747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
In the late 90's, Boeing proposed a long range version of the 757 200 called the 757 200LR. The 200LR was supposed to have the same wings and engines as a 757 300. I remember CO and I believe Condor was intersted in the 757 200LR , but Boeing cancel the project. Now a lot of US airlines are turning their 757 200 into 757 200 ETOP. The 757 200 ETOP are used on some of the routes that I believe the 200LR was going to be used on. So I wonder, are 757 200 ETOP, pretty much what the 757 200LR was supposed to be?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3346 times:
No. An IGW version of the 752 would have had... IGW, probably 272,500 lbs. like the 753. I expect they would also have equipped it with ACTs to improve range. There is no physical difference between an ETOPS 752 and any other 752, and no difference in weight.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1): There is no physical difference between an ETOPS 752 and any other 752, and no difference in weight.
The difference is on the MX and equipment side of things. ETOPS planes have different MX procedures and dispatch requirements. And AFAIK all ETOPS planes must carry life rafts, even if used for mostly over land flights. That's why you'll see that all of CO's 737NG aircraft carry life rafts whereas WN's don't since WN does not have ETOPS planes, last time I checked at least.
nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 781 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
Most (if not all) of the 752s being using for trans-Atlantic flights are the higher weight versions that have been fitted with winglets to increase the range. I have no idea what the 757-200LR plan was, but some airlines call these wingleted 752s 757-200ERs.
KimberlyRJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 385 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
Does anyone have any information on the range of the proposed B752LR in the late 90’s?
If Boeing had the B752 still production and they could extend the range of 3,900nm by say a further 1,500nm to 2,000nm I am sure a lot of airlines would be placing orders for quite a few aircraft, as other then the Airbus A313ET or Boeing 762ER (which are the closest to the B752 in size – but still much, much bigger) and from my understanding the seat per mile cost is quite a bit higher?
The Boeing 752LR with an extra 1,500nm to 2,000nm could have opened up quite a few new markets for airlines both sides of the Atlantic.
boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 992 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1): There is no physical difference between an ETOPS 752 and any other 752,
That statement is not completely true. Our 752ER's have a extra fuel crossfeed valve (NON ER's have one) and a Hydrualic Motor Generator that our NON ER 757's don't have.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
The 757-300 had a lower fuel capacity than the 757-200 (if by 90 liters) and appears to have the same wing as the 757-200 (perhaps strengthened for the higher MTOWs)
So the only way to extend the range of the 757-200 would have been to use belly tanks which would just eat into the cargo hold capacity. At that point, just operate a 767-200ER.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2965 times:
Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 5): That statement is not completely true. Our 752ER's have a extra fuel crossfeed valve (NON ER's have one) and a Hydrualic Motor Generator that our NON ER 757's don't have.
Thanks for the correction. I guess I should say "don't have any extra fuel capacity or differences to the wing."
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 8): Is this another way of saying RAT? Or is it actually something completely different?
Completely different. The hydraulic motor generator uses hydraulic power to spin an electric generator. It provides an electricity source independent of the APU & engine generators. On many more modern aircraft, the same function is provided by an electric RAT.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): The 757-300 had a lower fuel capacity than the 757-200 (if by 90 liters) and appears to have the same wing as the 757-200 (perhaps strengthened for the higher MTOWs)
So the only way to extend the range of the 757-200 would have been to use belly tanks which would just eat into the cargo hold capacity. At that point, just operate a 767-200ER.
I would question the conclusion here. While the belly tanks would eat into the hold, a 752 would generally be used where hold space isn't that important. If you care about hold space, why fly a narrowbody? Greater fuel tankage and the 753's MTOW would have made a lot of sense for a few routes. I presume the niche nature of this aircraft is the reason it didn't see the light of day, rather than the hold limitation.
Besides, an MTOW upgrade would have increased the payload at range and they didn't do that either, which I think says something about the importance of belly cargo to the 752.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 5): Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
There is no physical difference between an ETOPS 752 and any other 752,
That statement is not completely true. Our 752ER's have a extra fuel crossfeed valve (NON ER's have one) and a Hydrualic Motor Generator that our NON ER 757's don't have.
I think The poster was referring to the Exterior difference.
This B752ER......Where did this term -ER come attached to the B752......All
I've heard is the B752/B752SF/B752PF/B752PCF.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 10): While the belly tanks would eat into the hold, a 752 would generally be used where hold space isn't that important.
Well if you're going to put in a real low-density boutique cabin like UA's p.s. service or only have Business Class seats, you could probably sacrifice most of the hold for fuel tanks since you only need space for around 100-200 bags.
But if you're going to have close to 175 seats (say like CO's TATL birds), then that's going to be 300-350 bags. I'm not sure how much hold space that needs, but it might impact capacity depending on the number of tanks you need.
As to their being no demand for revenue cargo, I'd find that surprising - if a route can justify non-stop passenger service, I would think there would be some demand for non-stop cargo service, for "time-sensitive" product, if nothing else, and that's usually high-revenue.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2800 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11): This B752ER......Where did this term -ER come attached to the B752......All
I've heard is the B752/B752SF/B752PF/B752PCF
Some operators, in their own internal nomenclature, refer to their 757s with ETOPS certification and 255,000+ lb MTOW as "757-200ERs." That is an internal name only. Boeing never produced anything called a 757-200ER.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13): Boeing never produced anything called a 757-200ER.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2571 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): As to their being no demand for revenue cargo, I'd find that surprising - if a route can justify non-stop passenger service, I would think there would be some demand for non-stop cargo service, for "time-sensitive" product, if nothing else, and that's usually high-revenue.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2417 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 17): Is this a verbal term or officially stated in Documents?
Here is an example of an operator that claims to the public that it has "757-200ER":
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 385 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2612 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
