Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757 — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

DIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1670 posts, RR: 5
Posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3815 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?

Thanks

Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing did consider a shortened 757-100 when the program was being developed, But it never went anywhere.

DutchJet wrote a nice synopsis on it here: Boeing 757-100? (by Goinv Jul 1 2005 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2007-06-17 21:19:39]

ATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2035 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3787 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).

ATCT

Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons

Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Remember that the 757 was the replacement for the 727...

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3427 times:

Quoting Yikes! (Reply 3):
Remember that the 757 was the replacement for the 727..

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.

[Edited 2007-06-20 03:57:40]

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo

HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting Yikes! (Reply 3):
Remember that the 757 was the replacement for the 727

But it was the B737-800/900 that put an end to the B757 program.

Considering the demand for B752s.I wonder if Restarting the Production line is a possibility.

regds
MEL

Think of the brighter side!

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 3190 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.

The real weird one was the "777" design study at the same time that had a 727 T-tail (with engine) in the back, plus the two engines slung under the wings.

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

The real weird one was the "777" design study at the same time that had a 727 T-tail (with engine) in the back, plus the two engines slung under the wings.

Hehe. While we're at it, does anyone (2H4?) have pictures of the Hunchback of Mukilteo?

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo

KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3176 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.

I'll bet some engineer's hearts were broken in Seattle when the 757 program manager informed the team that they couldn't retain the traditional Boeing narrowbody Section 41, either Wink

Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)

SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3131 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

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Username:	No username? Sign up now!
Password:	Forgot Password? Be reminded. Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)

Tech/Ops related posts only!
Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
No hostile language or criticizing of others.
Do not post copyright protected material.
Use relevant and describing topics.
Check if your post already been discussed.
Check your spelling!
DETAILED RULES

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: