Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 757-100?  
User currently offlineGoinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 264 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14049 times:

Does anyone know why Boeing skippep the 757-100 and went straight into 757-200 production.

I can't find any reference to the 757-100 anywhere - if indeed it didi exist.

Thanks


Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14024 times:

Boeing did plan a 757-100, as a 727 successor back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the 757 program was taking shape......the 751 would have sat about 160 passengers in a typical F/Y configuration, making it slightly bigger than the 727-200A (the most popular aircraft of its time).

Launch customers for the 757 series, EA and BA, were both more interested in the 757-200, with about 180 seats in a typical layout and excellent per seat operating costs, and it became the baseline aircraft.....DL and NW, other early 757 customers, also wanted the extra seats offered by the 757 as they were using the type to replace everything from early 727s to 707s to DC8S aircraft. The 751 was not developed further. Also remember, that the 757 program got off to a rather slow start, BA and EA launched the type but it took years for Boeing to land additional orders for the 757, thus Boeing settled on building only one variant of the 757, being the 757-200.

Of course, later on, the 757 sold very well, especially to US carriers, and all of the legacy carriers acquired large fleets of 757s......the 753 came much later (too late in my opinion) and the rest, as they say, is history.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13780 times:

1050 units is more than very well!

Was there ever a 761 design as well? Would have been damn short...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13769 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):

Was there ever a 761 design as well? Would have been damn short...

Redundant.


User currently offlineWayfarer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13740 times:

how about 777-100? I do not know if 777-100 was ever proposed?

User currently offlineUnited_Fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7483 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13739 times:

Also,the 727-300 was proposed first,then that turned into the 757.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13441 times:

There were 761 and 771 studies as well - none of which made it to production.

The 761 study proposal was a shortened variant of the 762 baseline aircraft with about 180 seats (I think a 3 row reduction) in typical F/Y configuration (remember, this was before elaborate business class and sleeper seats came onto the scene)......the aircraft was overwinged and the operating numbers were not great, thus the 762 became the standard aircraft quickly followed by the streched (and far more popular) 767-300 variant along with ER versions. The 764 again came much later, again, too late in my opinion.

And, there was a 771 study as well - actually there were a couple: one idea was a short fuselage 777 with about the same pax capacity as the 764......its almost as if Boeing had to chose between building a larger 767 or a smaller 777 and went with the 764 due to the requirements of Delta and Continental (the only customer for the 764 in the end)......did Boeing make the right choice? Who knows, while the 764 only sold to its launch customers, the 771 was a shrink aircraft that proabably did not have great operating economics (shrinks never do) and no airline seemed to be interested in this 771 anyway. The second 771 study was an ultra long haul variant of the 772 (think 747SP) with a shorter fuselage, longer range and less pax capacity, this proposal did not fly as the airliners wanted at least the capacity of the 772 model. It was rumored that SQ and AA took a long hard look at the 771 before passing on the type.

Finally, there was 727-300 proposal, a streched 727-200A, but this proposal became moot as the 757 program developed. UA, at the time, was pushing Boeing to produce the 723 but it never happened.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13391 times:

Due to the general poorer sales records of the 721, 731, and 741 and their relative market "unfashionability", Boeing decided that the 752 and 762 would be the baseline versions. The 751 and 761 were not serious offerings. It wsa a marketing decision not to offer -100 versions of the 757 etc.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 1):
Boeing did plan a 757-100, as a 727 successor back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the 757 program was taking shape......the 751 would have sat about 160 passengers in a typical F/Y configuration, making it slightly bigger than the 727-200A (the most popular aircraft of its time).

No. The baseline 752 was the Boeing choice for the 722 replacement. There was no 751 planned.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13366 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Was there ever a 761 design as well? Would have been damn short...

There was a proposal, a much more serious one than on the 751, but it was never pursued because of horrid CASM and lack of interest

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 7):
No. The baseline 752 was the Boeing choice for the 722 replacement. There was no 751 planned.

