Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 High-powered? Why?  
User currently offlineJawed From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 482 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14779 times:

I often see people on the forums implying that the 757 is especially high-powered for its size. Is this really true? What is this sentiment based on? Amount of thrust per weight of the plane?

And if it is true, why did the 757 designers decide to build it that way? Wouldn't that be considered a waste of resources? After all, why should a plane be more high-powered than other similar planes, if there is no specific reason for it?

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 4865 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14763 times:

I believe the power was given to the 757 to provide optimal performance in so called "hot and high" locations. This power can be attributed to the power to weight ratio but I'm sure the skinny body and other aerodynamics are a factor.

Additionally the 757 leaves a more pronounced wake behind it than similar sized planes. I could be wrong but I believe that the FAA mandated separation for 757s is higher than similar sized planes.

When you factor in the additional seating capacity of the 757 over say the 727 or 737 the additional power and cost of that power are justified.

This is my understanding... I love 757s my favorite one being the combi operated by RA

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14757 times:



Quoting Jawed (Thread starter):
Amount of thrust per weight of the plane?

Yes, thrust to weight ratio is generally the way to determine how powered a plane is.

Quoting Jawed (Thread starter):
why did the 757 designers decide to build it that way?

Someone else is going to have to help me out here, but I believe the 757 has so much power because it was supposed to be a 727 replacement. The 757 needed to get off the same runways as the 727 efficiently so the plane has a bit more power. I'll try to look it up if noone else corrects me.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14699 times:



Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
Additionally the 757 leaves a more pronounced wake behind it than similar sized planes.

Part of this comes from the narrow wingspan vs. the thrust amount. One way the A380 decreases it's wake profile is that it has 50 feet wider wings than the 744/A346/77W.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14682 times:



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Someone else is going to have to help me out here, but I believe the 757 has so much power because it was supposed to be a 727 replacement. The 757 needed to get off the same runways as the 727 efficiently so the plane has a bit more power.

That's also my undertandikng that the 757 was mainly intended as a 727 replacement. The 727 was originally designed for use on runways as short as 5000 ft, thus the 727s complex triple-slotted flaps.


User currently offlineZTagged From Niger, joined Oct 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14657 times:

I always thought it was because it shared everything but fuselage width with the 767..  rotfl 


Something awful.
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14632 times:

While the 757 was designed to be a 727 replacement, it instead replaced 707s and DC-8s on many domestic routes with U.S.-based airlines. Boeing did propose a 757-100 to directly replace the 727-200, but the 757-200 turned out to be too heavy to warrant a shrink. Boeing did not really offer a true 727 replacement until the 737-800 became available. The 737-400 was offered as an indirect 727 replacement, but was really more of a competitor against the MD-80. The A320 was really the first aircraft that was sufficient as a 727 replacement. Delta initially chose the MD-90 as their 727 replacement, however, with its lack of range and maintenance issues, Delta instead opted for the 737-800.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14578 times:



Quoting ZTagged (Reply 5):
I always thought it was because it shared everything but fuselage width with the 767..

It doesn't share its wings and engines with the 767 either. However, as I recall, the cockpit is basically identical and both the 757 and 767 were designed so they could be flown interchangeably by the same pilots.


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14579 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Given enough THRUST, lift is irrelevant Big grin Big grin Big grin Big grin

WILCO737 (MD11F)
 airplane 



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5316 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14493 times:

Yes, the 757 is high-powered. I'm bored and curious, so I'll make a chart. These are the thrust-to-weight ratios for various twin airliners, at the highest MTOW with the highest-thrust engine option (which is not the most common configurations in many cases, but I have to limit myself or I'll be here all day):

717-200HGW: 0.347
757-200: 0.341
737-700: 0.340
A310-300: 0.326
A300B4-605R: 0.325
MD-90-50: 0.325
A319: 0.324
A321: 0.320
A318: 0.320
757-300: 0.319
A320: 0.318
767-200ER: 0.314
737-800: 0.313
777-200LR: 0.301
767-300ER: 0.301
777-300ER: 0.297
737-900ER: 0.290
777-200ER: 0.285
767-400ER: 0.282
A330-200 and A330-300E: 0.280
MD-87: 0.268
MD-83: 0.263

Many other factors besides thrust-weight ratio go into takeoff performance (especially wing design) but the numbers are still interesting. The 757, in addition to having all that thrust, has a large (and well-designed) wing for a plane its size.

