Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757  
User currently offlineDIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1783 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4637 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
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30537 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4614 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]

User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2264 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4609 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



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineYikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

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

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4249 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."
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4192 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!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30537 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4007 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."
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6343 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3998 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 :-)
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6817 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3953 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
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Short Field Performance 737 Vs 32X posted Tue Oct 7 2003 14:48:30 by Indianguy
American's 757's Vs TWA's 757's Engines posted Wed Oct 17 2001 17:43:58 by Zebfly2
737 Vs A319/A320 Gear Length posted Thu Jul 12 2001 18:48:29 by BUFjets
737 Vs. MD-80 posted Tue Sep 5 2000 20:54:35 by Redngold
737-900 Vs 757-200 posted Wed Jan 9 2002 00:27:15 by Zebfly2
757 Cockpit ER Vs Non-ER posted Wed Mar 28 2007 15:19:38 by Boeing767mech
BAe 146/ RJ Vs 737 Classic Which Burn More Fuel? posted Tue Jan 2 2007 00:04:00 by 747400sp
Continental's 737/757 Winglets posted Wed Dec 13 2006 06:48:16 by Mhsieh
757 Vs 767 posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:57:59 by Freight400
737-700W Vs A319 Fuel Burn Differences posted Sun Feb 12 2006 18:10:22 by Rsbj

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format