airworlda320
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:57 pm

Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:13 pm

Why is there no 757-100 sub series?
Pull off kid, it ill go.
 
PIA747
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:46 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:20 pm

From Answers.com

757-100
This is the initial design with 150 seat capacity which is the direct replacement of the 727. It failed to generate interest and was not built.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Of course, such a plane would have generated plenty of interest 10 years later, but just like B waited way too long with the 753, they never seriously considered the 751. Imagine what airlines like CO and AA could do with a 4000nm 751 rather than the less capable 738s they have now. Lots more medium range thin routes to Europe and Central/South America. Ultimately, there may be such a plane in the 737/757 replacement model.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:57 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
there may be such a plane in the 737/757 replacement model.

Yes, I expect there will be, but more capable of course due to technical advancements. My guess is 5000nm range, despite a larger cross section.
 
airworlda320
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:12 pm

Thanks for the replies guys.

[Edited 2005-09-25 13:13:25]
Pull off kid, it ill go.
 
Gregg
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2000 12:49 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:39 pm

Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull. (737-100, 747-100, etc..)
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:04 pm

Quoting Gregg (Reply 5):
Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull

Really??? I was wondering why they didn't do that. But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.
Personally, I hate the recent trend with Airbus and Boeing to start with the 800 series (787-8/A388). Maybe Boeing will name the 783 the 787-200 or something, but it seems Airbus must have the 8 as much as possible in the designation of the a380.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
planesailing
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:25 pm

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.

I believe the 771 became the 764 for Continental and Delta.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 6):
Personally, I hate the recent trend with Airbus and Boeing to start with the 800 series (787-8/A388). Maybe Boeing will name the 783 the 787-200 or something, but it seems Airbus must have the 8 as much as possible in the designation of the a380.

I read somewhere the 8 figures so much because of its association of luck in Asia. The Asian market is one of the most lucrative, and both manufacturers are pitching their future prospects on aircraft for this region. Thus they are trying to appeal in as many ways as possible to receive contracts.
 
797
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:41 pm

Then why didnt they name the -200 a -100???

And the same question goes to the 787 and A380 that both start with 800 series...
Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
 
planesailing
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:43 pm

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
Then why didnt they name the -200 a -100???

They left the designation open incase a model was ever forthcoming, which evidently never came.

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
And the same question goes to the 787 and A380 that both start with 800 series...

See above.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:27 pm

>> Althogh Boeing did consider a shorter 757-100, boeing stopped calling thier initial models -100 since most ofthe -100 models were not succesfull. (737-100, 747-100, etc..)

No, that isn't why. Boeing started with the -200 model on the 757, 767, and 777 to leave the door open for a shrink at a later date. At some point, a shrink of all these aircraft were considered, at least conceptually.

>> Really??? I was wondering why they didn't do that. But wasn't it also because with for example the 777 they were considering a 771? They scrapped that idea because the a/c would be too heavy.

Boeing considered a shrink of the 777-200ER as a first attempt at a Ultra-Long Haul (ULH) aircraft. It would have competed with the A342. The problem was high seat/mile cost, and teneous passenger/cargo economics.

>> I believe the 771 became the 764 for Continental and Delta.

Boeing offered both a lower MTOW shrink of the 777-200 and a double-stretched 767. CO and DL opted for the 767-400ER, and Boeing planned a mid-life upgrade called the 767-300ERX and -400ERX. Both add-ons were stillborn, and years later, the 787 ultimatly replaced Boeing's midsized widebody niche.
 
airworlda320
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:43 pm

Now would like to see a shrink of the 767-200!!!  laughing 
Pull off kid, it ill go.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:02 am

I don't know where you people have been, but the 757-100 flies!!

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Fu Ling Yu
Template © Fu Ling Yu



Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Fu Ling Yu
Template © Fu Ling Yu



Quoting AirworldA320 (Reply 11):
Now would like to see a shrink of the 767-200!!!

Got them too!!


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Justin Cederholm
Template © Justin Cederholm



Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Joe Perez
Template © Jeremy Irish/Cactus Wings



 cheeky 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:14 am

I'm not sure I agree that the -100 models of Boeing airliners weren't successful. Though relatively few 737-100s and 747-100s were built, it's not fair to say they weren't successful; rather they were replaced by improved models.

[Edited 2005-09-25 18:15:37]
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:20 am

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 9):
No, that isn't why. Boeing started with the -200 model on the 757, 767, and 777 to leave the door open for a shrink at a later date. At some point, a shrink of all these aircraft were considered, at least conceptually.

I seem to recall this as well. Boeing considered a shorter length shorter range model of the basic 757 but the idea didn't catch on. However, the 737-100 and 747-100 were built, as intended, from the start. You will recall the "shrunk" version of the 747 became the SP.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:37 am

There was a proposed 761 as well, and B started with the 200 models of the 757 and 767 because you start in the middle of the size market on a plane that will come in multiple sizes. B did not first envision stretching the 767 to a 400 length, which led to the need for a modified wing and lack of range.

