McDonnell Douglas Paper Planes

L.1011 · Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:30 am

I was just reading an old topic on the predecessor proposals to the A380 and the MD-12 came into my mind. Looking through my library I also remembered the MD-XX, the MD-11's 773-sized bigger brother. I heard something about a 767 competitior but I'd like to hear more about the MD-XX, the MD-12, and anything else McDonnell Douglas tried after around 1980. Your help is much appreciated.

Oykie · Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:11 pm

When McDonnell Douglas offered the MD-XX it got the press attention as a very serious bid for MDC to stay in the commercial airplane market. And the press meant it was a big blow to let the MD-XX go.

By the way when we talk about the MD-XX. Is the patented super critical air foil shape which according to Orlowski was to be the most aerodynamically efficient wing in the airline industry being related to the wing design on the 787? It seems like the new raked wingtips are a MDC product, and the new wing design seems very identical to the 787 wing. I know the wing here looks much like a regular MD-11, but I have seen computer drawings that hints to a more radical design than what you see in the picture below.

Quote:
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS UNVEILS NEW MD-XX TRIJET DESIGN
FARNBOROUGH, England, Sept. 4, 1996 -- Plans for a new high capacity, long range three-engine jetliner for the 21st century were unveiled here today by McDonnell Douglas Corp. at the Farnborough International Air Show.

The aircraft, designated the MD-XX, is planned in two initial models -- a 375-seat stretch version to accommodate growing world air traffic and a long range variant to meet airline demands for greater non-stop capability. Both will use a newly developed, highly efficient wing with increased span and total area.

McDonnell Douglas expects to begin offering the aircraft to airlines later this year, with a formal launch anticipated in early 1997.

The stretch version of the MD-XX will have the same or greater range than the MD-11, while carrying 25 percent more passengers and baggage. The aircraft will seat 375 passengers in typical three-class arrangement. With all-economy seating, it will carry up to 515 passengers. The long range model is being designed to fly 20 percent farther than the MD-11, with a full load of 309 passengers and baggage. The MD-11 typically carries 298 passengers, with a maximum range of more than 7,000 nautical miles (8,050 statute miles or 12,950 km).

Details of the new aircraft were disclosed today by Walt Orlowski, MD-XX program vice president-general manager for the Douglas Aircraft division of McDonnell Douglas. He introduced the MD-XX as a new member of the company's family of long range, wide cabin trijets that includes more than 550 MD-11s and DC-10s now in service.

MD-XX capabilities ride on an advanced design wing with a span of 213 feet (64.9 m), and total area of 5,200 square feet (483.1 sq m). A patented supercritical air foil shape will make it the most aerodynamically efficient wing in the airline industry, Orlowski said.

The MD-XX design has evolved in intensive studies started last April by Douglas President Mike Sears.

The decision to develop two variants of the new aircraft responds to discussions with potential airline customers, Orlowski said. To meet future traffic growth, the carriers are demanding aircraft with more passenger capacity and also want more range capability than current jetliners.

The MD-XX will be a wide cabin luxury airliner. The stretch model will be 233.8 feet (71.2 m) long, 32 feet (9.7 m) more than the long range version, which has the same fuselage length as the MD-11. Design studies include plans for using lower deck space for a sky lounge or for sleeping compartments or airborne offices for business travelers.

For pilots, the new aircraft will feature the McDonnell Douglas advanced common flightdeck now being developed for the new MD-95transport and other McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft. In the MD-XX, it will offer complete operational commonality with today's MD-11 cockpit.

All flight, navigation and systems information will be presented to the two-person crew on six large liquid crystal display screens. Automatic system controllers doing much of the routine of flight will reduce crew workload. Fly-by-wire systems will drive flight control surfaces and engines. Power for the MD-XX will be provided by three advanced high bypass ratio turbofan engines operating in the 65,000 pounds thrust range. With the new wing, they will give the aircraft exceptional takeoff performance and the ability to climb quickly to an altitude of 35,000 feet, where it will cruise efficiently at a speed of about Mach 0.85.

Orlowski said discussions are under way with all three major engine manufacturers -- General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce -- about using their powerplants on the aircraft.

The MD-XX is being designed not just to meet, but to beat, the most stringent environmental regulations. With expected noise levels a cumulative 20 decibels below current limits, it will be the quietest airliner in its class.

Program plans aim at gaining permission from the McDonnell Douglas board of directors to make formal MD-XX offers to airlines later this year, Orlowski said. A 44-month development schedule would lead to first deliveries before the end of the year 2000 if orders needed for formal launch of the program are booked early in 1997, he said.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/mdc/96-221.html

[Edited 2006-12-13 13:12:10]

L.1011 · Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:34 pm

Was the MD-XX seriously considered by any airlines? How far along did it get in development?

ltbewr · Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:09 pm

The developments in more powerful engines, along with the problems with mainence of the center tail engines killed off the MD-XX and similar proposals. I wouldn't doubt though that Boeing had used some of the valuable research done by MD in the 777, 787 and future aircraft, including the wing engineering of the MD-XX.

L.1011 · Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:19 pm

I just thought of another one: the HSCT.

N328KF · Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:07 am

At one point, MD and Airbus were in talks about cooperating on VLAs. It'd be interesting to see where the market would be if they had teamed up.

Oykie · Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:24 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 3):
The developments in more powerful engines, along with the problems with maintenance of the center tail engines killed off the MD-XX and similar proposals.

I thought the main reason was the financial difficulties and that the airline feared MDC would kill of it's commercial division. I tried to follow the MD-95 development as much as I could and I know SAS had a concern about for how long they would be able to get new planes and parts for the MD-95 if they had ordered it.

The 4 Trent 500 on the A340-500/600 needs less maintenance than 2 GE-90-110/115 on the 777-200LR/300ER. I would imagine that a similar solution could work out for the MD-XX as well if they got the fuel burn down?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 4):
just thought of another one: the HSCT.

Do you have any information about this plane?

Oykie · Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:25 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 5):
At one point, MD and Airbus were in talks about cooperating on VLAs. It'd be interesting to see where the market would be if they had teamed up.

I agree. And one of the benefits of the MD-12 was that it was smaller than the A380, so it would also be a direct replacement for the 747-400, and then they could do a stretch.

L.1011 · Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:31 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 5):
At one point, MD and Airbus were in talks about cooperating on VLAs. It'd be interesting to see where the market would be if they had teamed up.

Was this connected with the MD-11/A330 deal? Also, would this have involved the MD-12, the A380 or its predecessors, or an all new design?

osiris30 · Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:33 am

Anyone else miss LM and MD Sad

I mean MD vs. B was a legendary battle. It's a shame either side had to win because it was a lot of fun and they really pushed each other.

L.1011 · Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:20 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
Anyone else miss LM and MD

Count me in.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
I mean MD vs. B was a legendary battle. It's a shame either side had to win because it was a lot of fun and they really pushed each other.

Let's hope A can continue to do the same.

Areopagus · Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:10 am

Twin-10: 2-engine DC-10 variant proposed around 1973
ASMR: proposal to consort with Dassault to further develop Mercure
ATMR: 160-200 seat 2-aisle aircraft proposed in 1979 that would have provided serious competition to the 757. But they scrapped it to go for government money with the CX (C-17)
DC-X-200: smaller DC-10
MD-100 family based on DC-10

autothrust · Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:21 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
Anyone else miss LM and MD

Yes really sad, both produced wonderful planes.I just love the 3holer. Sad

DouglasDC10 · Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:23 am

We should not forget the new DC-10 varhriants proposed in the early 1980s called DC-10-61 , -62 and -63. They followed a similar concept as they did with the DC-8. Air New Zealand, Swissair and United were named as airlines with serious interest, but unfortunately, none of them made it into the air.

DfwRevolution · Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:06 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
The 4 Trent 500 on the A340-500/600 needs less maintenance than 2 GE-90-110/115 on the 777-200LR/300ER.

Says who? Rolls Royce?

In a startling turn of events, in-service data has shown that the Ge-powered 777LR have maintained significantly higher dispatch reliability and on-wing time. Less we forget that many Trent 500 required early replacement due to blade-rubbing issues...

L.1011 · Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:19 am

Quoting DouglasDC10 (Reply 13):
We should not forget the new DC-10 varhriants proposed in the early 1980s called DC-10-61 , -62 and -63.

What exactly did these variants entail? Were they similar to the DC-8 Super 60s? Just aerodynamics and stretches? Or were there supposed to be more involved? My understanding was that these evolved into the MD-11, but I know little beyond that.

dtw9 · Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:42 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 15):
What exactly did these variants entail? Were they similar to the DC-8 Super 60s? Just aerodynamics and stretches? Or were there supposed to be more involved? My understanding was that these evolved into the MD-11, but I know little beyond that.

The series 62 would have been 206ft 11inches and would have carried 353 pass. in mixed class over a range of 5500 miles.The-62 MTOW was to be 620,000lbs.Wing span for the 62 would have been 175'4". Engines for the 62 would have been GE CF6-50C1 or PW JT9D7R4H rated at 56,000lbs. The 61 and 63 would have been 40 foot stretches(221ft). The 61 carried 393 pass in mixed class. Not sure of the range of the 61.MTOW of the 61 was 520,000lbs.Engines were to be GE CF6-50C2's derated at 46,500lbs. The 63 would have carried the same number of pass. as the 61 but over a range of 4800 miles.The 63 would have used the 62 wing and engines

Dougloid · Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:55 am

I got out of LGB in 1992 when the layoffs really started. I was in on the first fifty MD11s, and the last DC10 for that matter (446 was the hull number, went to Nigeria).

When MDD was trying to sell off the commercial division to Taiwan they were playing footsie with Airbus. Of course, Airbus would have had a problem as everything in the plant was antiquated so it came to naught-although with that tanker deal on the line I betcha they wish they could build airplanes from scratch in the states huh?

I'll tell you the exact moment I knew Douglas was doomed. I'd officiated at a hull section join and they were using a laser device that had only recently replaced a level and transit. They'd call out to the mechs who'd bang on the screw jacks with mauls to level the sections. Then, they'd drill and shoot all the fasteners by hand.

That night I was watching a PBS special about Airbus, and that exact same process was completely automated with special dedicated tooling.

I knew right then and there my beloved Douglas was as dead as last week's salmon. So, I started working all the overtime i could get, stopped spending money and got ready for the layoffs Iknew were going to hit home.

Of course, when you start talking mismanagement, they got rid of Jim Worsham, who damn well knew how to sell airplanes, and replaced him with Robert Hood, who had to have help wiping his own ass I guess....

Boeing let the lines bleed to death....

2H4 · Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:11 am

Here's the MD-94X:

2H4

757MDE · Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:15 am

Wasn't the type of engine of the MD-94X tested for real on a MD-80?

I think I saw a picture of such a configuration in this very same website but can't seem to find the picture right now.

L.1011 · Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:34 am

Quoting 757MDE (Reply 19):
Wasn't the type of engine of the MD-94X tested for real on a MD-80?

Yup.

BoomBoom · Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:04 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 20):
Quoting 757MDE (Reply 19):
Wasn't the type of engine of the MD-94X tested for real on a MD-80?

Yup.

What were the test results?

MD-90 · Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 21):
What were the test results?

More fuel-efficient than turbofans of the time, but noisy and unacceptable from a passenger viewpoint and the airlines agreed, once fuel costs went back down (too expensive to develop into a commercially viable product).

L.1011 · Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:03 am

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22):
More fuel-efficient than turbofans of the time, but noisy and unacceptable from a passenger viewpoint and the airlines agreed, once fuel costs went back down (too expensive to develop into a commercially viable product).

We all know that turboprops are inherently more efficient than turbofans, and turbofans are inherently more efficient than turbojets, but were propfans inherently more efficient than turbofans? How would the 80s propfans compare to a GEnx or a Trent 1000 or even the PW8000 GTF? Could the improvements made in engine technology since then be applied to a propfan?

connies4ever · Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting L.1011 (Thread starter):
I was just reading an old topic on the predecessor proposals to the A380 and the MD-12 came into my mind. Looking through my library I also remembered the MD-XX, the MD-11's 773-sized bigger brother. I heard something about a 767 competitior but I'd like to hear more about the MD-XX, the MD-12, and anything else McDonnell Douglas tried after around 1980. Your help is much appreciated.

It's alittle earlier time frame than you're interested in, but the 'original' DC-9 concept was a more or less 3/4-sized DC-8, 4-engined medium-stage aircraft. This was intended for the US domestic market, 500-1,500 miles or so, carrying about 90-100 pax. A competitor for the Boeing 720, one could suppose.

Concept was evolved about 1959 as the DC-8 entered service, but died about 1961 when what was to become the 'real' DC-9 took form.

AvObserver · Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:27 am

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 11):
Twin-10: 2-engine DC-10 variant proposed around 1973

I think it's particularly tragic that MDC never built this DC-10 variant, much talked about in the mid-70s. Had they done so, it would have given the A300 some stiff competition and gotten a leg up on Boeing by beating the 767 into service. Who knows how that might have helped change MDC's fortunes? The too similar DC-10 and L-1011 trijets split a market barely big enough for either and thus were relative failures. It was yet another example of the MDC board's short-sightedness that investing in developing the DC-10 Twin was rejected, an ongoing pattern that finally helped bring the company to its knees. The Twin generated a lot of positive buzz for awhile and good press in AW&ST but MDC didn't seem to think its relatively modest development cost was worth pursuing; A300 sales had yet to hit full stride and the 767 was only then on the drawing board. Pity. My recollection of 30+ year old AW&ST articles indicates to me the Twin would have been an impressive aircraft. Had it been done, it's possible the landmark 1977 A300 sale to Frank Borman's Eastern Airlines might not have happened, despite Airbus's sweetheart terms.

L.1011 · Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:51 am

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 24):
It's alittle earlier time frame than you're interested in, but the 'original' DC-9 concept was a more or less 3/4-sized DC-8, 4-engined medium-stage aircraft. This was intended for the US domestic market, 500-1,500 miles or so, carrying about 90-100 pax. A competitor for the Boeing 720, one could suppose.

Wasn't the inital DC-8 concept a Viscount-esque DC-9 sized turboprop?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 25):
I think it's particularly tragic that MDC never built this DC-10 variant, much talked about in the mid-70s.

How far along did the DC-10 Twin get in development?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 25):
Who knows how that might have helped change MDC's fortunes?

What kind of capability was it supposed to have, and what growth capability did it have? IIRC, the inital model proposed and illustrated earlier in the thread was 763 sized, 230 seats or so? Given MD's fondness for stretches, something A300 would've been expected, right?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 25):
It was yet another example of the MDC board's short-sightedness that investing in developing the DC-10 Twin was rejected, an ongoing pattern that finally helped bring the company to its knees.

Was that based entirely on risk aversion or were there other factors at play?

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 25):
Had it been done, it's possible the landmark 1977 A300 sale to Frank Borman's Eastern Airlines might not have happened, despite Airbus's sweetheart terms.

But wouldn't EA have been predisposed to the L.1011-600 for the sake of fleet commonality? Wouldn't LM or MD launching their twin shrink have sparked the other to respond with its own, launching another fruitless deathmatch?

Also (I forgot, hence the edit), was the MD-90 on par with the 737-800 and A320 as far as efficiency and so on? Everything I've read indicates it lost out only because of lack of family, but were there other factors at play? Also, how compatible were the MD-95/717 and MD-90?

