Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Boeing Decide To Build The 757?  
User currently offlineBeltwayBandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6821 times:

I've often wondered why Boeing started the 757 program given that the 737 program pre-dated it, and has since effectively eclipsed the 757 in its mission profile.

Either the 757 did not meet its expected performance parameters (efficiency, range) or the 737 had much more flexibility that Boeing thought it had, or ???.


[Edited 2003-03-19 22:06:38]

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6771 times:

The 757, from what I had heard back when Air Florida was looking at them, were to be a larger, more fuel efficient, longer-range replacement for the B-727-200. In that respect, it fit the bill quite nicely.

MxCtrlr  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.  Smokin cool



DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6750 times:

You have to keep in mind that the new 737s, especially the 738 which is the same size as the 727 in terms of seats, are almost 20 years newer than the 757.

N


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6720 times:

Huh?

The 757 and 737 don't have the same mission profile even today. The 757-200 is still larger than the 737-900 and both 757 models have greater range than the 737NG's. The 757 was developed in the late 1970's more as a replacement for the 707 (and the 727, if the 757-100 had been built). At the time the 757 was developed, the 737-200 and (later) 737-300 were both substantially smaller and had significantly less range.


User currently offlineBeltwayBandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

That's my point. 737 predated the 757, but at some point, a decision was made to develop the 737 into a 727 replacement, rather than pursue the 757 development. In other words, why do we have a 738 and not a 758?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6683 times:

The 757 was overkill for its mission - to replace the 727.

The 738 is a much more similar replacement.

The 757 does have a very different mission profile now... transcons and short transatlantic segments, and it is also a very powerful plane.

My guess is there WILL be something to replace the 757... just not yet.

N


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6679 times:

* Because a 757-100, which would be similar in size to a 727-200, would be a shrink and therefore less efficient (heavier).
* Because the 757's still have greater range; however, that range isn't needed for all routes.
* Because developing a 737-800 and -900 (and -400) allows airline customers to operate a simpler fleet if they already have smaller 737 models and don't need the range of the 757.


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

The 757 doesn't replace the 727, it replaces the 707 and the DC-8.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16280 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6655 times:

The 757 doesn't replace the 727, it replaces the 707 and the DC-8.

It was designed as the 722 replacement. Although adopted by all large US 722 operators, it has not been operated in as large numbers as the 722.

There was a planned 751 but it never got beyond the paper stage.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6649 times:

The 757 certainly never had the capability to replace the 707 and DC-8 on their intercontinental missions.

N


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6579 times:

The 757 certainly can fly intercontinental missions; TWA flew 'em from JFK to LIS and CO flies CLE to LGW (among other routes) with the 757. The 757-200's range is comparable to (and slightly longer than) the range of older turbojet-powered 707's. Newer 707's with JT3D turbofans had longer ranges (of up to 6000 miles).

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6486 times:

"I've often wondered why Boeing started the 757 program given that the 737 program pre-dated it, and has since effectively eclipsed the 757 in its mission profile."

In no way are the 737 and 757's program's comparable. First of all, the 737 (all versions) are designed for short-medium hauls missions, with quick turn around time and good short field performance. The 757-200's niche is to fly 180 passengers in a typical 2-class configuration anywhere from 2000-4000 miles (medium haul). The 757 is considerably larger than the 737-900. Not to mention that the 757 has the best overall performance than any narrowbody twin-jet out there today. Can you tell I love the 757?? hehe.

-Bryan



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineJustplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 722 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

The same reason that Boeing has decided to build any of the jetliners they have: Customers saw a need for the aircraft, and Boeing wanted to be the one to sell it to them. Considering that Boeing has sold over 1000 of the 757, obviously it was a good decision.


"So many planes; so little time..."
User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6202 times:

Getting back to the more-immediate question: Boeing also wanted a smaller narrow-body conterpart to the 767. They were designed so that the 757/767 would have common type ratings. In that respect, the 757/767 family as a whole can easily cover a range of 180-300 passengers, anywhere from short-long haul (more generally it will be medium-long haul though). If you have noticed, any airline that has a nice healthy order of 757's in their fleet also have 767's in one form or another (I'm in no means saying that ALL of them do though). Some quick examples of this would be:

American, United, Delta, Continental, US Airways, British Airways etc. etc. etc.

