Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 767-100 - Pictures/Drawings?  
User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4660 times:

I've read about Boeing's 767-100 that was supposed to b launched together with the 767-200. The -100 was supposed to b shorter, but how much shorter? I think the -200 is short and stubby enough:  Smile

So does anyone know how much shorter it was supposed to be, and are there any drawings/shecmatics of it online?

(I presume a 757-100 was planned originally too)

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTranscon Guy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4519 times:

Try the Aviation Photography forum.  Smile

User currently offlineAirbus380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4481 times:

THe -100 was never planned, the -100 is the -200.

User currently offlineLubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4458 times:

IMO, it would look like the a310- stumpy. I like the A310, and stumpy looks cool sometimes, but I don't know how the 761 would've done.

User currently offlineAirbus380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4427 times:

There was never a planned -100 of the 757, 767, or 777. The -100s didn't sell very well. Boeing named the first derivative of a certain aircraft -200 to just attract customers.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4420 times:

Sos, bud, but the 761 was planned during development of the 762, but it came too close in capasity to the 752.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4405 times:

The 761 and 751 were never more than possible paper derivatives. The initial models were the 762 & 752.

At the time of their development (1978-1982 or so), the 721, 731 & 741 were all out of production and faring poorly on the used market...they were 'unfashionable' as airlines focused in the 722, 732, 742. There was the fear that a 761 or 751 would sell poorly right from the start. So Boeing used the -200 as the base model from then on.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4378 times:

There indeed WAS a -100 version of the 777 planned. The demand just never materialized.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

There was only talk about a 771. Was offered to SIA as an A310 replacement. SIA was not interested.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4334 times:

Yyz717 got it right. -100 variants were unpopular. The 707-100 was a big time gas guzzler lights years behind the classic 707-320, 727-100 not so bad but smaller aircraft than the -200 and about the same costs, 737-100 was a virtual nonstarter that sold about 30 copies (shorter body, problems with reverse thrust, landing flaps, engine nacelles; never delivered to a US airline), 747-100 was an underpowered maintenence nightmare with constant and expensive engine problems.

I was surprised to see Airbus christen the first A320 variant the -100, don't know if there are that many or if they are a lot less sought-after in the second-hand market, but they don't have winglets / wingtip fences so there was obviously SOME behind-the-scenes scrambling to improve the basic machine. The 757 and 767 (and 777) have kind of justified starting out with the -200 tag by not apparently needing any improvement in 20 years unlike their predecessors.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineReggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

As stated previously, the Boeing 777-100 was indeed considered. It was to be a shorter bodied version that could fly upwards of 9000 nautical miles. It was pushed as a solution for Singapore Air in its desire to fly Singapore-LAX non-stop. At the time, the thought was that this would be an ultra-long low density route. SIA did not go for it. Unknown to many, American Airlines was one of the biggest proponents of the 771. They were hoping to have it developed because of their intention of becoming a bigger player on the Pacific routes. They wanted to do DFW-SYD non-stop as well as NYC-SYD and ORD-SYD. However, they knew that they would not have the passenger demand to fill 772's or 744's. Oh well.

Thornton


User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

>There was never a planned -100 of the 757, 767, or
>777. The -100s didn't sell very well. Boeing named the
>first derivative of a certain aircraft -200 to just
>attract customers

Not true - There definately was a 767-100 planned, with a 180 passenger capacity. This is well documented. And as others have said, a 777-100 appears to have been thought of as well.

Manufacturers don't just start on 200 because it sounds cool. Usually the suffixes denote the stretching or shortening (ignoring the 737 middle generation) - A -200 model is usually shorter than a -300 for example. This is just to make room ahead of time for a shortening, if there is a demand. One example is the A330-100, that has been talked about but then was dropped as well.

Of course the A32X series has its own strange system...  Smile


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Sorry Transwede, I disagree.

I can remember the Boeing comments specifically in the devt stage of the 757/767...around 1978/79....saying they were concerned about the sell-ability of any -100's series aircraft. The 752/762 thus became the baseline aircraft. The lightly discussed 751/761 never were serious models.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

Yyz717, I never said that they were serious proposals. They obvously didn't get very far since they made such little sense. (At least the 767-100). I *know* it was dropped really early in the 767 design.

I just wanted to see some specs for curiositys sake...  Smile


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Cool Transwede.  Smile




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

You might want to try the Airlife's Airliners book on the 767 (if there is one yet). If there were drawing of the 761, they'd be in there.

User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Hey! What about the 717? It starts at -200 because Boeing reserved -100 for a new DC-9-10.

User currently offlineAloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

There WAS a planned 757-100. the first variant drawn on paper in 1981. It actually looked much like an A320. I saw a diagram of it somewhere but I forget where. I know it wasn't the Boeing site,

Boeing scrapped the idea because the airlines showed no interest. They were happy with their 727s at the time which the 757-100 was supposed to replace.

Aloha 737-200!!  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Hey Aloha 732...here's some Aloha trivia for you.

The 752 is only offered with RR & PW engine options. However, Boeing/GE briefly offered the CFM32 as a 752 engine option around 1980. The only airline to order the GE 752 was Aloha...they ordered 3. The recession of 81/82 caused them to cancel the order....no other airlines showed interest and the GE option was quietly dropped.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
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
Who Has Boeing's 767 Upgraded Interiors? posted Fri May 25 2007 18:28:41 by DIA
Boeing 767 Winglets Picture posted Fri May 4 2007 05:59:20 by MD90fan
Video Of Painting Boeing 767 In Silverjet Livery posted Sun Mar 25 2007 20:19:17 by AabFlyer
New Boeing 767-200LRF posted Tue Feb 13 2007 15:20:21 by CX747
Tap And Boeing 767 posted Tue Feb 6 2007 23:27:38 by Swissa330
Does Alitalia Operate The Boeing 767-400 posted Wed Nov 29 2006 20:13:42 by Continental123
Boeing 767 Enhanced Interior-which Airlines? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 13:15:05 by Debonair
AeroSur Boeing 747-100! posted Thu Oct 5 2006 20:18:34 by Ghost77
UA948 Operated With Boeing 767-300ER! posted Wed Oct 4 2006 15:09:28 by CV990