Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-94X

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Rename the article to cover all McDonnell Douglas propfan-related activities?

If this page is going to cover the MD-91X, MD-92X, MD-94X, and engine retrofits to existing DC-9 and MD-80 aircraft, shouldn't it be renamed to indicate something broader? The MD-81 testbed aircraft that flew with the GE and PW-Allison propfans had the title "MD-UHB DEMO" visible on the fuselage, so I would rename the article to "MD-UHB". Out of the clean sheet aircraft, MD-80 derivatives, and DC-9/MD-80 engine retrofits, the clean-sheet aircraft was only lightly promoted and was the least likely outcome to occur, so it makes little sense to have MD-94X as the title (unless you think the MD-91X/MD-92X should have their own article or be covered more thoroughly in the MD-90 article). D271l (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]