c5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
I like to get your guys' opinions on what you think would have made poor selling or poor performing airplanes better at the tie of manufacture. I asked a while ago about the MD-11 and got overwhelming responses mostly with the stabilizer. So now I ask what about the MD-90? Would it be a new wing? More reliable engines (CFMs vs. IAE2500 series)? What would have made it formidable competitor to the A320 and B737 series without changing that MD design (t-tail)?
c5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1): It *was* a formidable competitor to the A320/737 for the short/medium haul market.
I was under the assumption that it lacked performance on longer routes that the A and B were able to tackle, like the transcon routes. I also thought I read that the engines were pretty maintenance hungry machines.
"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2001 times:
Quoting c5load (Reply 2): I was under the assumption that it lacked performance on longer routes that the A and B were able to tackle, like the transcon routes.
That's why I threw in the "short/medium haul" qualifier...the MD-90 just didn't have the legs for transcon. If you want an all-round US domestic machine, the 737/A320 were better choices. But if your route structure didn't need that kind of range, the MD-90 was a really nice plane.
Quoting c5load (Reply 2): I also thought I read that the engines were pretty maintenance hungry machines.
They're IAE2500's...shouldn't be much better or worse than the IAE A320's.
I've never heard anything bad about the IAE engines, and they seem to work fine for A320 operators.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 1): I think it was a fine aircraft...it didn't die because it wasn't a good design, it died because of the merger
It was a very good plane, but compared to the 737NG and A320 it wasn't quite there. But the merger was the factor that really did it in. The MD-90 suffered from the struggles at McDonnell Douglas but was certainly not a cause of them and had it been allowed to continue would have sold in significant numbers and turned a profit for the company so I couldn't call it a failure.
Really, the MD-90 was a good plane that could have been better.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?