Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-9

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)

There should be more coverage on the MD-91X and MD-92X propfans. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename article Douglas DC-9

• Anybody has a problem with renaming this article Douglas DC-9 (from McDonnell Douglas DC-9)? The DC-9 was designed and started production under Douglas Aircraft. - Fnlayson 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for it, but I'm not so sure about Wikipedia's policys in regards to a situation like this. I've been told before that if a company merges, changes its name, or is taken over, it assumes the new company's name in an article. I'm not entirely sure in this case though. --KPWM_Spotter 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe there is a policy or something on that, but I couldn't find it yesterday. - Fnlayson 15:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)) is vague on this. We should probably stick with the final manufacturer, not the first in the name. -Fnlayson 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, I'm all 'for renaming, as official documents (such as this official airport planning document issued by MDD and dated June 1984, long after the merger between Douglas & MD) indicate that the DC-9 was never actually sold as "McDonnell Douglas DC-9", but as "Douglas DC-9". This kind of makes sense as Douglas developed the Series 10 to 50 on their own, without McDonnell having any part in it. So the "Douglas DC-9" designation reflected that and was probably also retained because at the time Douglas was much more of a household name in civil aviation. The MD-80 - the first version to be fully developed after the merger - was consequently the first to reflect the change in manufacturer name and type designation. Now, the "McDonnell Douglas DC-10" is a different story, as its development only began in the year of the merger. As to why the DC-designation was retained, I can only guess - again probably because the "DC-" had a bit of a history (DC-3, DC-4/-6/-7, DC-8, DC-9) in it.--afromme 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, it doesn't really matter to me. Anybody see a problem with moving this to Douglas DC-9 ?? -Fnlayson 00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Production dates

is it just me or does this article seem to suggest two dif dates for when production was ceased?

It does, but that's true... the "DC-9" went out of production in 1982. The "MD-80", which is a new name for the DC-9 family of aircraft, kept going for a while, eventually on to the Boeing 717 model after they bought MacDac. It's "this model stopped production" versus "the last model produced in the family of DC-9 aircraft stopped production". Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• DC-9 family is stated, clearly I think. The MD-80, MD-90 and 717 all descended from the DC-9 and are thus part of the family. -Fnlayson 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tried to clarify things. I removed the airlines from the 717 sentence in the lead. Hope this helps.. -Fnlayson 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

new lead photo

The picture in the info box should be replaced with a more modern one, and one that is of a plane in use..not a cutout. Northwest still has plenty of DC-9's out there..and in the new livery. I'm sure a photo of one of those will suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.229.74 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC).