Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 717 Wing Vs. The MD-80/MD-90 Wing  
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

Why didn't McDonnell Douglas use the MD-80/MD-90 wing on the MD-95/717 when it was being developed, instead of going back to the shorter DC-9 wing? Wouldn't the larger wing of the 80/90 have resulted in a longer range? What disadvantages could it have possessed to cause MD to use the older DC-9 wing design?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15707 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7235 times:

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
Why didn't McDonnell Douglas use the MD-80/MD-90 wing on the MD-95/717 when it was being developed, instead of going back to the shorter DC-9 wing?

Weight and efficiency.

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
Wouldn't the larger wing of the 80/90 have resulted in a longer range?

Yes, but the plane really didn't need more range. It was designed to be a short range airliner and its range compared pretty favorable with that of the Fokker 100 and CRJ-900/1000 base models though the 717HGW was still a bit short of the E-Jets. And, although they are both smaller planes, the range of the baseline versions of the Superjet and MRJ is less than the 717.

If anything could have benefited from a new wing, it would have been the MD-90. The lack of a newer wing was a huge handicap against the A320 and 737NG.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7148 times:

I think the biggest problem of the B717 was that it was marketed by Boeing, that had their own aircraft in stock for the mission.
For short range missions (below 1000nm) with 130 PAX the B717 probably was better than the B737-700 in fuel burn per seat.
But other things count more - sometimes - like commonality and the manufacturing costs of the aircraft.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1296 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7087 times:

I remember reading somewhere that the wing of the B717 is identical to that of the DC-9-30. It's a smaller wing I think, so maybe that way it could fit into smaller gates and airports maybe. I don't know of any airport or situation that a 717 can handle and a MD-80 could not, or vice versa.

I think by using the same way it was cheaper, too, as they didn't have to design an entire wing from scratch, and they already had the machinery necessary to build it.

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15707 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7039 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 2):

The Boeing merger is what finally killed it, but the fact that no airline would have been able to get it in under scope for regional contractors helped do it in as well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

Quoting KingFriday013 (Reply 3):
I remember reading somewhere that the wing of the B717 is identical to that of the DC-9-30.

The DC-9-34, specifically, which was a long-range variant of the -30/-32.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 6532 times:

The 717 was the DC-9 on steroids...it had the engine upgrade, v/fin cap upgrade, and new cockpit. As TWA was the launch customer, then was eaten up by American, the future of the the plane became even bleaker as Boeing tagged it as a Boeing product. Why Northwest didn't take them rather than rebuild their DC-9 fleet I'll never understand. I've flown in many 717's and find it to be a great machine. Would have made a terrific corporate bird.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15707 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6507 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 6):
As TWA was the launch customer,

As an add-on to the range discussion, TWA originally ordered the longer ranged A318 but cancelled and went with the 717. The collective failure of the 737-600 and A318 proves that, whatever their shortcomings, McDonnell Douglas made the right decision to forget the extra range and take the 10,000 lb OEW saving on the 717.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 6):
Why Northwest didn't take them rather than rebuild their DC-9 fleet I'll never understand.

CRJ-900s, Embraers, and their scope clause probably. AA wanted to keep the ex-TWA 717s, but couldn't negotiate lower lease rates. This wasn't really good for them since they had a more restrictive scope clause with fewer RJs that until recently offered no premium seats. So AA had to choose between a 70 seat CRJ-700 with no first class or a 140 seat MD-80.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6291 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 6):
Why Northwest didn't take them rather than rebuild their DC-9 fleet I'll never understand.

Part of the problem was that NW's DC-9's were fully paid off, and had been for years. Any money NW made off the DC-9 (airfares and fees minus fuel, insurance, maintenance, crew pay, etc.) was pure profit. No worries about making payments to a bank or leasing company.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16990 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
The collective failure of the 737-600 and A318

That's not quite fair. Those are both parts variants and thus the development costs were way lower than for a new design. They don't need to sell the same numbers to break even.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15707 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
That's not quite fair. Those are both parts variants and thus the development costs were way lower than for a new design. They don't need to sell the same numbers to break even.

I shouldn't have said "failure." Lack of popularity would be a better description. Were the 10,000 lbs the 717 saved enough to make the difference? Maybe, but the 717 was still had the weight of mainline pilots hanging around its neck.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6175 times:

Quoting Northwest727 (Reply 8):

Understood, but when you consider the lengths they went to to refit the DC-9's and with no real wall bangers wanting the 717, don't you think NW could have struck a good deal with airframes that were virtually new?...(717's)


User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5927 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 11):
Understood, but when you consider the lengths they went to to refit the DC-9's and with no real wall bangers wanting the 717, don't you think NW could have struck a good deal with airframes that were virtually new?...(717's)

Somehow, through NW's business planning, it must have been cheaper to upgrade the cabins and keep on fixing the DC-9s rather than buying/leasing new/"lightly-used" 717s, but that is just my guess.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
though the 717HGW was still a bit short of the E-Jets.

Was there a 717HGW? Was one ever built?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Weight and efficiency.

Exactly. The 717 was an attempt to capture the huge success of the DC-9-30 with a purpose built aircraft. MDD tried to do this with the M87 but it was not successful.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 2):
I think the biggest problem of the B717 was that it was marketed by Boeing, that had their own aircraft in stock for the mission.

Actually, renaming the M95 as the 717 likely added to its appeal. Boeing also offered a stretched 717-300 for a while but there were no takers.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 5):
The DC-9-34, specifically, which was a long-range variant of the -30/-32.

Very few DC-9-34's were built.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 6):
Why Northwest didn't take them rather than rebuild their DC-9 fleet I'll never understand.

It is baffling.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
TWA originally ordered the longer ranged A318 but cancelled and went with the 717.

TWA ordered both the A318 and the 717 at the same time (50 of each) to serve different markets. The 318 would serve the longer haul markets. I also seem to recall (vaguely) that the 318 order was so as not to lose the deposits on the 20x 333 order that TWA had placed years earlier but did not need by the mid-to-late 90's.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15707 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13):
Was there a 717HGW? Was one ever built?

It was definitely part of the plan, even after the merger I think. I don't think they ever built one though.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 13):
MDD tried to do this with the M87 but it was not successful.

The MD-87 was much more in the middle. It was the lightest of the MD-80 family, but still had the second longest range. I don't think that it was as optimized for shorter flights as the 717 was. And for the record, the 717 weighed in at about 3000 lbs lighter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The 717 Wing Vs. The MD-80/MD-90 Wing
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 Is This In The Delta MD-11 Cockpit? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:58 by MD11Fanatic
MD 82 Wing Placement posted Mon Apr 24 2006 14:12:48 by Rodge
MD-11 Wing Question posted Mon Nov 28 2005 00:37:28 by PPVRA
Gear Indicators On MD-11 Wing posted Wed Jul 20 2005 00:22:54 by Skywatch
Red Strings On MD-82 Wing posted Tue Mar 15 2005 10:43:37 by Singel09
Anyone Familiar With The McDonnell MD-220? posted Wed Apr 28 2004 22:08:59 by Concord977
MD-90 Efficiency Over MD-80 posted Thu Sep 24 2009 18:03:27 by PC12Fan
American MD-80 Vs. Alaska MD-80 posted Sun Apr 27 2008 09:40:11 by KPDX
Will The PW1000G Trump The CFM Leap-X? posted Tue Aug 31 2010 07:53:28 by keesje
The Panel On The Side Of This 767-What Is It? posted Sat Jun 5 2010 08:54:45 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format