DALMD88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2847 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
Sounds to me like you just described a 737NG with a 757 cockpit section. I think I recall the 737/727 cockpit section is actually more aerodynamic than the 757 section. Boeing made slight trade off with the 757 so they could have a common 757/767 cockpit.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 28715 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
A shrunken 757 would have been much heavier and more expensive than the 737NG with similar capacity, thus not the most economic solution. Significant shrinks (e.g. A318, 737-600, 747SP) have rarely been successful or sold in more than token numbers for specific niche markets.
PurdueAv2003 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Thread starter): Say Boeing "E-jets" the 757 and gives it a different (smaller) pair of wings, smaller engines, smaller landing gears, and maybe a smaller tail?
Actually, you would probably have to have a LARGER tail. When you shrink the length of an aircraft, you loose part of the moment arm that the rudder acts upon. Thus, you would need a larger control surface to compensate (i.e. 747SP).
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3806 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2463 times:
Quoting Irish251 (Reply 3): As the 757, when launched, was designated as the -200 series, does this imply that a series 100 had been contemplated but was not favoured by any customer airlines at the time?
Yes there was a -100 design study. The wing was too big and the landing gear was too heavy.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis