DIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1911 posts, RR: 4 Posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5955 times:
I would like to know if Boeing, at any point of time, considered a shorter version of the 757-200, maybe in the place of the 737-700 ? While the basic 737-200 fuselage has more than proven itself, it is rather sad that the 757 program came to such an abrupt end (Such a nice looking aircraft). Could it have been done?
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2593 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5930 times:
The 737-900 basically falls under this category. With the advent and production of the 737-900ER we'll see how she performs in the real world as an almost 757-200 replacement and A321 rival.
(From my experience working 737-900's with CO...the regular 900...the aircraft is a pig. It doesnt get up off the ground well, it takes forever to slow down, and its final approach speeds are not comparable to the 757-200 or to the classic 73's. The 737-700 is a good aircraft, the -800 is decently good, but the 800 doesnt slow down well).
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7544 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5274 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4): Pity they didn't retain the T-tail. It was considered but I guess they came to their senses when someone reminded them the engines were under the wings this time.
A T-tail has no place on an airplane that doesn't require it because it adds unnecessary weight and complexity. If you have engines that need to be cleared or are landing on unimproved strips and want to minimize potential damage from debris thrown up then it makes sense; but if you are building a conventional plane with engines on the wing and that will only be landing on paved runways then you have rocks in your head if you put a T-tail on it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler