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

From:         Steve Lacker <slacker@arlut.utexas.edu>
Organization: applied research laboratories
Date:         11 Aug 96 00:03:57 
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

several people variously wrote:


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

First by what measure? Number of hulls destroyed, number of lives
lost, number of injuries per passenger mile?

Just curious.

>I've had MD-80 pilots for an airline that will remain nameless say that
>under certain c/g conditions, they run out of elevator up-trim on final
>approach.  As a result, they have to physically horse the nose up for
>the flare, such as it is.

I had a retired pilot tell me a similar story, plus he said that the MD-80
"just didn't feel good" to fly.

I also liked David G. Davidson's list of good/bad serviceability items on
various narrowbodies. Interesting stuff! One comment interested me:

>727 APU installation is the best of the three, but also far from ideal.

It amuses me how many fellow passengers I hear complaining about how
loud that APU is in the cabin. Most of them don't seem to *know* that
its an APU and not a main engine, but they all know its loud if you're
sitting near the trailing edge of the stbd. wing.


--
Steve Lacker	/	Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas
512-835-3286	/	PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
slacker@arlut.utexas.edu