Re: What's in a model number? (MD-95 Structural Specs)

From:         rvriet@rwm.nl (Ronald van Riet)
Organization: NLnet
Date:         18 Dec 95 15:26:11 
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) wrote:

>Felix R. Villatuya <felix@lightning.seas.ucla.edu> 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.  :-)

There's more to type certificates than saving a few bucks on
paperwork:

Old rules apply meaning you can get away with old-fashioned black
boxes and stuff and lower safety criteria, thus saving lots of bucks
in manufacturing and offering operators higher payloads.

Another thing of course is the type certification of piloits and other
crew: when using one certification type, you don't have to have your
pilots recertified and they can much easier be redeployed.

These are where the real bucks are....

Many happy landings

Ronald