Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757-100  
User currently offlineHoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3024 posts, RR: 52
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I got this from a Korean website. There was a Boeing 757-100 but it was never used by airlines. Is this true?


The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

The 757-100 looked like a more graceful A320 the version was dubbed the "7-7" if im not mistaken, wish it had gone into production and replaced the older design of the 737, that wouldve meant that Boeing wouldnt have produced the 737-400/800 versions and instead provided a much better aircraft and a true competitor with the A320, hope they still do produce it Smile


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1602 times:

Actually I had a picture of the "7-7" in a book that I bought sometime in the early 80s, the aircraft looked like a short fuselage version of the 757 but it did not have an APU outlet at the end like on the 757 and the horizontal stabilizers went right upto the end part where the APU outlet should have been, it was a nice looking plane wonder why Boeing dropped the idea, was that the 757-100 or was the "7-7" a totally different aircraft Confused


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

Airmale,
The 737-800,900 flies further, faster, and higher, using less fuel then the A320. Only advantage the A320 has is a wider cabin.

why didn't boeing build the 757-100. Shortening a/c will produce a heavier a/c then a lengthed shorter a/c. So Boeing went for the 737-800/900 as the 727-200 replacement. Granted a 757-100 would have a longer range.


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

That would have been nice to see, but the 737NG's sure are great planes, unfortunatly restrictions placed on boeing by a few customers, namely southwest prevented boeing from making a really superior airplane, the 737NG had the potential to be a min 777, but demands from large customers like southwest for commonality and cheap crew training upgrades from older 737's keep many new more advanced systems, and changes from being used/made in the new planes.


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineAmerican767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

I didn't think the 757-100 was ever real. Back when I flew like five years ago on a 757, I asked the pilot if the plane was a 757-100 or 757-200 and he told me that the 757-100 didn't even exist. O well, thats what I thought.

User currently offlineAdvancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Hi there,
What you are refering to wasn't
to be a 757-100 per se. It was just
a simple design proposal for the future
727 successor. The photo in your old
book depicted a plane with a t-tail
just like the MD-80 or 727 but with
engines mounted underwing, right??
The official naming and designation
757-100 never came to pass.
Boeing intentially named their first
proposed 757s-200s just like they did
with the 767s and later on the 777s
for a so to speak a nominal airframe
that accoring to airline demands be
either extended or shortened. The history
and logic behind this is quite psychologial.
When you look back at Boeing's first
100 series aircraft as in 747's 737's
and 727's, most customers wanted to
wait for the next development/improvements
that would have been learned from the
-100 (first generation) airframes.
That is why Boeing opted to designate
these 757's and the rest already -200
to give customers the impression that these
airplanes have been already perfected
on the one hand and secondly, if some
customer wanted a shortened version
there would still be room to revert to
a -100 designation. Remeber the good
747-SP? It would have been called a 100s
airplane had Boeing named the original
747's -200s.
Kindest regards.
Advanced


User currently offlineSunAir From India, joined Jun 2009, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

Í've also wondered why Boeing never gave the 757,767,777 families -100 designations.

Advancekid -

Thanks mate for your post. I have learnt quite a bit from it. So I've put you on my respected users list!

SunAir  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineAdvancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

..You're welcome mate.
Thanks for adding me to your respected
list. I will add you also some time soon.
BTW, you have a nice name for an airline.
Some of my favorite 747's are SAA's
especially in the old colors.
Do you know if any in the old SAL colours
is/are still around?
Kindest regards.
Advanced


User currently offlineSunAir From India, joined Jun 2009, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Hi Avancedkid...

Yep the name is a cool name for an airline. And was the name of an airline. Sun Air used to be a domestic operator here in South Africa, before they went bankrupt. And this was all in thanks to SAA, who did their usual thing of controlling the South African airline monopoly. So I don't like SAA too much.  Pissed


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Eddy Cuperus



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Eddy Cuperus



As for your other question, I stand corrected, but I think I can pretty safely say that every aircraft in the SAA fleet has been painted into the new livery.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © John Kelly



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Dean Straw


My favourite of all of them.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Rico Reuter


My least favourite.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw


I love this one.

And I thought you guys might be interested in the following. These types weren't discussed here and I think we should give them some consideration...  Laugh out loud


The Boeing 757-100SP

The Boeing 767-100SP

The Boeing 777-100SP


Cheers - SunAir  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineAdvancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1389 times:

Hi SunAir,
interessting photos, you posted.
In Germany I loved seeing SAA's
747's and I remember some of their
names because I took photo's of them.
Magliesberg, Swartberg and Waterberg.
They flew to Hamburg for a while with
a stop on both ways in Munich from
and onwards to JNB.
To me, hey were the coolest and at
the same time most decent looking 747's.
By the way what do you think about Comair?
Are they affiliated with SAA besides
being a connector airline for BA?
I love their 727s. These have been
previously with Lufthansa and now they
look real cool in those "cultural" BA colours.
Don't you think?
I can't recall hearing about SunAir,
but Flitestar sure rings bells.
I think the paint scheme of SunAir
is/was a bit boring, I could have done
a better looking simple design for them!!
Enough for now, I really went way off
the main topic of this thread and other
people reading this would sure be annoyed.
Kindest regards.
Advanced


User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

The –100 subfix was dropped by most manufacturers, because of the fact that it was usually seen as a relative failure. E.g B737-100, B727-100, B747-100, L1011-1, DC10-10 and A320-100 were all very quickly replaced by more capable –200 models. There was therefore a stigma against getting any –100 version. The marketing departments decided to get around this problem by just making the first in a series the –200 or above….

So B757-200, B767-200, B777-200, A340-200, A330-300, rather than –100.


User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1347 times:

Advancekid-Sorry to disappoint you but the model in my book was definitely a short fuselage 757 and not an MD90 type aircraft as you mentioned, it did not have a "T" tail, the aircraft you are referring to was to be jointly builr by McDonnell Douglas and Fokker.


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1344 times:

The aircraft with the "T" tail and wing mounted engines to be produced by Fokker and McDonnel Douglas was called the "mdf-100", the 757 look alike that im talking about was called the "7-7".


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1324 times:

Advancedkid:

You are so sadly mistaken it's not even funny. There is no 'psychologial' reason why Boeing decided not to put a -100 designation on the 757.

Okay everybody, lets set the record straight.

When Boeing first designed 757, there were to be two versions that were to be sold to airlines, the 757-100 and 757-200. The 757-100 was a 150-170 passenger version with lower MTOW but I believe a greater range, and the 757-200 as we all know it today.

All of the early buyers of the 757 opted for the greater capacity 757-200, so the 757-100 was dropped.

The history of the 767 is the same, the 767-100 was a shortened 180 passenger version, with the 767-200 holding about 40 more passengers. Again early adopters of the 767 all wanted the higher capacity model, and the 767-100 was dropped.


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...
Does Anybody Have Drawings Of 757-100 Or 767-100? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 21:49:54 by OyKIE
Why No Boeing 757-100? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 11:13:26 by AirworldA320
Boeing 757-100? posted Fri Jul 1 2005 14:33:38 by Goinv
Was There Ever A 757-100? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 17:55:24 by Dan2002
Differnce Between 738 And 739? Why Not The 757-100 posted Mon Aug 19 2002 18:33:53 by Airmale
757-100, 767-100, 777-100 posted Tue Jan 15 2002 18:00:24 by Rj777
757-100 posted Sun Aug 19 2001 10:40:35 by Hoons90
What Is An AA 757 Doing At CDG? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:17:12 by Albird87
FAT 757 Fly Too Close To TG Plane: Hit Turbulence posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:56:37 by Jimyvr
Satellite TV On Delta 757? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 09:01:58 by Copaair737