Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-9/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Question on Citations

The bottom paragraph on legacy about the DC-9 ditching. I think I may have a citation for this, but it may not be that verifiable. Could anyone verify the TV episode of Mayday: Season 3; Episode 13: "Ocean Landing" on the ditching of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 as a verifiable source? It talks about it a bit during the episode, but it does not directly correlate to this subject. Thank you =) Ocenar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Merger proposal

I would propose that the McDonnell Douglas C-9 be discussed in a section of the main DC-9 article, as opposed to an article onto itself. Only a small number of aircraft were produced in this specific role of aeromedical transportation; it is more typicaly for such limited conversions to be discussed simply in the main article, rather than a dedicated article onto itself. Additionally, the article is effectively only four-to-five paragraphs of prose, and as the aircraft was retired seven years ago, it has a very low probablity of growing to justify a dedicated article. Perhaps these would be better served as being one and the same. Opinions? Kyteto (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Although I do not believe I have enough knowledge in the subject to !vote either support/oppose, it seems like a notable aircraft that is sufficiently different from the DC-9. CyanGardevoir 09:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I have worked a good bit on the C-9 article in the past. I never could find enough details to expand the article. The C-9 variants are really just minor changes to DC-9. The C-9 content can be covered in the DC-9 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As there has been nothing but support for the proposal over the last months, the merger has been conducted. Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

EVA Air keeps being added as a primary user, but it doesn't have a single DC-9 in it's fleet

I just wanted to mention that EVA Air is shown as a primary user of the DC-9 yet it doesn't operate a single DC-9 in it's fleet. I don't get why it would it be there. I removed EVA Air from the primary users list72.89.35.142 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Status field

I hold the view that describing the DC-9 as Out of Production, in Limited Service is the only proper and truthful way to go. The aircraft is not in production anymore (although I wish they would restart it and the DC-10), and it unlike the later DC-10 is only seen in limited use unlike said DC-10. A check out outside sources bore this out to me. So I must insist that the description be restored as stated above. If anyone wishes to disagree, tell me so and why so, I'm willing to hear. 68.236.155.234 (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The production years clearly indicate the model is out of production. No need to repeat that part in the status field. Limited service is probably fair, but can be somewhat vague also. You twice removed the C-9 text without explanation/justification. This text was properly merged here after a discussion in earlier section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)While you claim that you are merely changing the aircraft's status, in fact you are not, and are deleting large chunks of cited text. In addition, the infobox does not need a specific note about the aircraft being out of production, as it already gives the years of production, while 129 aircraft in service is hardly "limited service.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I am baffled you are repeatedly trying to change a whole mess of content other than the status alone in your edit-warring; while this Status may be more accurate, your edit reasons don't touch on most of the changes you've been making other than this issue, and that's probably why you're being reverted. Kyteto (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image change

I propose changing the infobox image of this article. While the current image (File:New York Air DC-9 Detroit - 16 August 1983.jpg) shows the details of the aircraft well enough, it does not face the article text. I think it would be better to replace the image with a more recent one that is sharper, with higher resolution, and faces the left side. Here are a few possible images I found on Commons:

  • Northwest DC-9-41
    Northwest DC-9-41
  • AeroMexico DC-9-32
    AeroMexico DC-9-32
  • Air Canada DC-9-32
    Air Canada DC-9-32
  • Northwest Airlines DC-9-51
    Northwest Airlines DC-9-51
  • Northwest Airlines DC-9-31
    Northwest Airlines DC-9-31
  • SAS DC-9-21
    SAS DC-9-21
  • Aviaco DC-9-32
    Aviaco DC-9-32

For me I would choose the first image (Northwest N756NW DC9.JPG) because it is of higher quality, is recent compared to the other images, and Northwest was an important operator during the latter years. However, it should be cropped for infobox use. I am only posting here for consensus. Regards, Kai Tak 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight 367

This article states "On January 26, 1972, JAT Flight 367 from Copenhagen to Belgrade, DC-9-32 registration YU-AHT, was destroyed in flight by a bomb placed on board. The sole survivor was a flight attendant, Vesna Vulović, who holds the record for the world's longest fall without a parachute when she fell some 33,000 ft (10,000 m) inside the tail section of the airplane and survived." [emphasis added]. The article on Vesna Vulović states that both she and the man who found her after the fall claim she was in the middle section of the plane above the wings. That article implies ambiguity about where she was on the aircraft, whereas this one states matter of factly in a "I know, not think" way that she was in the tail section. Either this article should be modified to explain the debate about her location, or, if there is definite evidence she was in the tail section, that article should be modified appropriately.Widgetdog (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

single thrust or combined ?!

Hi,

the Specifications has a section with engine thrust, different values for example for the by far most sold version (DC-9-30), with something like ~62 to ~71 kN... is it for each engine or is it 2 times as much in fact?! Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Per engine thrust as indicated by the "Powerplants (x2)" label for the engine types. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The MD8X series

OK, perhaps not absolutely necessary, but MD-81 ,MD-82 , MD-83 (and MD-87 ???) were released at the market as separate aircraft, similar to Boeing 737, 737-100, -200, -300 etc. Personally would I prefer to mention all similar enough aircraft - or none of them. Any other who might agree ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you want done here. We cover all MD-80 series aircraft in one article, as they are closely related. This is similar to how we cover the 737s, with articles on the Originals, Classics, NGs, and Maxes. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on McDonnell Douglas DC-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Current Northwest DC-9-41, gear up
    Current Northwest DC-9-41, gear up
  • side
  • USA Jet DC-9-32
    USA Jet DC-9-32
  • Aviaco DC-9-32
    Aviaco DC-9-32
  • Grand Airways DC-9-32
    Grand Airways DC-9-32
  • Aero California DC-9-32
    Aero California DC-9-32
  • Adria Airways DC-9-32
    Adria Airways DC-9-32
  • frontside
  • Air Canada DC-9-32
    Air Canada DC-9-32
  • USAir DC-9-31
    USAir DC-9-31
  • AeroMexico DC-9-32
    AeroMexico DC-9-32
  • Bravo Air Congo DC-9-32
    Bravo Air Congo DC-9-32

The current image is fine but is a little from behind, and is of the longer and less widespread -40 variant. A picture a little more from the front may be better, and the midsize -30 series were the most widespread. A vintage photo may be fitting for an older jet, but the Bravo Air Congo seems the best to show the aircraft configuration, although the operator is not widespread.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9/Archive_2&oldid=1137000306"