Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-90/Archive 1

Archive 1

Full six screen glass cockpit

Saudi Airlines' MD-90's are equipped with full glass cockpits (EFIS) with avionics similar to the MD-11's, that must be mentioned

Pictures by me can be found here Yosef1987 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, please add. From what I've read MD-90s all have the same glass cockpit/EFIS. I can't find a mention of that connection to the MD-11 in my books. Frawley's Civil Aircraft Directory says the MD-90's EFIS is based on the MD-88's. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All like the MD-88's except for the 29 purchased by Saudi Airlines, you can see the photographs I took in-flight etc Yosef1987 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And there is this discussion here, hard to get a reference from the internet, I'll try to Google it later and please help me Yosef1987 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There! :) Yosef1987 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Yosef1987 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I'd like to add a photo to the article for the glass-cockpit on the Saudia's MD-90's, my own photo so no copyright problems, how to add a photo, I am a beginner in editing. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More to come...I will contact the above user to help. I've also remembered some new information which I will get referenced then add it to the article! Chergles (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MD-90 photos are up

Sorry for the delay, check here for the photos, add them to the article please, and let me know when you do so, thanks a lot for your time. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the one that shows the display screens. -Fnlayson (talk)

For future reference photo is now here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Md-90_Sva_04092003_F.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.2.34 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the "Operators" section

The Operator section of the article is incorrect and needs to be fixed.

Saudia (formerly Saudi Arabian Airlines) no longer "operates" any MD-90 aircraft. All except one of the Saudia MD-90s are stored or in the hands of new owners. This has been the case since at least June 2012.

25 of the 29 MD-90s have been sold to AerSale Inc of Florida. AerSale is in the process of flying their 25 MD-90s to Roswell New Mexico. At least 4 (possibly 7) are in ROW as of 10/21/12.

One former Saudia MD-90 is currently operated by Saudi Royal Flight. That aircraft is one of the 25 that were sold to AerSale.

One policy that may help keep the "Operators" section accurate and up to date is not to allow different cited sources for each airline. The cited source for Saudia is Airfleets. All the other operator listings cite CH Aviation. If CH Aviation were cited for all operators, Saudia would not be listed as an operator at all and Saudi Royal Flight would be added to the list of operators.

Airfleets has not been accurately following the migration of MD-90s to Delta Airlines. I suggest that you remove any citation to Airfleets for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.7.173 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither Airfleets nor CH aviation are reliable sources, normally the annual rundowns in Flight or Aviation Week & Space Technology are used for these operator lists. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Flight Airline Fleets report is now out - the article has been updated to reflect this.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. I agree that the 2012 Flight Airline Fleets report is an excellent source. The sad part is that this report only comes out once a year and is already way out of date. Delta Airlines has 50 MD-90s in service, 9 stored at MZJ, and 2 stored at HND. Does this mean that the Operators section should be updated only once per year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.6.77 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, doesnt really matter that the source is annual, as an encyclopedia we dont need to keep the article up to date every week as long as we give the date for the information. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Aviation Leak does an annual update as well and there are other relaible directories out there, and you will get more up-to date info on individual airlines in reliable sources, we just need to be certain any individual that it is (a) Reliable and (b) more up to date than what it is replacing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Former Operators" section is mostly incomplete as well. The pictures of MD-90s in the article are for airlines not listed in the "Former Operators" section. Can this be corrected as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.252.41 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

EVA/UNI MD-90's Sold to Delta for part out and scrap

As most know the 11 EVA/UNI MD-90's have been sold to Delta for parts and scrap. As they leave Taiwan and are ferried to KBYH on delivery to Delta I and others have been updating the respective fleet totals. They all have been operated as EVA Flight 92.

On my last edit, a senior and well respected editor reverted my edit. Other editors have made similar changes and my previous edits were not reverted. I do not wish to contradict him by simply correcting the totals again, but it seems that this is a sleepy little article without any drama. It seems like a little trust is warranted.

By the way, as of 12/13/14 EVA now operates four MD-90 and UNI operates two.

Cruise speed

Hi Marc Lacoste,

You reverted my change of the cruise speed from Mach 0.74 to Mach 0.76, but I think I'm correct, as there's a conversion error in the old reference. The text in the Flight International live link reads Cruise speed at 10,600m in standard day conditions is estimated to be 811km/h(Mach0.74). However, running the Mach 0.74/10,600m altitude numbers through the cvt template causes the page to display Mach 0.74 (427 kn; 790 km/h) at 34,777 ft (10,600 m)—a difference of 21 kilometers per hour between the autoconversion value and the FI article's value for km/h. When you change the 0.74 to 0.76 in the template, the page displays Mach 0.76 (438 kn; 812 km/h) at 34,777 ft (10,600 m), which is now only off by 1 km/hr compared to the article. Also, the change from 0.74 to 0.76 causes the km/h value to match up perfectly with the old Boeing reference that you removed. (If you add back mph to the cvt spec, the autoconverted miles per hour value of 504 mph for M0.76/35000' would also match with the dead Boeing link.) D271l (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted because an online ref seems more supported by its publisher : if Boeing don't want to show md-90 specs, it's their right and going through archive.org is circumventing their will. I prefer to use archives when no other ref is available. I did not saw the incoherence in Flight's article: it's either mach .74 or 811km/h but not both. Must be a typo. Cruise speed is variable anyway, between LRC and HSC.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Main pic change.

• 
  current
• 
  proposed

The current photo is awful and doesn't show any of the changes from the MD-88 in any meaningful capacity. Something like this that shows the aircraft from the side would be better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.119.116 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, bland side views does not show an aircraft general configuration as well as a 3/4 view which gives a sense of perspective, and show not only the fuselage side, but also the wing and empennage.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be an improvement on the current image per comments by Marc Lacoste. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Boeing TTBW on MD-90 fueslage

I've heard that the Boeing TTBW is supposed to be built on a shortened MD-90 fuselage, hence why Boeing bought those 2 ex-DL frames in 2020. Should this be mentioned in this article or not? 99.153.34.244 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable published source to even consider adding it. BilCat (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)