Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Comparing The 757 To The 707  
User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2493 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

Just watching the old movie Airport. Are the 757 and 707 similar in size and range? I know the 57 would be much better on fuel, would this make the range in line with the 07?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8946 times:

757 fuselodge is a bit more narrow and it is shorter than the 707.

Range for the 757: maximum of 3,467nm

Range for the 707: maximum of 3,735nm

All range numbers are for loaded aircraft.

[Edited 2008-11-20 19:51:55]


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8911 times:

Thank you.

Surprising about the width though. I always thought the 707, 727, 737 and 757 were all the same width.


User currently offlineDalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8908 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 1):
757 fuselodge is a bit more narrow and it is shorter than the 707.

According to the Boeing website:

757
Wing span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
Range 3,900nm (4,488 miles)

707 (367-80 Prototype (1954) )
Wing span 130 feet (39.6 m)
Overall length 128 feet (39 m)
Range 3,067 nm (3,530 miles)

707 (Advanced 707-320B)
Wing span 145 feet 9 in (44.42 m)
Overall length 152 feet 11 in (46.6 m)
Range 5,353 nm (6,160 miles)

The 757 is longer than both models of the 707. Width was not available where I got this 707 information.



Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 8901 times:



Quoting Dalb777 (Reply 3):
707 (Advanced 707-320B)
Wing span 145 feet 9 in (44.42 m)
Overall length 152 feet 11 in (46.6 m)
Range 5,353 nm (6,160 miles)

Wow. The advanced version with almost twice as much range. There must be alot more fuel capacity on that type.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4445 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8881 times:

The 707 -320 series was flying long haul a long time before the first Widebodies appeared.

LHR-LAX, HKG-SYD were a few examples, she was a true long range aircraft, far more capable, distance wise than the 757 which really was developed as a medium range aircraft.

However the 75 had such growth capability, by default it has become a superb long haul aircraft for smaller city connections.

Of course the grand old 707 could fly a lot further, it was a lot heavier, and burned a lot more fuel to do that !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineOvrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

there are some videos on youtube that give great insight to the specs and performance of the 707s. those four tiny engines did a lot for the airframe, it basically brought the west coast to Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatXdmPyx_A, this video is in 4 pieces and gives a great explanation to the whole project.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8844 times:



Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 6):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatXdmPyx_A, this video is in 4 pieces and gives a great explanation to the whole project.

"Malformed video ID."

Mind fixing that? Thx!


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lexy (Reply 1):
757 fuselodge is a bit more narrow

Not according to Boeing

707 & 757 both have an external width of 148 inches and internal dimension of 139.3 inches

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineMender From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8824 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 1):
757 fuselodge is a bit more narrow and it is shorter than the 707.

Is this for the front half or the back half of the aircraft?

Not many people notice the overall diameter of the fuselage is different on each half of the 757.

(Before someone corrects me, I know the width is the same but the diameter is different)


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6883 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8813 times:



Quoting Quickmover (Reply 4):
There must be alot more fuel capacity on that type.

Yes, there was; but the real difference is much more powerful engines, which enabled it to carry more fuel.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mender (Reply 9):
Not many people notice the overall diameter of the fuselage is different on each half of the 757.

Not doubting you but this interests me and I am having trouble finding any documaentary evidence of this, certainly Boeings online info does not readily show this.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6883 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8779 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 11):

Not doubting you but this interests me and I am having trouble finding any documaentary evidence of this, certainly Boeings online info does not readily show this.

Actually, I believe that almost all single aisle Boeing airliners have a dual lobe fuselage rather than cylindrical; the Stratocruiser and the Stratoliner show this most dramatically, but all of the single aisle jetliners follow the same pattern. It is just less dramatic and hardly noticeable.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
I believe that almost all single aisle Boeing airliners have a dual lobe fuselage rather than cylindrical

I understand that and the dimensions I quoted earlier were the max width, what I am having trouble finding is reference to different widths at front and rear half of aircraft as mentioned by Mender in reply 9

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineMender From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8769 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 11):
Not doubting you but this interests me and I am having trouble finding any documaentary evidence of this, certainly Boeings online info does not readily show this.

Look at a side on photograph of a 757 and you'll notice there is more ground clearance below the fuselage, forward of the wings than behind the wings. Thats because the overall diameter of the fuse is bigger behind that wing box.

Examples

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Tajik...C_&prev_id=1425012&next_id=1424975

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avian...C_&prev_id=1425854&next_id=1425810


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mender,
The photos certainly look that way and the only data I can find shows that the rear cargo bay is approx 10" taller than than the forward one.

But to be really picky the original point was about the width not the height!
Neither the 707 or 757 is circular so discussions of diameter are moot.

Cheers

Chris

PS still would like to see some hard data on the rear fuselage dimensions of the B757 though so if anyone can help it would be appreciated.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineOvrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8612 times:

i have the exact title of the movie flick

'Boeing 707-"Year One"-1960-Part l' that is the title of the video on youtube, the link i gave earlier in the forum is the link that is available but this is the exact title...hope you enjoy

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
"Malformed video ID."



User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25125 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8559 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 1):
757 fuselodge is a bit more narrow and it is shorter than the 707.

757-200 fuselage is actually about 8 ft. longer than the longest 707, the -320/420 although the overall length is only about 3 ft. longer due to different tail designs. But the 757 is not narrower than the 707. All Boeing narrowbody passenger aircraft from the 707 through the 757 have the same fuselage width. The fuselage height varies (707/720/757 fuselage is deeper top to bottom than the 727/737) but the width is the same. The Dash 80 prototype had a narrower fuselage than the production 707 as does the KC-135 tanker. The original 707 design was for 5-abreast economy class seating but the fuselage was widened to match the DC-8's 6-abreast design. I believe the 707 fuselage wound up 1 inch wider than the DC-8.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
The 707-320 series was flying long haul a long time before the first Widebodies appeared.

The 707-320 was flying LAX-LHR nonstop with no problems starting in 1960 if not mistaken. When the 320B/320C (and comparable DC-8-50) with turbofans arrived a year or so later the range increased further. The original 707-120 was designed for US transcontinental range (JFK-LAX etc.) and even Pan Am's inaugural 707-120 flight from New York to Paris 50 years ago last month required a fuel stop at Gander.

The 707-320B/C carries almost twice as much fuel as the 757 and max. takeoff weight is about 30% greater.


User currently offlineOvrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8476 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):


The 707-320B/C carries almost twice as much fuel as the 757 and max. takeoff weight is about 30% greater.

How was that possible when the wing design on the 757 is better and the power on the 757 is greater...the 707 had 4 engines powering up to 17000lbs of thrust while the 757 has 2 engines going up to 43000lbs of thrust, i don't understand the aerodynamics of that. I'm referring to the weights of the two aircraft


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4445 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8446 times:

The 707 320C carried approximately 160,000 pounds of fuel, the same incidentally as a 767 as against the 752's 75000 pounds
(or over twice the fuel load)

The 707 also weighed almost 100,000 pounds more than the 757, with gross weights approaching 350,000 pounds

Think of the 767 as the far more capable widebody successor to the 707, and the 757 as the much more capable successor to the 727.

The 757 is a relatively lightweight medium range aircraft, which, by virtue of it's in built growth capability and superb engines can be used for long haul.

The 707 is a genuine heavy, long range airliner and was always intended as such.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8438 times:



Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 18):
How was that possible when the wing design on the 757 is better and the power on the 757 is greater...the 707 had 4 engines powering up to 17000lbs of thrust while the 757 has 2 engines going up to 43000lbs of thrust, i don't understand the aerodynamics of that. I'm referring to the weights of the two aircraft

Wing area: 185m for the 757 and 283m for the 707-320.

Plus the 707 loses an engine on takeoff (18K or 19K on the -320, not 17K) and it still has 54K or 57K of thrust, which is more than any 757 on one engine.


User currently offlineOvrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8361 times:

i stand corrected, i looks like age caught up with the classic, thx for clearing that up...i also took into consideration the fact that the fuselages were the same lengths so the space ahsn't changed ad all that plus the overall length etc.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8248 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
The 707 320C carried approximately 160,000 pounds of fuel, the same incidentally as a 767 as against the 752's 75000 pounds
(or over twice the fuel load)

And the 767 can carry way more passengers and stuff significantly further on that load of fuel... there's progress for you.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 20):
Plus the 707 loses an engine on takeoff (18K or 19K on the -320, not 17K) and it still has 54K or 57K of thrust, which is more than any 757 on one engine.

 checkmark  If you had tried to put a 57k engine on a 757, it would have been a very different airplane, and much less well suited for most of its missions.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8234 times:



Quoting Quickmover (Reply 4):
Wow. The advanced version with almost twice as much range. There must be alot more fuel capacity on that type.



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
Quoting Quickmover (Reply 4):
There must be alot more fuel capacity on that type.

Yes, there was; but the real difference is much more powerful engines, which enabled it to carry more fuel.

The "B" and "C" 707s had Turbofans, while the others had Turbojets. This meant more power for much less fuel.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSilentJC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8206 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):

Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 6):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatXdmPyx_A, this video is in 4 pieces and gives a great explanation to the whole project.

"Malformed video ID."

Mind fixing that? Thx!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatXdmPyx_A

The comma after ID threw the whole thing off. Enjoy.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Comparing The 757 To The 707
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...
Hydraulic Fluid And The 757 posted Sat Jul 7 2007 18:02:29 by Jeffry747
The 757, The Most Flexible Performing Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:52:23 by John
Is The A380 The Second Biggest Jet Ever Built? posted Sat Nov 15 2008 15:39:20 by 747400sp
Do FA's Have The Option To Show Movies? posted Mon Jul 7 2008 16:07:15 by USAirALB
757 To 767 Mx Conversion Training posted Sun Mar 26 2006 11:05:32 by HAWK21M
Push Back Right To The Runway? The Idea? posted Sat Jan 28 2006 20:59:31 by Julesmusician
First 757 To Have Glass Cockpit? posted Wed Jun 8 2005 04:09:34 by TUNisia
757 Vs. MD-90 For The Takeoff Crown? posted Sun Sep 21 2008 17:39:49 by EA772LR
The 707 Thunderbirds Needle posted Mon Jun 2 2008 20:38:57 by VC10er
Can The Original DL 757's Be Modified For ETOPs? posted Fri Feb 15 2008 19:44:15 by Jetjack74
The 757, The Most Flexible Performing Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 23 2002 22:52:23 by John
Towing Planes From The Gate To The Runway posted Sun Apr 10 2011 05:55:42 by 4tet
What Is The Formula To Determine Block Time? posted Thu Aug 19 2010 09:50:12 by flaps30
757 To 767 Mx Conversion Training posted Sun Mar 26 2006 11:05:32 by HAWK21M
Push Back Right To The Runway? The Idea? posted Sat Jan 28 2006 20:59:31 by Julesmusician
First 757 To Have Glass Cockpit? posted Wed Jun 8 2005 04:09:34 by TUNisia
Questions About The A321 Vs 757-200? posted Mon Feb 21 2011 13:32:15 by 9LFlyGuy
What Are These Openings On The Belly Of The 757 posted Wed Mar 10 2010 09:27:35 by c5load
Question About The Boeing 757 Fuselage posted Thu Feb 25 2010 10:17:33 by canadiantree

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format