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting c5load (Reply 7):
reading the aircraft info page, it looks like Boeing did go ahead with the MD-95 production but renamed it. I don't understand why they shortened it though. Has the 717 has the same reliability as the MD-90, is that why is was dropped?

There's actually a pretty big difference between the paper MD-95 and the 717. The systems were revised heavily once it became a Boeing project.

As for shortening, Boeing already had a 737 and didn't need one more plane in the same class.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
A 717 style cockpit would have been beneficial.

I think that some later MD-90s did have a glass cockpit, though I don't know how close it is to the 717 panel.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRedtailsforever From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

Give it some ETOPS range from the west coast to hawaii, or transcon. Similar to what the 737-900ER does today.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4484 times:

AFAIK all MD-90 had a glass cockpit, as did the MD-88.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2434 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):

Both the MD-88 and MD-90 had glass cockpits had the mix of glass and "steam gauges". Whereas the 717 had the true glass cockpits.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

Three words, Integrated Drive Generator.

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2434 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 4065 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16):

What - no flux capacitor?!?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 17):
What - no flux capacitor?!?

That might not be a bad idea. Someone could go back in time and tell MD to go with an IDG for electrical power and a new wing.  


User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
was 20 feet longer and had an extra 15 feet on the wingspan

Are you sure? Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know...) says there's only an approx. 5' stretch in the -90's fuselage as opposed to the -80...and DL's -90s have only a slightly greater pax capacity than its -88s.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting Western727 (Reply 19):
Are you sure? Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know...) says there's only an approx. 5' stretch in the -90's fuselage as opposed to the -80...and DL's -90s have only a slightly greater pax capacity than its -88s.

My (somewhat poorly worded) comparison was between the MD-90 and MD-95, not the MD-80.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3775 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 20):
between the MD-90 and MD-95, not the MD-80

Ahhh, I should've caught that...thanks for the clarification.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1156 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting Western727 (Reply 19):
Are you sure? Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, I know...) says there's only an approx. 5' stretch in the -90's fuselage as opposed to the -80...and DL's -90s have only a slightly greater pax capacity than its -88s.

There were two versions of the MD-90 that Douglas contemplated that never made it off paper. One was the MD90-10/10EC(European community) with a length of 130ft5in with typical seating for 114. Wingspan would be the same as the -30 using V2500D1 engines rated at 22,000lbs of thrust.The second was the MD90-40/40EC with a length of 171ft8in,but again with no increase in wingspan,using V2500D5's with 28,000lbs of thrust, typical seating would be 180. Range of the series10/10EC would have been 2750nm to 3450nm for the EC. Range for the series 40/40EC would be 1900nm for the 40 and 2200nm for the EC. Also the series 40/40EC would have had another exit door forward of the wing.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?
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...
What Made The L1011 Tristar A "maintainance Hog"? posted Mon Dec 11 2006 01:26:28 by Jimbobjoe
Problem In The Cockpit - What Would You Do? posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:02:10 by Julesmusician
Start Up... What would they have been checking? posted Tue Jan 20 2004 09:37:02 by Willo
ILS Situation/What Would You Have Done? posted Fri Dec 14 2001 05:17:26 by SophieMaltese
What Would Be An Effective Safety Training Program posted Mon Feb 15 2010 17:35:27 by C5LOAD
What Is This On The 787 Tail posted Thu Dec 17 2009 10:57:31 by Golfradio
What Would Make A Jet Engine Get High EGTs? posted Wed Dec 2 2009 23:16:28 by Sovietjet
What Is Vmo On The 73G? posted Fri Aug 21 2009 22:48:59 by Brons2
What Is This On The Wing? ( OS A319) posted Wed Jul 22 2009 06:43:20 by OHLHD
What Airlines Have PW posted Fri Dec 19 2008 19:03:42 by PIAflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format