From: email@example.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 21 Nov 95 01:19:26 References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1 2 3 4 5
View raw article or MIME structure
Felix R. Villatuya <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > 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. That is probably what will be written on the Type Certificate. The MD-80 is typed as a DC-9-80. The MD-11 is, if memory serves, also typed as a DC-10. Douglas saves big bucks on using the derivative certification process, just as Boeing does, and as Airbus wishes we all couldn't. Until they do *their* stretches, that is. :-) Terry -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."