MW> JC> I only flew the DC-9-32F Stretch and not
MW> JC> the - 10.  I understand that the shorty in that model was the
MW> JC> worst one.  We  couldn't hardly tell the difference with them
MW> JC> off in the -30. Seems  that the length of the fuselage was the
MW> JC> key to the dampening  effect.....Jim.....
MW>We had the same situation when the series 14 DC-9 arrived
MW>(the simulator was about a year late) so had to do everything
MW>in the aircraft. As I recall the shorty was a little worse
MW>in Dutch Roll than the -32, but nothing like the 727! In
MW>fact it was so mild that I worried that it might mislead pilots
MW>into not respecting it when they moved up to the 727.
Yep! remember the ole rule, "Slow down and come down".  That thing would 
certainly give you a ride at high altitude.  Here it is right out of the 
book in Limitations.  "Normal operations above 26,000ft(-100 Series) or 
30,000(-200 Series) is not permitted with one or both yaw dampers 
inoperative.  If failure occurs above the applicable altitude, descend 
at a speed not to exceed Mach .80 or 280 kts (-100 Series), 270 kts (-
200 Series), then observe appropriate speed/altitude limits".  The thing 
to remember is never let it get started Dutch Rolling cause it was much 
easier to prevent than to stop.
MW>All the Boeings had more sweep-back than the DC-9. I vaguely
MW>remember an accident in an early 707 in Paris (the one where the
MW>entire US Olympic skating team bought it) that was
MW>attributed to dutch roll on approach.
Never got to fly the 707.  Just out of phase on that one.  Beautiful 
machine and sorry I missed it.....Jim.....
___
 X CMPQwk 1.4 #1684 X Did you say this was a GE Engine?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------