Re: Fate of the MD-11, MD-90, MD-95

Date:         19 Dec 96 03:06:31 
From:         Steve Lacker <>
Organization: applied research laboratories
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

> >I know you all hate the MD products, but the MD-11 is just so
> >awesome to look at. And the poor L1011 is cooler than anything
> >else flying around. And not for much longer, unfortunately.

Well, THATS pretty subjective!! :-)
I think the DC-10 and MD-11 are the ugliest things ever to fly, but
thats just one person's opinion. The L-1011... I agree with you. I
was much sadder when Lockheed went down as a commercial
manufacturer than I am with Douglas.

As for attractive jetliners, my favorites are (in no particular
order) the 727 (most visually interesting wing and tail ever), the
707, the A340 (its lines are a reincarnation of the 707), L-1011,
757 (positively predatory lines), and DC-8. (note the conspicuous
LACK of Douglas designs...) About the only things I find "boring"
are the 767 and A330. Even the 737 has quirky flattened engine
nacelles to make it 'interesting' if not attractive. The 777 isn't
overly interesting, except for sheer size.

On to some substance... someone commented that we are about to see
the end of the tri-jet, and the end of the rear-mounted twin for
good. The end of the Trijet is reasonably logical, but it seems to
me that rear-mounted engines have many design advantages- less
thrust asymmetry for one-out, less wing structure, less plumbing in
the wing, cleaner wing aerodynamics, less noise (at least in most
of the cabin) etc. What are some of the DISadvantages that made
Boeing abandon the design, and Airbus never adopt it? I know that
really big fans look dorky back there (MD-90), but thats a cosmetic
effect- is there an aerodynamic penalty to having the engines back

Stephen Lacker
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029