The 751 was studied, though it was as a shrink of the existing 752. Boeing decided to stick with the 737 for lighter tasks.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13344 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 7):

No. The baseline 752 was the Boeing choice for the 722 replacement. There was no 751 planned.

Was a 751 planned? NO.

Was a 751 studied at one time? YES.

Neither of us is right or wrong here, its a word game. While the 751 was looked at, it never was given much real attention or effort and did not make it beyond the drawing boards. Once EA and BA committed to the 752, the 752 became the baseline aircraft and the 751 became history.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13328 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
The 751 was studied, though it was as a shrink of the existing 752.

The 751 was never firmly offered or marketed by Boeing. No airlines showed any interest. It was at best a vague paper concept mentioned only in passing.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAbirdA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 290 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13274 times:

For anyone interested, this is my first post on A.net. I joined today after lurking for over 2 years soaking up the insanity of the forums.

My understanding is that the only serious proposal of those that have come up in the course of this thread was the 777-100. In the early 1990s, when Boeing began it's working together strategy with AA, QF, DL, NH, UA, BA, CX and JL, the studies ultimately boiled down to a need for A, B and C market aircraft. UA and BA launched the 772 sized airframe in A and B market MTOW's respectively. At the time, GE90 and Trent 800 were both topping out under 100k and the Pratt was struggling to get even that far. The prevailing wisdom at the time was that inorder to produce a C market aircraft, a shorter 777 with lower empty weight would be the largest airframe able to achieve the C market using existing engines. Remember, this was still the early 1990's and Boeing was lacking assurance from powerplant manufacturers that the uprated GE90s or a theoretically uprated Trent would make it to the market.

Boeing had hoped to bring the 777-100 to market in 1999, but by that time, airlines had balked at the horrendous economics of the 771 and the promise of 110k+ thrust engines loomed. As recent months in 2005 have proven, the result of the wait was the 777-200LR and 777-200F, which finally fulfills Boeing's desire to cater to A, B and C markets with the 777 line.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13259 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Was there ever a 761 design as well? Would have been damn short...



Quoting Wayfarer (Reply 4):
how about 777-100? I do not know if 777-100 was ever proposed?

As has been said, yes and yes, but as has also been said, they never got far.

And here are a couple of pics to take us down memory lane:

http://www.rosboch.net/various/787-300_Proposal_to_redesign_727.jpg



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13182 times:

Looks like an MD90 with a 727 nose, and winglets.


Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 13148 times:

Quoting D950 (Reply 13):
Looks like an MD90 with a 727 nose, and winglets.

Indeed. But the similarities with the MD-80/90 fool the eye. This plane is larger, with 3-3 seating.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13131 times:

Meaning more middle seats (just kidding)!!


Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13108 times:

The 787-300 shown is actually a 727 with different engines and tail. It doesn't "look like an MD-80" any more than a 727 does, other than missing the third engine. Interesting that the drawings were from 2001, when the 757 was already long on it's way. They skipped the 777 even then... Was there a 777 already on the drawing board in 1981? If so, it sure isn't the one we know, since that was first seen as a 767 derivative.

Obviously, the taller 757 design finally agreed on allowed for underwing engines and a non-T tail (unlike the Braniff 227 model), and it made a "727 evolution" redundant.

Would there be a benefit to having a T-tail on a jet even without rear mount engines?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13007 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Would there be a benefit to having a T-tail on a jet even without rear mount engines?

The only obvious reason to go for this configuration is, when you want to make the plane "longer" what means, to bring a distance between the wing and the stabilizer, but also the rudder. This will make you up an aerodynamically more stable plane. A good example for is the Beech King Air F90, which is a T-Tail 90 but got good aerodynamical improvements trough this confirguration.
Sure, what I explain here does not really apply to an aircraft like a 757 which is already a nice long and sleek aircraft. So in this case, it could have been nothing than commonality in production.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12985 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 10):
The 751 was never firmly offered or marketed by Boeing. No airlines showed any interest. It was at best a vague paper concept mentioned only in passing.

