# Bidding Farewell to a Pair of Classic Jetliners



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 28, 2014)

Commercial pilot Patrick Smith (of Salon.com fame) has penned an article discussing the last days of the McDonnel Douglas DC-9 and DC-10 in scheduled passenger service.



> Historic, beloved, star-crossed; however you describe the DC-10, it was among the better-known jetliners in history if not always for the best reasons. It was something of a 70s-era icon a long step down from the 747 or Concorde, perhaps, but a plane that pretty much everybody has heard of, and that many could recognize instantly. The DC-10 had one of the most distinctive silhouettes in airliner history: bulky and broad-shouldered, with its number two engine mounted eccentrically through the center of the tail.
> 
> Indeed, the oddness of that middle engine lands the DC-10 a spot on my Ugliest Planes of All Time list. It was as if the engineers werent sure what to do with it, and with time running out in their competition with Lockheed and its (much prettier) L-1011, they just rammed it through the fin.
> 
> ...


Link: http://www.askthepilot.com/douglas-retirements/


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 28, 2014)

Are all the DC-9's now gone, including things like a DC9-80? And since the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, I thought the B717 was a (renamed) DC-9?


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 28, 2014)

the_traveler said:


> Are all the DC-9's now gone, including things like a DC9-80? And since the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, I thought the B717 was a (renamed) DC-9?


I think it's more the case that the ones manufactured by "DC" are now gone. Isn't the DC9-80 really the MD-80? And as you say the 717 is based on

the DC-9, it was really manufactured by Boeing.

But for sure, the retirement of the DC-9 is much less significant (IMO) than the DC-10. While the DC-10 lives on (barely) as the MD-11, the DC-9

lives on in its various successors. To mourn the DC-9 is sort of like mourning the 737-200. Yeah, it's different than the current generation of 737's,

but it's essentially the same aircraft from a stylistic standpoint. Whereas the DC-10's looks were one-of-a-kind (not counting the MD-11).


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 28, 2014)

The DC-9 series later morphed in the MD-80 and MD-90's. The MD-95 was launched by McDonnell Douglas, but when the Boeing merger took place, the designation was changed to 717 prior to first delivery. Although now a Boeing aircraft, it was manufactured in the former McDonnell Douglas Long Beach CA plant.


----------



## brentrain17 (Feb 28, 2014)

Amtrak?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 28, 2014)

No, Amtrak does not operate any aircraft.


----------



## railiner (Feb 28, 2014)

Didn't Boeing originally (perhaps only internally) use the 717 designation as a commercial

version of the military C-135?


----------



## Eric S (Feb 28, 2014)

brentrain17 said:


> Amtrak?


What's your question?


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 28, 2014)

railiner said:


> Didn't Boeing originally (perhaps only internally) use the 717 designation as a commercial
> 
> version of the military C-135?


Yes, they did. I guess they felt a C-135 from the 1960's and a 717 (MD-95) would not get confused by buyers.


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 28, 2014)

In my line of work, we still have at least two DC-10's still very much in use. Word has it, these two will be flying for the next 20 years in this role.

Meet Tanker 910:








Operated by 10 Tanker Air Carrier Corporation
Originally delivered to National Airlines in 1975 as N69NA and named "Betty."
Subsequently flew for PanAm, American Airlines (renumbered N161AA), Hawaiian Airlines, and finally Omni International.
Retrofitted into a 12,000 gallon retardant capacity Very Large Air Tanker (VLAT) in 2005.
Now wears FAA registration number N450AX.
Meet Tanker 911:







Operated by 10 Tanker Air Carrier Corporation
Originally delivered to Finnair in 1975 as registration OH-LHB.
Subsequently flew for Nigeria Airways, VASP, Birgenair, Air Liberte (renumbered F-GPVB), then Continental Airlines (renumbered again to N17085) and lastly Omni International.
Retrofitted into a 12,000 gallon retardant capacity VLAT in 2007.
10 Tanker Corporation is in the process of buying four to six _additional_ DC-10's for conversion into air tanker configuration. You never know, that firefighting behemoth you see on the news might have been an airliner in which you were a passenger on in years past!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 1, 2014)

That's.... impressive.


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 1, 2014)

And then, there was more!

In 2012, Aero Air Corp. purchased Butler Aviation of Madras, Oregon and then moved forward with the purchase of seven DC-9-87's from SAS Airlines.

One by one, the planes have been stripped, their interior spaces completely gutted, the fuselage cut along the belly of the aircraft, and internal tanks installed where passengers and luggage once rode.

The result is this:






Tankers 101-107 are in their certification process with the USFDA-Forest Service for use beginning this 2014 fire season. They are fully certified by the FAA.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 3, 2014)

The aircraft that DL retired in January were DC-9-50s, a model popular in the 1970s. The DC9s that DL had retired in the early 1990s were DC-9-30s. Ironically most of those DL -30s became the first fleet of Valujet, which later morphed into Airtran and was DL's primary competitor at ATL (this was long after EA had died).

DC-9-80s or as the marketing people later called them MD-80s (or on AA, Super 80s) will remain in scheduled passenger service for years to come.

As for other types of service -- cargo, tankers, private jets -- the DC-9 (even the -10, -30, -50 variants) and the DC-10 could also fly on for years to come.


----------

