Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No More -100s?  
User currently offlineTony Lu From China, joined Sep 2000, 534 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4618 times:

Why aren't there any more planes with -100s at the end? There was a 747-100 so why not a 777-100? Does -100 sound bad? How about 767-100 or 757-100? Why isn't there any more -100s? Why did they suddenly stop with the -100s?


Tony

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4428 times:

There was going to be a 757-100 but they dropped it for a reason I forget, the 767-100 was dropped because it was too similar to the 757, and the 771 was dropped for reasons I forget again.


-dan



A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

I believe that both the 757-100 and 767-100 were short-body versions of the 752 and 762 respectively (or, perhaps more tellingly, the -200 versions were -100 stretches). At some point early on in the 757/767 programmes (possibly before launch?) the -100 versions were dropped, essentially because no-one was ordering them. Surely the 761 would have been far too short for such a wide fuselage, and encroaching on the 752's territory, and the 751 would I assume have again been too short for the overall airframe (bearing in mind the size of the engines and gear, and the general "big plane" design of the 752 relative to, say, the A321).

Would have been interesting if both 751 and 761 had gone ahead, I wonder what would have happened differently?

Oh, and similarly with the 777-100, it was a proposed shrink of the 772 that again probably would have been too much plane for the capacity...

Since the 757 and 767, the -100 designation seems to have gone out of fashion, with Airbus too. On a side note, the logic behind the 7E7's -3, -8 and -9 escapes me - presumably Boeing may well multiply the numbers by 100 at some point to fit in with their existing scheme, but why 3, 8 and 9...?

(Edited to add the thought that maybe the 751 and 761 could have sold despite possible overlaps with other Boeing products, given the existence of the 753 which was of course, capacity-wise, closing on the 762. Although we know how well the 753 sold by the time it was launched...)

[Edited 2004-07-13 19:11:35]

User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

The history of recent planes from both Airbus and Boeing has been the following:

-100 shrink
-200 baseline
-300 stretch

After such brilliant performaning shrinks as the 736 and A318 [/sarcasm] airlines have treated the shrinks like lepers. They are thusly dropped. It is, at this point, silly to change all the designations, so -200 becomes the lowest. There's also the interpeted reason that -100 sounds underdeveloped.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Anyone else here think that a Boeing 757-100 would appear remarkably similar to an Airbus A320? Same nose, same height off the ground, similar tail, similar empennage. Just curious.


redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineVSXA380X800 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 421 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

The history of recent planes from both Airbus and Boeing has been the following:

-100 shrink
-200 baseline
-300 stretch


I think the manufactures do that since they make larger jets and some manufactures make smaller, The larger aircrafts should start with 200 and 300s and the smaller with 100s. Second reason, because the larger aircrafts might seem to be more mature than the RJs.

I agree with L1011, the same thing with the A380.
-700 Shrink
-800 Baseline
-900 Stretch

Just about the same concept.



4 decks 4 engines 4 long haul
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

There are a number of current production aircraft with a -100 series designator:

A318-100
A319-100
A321-100

There was a proposal for a 777-100. This would have been a shrink of the 777-200, enabling a greater range (a 777SP if you want...). Instead, Boeing went for the 777X project, which started out as a trijet (the third engine being a 'thrusting APU', in the 30,000lb thrust range from memory), but eventually yielded the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

I am not certain if it is coincidence or not, but the 7E7-3 has a stated range of 3,500nm, and the 7E7-8 of 8,500nm. The 7E7-9 is a stretched 7E7-8.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4071 times:

There was indeed a 751. It was about the size of an A320 though slightly longer (not as long as A321). It was dropped because, for the amount of pax it carried, it was too heavy. The 737 was a better plane to use for the job the 751 would have done. Airlines weren't interested.

User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4068 times:

Nick,

Are you sure about with the aircraft? Is that one of 757-100 or A321-100. I am sure remember with fake photos with other website.

Regards!


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Re the 757 program, there was a 757-100 proposal that was quite far along in the development stage, it sat about 150 passengers. The 757 was originally developed as a 727-200 replacment, and the 751 was the closest in capacity to the 72S. Launch customers for the 757, Eastern and British Airways, each wanted the extra seating capacity offered by the 757-200 and that was the aircraft that went into production first. The next big order for the 757 was by Delta, who also wanted the seating offered by the 752, and Boeing never went any further with the 751 due to lack of interest by the airlines. Its strange how similiar in concept the 751 was to the 738.

Re the 767 program, Boeing did do some studies on a 767-100, a slightly shortened version of the 762 but nothing really ever came of it - the 762 was always considered the baseline aircraft for this program. When the streched 767-300 became available a few years later, almost all interest in the 767 program focused on the larger 763 and any plans to further develop the 761 were halted.

Re the 777 program, there have been two seperate projects that carried the 777-100 name......first was a simple shrink of the 772 which was presented to the airlines as an alternative to the 764 which did go into production. Key customers DL and CO believed that the 771 was too much aircraft, with too much wing and too much weight for their needs (especially DL which was looking for a aircraft to replace its L1011s on domestic services)....strange, if Boeing went with the 771 instead of the 764, they may have had a better product to compete with the A332, but that is another story. Later, Boeing proposed the 777-100LR as its ultra-longrange airliner, and it is rumored that AA was very interested in this proposal, but other target customers demanded more capacity (similiar to the 772) and Boeing went on to develop the 777-200LR instead. Airlines were concerned that the per pax operating costs of the 771 with its shorter fuselage would be too high (think 747SP).....it seems that SQ was much more in favor of the 772LR, now lets see if SQ orders the type.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Scotty - the 757-100 was studied, but never developed.

With regards to the A321, that's my mistake - the original was the A321-100, but this has since been replaced in production by the longer-reanged A321-200. The last A321-100 was c/n 1227, which first flew on the 9th May 2000, and is with ANA as JA107A, according to http://www.airlinerlist.com.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
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...
El Al:why No More 777s And 744s To CDG? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 15:56:51 by LY777
Why No More Tu-154 Freighter Conversions? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:54:56 by A342
Why No More Large Twin-jets? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:24:57 by TopJet001
Why No More Lowcost Turboprops? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 20:34:17 by Airevents
Why No More 747 Orders? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 15:28:17 by Emrecan
Why No More A380 Pics? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:53:14 by A380900
Why No More Air India In YYZ? posted Sat Apr 24 2004 17:08:46 by Flug
Why No More SAA Springbok? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 16:04:40 by RA-85154
Why No More Growth @ OneWorld? posted Thu Mar 25 2004 11:03:45 by Flying Belgian
Why No More Hawaiian 717s? posted Sun Jan 25 2004 04:12:37 by Cancidas
Why No More Premium Economy? And Why So Difficult? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 11:03:51 by EUROBUS
Why No More Beriev Be-200? posted Mon Aug 27 2007 13:51:17 by SIBILLE
Why No More Intl First On US posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:58:02 by Boeing 747-311
El Al:why No More 777s And 744s To CDG? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 15:56:51 by LY777
Why No More Tu-154 Freighter Conversions? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:54:56 by A342
Why No More Large Twin-jets? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:24:57 by TopJet001
Why No More Lowcost Turboprops? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 20:34:17 by Airevents