brucek
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:43 am

Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:14 am

Driving past KDEN recently and seeing a DL MD-90 depart like the proverbial "rocket" made me wonder:

My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines (which I think were later addressed and fixed, only to be too late to save the project). If Boeing, in the same timeframe, were making the B734 with the CFM-56 engines, and having great success, why didn't MD use that engine instead of a new RR product?

Thanks, Bruce
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:18 am

I believe the 717 uses RR, while the MD90 has IAE V2500
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:35 am

That is correct. V2500's on the Mad Dog.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:41 am

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
why didn't MD use that engine instead of a new RR product?

As others have already mentioned, the MD-90 has the IAE V2500. This was not a new engine at the time, as it was first developed for the A320, and was already in use on that plane when the MD-90 came out.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:34 am

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines

Most of the issues with the MD-90 have to do with the avionics and electronics, not the engines. The engines are actually quite efficient. Also, they are not solely RR. They are International Aero Engines V2500s, which is a joint venture between Rolls Royce and United Technologies (parent of Pratt and Whitney).
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:39 am

The IAE engines are one of the best features of the MD90 - good performance and reasonable operating costs.

The MD90 ended being a rather good airplane, but it did not sell that well and the program ended when when Boeing merged with McD - Boeing did not see a need to produce an airliner that competed with its own 737NG.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:49 am

The real problem on that a/c was the electrical system. Switching from ground power to APU to generator power was all but a breeze. The system and panel were completely different than what the 9 thru 88 flew with, so it had more than it's share of problems. They finally resolved the problem, but unfortunately too late to save the plane.

Funny, in my old aeronautics classroom, we had a poster on the back wall with a DL MD-88 on it, said "Our Aircraft of the Future"....with just a dozen of em nowadays.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11825
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:57 am

Quoting Brucek (Thread starter):
My understanding of the limited success of this model is the issues found with the RR engines (which I think were later addressed and fixed, only to be too late to save the project).

The IAE V2500 D5 did have some teething issues at entry into service. Recall that *at that time* the V2500 had slightly better fuel economy than the CFM and that the V2500 promised and *eventually* delivered much lower maintenance costs.

Recall that the MD-90's entry into service was 1995 and Boeing bid for Douglas in December of 1996.

From what I've heard the MD-90 just had more teething issues than the airlines had patience for. I'm going to agree with Dutchjet that if Douglas had been stronger financially, the MD-90 program would have done ok.

BTW, who has ordered the 28k thrust option? With the capability to use 5,000ft runways with the standard 25k thrust, the 28k must be an absolute rocket! Ok, its 7,100 ft at MTOW with 25k. Data from:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-80-90/md90.html

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:17 am

Hello ended up with all of their fleet(3) with the "28" option, as well as

all of the Saudi fleet and four for Uni/AMC
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:23 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
The IAE V2500 D5 did have some teething issues at entry into service. Recall that *at that time* the V2500 had slightly better fuel economy than the CFM and that the V2500 promised and *eventually* delivered much lower maintenance costs.

There were also some teething problems resulting from manufacturing being spread across four companies. Engineers I know used to despair at early V2500 tech manuals!

It is also wrong to refer to the V2500 as a Rolls product, as Pratt have just as much in there as Rolls. The two are the senior partners in IAE but neither is the dominant force in the four way split.

If Boeing rumours are right it will also be great to see the IAE family on the 737 evolution aircraft as an engine choice.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
brucek
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:43 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:25 am

Thanks for the clarification, everyone, and the interesting info. I so love the MD-90 on take-off, with it's long cantilevered section forward of the wing!

Bruce.
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:43 am

Off topic, but Nordic Leisure just took their second "90" from SAS. SAS actually wanted more 90's but did not pull the trigger before Lion took (and will eventually destroy) the ex AA/Reno 90's.
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11825
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:03 am

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):
If Boeing rumours are right it will also be great to see the IAE family on the 737 evolution aircraft as an engine choice.

It would need to be an entirely new IAE core, not the V2500. In no way is any engine currently in production efficient enough for a next generation airframe. The amount of progress that has occured (due to CFD, etc.) has been too great in the last 3 years. However, due to the IAE contract, Pratt and RR would be required to joint venture in the 24.2k to somewhere in the 35k range unless both opted out (unlikely, but possible). Could the V2500 be improved? Yes. (curbed blade fan, improved high turbine, new combustor, etc.) Is that good enough for a new airframe? Nope.

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 9):

It is also wrong to refer to the V2500 as a Rolls product, as Pratt have just as much in there as Rolls.

Correct. 33% each with 34% in the hands of "other" risk sharing partners.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
N60659
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:24 pm

RE: Why Did MD Choose The RR Engines For The MD-90?

Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:10 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 12):
34% in the hands of "other" risk sharing partners

Who, IIRC were MTU of Germany, Fiat Aviazione (sp?) of Italy and Japanese Aero Engine Corporation (another consortium of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi etc). Neil, (or anyone else for that matter), feel free to correct me.

-N60659
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], barney captain, Exabot [Bot], GCT64, Google Adsense [Bot], groundbird, Heavierthanair, jeffrey0032j, JRadier, keesje, nb7760, nz2, Rdeggendorfer, Smoketrails, XAM2175 and 187 guests