[Edited 2006-12-16 23:53:08]

AvObserver · Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:20 am

It's so long ago, there doesn't seem to be much detailed info on the DC-10 Twin in searches but here's a link I came across, although it doesn't have all of the specifics you asked for, L1011. http://widebodyaircraft.nl/dc10.htm

"DC-10 Twin studies
In the early 1970s McDonnell Douglas considered a short-fuselage, twin-engined derivative of the DC-10, the 'DC-10 Twin', with a range of 4000 km (2160 nm) and capacity for 236 passengers. McDonnell Douglas targeted an in-service date in 1975, but in the end considered the twin as a danger for its own DC-10-10 trijet, and didn't develop it. The twin was renamed DC-X-200 later.

The history of widebody aircraft might have looked quite different if McDonnell Douglas had decided on producing this aircraft, because it would have been a main competitor for the Airbus A300. In the late 1970s MDC hardly sold any DC-10-10s any more, and Airbus won most orders for short-haul widebody airliners. Later DC-10-based twinjet proposals also didn't materialise."

For that matter, it was probably also short-sighted of Lockheed not to have investigated an L-1011 Twin but selling their existing 1011's was always an uphill battle for them. Both of these hypothetical Twins would have had wider cross-sections than the eventual 767 and either might have provided it surprising competition.

ebj1248650 · Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:26 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
Less we forget that many Trent 500 required early replacement due to blade-rubbing issues...

Boeing had similar problems with the engines on the first production 747s.

MCIGuy · Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:36 am

1970:

1992:

TheCheese · Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:53 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 26):
Was that based entirely on risk aversion or were there other factors at play?

In my opinion, a lot of it had to do with the fact that MDC was so busy with military projects for the US government, they didn't have the inclination to spend money on the commercial side that seemed to be doing all right on its own.

I like to think of is as the board of directors seeing the US military as a firehose of money, while the commercial airliners business was more like a barrel that needed to have money poured back into it after a while.

Once the barrel started to not pour money out so much, the board turned more of its attentions back to the cash firehose... and as long as there was even a trickle of money coming out of commercial aviation, they didn't need to spend any on it.

Eureka · Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:42 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
The 4 Trent 500 on the A340-500/600 needs less maintenance than 2 GE-90-110/115 on the 777-200LR/300ER. I would imagine that a similar solution could work out for the MD-XX as well if they got the fuel burn down?

Perhaps the A340-500/600 engines should begin having some more maintenance since the 777-200LR and 777-300ER fleets consistently have higher dispatch reliabilities.

rpaillard · Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:32 pm

Quoting Eureka (Reply 31):
Perhaps the A340-500/600 engines should begin having some more maintenance since the 777-200LR and 777-300ER fleets consistently have higher dispatch reliabilities

A quad have by design a smaller dispatch reliability, whatever the engine is.

Raphael
(By the way, one the the most interesting topic I saw here since a while)

Eureka · Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:39 pm

Quoting Rpaillard (Reply 32):
A quad have by design a smaller dispatch reliability, whatever the engine is.

A four engine aircraft may inherently be less reliable than a comparable twin-engine aircraft but I would not say that lower reliability is ever a design criterion.

rpaillard · Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:47 pm

Eureka> Agree with your reformulation.
Raphael

LMP737 · Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
I'll tell you the exact moment I knew Douglas was doomed. I'd officiated at a hull section join and they were using a laser device that had only recently replaced a level and transit. They'd call out to the mechs who'd bang on the screw jacks with mauls to level the sections. Then, they'd drill and shoot all the fasteners by hand.

That night I was watching a PBS special about Airbus, and that exact same process was completely automated with special dedicated tooling.

I knew right then and there my beloved Douglas was as dead as last week's salmon. So, I started working all the overtime i could get, stopped spending money and got ready for the layoffs Iknew were going to hit home.

When I hired in at LG in the late 90's I thought how cool it was going to be working at a high tech aircraft production facility. Man, what an eye opener that was! The Douglas facilities looked more like a rundown shipyard than anything else. Years of neglect by St Louis made sure of that. Hand building airplanes is the reason when you replace a panel on say an MD-80 it does not come pre drilled. You get to do that yourself.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
Boeing let the lines bleed to death....

Unfortunately the lines were pretty much bleed out by MD by the time Boeing showed up.

Dougloid · Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:28 am

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 20):
Quoting 757MDE (Reply 19):
Wasn't the type of engine of the MD-94X tested for real on a MD-80?

Yup.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22):
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 21):
What were the test results?

More fuel-efficient than turbofans of the time, but noisy and unacceptable from a passenger viewpoint and the airlines agreed, once fuel costs went back down (too expensive to develop into a commercially viable product).

There were problems with vibration affecting the structure back there that couldn't be easily overcome. It was a noisy SOB too.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35):
oting Dougloid (Reply 17):
Boeing let the lines bleed to death....

Unfortunately the lines were pretty much bleed out by MD by the time Boeing showed up.

I don't entirely agree....they sure didn't expend any effort to promote the lines, even though had Boeing not come along Douglas would have been happily cranking out MD11 freighters. They cleaned out the order book is what they did, and then they walked away from it....more or less like they're doing with the C17....that will take a couple more years yet it seems.

there was some cutting edge stuff going on there but you had to look to find it...before they stopped it, every day when I'd get off work I'd spend a couple hours exploring areas of the plant to see what was happening....do you know the spar mills were the biggest ones west of the Mississippi?

To tell you the truth, every time this subject comes up I get depressed.

flyingdoctorwu · Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:52 am

I remember reading in Popular Science or Mechanics years ago about a DC-10 or MD-11 variant with lower deck seating- does anyone have any info on that?

chris

AA777223 · Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:57 am

Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 37):
I remember reading in Popular Science or Mechanics years ago about a DC-10 or MD-11 variant with lower deck seating- does anyone have any info on that?

I think something like Air California or some other long defunct airline, used to operate a DC-10 with seating in the lower area. It had a weird lobe on the lower belly to protect it. Looks pretty funky. There are some pics in the database, but hard to track down.

flydreamliner · Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 37):
I remember reading in Popular Science or Mechanics years ago about a DC-10 or MD-11 variant with lower deck seating- does anyone have any info on that?

I think something like Air California or some other long defunct airline, used to operate a DC-10 with seating in the lower area. It had a weird lobe on the lower belly to protect it. Looks pretty funky. There are some pics in the database, but hard to track down.

Kinda reminds me of the LH A346's with the lower level lavatories.... suppose they could toss a few seats down there too..... Smile

dan2002 · Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:16 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 36):
there was some cutting edge stuff going on there but you had to look to find it...before they stopped it, every day when I'd get off work I'd spend a couple hours exploring areas of the plant to see what was happening....do you know the spar mills were the biggest ones west of the Mississippi?

To tell you the truth, every time this subject comes up I get depressed.

Sad isn't it? What do you want to bet that alot of that cutting edge technology got cut up while they knocked down the plant? Say, speaking of knocking the plant down, there wouldn't happen to be a file cabinet floating around with all of these said paper planes in it, would there?

A few more variants:

Quote:
MD-90-30T Trunkliner Proposed 147-passenger model with dual main landing gear for operation from rough airfields, was to have been built by Shanghai Aviation Industrial Corpoation for Chinese operators; cancelled
MD-90 Series 10 Proposed shortened fuselage model to carry reduced passenger loads of 111 to 116, intended to replace the MD-87; cancelled
MD-90 Series 40 Proposed stretched model for up to 181 passengers; cancelled
MD-90-40EC Proposed Series 40 variant with increased payload and fuel capacity for European operators; cancelled
MD-90 Series 50 Proposed extended range model with additional fuel capacity and increased gross takeoff weight; cancelled
MD-90-55 Similar to Series 50 but with revised cabin layout making room for up to 187 passengers; cancelled

dtwclipper · Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
I think something like Air California or some other long defunct airline, used to operate a DC-10 with seating in the lower area. It had a weird lobe on the lower belly to protect it. Looks pretty funky. There are some pics in the database, but hard to track down.

That was PSA and it was the L1011. 0640580

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

stirling · Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:36 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 38):
think something like Air California or some other long defunct airline, used to operate a DC-10 with seating in the lower area. It had a weird lobe on the lower belly to protect it. Looks pretty funky. There are some pics in the database, but hard to track down.

