Re: MD-80: Lawn Dart or Efficient Design?

From:         rickydik@ix.netcom.com (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
Date:         08 Aug 96 12:11:53 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In <airliners.1996.1609@ohare.Chicago.COM> Steve Lacker
<slacker@arlut.utexas.edu> writes:
>...It *is* a pretty efficient machine. The rearward placement of the
>wings is>simply a result of the rearward placement of the engines. The
>engines>themselves are a relatively efficient design. It doesn't have
>THE most>efficient wing, THE most efficient engine, etc., but its a
>good combination>overall. What it lacks in efficiency in the air, it
>tends to make up for in its>reliability and apparently good
>serviceability (any airline mechanics here who>can comment on that?).
>No doubt it could be more efficient if it had been>designed from
>scratch as a 150+ pax airliner instead of being a mercilessly
>stretched DC-9, but all in all its done well for itself.

It was the heavy weight of the new JT8D-217 engines that caused the big
stretch forward of the wing in the MD-80.

Before the two recent 757 crashes, the MD-80 was second in safety.
It must be in first place now.

The PSA avionics techs bitched long and hard when the first MD-80's
were added to their all-727 fleet.  Avionics bay too small, etc.
You should have heard them when the BAe-146 arrived..  Pure misery.

Reno Air seems quite happy with the reliability and maintainability of
their all MD-80 fleet.  Alaska A/L, OTH, has serious problems with
belly corrosion, etc., and find it very unreliable compared to their
737-400 fleet.