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

From:         ehahn@bass.mitre.org (Ed Hahn)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va.
Date:         18 Dec 95 15:26:12 
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1995.1854@ohare.Chicago.COM> drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:

   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.  :-)

====
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 | ehahn@mitre.org | (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.