DIJKKIJK
Topic Author
Posts: 1784
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:03 pm

Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:40 am

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:19 am

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]
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:25 am

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
Trikes are for kids!
 
Yikes!
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 4:51 pm

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:28 am

Remember that the 757 was the replacement for the 727...
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17084
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:57 am

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." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:10 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:40 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17084
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:53 am

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." - John Ringo
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:25 pm

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 avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4960
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Stretched 737 Vs Shortened 757

Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:34 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests