Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-9

Vandalism

This article (and every other article on wikipedia) is supposed to be encyclopedic. This is not a forum for flight attendants, travellers, or other upset parties to air their gripes about this type of aircraft.

It is my full intent to delete any further criticism of this aircraft. The "Douglas Death Tube" and "Power Screwdriver" remarks are nothing you'd see in your World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica...and they have no place here, either.

Wikipedia is not the forum for you to vent your frustration over your last flight!

Go to flyertalk.com, airliners.net or any of the dozens of air traveller related forums that encourage such nonsense.

If there is no factual basis for it, DO NOT POST IT, PLEASE!! Bryanmenard 06:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

So, can anyone think of a good reason why this airplane should exist as two separate articles? McNeight 18:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I've got is that you'd wind up with one really lengthy article. The 717 is a pretty significantly different aircraft from the DC-9-30 (I've often wondered why the MD-80 isn't separate, actually), what with the new engines, avionics, and major airframe revisions. It's not quite the Boeing 747-8, but a similar comparison can be made. ericg ✈ 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ericg's points above but also think that it is a pretty significant name change - if you flew on a Boeing 717 maybe you want to find out about it and not its predecessors. The DC9 article goes back decades but this final variant of it was significantly different and should be recognised as such with its own page. It also keeps the sequence of Boeing 7x7 articles and fits well in the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and thus, as it's doing no harm and isn't clearly superfluous, I'd keep it. Iancaddy 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we definitely should keep these seperate. There is a huge difference between the dinosaur DC-9s that Northwest owns and the 717s that AirTran owns. Tboger 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard enough to sort between MD-8X series and DC-9s so to combine the modern 717 it the antiquated grandparents would be impractical. The same thinking applies to the A350 being apart from the A330, on which it is based. MitchRose

Due to the old 717 and the new 717 creating confusion, I agree - keep them separate. If we combine them, the header should be the MD-90 and the 717 would be an "later in the MD-90's life" addition. GURoadrunner

I believe that keeping them separate would be the best idea. Most of the world continues to see them as a different plane and I don't see why we should merge them. Their histories are different anyway. --themit 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently considering suggesting moving MD-80 out of the DC-9 article. I think 717 should stay 717, with a small mention in the DC-9 article, linking to it. In support of the merge, though, look at the 737 article...it's all one article, from the 60s to present. The Next-Gen 737 is just as different from the classic 737 as the 717 is from the DC-9. The situation is similar, so I see how a merge would seem logical. However, the difference is the name-change, Boeing buyout, etc. We don't have one model name with the DC-9 series. While the DC-9, MD-80, and 717 are just as similar as a 737-200 is to a -300 is to a -700, the Douglas aircraft definitely need to be separated, with linking in between them. It will help the average user differentiate them and, with any interest, find out the lineage of the aircraft.

I support keeping them separate. --Bryanmenard 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

717 Cockpit Layout

I made a quickie edit to the end of the 717 section correcting the statement that the 717 shares the same cockpit as the MD-90 (the -90 has the same cockpit as the -88, 717 has the MD-11 EFIS system). Someone might want to restate what I said, I'm not sure if it reads as well as it could. Uniuniunium 19:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

propfan MD-80

I read that during a period of unusually high fuel costs, MD built one -80 with propfan engines (these look like turbofans, but with a propellor attached to the rear; they are known for their effeicency). After some initial hype, no orders came, and the model (I believe it was a one-off, more of a demonstrator than anything else), was scrapped. There has been intermitent talk of using propfans on civil aircraft since then, but it has not come to anyhting. 152.163.100.65 00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

IMO the MD-80 and MD-90 sections should be split from the DC-9 article. They are a different generation of aircraft, just like the MD-95/717. Who is able to to the split? Andros 1337 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Spliting into DC-9 and MD-80/90 seems reasonable. -Fnlayson 20:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the MD-80 and MD-90 content from here to the MD-80 article and removed a lot of the DC-9 content. It needs the background redone and some clean-up, but it's a start. -Fnlayson 05:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If only DC-9 remains (no MD-xx ones), shouldn't this entry also eventually be renamed to Douglas DC-9? Oyvind 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is already named that. Maybe you mean remove the MD-XX content from this one. Which should be done - Fnlayson 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I actually did mean Douglas DC-9, as opposed to McDonnell Douglas DC-9 that the article's called today... I think DC-9's were introduced and largely manufactured by Douglas alone, before the company ended up being McDonnell Douglass and eventually Boeing, isn't that correct? It might still make sense to have at least a reference to MD-80/-90 series, or some minor information still... galar71 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]