I don't know the history of why the 757 was developed to have such outstanding field and climb performance. Someone else will have to answer that.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14371 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
That's also my undertandikng that the 757 was mainly intended as a 727 replacement. The 727 was originally designed for use on runways as short as 5000 ft, thus the 727s complex triple-slotted flaps.

The 757 was created as a successor to the 727, and yes, to do some of it's roles. But it was a replacement for the 707/DC8s that were getting long in the tooth in airline fleets, for all the 3000nm and less routes those planes flew that didn't warrant the "luxury" of a widebody. EWR-transcons, MIA-west, etc. And there were plenty of those routes. The 757 also allowed airlines to economically expand into more of those kind of transcon and near transcon routes, as it was much cheaper to operate than other planes of that time that could do the same missions.

You didn't see lots of carriers replacing 727s with 757s, at least not at first. They flew side by side in many fleets for years (10-15) without carriers retiring 727s. The 757 took over the longer range roles while the 727 the medium range (DFW, ORD, STL hubs), and both were suitable for short runways or hot environments. And most carriers started finally replacing 727s with A320s and 738s.

This phenomenon was largely because the 727-200Advanced, which was the mainstay 727 in the 80s, was not old enough to need replacing at the time of the 757 EIS. When the 757 came out, the 722Adv first flown in 1972, were under 10 years old, and were designed to fly 20-25 years. With 900 of them delivered, that was a long time to wait for the 757 to become the 727 'replacement.' Many carriers, when they heard the 757 was going to replace the 727 on offer from Boeing, stocked up on 727s instead of jumping on the 757 bandwagon. Some it's best delivery years were right before it was phased out of production! Part of this had to do with ETOPS and the 727 being a tri-holer, meaning it could do what the 757 could not in many regions of the world. Also, the 727 was serviceable from the ground, still and important factor around the world in the late 70s and 80s, while the 757 was designed to fit into "first world" major airports where widebodies were serviced.

By the time the majority of 727 Advanced in service needed replacing (10-20 years after 757 EIS) the 757 itself was older technology compared to the A320 and 737NG, heavier with overpowered engines for many tasks. Now, some carriers with large 757 fleets continued to buy them to replace their oldest 727s in the late 80s/early 90s to avoid making the decision on the next fleet type, but they were only stalling, and the A320-200 and 738 were clearly targeted at the majority of 727 missions of that time: 2000 nm "longer" regional flights, and they were closer to the same size as the 727-200 than the larger 757-200. It's no coincidence that the 738 and 722 are certified for the same number of pax: 189...

And that is the story of how the 757-200, designed as the successor to the 727-200, found it's own niche in the world instead.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14315 times:



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 9):

717-200HGW: 0.347

I remember the first time I flew on a 717. Having been used to the DC-9s that FL had at the time, that rocket-like takeoff was a surprise.

I recently flew on a 757 for the first time in years and the takeoff really was like being shot out of a cannon. Full pax load too. I really didn't remember my two previous 757 flights being that way. Of course it may have had something to do with the departure patterns out of those airports (BOS and DCA).


User currently offlineUlfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14234 times:

They say round here that the 757 is the closest thing to a fighter jet that Boeing Commercial ever made.

User currently offlinePopski777 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14181 times:

Seabosdca any chance you could put up the thrust to weight ratio for the A340-300?  Smile

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14132 times:



Quoting Ulfinator (Reply 12):
They say round here that the 757 is the closest thing to a fighter jet that Boeing Commercial ever made.

 bigthumbsup   checkmark 

Nothing like riding in her on a half empty, 1 hour flight from a short field and you just rocket outta there. I must say though, the Mad Dog is pretty impressive also. I just REALY want to see Boeing make a viable single aisle 757 replacement.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14064 times:

In 1995 on a cold Saturday evening in October a flew a AA 757 from BOS-DFW with like 25 passengers on board...we were off in like 20 seconds.

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 14039 times:

Interestingly enough, no one has pointed out that the cruise speed of the 757 is somewhat lower than other large capacity planes, specifically the 767.

The angle of the 757 wing relative to the fuselage in an overhead view (the chord?) is less than other jets - in fact, I believe the 747's is the MOST swept back short of the Concorde. The less of a sweep-back, the lower the take-off speed, and vice versa. However, once airborne, the more the angle, the faster the cruising speed.

As I was told by a pilot, the 757 IS overpowered with certain engines. When coupled with THAT much power and a low take-off speed, you get a plane that is rarely if ever weight restricted on most of its routes. Certainly out of PHX and LAS in summer (with the exception of Hawai'i routes) a 757 gives the passenger the LEAST chance of being bumped due to weight restrictions.

Quote:
It doesn't share its wings and engines with the 767 either. However, as I recall, the cockpit is basically identical and both the 757 and 767 were designed so they could be flown interchangeably by the same pilots.

 checkmark 

Cross-certification is possible on the 757 (step down into the cockpit) and the 767 (step up into the cockpit.

Quote:
The 727 was originally designed for use on runways as short as 5000 ft, thus the 727s complex triple-slotted flaps.

Eastern and United were the launch customers for the 727, but they had VASTLY different needs for the plane. Eastern wanted an aircraft capable of taking off fully loaded with 100+ passengers from LGA's shortest runway and fly non-stop to Miami. United needed an airplane capable of taking off fully loaded from DEN Stapleton's shortest runway in the "hot and high" conditions.

Boeing developed the concept of "lift devices" - being able to increase the wing area by as much as 25% to lower the take-off speed, but retracting them after lift-off to enable a high speed cruise. This helped make the 727 enormously successful, and the same technology was fitted to the 757.

Coupled with an amazing increase in engine technology (MUCH more thrust!!), you have an over-powered sled rocket.  bigthumbsup 



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13995 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 16):
The angle of the 757 wing relative to the fuselage in an overhead view (the chord?) is less than other jets

Chord is the linear distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing. The angle of the wing to the fuselage is called sweep. The 757's wing is swept at 25 degrees.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13973 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 16):
Cross-certification is possible on the 757 (step down into the cockpit) and the 767 (step up into the cockpit.

They are, in fact, the same type rating.

NS


User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13933 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 15):
In 1995 on a cold Saturday evening in October a flew a AA 757 from BOS-DFW with like 25 passengers on board...we were off in like 20 seconds.

About 7 years ago I was on a DL 757 from LAX-LAS at 6:30am on a Saturday in December. There were 7 passengers on board. The pilot went for it since we were airborne in no time flat, pitch angle was not moderate, but extreme - it felt like a SNA departure, as we lifted off. From my window-seat on the starboard side I could see the theme building, the top of theme building as we were streaking upwards at a great climb rate. The plane ended up leveling off at the mandated 2500 ft. restriction BEFORE we got to the end of the runway. Damn, that was awesome. I confronted the crew as I left the plane in LAS and they confirmed what they did with a smile. As I pilot I told them I appreciated what they did - that was a serious departure.



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13922 times:



Quote:
Chord is the linear distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge of a wing. The angle of the wing to the fuselage is called sweep. The 757's wing is swept at 25 degrees.

Thank you!! I knew it had something to do with it, but I couldn't remember off-hand the words.

As I recall, isn't the 747's sweept 37½ degrees?

And further, I seem to remember that when the 727 was first introduced, it scared some military controllers because it flew at then-unheard of speeds for passenger planes. While not 37½ degrees sweep, it's more than a 757's, yes?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5316 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13888 times:



Quoting Popski777 (Reply 13):
Seabosdca any chance you could put up the thrust to weight ratio for the A340-300?

The ratios for trijets and quads will always be lower because airplane thrust requirements are calculated based on a one engine out scenario. With that in mind, and drifting offtopic:

Trijets

L-1011-500 0.302
MD-11ER 0.295
DC-10-30 0.267
727-200 Adv 0.248 (proving that it was the big lift that gave the 72S its remarkable field performance)

Quads

A340-600HGW 0.286
747-400ER 0.278
747-8 0.274
747-100 0.273
A340-500HGW 0.267
A380-800 0.260
Il-96-300 0.256
A340-300E 0.223


User currently offlineBrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13871 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
And that is the story of how the 757-200, designed as the successor to the 727-200, found it's own niche in the world instead

This is one of the best explnantions I've seen for the niche market that the B757 has developed for itself.

I flew a UA B752 from LAX to DEN recently, and continue to be amazed at the thrust. A fully loaded aircraft, when given a burst of thrust to unstick it from a stationary position oushed us all into the back of our seats  Smile

Bruce.


User currently offlineBrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13869 times:



Quoting YOWza (Reply 1):
This is my understanding... I love 757s my favorite one being the combi operated by RA

I believe this was the only B752 combi ever made.

Bruce.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13849 times:



Quoting Jawed (Thread starter):
Wouldn't that be considered a waste of resources?

Given that the 757 is still, 25 year later, one of the most efficient aircraft in the sky, I don't think it was.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):
The 737-400 was offered as an indirect 727 replacement, but was really more of a competitor against the MD-80.

The MD80 and 734 were both nearly direct 727 replacements. The A320 and 738 took it a step further.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 11):
I remember the first time I flew on a 717. Having been used to the DC-9s that FL had at the time, that rocket-like takeoff was a surprise.

It is almost like the jump off the runway.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 16):
Interestingly enough, no one has pointed out that the cruise speed of the 757 is somewhat lower than other large capacity planes, specifically the 767.

Actually, the 757's cruise speed isn't particularly slow. Mach .80-.82 is similar to that of the 767



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Viscount724 : However it's heavier that it has to be for a large number of the routes it operates.
26 Seabosdca : ...a necessary step. The vastly better fuel efficiency benefited everyone. The better range finally allowed US carriers, in particular, to use one fl
27 TristarSteve : One thing I think you are all missing is which engines were available in 1980? There wasn't much of a choice. there was the CFM56-2 which was too low
28 1337Delta764 : I wouldn't really call either aircraft true 727 replacements. With the exception of the MD-83, they offered less range than the 727-200. Most U.S. ai
29 Tango-Bravo : In the early days of 757 service with Northwest (mid-late 1980s), my most vivid MSP memories of the type is what seemed like their near vertical clim
30 DeltaL1011man : it was more range the MD-90s are pretty reliable...........plus Boeing was on hands and knees to get DL to order the 738 and drop the 90s
31 MCOflyer : Amen to that. I love this plane for the pocket rocket take offs as I call them. I remember taking off from MCO with bound for PHL with less pax (I re
32 DL757Md : Range was an issue, but so was reliability ie. mtc. Some of the mtc issues have never been ironed out and the 90 still to this day has by far the wor
33 AirEMS : All I can say is long live the 757! It is my favorite aircraft sooooo many memories I love it! It sad that they don't make it anymore!! -Carl
34 TWA757 : That's an awesome story! Wow. Love the 757.
35 Post contains images Nwarooster : Apparently you have not flown in a 727-100 or DC-9-10. They can be pocket rockets.
36 Post contains images Dl757md : While I'm quite sure they are great performers, I doubt they can come very close to matching a 757. I'll share one of my more memorable experiences w
37 Post contains images Seafleet : I remember my first flight on a 757 as the most stuning take off ever, the captain came on the pa and told crew we where doing a rolling take off so b
38 Post contains images MBJ2000 : I remember flying in the mid-90s from ORD to LAX in a UA 757 with about 10-20 people on board. It was the first and last time I got really dizzy duri
39 Airbazar : I think the correct wording should be "no one has wanted to build a replacement". If there was a market for it either Boeing and/or Airbus would have
40 Western727 : Very interesting point and one that does make sense. Another circumstance I once heard/read about was that EA, being a launch customer with a hub at
41 AA 777 : I'll add to the stories..... I was spotting at JFK one morning when an AA 757 was ferrying to an unknown destination. The pilot asked the tower for an
42 RJ111 : It's one of the largest short haul jets about. Short haul flights spends proportionally more time climbing that cruising. And as climbing is an incred
43 Bobprobert95 : It's really fun to fly the 757 out of SXM. You really can feel the power there!
44 MCOflyer : I'll ad a story myself. To begin, I was connecting through CLT and when I boarded the cabin was full to the brim. Well, I thought this is a 757 so it
45 Post contains links Jenkingeorge : Alot of cool vids... http://youtube.com/watch?v=vNDoo7wf42o&feature=related http://youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co&feature=related http://www.youtube.
46 Fsnuffer : From what I understand, one of the design requirments was the 757 needed to able to land and take off from LGA and DCA
47 Juanchopancho : Whoever said the 757 cruise speed is lower than the 767 is wrong. They're exactly the same. Normal cruise speed for the 757/767 is MACH .80
48 Post contains images C680 : Some interesting numbers on some smaller jet aircraft: Trust/weight (MTOW) ratios F-15C/D 0.734 Cessna Citation Sovereign 0.380 Cessna Citation X 0.37
49 Arrow : That should spark some interesting comments, especially when that "dog" of a CRJ200 appears to have a slightly better ratio than the 757. And I'm sur
50 Molykote : As I am late to this thread, I don't want to rehash previously discussed information more than is necessary. I agree. As discussed here, the 757 is re
51 OldAeroGuy : Midway Chicago (MDW) was the more challenging design requirement.
52 Viscount724 : At least one major carrier, BA, decided the 757 wasn't very efficient (and too big) for their European route network. They originaly had about 60 757
53 Rheinbote : Only the midboard section (~between the engine pylons) is 37deg 30', inboard and outboard it's less than that, without references on hand I'd guess 3
54 Sh0rtybr0wn : Watching that RNZAF 757 fly, I'm sure they could easily barrel roll that jet. Are there any air force pilots crazy enough to roll a 757 ? There might
55 KC135TopBoom : You could roll just about any jet, as long as you have 3 things going for you. 1. maintane a positive 1 "G" on the airplane (so the fuel stays at the
56 RoseFlyer : That's mostly due to the exit configuration. 4 exit doors and 4 exit windows result in 189 passenger capacity. That's the reason why the 900ER which
57 Post contains links Viscount724 : A recently-retired Boeing test pilot said in an interview a year or two ago that every Boeing commercial jet type had been upside down (not intention
58 Viscount724 : The 707-320/320B/420 was also certificated for a maximum of 189 passengers due to the same 4 doors and 4 overwing exit configuration. I believe the -
59 N1120A : It was also developed for the 747. To this day, even with the updates the PW2000 has had, the RB211 still is significantly more reliable. Further, RB
60 TristarSteve : I don't think so. The B757 fleet that BA sold were all powered by the RB211-535C engine. This engine has a fuel consumption about 10pc higher than th
61 N1120A : That conversion isn't exactly a difficult, or expensive, one. Didn't National (N7) take some as well?
62 Dl757md : Having worked on L-1011s and 2037 powered 757s I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on reliability. Not having numbers to refute your claim of
63 Post contains links Molykote : Without going too far off topic, here is a discussion about RR engine reliability/longevity with input from myself and a few others in this current th
64 TrijetsRMissed : This video sums up the awesome power of the 757 that everyone has discussed. I would love to be in one that goes vertical like this. Enjoy. The MD-80
65 AAden : well have you seen the cars we have in the US. why not design a plane like that.
66 Post contains images 2H4 : Because poor handling and questionable reliability are rather undesirable characteristics in the aviation industry. 2H4
67 Post contains images PGNCS : If you have ever flown a 727 out of DEN in August, you might not think it was so remarkable! Cruise speed is whatever you put in the FMC. At my carri
68 Post contains images 747fan : I've heard on this forum that the DL MD-90's on SNA-SLC routinely hit 6000fpm (the top limit of the VSI) during the initial climbout - that would be
69 Post contains images Seabosdca : I was a little kid last time I flew on a 727... and I've obviously never *flown* one... so all I have to work with is numbers! So your perspective is
70 747fan : The 727, mainly the 727-200 (non-advanced) can take nearly 25-30 minutes to reach cruising altitude (often below FL350) when operating a 2-3 hour fli
71 OldAeroGuy : As defined by Boeing, Long Range Cruise (LRC) Mach, a speed higher than Max. Range Cruise (MRC) Mach where Nautical Miles per Lb. of Fuel (NAMS) is 9
72 EssentialPowr : Not exactly. Wing loading and thrust loading relate wing area to weight, and thrust to weight. Aspect ratio relates wing span and area, but there is
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 757 High-powered? Why?
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...
Boeing 757 High Profile posted Tue Sep 23 2003 04:17:33 by Tarzanboy
Why No RR Powered A300 posted Sat Dec 30 2006 04:43:25 by 747400sp
Why No JT9D-7R4G2 Powered 747sp posted Mon Jul 3 2006 00:03:37 by 747400sp
Why 12 Exits On This 757? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 21:26:05 by YoungFlyer
Why Is The TF-34 Such A Low Powered Engine? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 05:16:18 by 747400sp
Delta Hourly Pay Rates, Why So High? posted Sat Aug 7 2004 20:33:17 by Fly2HMO
Why Didn't GE Offer A Powerplant For The 757? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 05:07:51 by Thrust
Why Is The 757 So Tall? posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:23:51 by Leezyjet
Why Can't Planes Fly Too High? posted Tue Feb 4 2003 11:36:26 by Airbus Lover
Why Do Aircraft Fly High? posted Fri Aug 17 2001 15:02:20 by Aerokid

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format