Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Boeing 757-100?  
User currently offlineAirworldA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10161 times:

Why is there no 757-100 sub series?


Pull off kid, it ill go.
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePIA747 From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10142 times:

From Answers.com

757-100
This is the initial design with 150 seat capacity which is the direct replacement of the 727. It failed to generate interest and was not built.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

Of course, such a plane would have generated plenty of interest 10 years later, but just like B waited way too long with the 753, they never seriously considered the 751. Imagine what airlines like CO and AA could do with a 4000nm 751 rather than the less capable 738s they have now. Lots more medium range thin routes to Europe and Central/South America. Ultimately, there may be such a plane in the 737/757 replacement model.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10085 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
there may be such a plane in the 737/757 replacement model.

Yes, I expect there will be, but more capable of course due to technical advancements. My guess is 5000nm range, despite a larger cross section.


User currently offlineAirworldA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9975 times:

Thanks for the replies guys.

[Edited 2005-09-25 13:13:25]


Pull off kid, it ill go.
User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9941 times:

Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull. (737-100, 747-100, etc..)

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting Gregg (Reply 5):
Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull

Really??? I was wondering why they didn't do that. But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.
Personally, I hate the recent trend with Airbus and Boeing to start with the 800 series (787-8/A388). Maybe Boeing will name the 783 the 787-200 or something, but it seems Airbus must have the 8 as much as possible in the designation of the a380.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9848 times:

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.

I believe the 771 became the 764 for Continental and Delta.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Personally, I hate the recent trend with Airbus and Boeing to start with the 800 series (787-8/A388). Maybe Boeing will name the 783 the 787-200 or something, but it seems Airbus must have the 8 as much as possible in the designation of the a380.

I read somewhere the 8 figures so much because of its association of luck in Asia. The Asian market is one of the most lucrative, and both manufacturers are pitching their future prospects on aircraft for this region. Thus they are trying to appeal in as many ways as possible to receive contracts.


User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9815 times:

Then why didnt they name the -200 a -100???

And the same question goes to the 787 and A380 that both start with 800 series...



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
Then why didnt they name the -200 a -100???

They left the designation open incase a model was ever forthcoming, which evidently never came.

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
And the same question goes to the 787 and A380 that both start with 800 series...

See above.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9634 times:

>> Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull. (737-100, 747-100, etc..)

No, that isn't why. Boeing started with the -200 model on the 757, 767, and 777 to leave the door open for a shrink at a later date. At some point, a shrink of all these aircraft were considered, at least conceptually.

>> Really??? I was wondering why they didn't do that. But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.

Boeing considered a shrink of the 777-200ER as a first attempt at a Ultra-Long Haul (ULH) aircraft. It would have competed with the A342. The problem was high seat/mile cost, and teneous passenger/cargo economics.

>> I believe the 771 became the 764 for Continental and Delta.

Boeing offered both a lower MTOW shrink of the 777-200 and a double-stretched 767. CO and DL opted for the 767-400ER, and Boeing planned a mid-life upgrade called the 767-300ERX and -400ERX. Both add-ons were stillborn, and years later, the 787 ultimatly replaced Boeing's midsized widebody niche.


User currently offlineAirworldA320 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9598 times:

Now would like to see a shrink of the 767-200!!!  laughing 


Pull off kid, it ill go.
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9558 times:

I don't know where you people have been, but the 757-100 flies!!

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Fu Ling Yu
Template © Fu Ling Yu



Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Fu Ling Yu
Template © Fu Ling Yu



Quoting AirworldA320 (Reply 11):
Now would like to see a shrink of the 767-200!!!

Got them too!!


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Justin Cederholm
Template © Justin Cederholm



Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Joe Perez
Template © Jeremy Irish/Cactus Wings



 cheeky 


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9174 times:

I'm not sure I agree that the -100 models of Boeing airliners weren't successful. Though relatively few 737-100s and 747-100s were built, it's not fair to say they weren't successful; rather they were replaced by improved models.

[Edited 2005-09-25 18:15:37]


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9123 times:

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
No, that isn't why. Boeing started with the -200 model on the 757, 767, and 777 to leave the door open for a shrink at a later date. At some point, a shrink of all these aircraft were considered, at least conceptually.

I seem to recall this as well. Boeing considered a shorter length shorter range model of the basic 757 but the idea didn't catch on. However, the 737-100 and 747-100 were built, as intended, from the start. You will recall the "shrunk" version of the 747 became the SP.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8987 times:

There was a proposed 761 as well, and B started with the 200 models of the 757 and 767 because you start in the middle of the size market on a plane that will come in multiple sizes. B did not first envision stretching the 767 to a 400 length, which led to the need for a modified wing and lack of range.