It was PSA, the aircraft is an L1011.

EDIT: Posting at the same time....

[Edited 2006-12-19 04:37:13]

AA777223 · Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:15 am

I am very curious how that all worked. How many people were seated down there, and how were they able to work with decreased storage space? It seems strange that they didn't just order a larger aircraft, like the DC-10 or 741. How exactly did that node protect the passengers seated in the cargo hold, and how did the FAA certify that, no emergency exits, etc.? I notice no one else has ever tried it.

Marcus · Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:18 am

I believe it was just a lounge area and not assigned seating area.

Tangowhisky · Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:55 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 36):
They cleaned out the order book is what they did, and then they walked away from it....more or less like they're doing with the C17....that will take a couple more years yet it seems.

Dougloid, I enjoy reading your stories. BTW, didn't Boeing ay one time try to get another line going at Long Beach for the 737NGs? I read that it was blamed on the unions, is that true?

Dougloid · Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:11 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 45):
Dougloid, I enjoy reading your stories. BTW, didn't Boeing ay one time try to get another line going at Long Beach for the 737NGs? I read that it was blamed on the unions, is that true?

The story I got is that yes, there was a move on to start another line in LGB but the unions in Washington State put the kibosh on the plan...so I'm told, but that was after my time...

flyinTLow · Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:05 am

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 43):
I am very curious how that all worked. How many people were seated down there, and how were they able to work with decreased storage space? It seems strange that they didn't just order a larger aircraft, like the DC-10 or 741. How exactly did that node protect the passengers seated in the cargo hold, and how did the FAA certify that, no emergency exits, etc.? I notice no one else has ever tried it.

Was just about to ask the same question. Do pictures of the inside exist? I mean there is a door down there, and on one of the pictures in the database of that a/c you see this door, equipped with its own stairs, open and extended. Was this for all passengers to get off?

Quoting Marcus (Reply 44):
I believe it was just a lounge area and not assigned seating area.

That would explain why there are no windows as far as I can see. I don't think anyone would like to fly without there being windows.

Cheers,
Thilo

LMP737 · Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 45):
Dougloid, I enjoy reading your stories. BTW, didn't Boeing ay one time try to get another line going at Long Beach for the 737NGs? I read that it was blamed on the unions, is that true?

Yes Boeing planned to start a 737 line in Long Beach. The line was supposed to be next tot eh MD-11 line. In fact they spent around $36 million in tooling for it. There was a huge gantry and tooling in place for production. However as we all know the plan was cancelled. Just before I left Douglas I watched them cut up the tooling.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 36):
I don't entirely agree....they sure didn't expend any effort to promote the lines, even though had Boeing not come along Douglas would have been happily cranking out MD11 freighters. They cleaned out the order book is what they did, and then they walked away from it....more or less like they're doing with the C17....that will take a couple more years yet it seems.

No amount of investing by Boeing would have made Long Beach viable in the long term. By the time of the merger both the MD-80 and 90 were finished in the commercial arena.

That left the MD-11 and 717. The MD-11 was no longer competitive as a passenger plane so that left the freighter market. At best Boeing might have been able to prolong the line a little bit longer if they had been more aggresive with pricing. However as we have seen with the A300/310 freighter orders cannot keep a line going forever. That leaves the 717. Right off the bat Boeing was handed a plane with no stable mates. Boeing really wasn'nt sure what to do with it. I have a feeling that their view was that if MD did'nt see fit to offer more than one version why should they.

As for the C-17 that aircraft is a money maker for Boeing so I really don;t see them walking away from it.

MD-90 · Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:12 pm

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 23):
We all know that turboprops are inherently more efficient than turbofans, and turbofans are inherently more efficient than turbojets, but were propfans inherently more efficient than turbofans?

The propfans were more efficient than turbofans. Also remember that the scale of a GE90 pushing 100K pounds of thrust has inherent efficiences that a smaller 20-30K engine doesn't quite have.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net