From: firstname.lastname@example.org (RD Rick) Organization: Netcom Date: 08 Aug 96 12:11:53 References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In <airliners.1996.1609@ohare.Chicago.COM> Steve Lacker <email@example.com> 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.