Can I just ask, and this is a very genuine question, why you so frequently compare fuselage dimensions in some way? I ask because I want to understand the point you’re getting at as it seems regardless of the subject of the thread, you end up comparing the sizes of aircraft and I can not for the life in me really see how the cabin height of the DC-9 relates to Airbus not making a new widebody for a few years. :confused:
New narrowbody. That is important.
Comparing fuselage dimensions is one major point of comparison which neither airline nor aircraft manufacturer can change easily. It can be done – Mitsubishi expanded MRJ fuselage to 276 cm cabin width, but this was 4 years before planned EIS and delayed it by half a year. But during the life of an aircraft model, it is almost set in stone. Boeing 737 still has the 1958 cabin width of 707, and shall have it in 2024.
The cabin height of DC-9? I recalled the stretched MD-80/MD-90 series. Up to 187 passengers, and a serious competitor to Boeing 737 and Airbus 320.
What are the chances of Bombardier producing a stretched Cseries? Well, the smaller fuselage of Cseries would put Cseries to a certain disadvantage compared to 737/320, just like the small fuselage was a disadvantage of MD-80/90. But since the Cseries fuselage is bigger than that of MD-80/90, it suffers less of a disadvantage.
In the list in the beginning, I missed An-148. It is now in service, and enjoys firm orders to the stretch version An-158.
Sign In
