Re: MD-80 vs. Super-80

From:         Steve Lacker <slacker@arlut.utexas.edu>
Organization: applied research laboratories
Date:         25 May 96 14:40:22 
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure

gclst1+@pitt.edu (Grant C Lynde) wrote:
>In article <airliners.1996.671@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
>
>Because DC-9s got a bad rap for a while with the American flying public
>for accidents that weren't the airframe's fault.

What I have always heard was that it was the string of DC-10 accidents that
left the public with a bad impression of any plane called "DC- something".
Remember that the non-technical flying public will remember the failures of the
DC-10 far more readily than the successful history of the DC-3, DC-6, DC-7,
DC-8, and yes even the reliable tin can called the DC-9/MD80/MD90. (I still
despise DC-9's and all derivatives thereof, but purely for comfort/aesthetic
reasons. They are cramped and ugly, but they are NOTHING if not reliable
workhorses).

Actually, I suspect that after the merger with McDonnell, it just made more
sense to tag the new planes "MD" rather than "DC".

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