The 757 program as a whole has been a great success for Boeing, even though it started out very slowly with barely any interest from the airlines.



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6119 times:

I believe the 757 program originally was developed under the 7N7 moniker as a 727-200 replacement--in fact, some of the early concepts looked a lot like today's 737-800 and 737-900 models!

UA actually wanted an extended stretch version of the 727 (aka. 727-300), but dropped the idea due to the original 1973-1974 oil crisis. Essentially the 757 filled the niche that the 727-300 would have filled--but it also evolved into a 707 and DC-8 replacement because airlines wanted a replacement for their aging 707 and DC-8 fleets for structural and fuel economy reasons.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

The 757 was designed to do several things, as people have mentioned:

Replace the 727 on short domestic runs as air traffic increased
Replace the 707 and DC-8 on transcontinental and shorter intercontinental runs
Maintain commonality and a common type rating with the larger and longer-ranged 767.

The 737 with transcon capabilities didn't appear until the NG, and is still only useful for thinner lines. The -900X will be the first 180+ passenger (and that's in one class config only) transcon machine in the 737 series.

And the 737's success has be predicated on the increasing power output of the CFM56 engines -- engines that certainly weren't as powerful during the 757 development.

As far as numbers sold, one great advantage the 727 had (and don't get me wrong, I believe the 727 was and is a great airplane, one of my favorites!) was that there was little competition during the 'gravy years' of 727 production. The 757, by comparion, has had the A320 and the 737 variants nipping at its heels during its life.

Steve


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8017 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

If I remember correctly, European airlines wanted the A320 due to the fact European-manufactured single-body airliners were rapidly aging in design (nobody wanted the BAe Trident 3E or the Dassault Mercere) and they wanted a plane that could carry between 125 and 150 passengers and meet new stricter rules for noise emissions. It's small wonder why among the first customers were AF and LH, both of which were in dire need of the plane.

The Next-Generation 737 became possible due in part to the A320 program. Remember, one of the engine choices on the A320 is an uprated variant of the CFM56 engine, and these uprated CFM56's became the basis for the 737NG engines.


User currently offlineLucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Of course it replaced British Airways ex BEA Tridents as well.

User currently offlineDeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

I have read and seen a few pictures about early 757 development. Early designs such as a wing-mounted twin jet with a t-tail were looked at-but that concept was dropped because of fears of running into deep stall problems. The 757 program was originally dubbed the 7N7, then N standing for Norton. Bob Norton was the 757 program director. As for the 727-300 that was made mention above, that's what really started the design of the 757. The 727-300 was a program called upon by United Airlines and it would feature a 220 inch fusealge stretch which would add about 30 passengers, a new landing gear, modifications and lengthening to the wing, and PW JT8D-217 engines (which are used on the MD-80 series, and the Super 27's converted by Valsan). It is hard to imagine that a basic stretch 727 concept evolved into the 757 as we know it.

Bryan



Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
User currently offlineMia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

Has anyone on this board ever flown the CLE-LGW route on a 752??? That seems like a stretch comfort-wise...


MIA777
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did Boeing Overpower The 757 To Such A Degree? posted Wed Nov 29 2000 10:29:17 by Skystar
Why Did Boeing Build The 720? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 15:34:57 by Swissgabe
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Why 20 Years To Use The 757 As Intended? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:36:37 by N328KF
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717? posted Mon May 1 2006 23:45:05 by RootsAir
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Does Boeing Have Any Plans To Extend The 757? posted Tue Jul 13 2004 03:48:24 by TriJetFan1
Why Did Twa Sell To Aa? And The Twa Story? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 22:57:23 by Bmi330
Why Did Boeing Move Its HQ To Chicago? posted Fri Aug 24 2001 02:20:25 by P&M
Why Did Boeing Choose The Number "7" posted Mon Aug 21 2000 17:37:46 by Euroflyer
Why Did Boeing Kill The MD90? posted Thu Apr 24 2008 12:48:15 by B767
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Why 20 Years To Use The 757 As Intended? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:36:37 by N328KF
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717? posted Mon May 1 2006 23:45:05 by RootsAir
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Does Boeing Have Any Plans To Extend The 757? posted Tue Jul 13 2004 03:48:24 by TriJetFan1
Why Did Twa Sell To Aa? And The Twa Story? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 22:57:23 by Bmi330