Again, like I said, it was STUDIED.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12919 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Interesting that the drawings were from 2001, when the 757 was already long on it's way.

I think we should take that date with a grain of salt. Looks like the date and the logo were added later.

I can't remember the story with the T-Tail on some early 757 proposals.. Maybe Boeing just had a lot of experience with the shape and could reuse some parts. Or something. Legacy135s answer seems more plausible.

[Edited 2005-07-01 23:25:49]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12915 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):

I think we should take that date with a grain of salt. Looks like the date and the logo were added later.

I can't remember the story with the T-Tail on some early 757 proposals.. Maybe Boeing just had a lot of experience with the shape and could reuse some parts. Or something.

The dates are odd, I do not understand either.

Early 757 proposals (I think that the project was called the 7N7 early on) did feature a T-Tail, the T-Tail was dropped when the 757 and 767 projects became more closely alligned and the 757 took the same tail as the 767 family - the original 757 proposals also shared a cockpit design with the 727/737 - that was also later changed so that the 757 and 767 had a common design.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10075 times:

It appears Boeing leaves the -100 model number open so that, should they decide to produce a shorter version of the basic airplane, they have an appropriate model number to assign to it. I recall Boeing studied a shorter version of the 757 and I believe they also studied a shorter version of the 777-200 as well. Not sure about that last item though.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineIberiadc852 From Spain, joined May 2005, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9898 times:

Perhaps this is not a valid aeronautical argument, but it looks like the -100 version is the logical conservative option that Boeing has chosen for their new models for the case that commercial aviation grew at a slow rate; so I think that can explain such few (if any) -100 successful versions and because of all that I also think it's unavoidable a psychological negative feeling about these versions in any possible buyer.


variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9683 times:

Quoting Iberiadc852 (Reply 22):
Perhaps this is not a valid aeronautical argument, but it looks like the -100 version is the logical conservative option that Boeing has chosen for their new models for the case that commercial aviation grew at a slow rate; so I think that can explain such few (if any) -100 successful versions and because of all that I also think it's unavoidable a psychological negative feeling about these versions in any possible buyer.

I may be wrong but I don't agree. If aviation grows slowly, the last thing you want is a heavy-per-seat shrink for long thin routes. You want larger planes for your trunks.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9664 times:

I was reading 01 but thinking in my mind 81, because 01 makes no sense at all.

Anyone know when these drawings were made? Evolution of the 727 is pointless in 2001, though it does say (for today's market), but the engines look relatively new and high bypass.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Iberiadc852 : I also might be wrong, but I think the main reason that has afforded aviation to raise the aircrafts overall capacity is growth. The last moment you
26 AR1300 : Starlionblue, interesting pics.... Mike
27 Starlionblue : I may have been unclear. Shrinks are no good for a slowly growing market since the long thin routes will be the last to grow. If you have a weak mark
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...
Boeing 757-100? posted Fri Jul 1 2005 14:33:38 by Goinv
Would A 757-100 Have Succeeded? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 18:09:13 by 1337Delta764
AeroSur Boeing 747-100! posted Thu Oct 5 2006 20:18:34 by Ghost77
India & The Boeing 757 posted Thu Sep 14 2006 20:19:46 by Kiramakora
Boeing 757 At SJC Vid & Question... posted Wed Aug 30 2006 07:17:52 by SJC-Alien
Girjet Boeing 757 Flying For Spanair? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 17:12:19 by Airevents
Boeing 757-400? posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:45:32 by ContinentalGuy
Harmony Boeing 757 Cabin Plan posted Tue Apr 25 2006 00:57:06 by QB737
Last ANA Boeing 747SR-100 Super Jumbo Retires posted Fri Mar 10 2006 12:22:57 by Leelaw
Ariana Afghan Airlines Boeing 757 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 11:37:54 by Paulcaz