As for the "new" 751 type plane, I don't expect to see a plane of that size with a range of 5000nm. But you could see it with a range a few hundred miles longer than the 752. Maybe enough for DFW/IAH to the UK.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUltrapig From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 590 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8901 times:

So just exactly how does a 757-200 compare to a 737-900x in tersm of seats cabin size cargo capaicty and range. It alwasy seems to me that the 757 cabin is larger and taller than a 737 when I board one is that an Illusion? I know the widths are the same are the heght's the same

User currently offlineBomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7922 times:

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 16):
So just exactly how does a 757-200 compare to a 737-900x in tersm of seats cabin size cargo capaicty and range. It alwasy seems to me that the 757 cabin is larger and taller than a 737 when I board one is that an Illusion? I know the widths are the same are the heght's the same

Yeah, I've always noticed the 757 to be a MUCH more comfortable plane then the 737. right up on par with the A32X's for me. Why dose it have this illusion, because people on here have been constantly saying that they're the same.

Peace  box 



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently onlineTripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1124 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7878 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

B probably didn't build them because of passenger comfort. Given the performances of the 752, I doubt the passengers would like a 30-40 degree AOA climbout on a 751 (w/ winglets)  biggrin   bigthumbsup 


No plane, no gain.
User currently offlineFaroeFlyer From Faroe Islands, joined Aug 2005, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7790 times:

also i heard airbus started their A380 with a -800 to let people know there would be no NG (so "just buy it now").


Cast your dancing spell my way...
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7766 times:

Also, -100 sounds like it is the prototype, unfinished version. Market research also helped lead the company away from the designation. If the idea is we have an untested version (-100) compared to a highly tested version (-200, -300, etc), companies will go for the version with the higher numbers. Don't really know why, but that's what the market research shows.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2476 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7747 times:

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 12):
I don't know where you people have been, but the 757-100 flies!!

The people who edited those pictures must be pro's.. looks like the planes actually exist... I love that B751 and the B761 looks ok too.. atleast the one in the air


User currently offlineFaroeFlyer From Faroe Islands, joined Aug 2005, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7738 times:

Quoting Texan (Reply 20):
Also, -100 sounds like it is the prototype

You're quite right. -100 does sound prototypish.



Cast your dancing spell my way...
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

Prototypish? Nonsense. Explain the multiple Airbus models that start with -100, then. They don't seem prototypish to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hines
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marco Toso - SpotIT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorge Meneses



User currently offlineCORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7283 times:

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 23):
Prototypish? Nonsense. Explain the multiple Airbus models that start with -100, then. They don't seem prototypish to me.

Those are ACTUAL airbus models. The 751 and 761 shown in the other posts DON'T exist. IF there had been those models, the names would be 757-100 or 751 and 767-100 or 761. BIG difference between that and the Airbus planes you are showing. The A319 and A321 ending in -100 are in no way related to the discussion about the 757-100.....

Not sure if that makes sense but it does to me!!!!!!  crazy 


25 GQfluffy : Not sure why you say that. The exterior fuselage width of the 707, 727, 737, and 757 are the same. The interiors are within an inch of each other.
26 Bomber996 : It just seemes that the interior of the 757 is bigger. Atleast on US and AA compared to their 737's.
27 Ultrapig : I'm not saying the 757 cabin is bigger just that it sure seems that way when you get on one-does anyone know whay is it just becaus eits higher off th
28 797 : Damn! Those are ugly jets!
29 GQfluffy : Because it's longer...maybe... *shrugs...
30 Ikramerica : 757s are taller inside than 737s. Further, the 757 is a tube, the 737 isn't. The 737 is narrower at the front for a long length, has a relatively shor
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 No UA 757-200 Ops Across The Atlantic? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 20:48:51 by DptMAN
Boeing 757-100? posted Fri Jul 1 2005 14:33:38 by Goinv
Why No Shortened 757? posted Sat Nov 6 2004 03:10:51 by Lrgt
Why No Boeing 727's In Europe? posted Tue Aug 24 2004 14:53:18 by Rwylie77
Differnce Between 738 And 739? Why Not The 757-100 posted Mon Aug 19 2002 18:33:53 by Airmale
Why No T-tail/rear Eng. Boeing Aircraft Since 727? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 20:19:54 by 1337Delta764
Why No Bin Extensions On NW Or US 757-200s? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:47:57 by 1337Delta764
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:17:11 by Albird87
Why No 757's In India? posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:49:08 by Deaphen
Why No 757's At Sydney? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 04:19:21 by Final47