From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Felix R. Villatuya) Organization: School of Engineering & Applied Science, UCLA. Date: 16 Nov 95 03:48:40 References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
Don Stokes (Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz) wrote: : email@example.com writes: : >According to my source at McDonnell Douglas in Long Beach, the MD-95 is: ... : OK, so where's the new model? Airbus & Boeing would consider this kind of : change at best a new series number. For these manufacturers a change in : model number indicates pretty major differences in configuration, : particularly Boeing where there isn't any comonality in engine configuration : between models. : I'd have thought changes like the removing the ventral airstair and improving : the avionics didn't even justify a change in series number. Is there any : particular reason why MDD didn't take the DC-9-30 series or one of the MD-80s : and re-engine it? I guess McDonnell Douglas didn't follow Boeing's definition. The MD-80 didn't have a different engine configuration from the DC-9 either. I believe the MD-80 was in fact a DC-9-80 (or Super 80). Technically speaking, the MD-95 could be called the DC-9-95. Rainier -- Felix Rainier Villatuya firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com "Life is not at all that bad my friend"