As for the "new" 751 type plane, I don't expect to see a plane of that size with a range of 5000nm. But you could see it with a range a few hundred miles longer than the 752. Maybe enough for DFW/IAH to the UK.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ultrapig
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:49 am

So just exactly how does a 757-200 compare to a 737-900x in tersm of seats cabin size cargo capaicty and range. It alwasy seems to me that the 757 cabin is larger and taller than a 737 when I board one is that an Illusion? I know the widths are the same are the heght's the same
 
bomber996
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:21 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 16):
So just exactly how does a 757-200 compare to a 737-900x in tersm of seats cabin size cargo capaicty and range. It alwasy seems to me that the 757 cabin is larger and taller than a 737 when I board one is that an Illusion? I know the widths are the same are the heght's the same

Yeah, I've always noticed the 757 to be a MUCH more comfortable plane then the 737. right up on par with the A32X's for me. Why dose it have this illusion, because people on here have been constantly saying that they're the same.

Peace  box 
Two biggest lies in aviation... "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you." & "Traffic in sight."
 
User avatar
TripleDelta
Crew
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:36 am

B probably didn't build them because of passenger comfort. Given the performances of the 752, I doubt the passengers would like a 30-40 degree AOA climbout on a 751 (w/ winglets)  biggrin   bigthumbsup 
No plane, no gain.
 
FaroeFlyer
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:47 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:53 am

also i heard airbus started their A380 with a -800 to let people know there would be no NG (so "just buy it now").
Cast your dancing spell my way...
 
texan
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:57 am

Also, -100 sounds like it is the prototype, unfinished version. Market research also helped lead the company away from the designation. If the idea is we have an untested version (-100) compared to a highly tested version (-200, -300, etc), companies will go for the version with the higher numbers. Don't really know why, but that's what the market research shows.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:00 am

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 12):
I don't know where you people have been, but the 757-100 flies!!

The people who edited those pictures must be pro's.. looks like the planes actually exist... I love that B751 and the B761 looks ok too.. atleast the one in the air
 
FaroeFlyer
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 3:47 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:01 am

Quoting Texan (Reply 20):
Also, -100 sounds like it is the prototype

You're quite right. -100 does sound prototypish.
Cast your dancing spell my way...
 
flynavy
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:17 am

Prototypish? Nonsense. Explain the multiple Airbus models that start with -100, then. They don't seem prototypish to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin Hines
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marco Toso - SpotIT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorge Meneses

Change is: one airline, six continents!
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 23):
Prototypish? Nonsense. Explain the multiple Airbus models that start with -100, then. They don't seem prototypish to me.

Those are ACTUAL airbus models. The 751 and 761 shown in the other posts DON'T exist. IF there had been those models, the names would be 757-100 or 751 and 767-100 or 761. BIG difference between that and the Airbus planes you are showing. The A319 and A321 ending in -100 are in no way related to the discussion about the 757-100.....

Not sure if that makes sense but it does to me!!!!!!  crazy 
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:33 am

Quoting Bomber996 (Reply 17):
Yeah, I've always noticed the 757 to be a MUCH more comfortable plane then the 737. right up on par with the A32X's for me. Why dose it have this illusion, because people on here have been constantly saying that they're the same.

Not sure why you say that. The exterior fuselage width of the 707, 727, 737, and 757 are the same. The interiors are within an inch of each other.
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
bomber996
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:21 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:14 am

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 25):
Not sure why you say that. The exterior fuselage width of the 707, 727, 737, and 757 are the same. The interiors are within an inch of each other.

It just seemes that the interior of the 757 is bigger. Atleast on US and AA compared to their 737's.
Two biggest lies in aviation... "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you." & "Traffic in sight."
 
ultrapig
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:38 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:34 am

I'm not saying the 757 cabin is bigger just that it sure seems that way when you get on one-does anyone know whay is it just becaus eits higher off the b ground?
 
797
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:08 pm

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 12):
Quoting AirworldA320 (Reply 11):
Now would like to see a shrink of the 767-200!!!

Got them too!!

Damn! Those are ugly jets!
Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:18 pm

Quoting Ultrapig (Reply 27):
just that it sure seems that way when you get on one-does anyone know whay is it just becaus eits higher off the b ground?

Because it's longer...maybe... *shrugs...
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No Boeing 757-100?

Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:55 pm

757s are taller inside than 737s.

Further, the 757 is a tube, the 737 isn't. The 737 is narrower at the front for a long length, has a relatively short "tube" section (in the 3/5/6/G lengths especially), then narrows again toward the rear for a long length. Thus for much of the plane, it is slightly narrower than the tubular 757, which only tapers a little up front in the first couple first class rows, and at back in the galley area and the last row or two depending on config.

Combine those two things, and the 757 is bigger inside.

Even though the taper isn't too much, it is a forced perspective that creates a "closing in" feel wether you look backward or forward, as if the seats are turned slightly toward each other. It's basically an optical illusion, but the human eye is VERY good at noticing non-square and non-parallel lines like that, and it can lead to a claustrophobic feeling.

of course, on the 738 and 739, this is much less pronounced as there are long sections that are basically tubes. its the shorter models that are more eggish. but compared to the straight arrow 757, it makes a difference.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.