TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3245 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:
So does anyone know how much shorter it was supposed to be, and are there any drawings/shecmatics of it online?
Lubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3043 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.
Airbus380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3012 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.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2990 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.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 7708 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2919 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
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2908 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.
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2892 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...
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2887 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.
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2888 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...
Aloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2758 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.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2733 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, 
, 7708 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
