From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ed Hahn) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 18 Dec 95 15:26:12 References: 1 2 3 4 5
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1995.1854@ohare.Chicago.COM> email@example.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes: 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. :-) ==== Sorry guys, The TCs for the MD-80 series up to the MD-83 were: DC-9-8X. However, with the MD-87/-88 the type ceritificates were issued with "MD-87" and "MD-88" on the page. The MD-90 series, in fact, consists of (will consist of?) "MD-90-30", "MD-90-50", as written on the TC. Note that all of these models (MD-80s/MD-90s) are covered as variants of the DC-9 on the same TC. Also, "MD-11" is what's written on the MD-11's TC, which is a variant of the DC-10 (and thus also on the same TC). ed -------- Ed Hahn | email@example.com | (703) 883-5988 -------- The above comment reflects the opinions of the author, and does not constitute endorsement or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this.