747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 2:16 am

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?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:36 am

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?
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:44 am

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 avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4921
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:45 am

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.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:51 am

1. A new, competitive wing.
2. A new, competitive wing.
3. A new, competitive wing.
 
c5load
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:40 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:22 am

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"
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:15 pm

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.
 
c5load
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:40 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:14 pm

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"
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:08 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:27 pm

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
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:28 pm

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17056
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:13 am

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." - John Ringo
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:07 am

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?
 
redtailsforever
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:29 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:35 am

Give it some ETOPS range from the west coast to hawaii, or transcon. Similar to what the 737-900ER does today.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17056
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:51 am

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." - John Ringo
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:42 pm

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'!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:06 pm

Three words, Integrated Drive Generator.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:17 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 16):

What - no flux capacitor?!?
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:43 pm

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.  
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Western727
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:27 pm

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
 
BMI727
Posts: 11094
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:26 pm

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?
 
Western727
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:23 am

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
 
dtw9
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:09 am

RE: What Would Have Made The MD90 Better?

Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:59 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JJV, KarelXWB and 15 guests