EconoBoy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 157 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
I saw an aviation TV program recently in the which the presenter, who is also a 757 First Officer, expressed the opinion that the 757 is the most over powered airliner in the sky. If this is so, why the excess power? Was it due to commonality requirements with the 767? And does it make the 757 a fun plane to fly, or lead to problems if you are unfamiliar with it?
Incidentally, the presenter is also lead singer with a heavy metal band: what a life some people have!
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
As an old F-106 pilot said in ground school:
"The only time an airplane is overpowered is if you are going straight up at flight idle and it pulls the wings off."
I found the 757 to be powerful but not mind-bogglingly so.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
BALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 358 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3904 times:
Friend of mine flies the 757 for Astraeus and he I asked him about it because I have heard this before too.
His answer: yes.
The 757 is overpowered, theres a lot more thrust than is required especially so with the RB211-535-E4 engine.
744lover From Brazil, joined Nov 2000, 164 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3867 times:
Hi there,
I had the chance to fly a RG 757 (PP-VTS) on its "test flight" on GIG.
We rolled out of VEM (Varig Engineering and Maintenance) hangar and headed to RW28. Just to feel the power, the pilot selected full thrust for takeoff and I can just say: WOOOW. I felt pasted to the seat and we reached FL120 in under 3 minutes.
It's a great plane and a shame that Boeing quit its producion.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3863 times:
"Overpowered" is a relative term. AA's 757s are "overpowered" for most North American flights, but are hardly "overpowered" for South American flights...especially the "high altitude" airports. Certainly as used by AA, the MD90 was considerably more "overpowered" than AA's 757.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
KYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3839 times:
IIRC, there were problems with tailstrikes when the 757 first came out, because it really "leaped" off the runway on takeoff.
Also, I heard that the 757 is the only airliner that can climb to altitude with its initial takeoff pitch up attitude. So yes, It has a lot of power to spare.
"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
Subjectively I thought the DC-9-15 outperformed it in climb. The only real test, though is to get actual numbers.
Thrust - Weight - Wing Area
compare those between the 757 and some others.
Frankly I'd be surprised if it compared favorably to a 737NG.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
The 757 (with RB211 535E4 engines) is not overpowered. The 757=200 variants have GTOW's ranging from 104 K kg to 114 k kg. At the lighter non-ETOPS weights, it PERFORMS. At the heavier weights, you don't want to lose an engine, especially at high density altitudes.
Tail strikes are a non-issue as they are largely a product of technique.
Air2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3741 times:
I was jumpseating once on a B757PF and we did a go-around from abour 10 feet RA (runway incursion). In my humble opinion, any full aircraft that can do a GA from 10ft, and never touch the ground, has a whole lot of power.
777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 874 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3692 times:
I was told which was said from a pilot, with the flaps down 5 or 20 deg and one engine to full thrust, the 757 would flip itself over.
3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3679 times:
The problem with comparing thrust-to-weight ratios is you have to know what weight to use. This is really a continuation of AAR90's thoughts. If you use the MTOW, the question is how often is a 757 at or near MTOW compared to other aircraft. From what I've seen, it's hard to get a 757 anywhere near its MTOW on a short/medium flight. So basing a T/W comparison on MTOW vs. basing it on what you're likely to see day-in/day-out for each aircraft type will give different answers. I have no way of measuring how often 757 is near MTOW compared to other aircraft, but I'd guess it's a lot less frequent.
It's probably not over-powered at all if you're a UK charter airline stuffing way too many people in flying anywhere further than LEXX, or CO flying it trans-Atlantic, or anyone flying it west coast to Hawaii... but for ATL-RSW in a two-class layout, that's another story.
BTW, it's my all-time favorite aircraft, so by no means am I bashing it.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3580 times:
What about the B752PF,That would be really loaded considering its cargo.
Im keen on knowing about it,cause we may be going in for Two in First Quarter 2006.
regds
MEL
Schooner From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 139 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3565 times:
Dunno about over-powered because its the only airliner I have flown so have nothing to compare it to but........makes performance planning out of poxy Greek airfields fairly easy, no need to worry about off-loading bags or stuff like that, you just go!
Cheers.
PS,last ferry flight, FL410 in 17 minutes using all the derates!
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3434 times:
I was told which was said from a pilot, with the flaps down 5 or 20 deg and one engine to full thrust, the 757 would flip itself over.
Not a chance. Someone's pulling your leg.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3426 times:
"I was told which was said from a pilot, with the flaps down 5 or 20 deg and one engine to full thrust, the 757 would flip itself over."
I'm with AAR90 on this one to some extent. In the first place if true it has more to say about the adequacy of the rudder than about the power. This is a VMC issue.
So, my notes say that the speed limit at flaps 20 is 195 knots. If your weight is such that your VMC was higher than that I'd have to agree.
The wonderful thing about VMC is that it is only at that value at full power. So reduce power. Too bad more light twin pilots never understood that.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3425 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
If you want to talk about impressive thrust to weight ratios, have a look at corporate jets.
For example, if you examine power loading (MTOW divided by total rated thrust), the Cessna Citation Encore comes in at 2.45.
That's better than the G550, BBJ, ACJ, etc. In fact, even the F-104 and F-4 carry around about 1.80 pounds of weight for every pound of thrust at MTOW.
Depending on engine choice, the 757 comes in at about 2.93. There are many variables I haven't gotten into, but the general comparisons remain about the same. In the end, bizjet performance is quite impressive.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
So reduce power. Too bad more light twin pilots never understood that.
I guess they don't understand how poorly most light twins fly on just one engine, do they?
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
Right.
I'd rather crash a symmetrical glider than land a light twin on its windshield.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
N808NW From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 374 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
If its so over powered then why do the 757's on the trans atlantic routes only make it to FL280?
-Jason
All flights have great IFE...get yourself a window seat, thats something no PTV can beat! flew 808 Pacific an Atlanic
Mconway From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3031 times:
If its so over powered then why do the 757's on the trans atlantic routes only make it to FL280?
I guess I must have dreamed working all those CO's 757's flying in the mid and high thirties on the Atlantic crossing The only reason a 757 would be limited to F280 on the crossing would be due to a lack of MNPS/RVSM certification.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
There is also the factor of wing loading.
On the B-727-200 with -17 engines, the engines would be happy to push the plane up to the thin air where the wings would no longer support it.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
Wouldn't it be better to have extra power, therefore one does not run the engine at full all the time and maybe the engine will last longer in addition to getting out of the airport faster than to bug stupid NIMBY monkeys? DUH!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
25 3201: > Wouldn't it be better to have extra power, Bigger (than needed) engines = more drag, more weight, and more $$$ to buy in the first place. You can be
26 AirbusA346: They guy you were talking about is in a band called Iron maiden and he flies for Astraeus, but can not think of his name. Tom
27 Schooner: Just to clarify, I wasn`t saying that it would flip itself over regardless......but if the a/p is in (AND you didn`t input any rudder) it would try to
28 AirbusA346: Does any body know when Bruce Dickinson was going to do that program at Boeing. Tom
29 AAR90: Just to clarify, I wasn`t saying that it would flip itself over regardless......but if the a/p is in (AND you didn`t input any rudder) it would try to
30 SlamClick: I believe that there is an element of truth in what he says but it would be true for just about any airplane with a thrust asymmetry. If you flamed on
31 2H4: I've heard P-51s and Spitfires can produce enough torque on takeoff and go-arounds to overcome aileron/rudder authority, if power is applied carelessl
32 Schooner: Thanks Slamclick. That is what I was trying to get across but I am unfortunately not the most eloquent of people when it comes to technical matters! C
33 AAR90: I believe that there is an element of truth in what he says but it would be true for just about any airplane with a thrust asymmetry. The"element of t
34 HAWK21M: Anyone having details on the B757-200PF version & the operators that use these Aircraft. regds MEL
35 Schooner: Sheesh! I never implied that it is the norm for this to happen.... Well, at least I have a request for my next sim check if there is any spare time at
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 157 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 358 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2000, 164 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
.
The only reason a 757 would be limited to F280 on the crossing would be due to a lack of MNPS/RVSM certification.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
