747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:20 pm

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?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:45 pm

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.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:26 am

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
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:04 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:39 am

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
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:35 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:49 am

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.

Kimberly
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:31 pm

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.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23096
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:49 pm

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.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:19 pm

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."
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:53 pm

Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 5):
and a Hydrualic Motor Generator

Is this another way of saying RAT? Or is it actually something completely different?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:47 am

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.

Tom.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:47 am

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.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:13 am

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.


regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23096
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:33 pm

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.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:21 pm

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18997
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:35 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
Boeing never produced anything called a 757-200ER.

They considered it. Boeing referred to the proposed model as 757-200X and 757-200ERX at various times. Related items between 1997 and 2000 from Flight International archives. CO was interested in the longer-range -200 but at some stage their interest seemed to switch to the -300 and with 757 orders falling off to almost nothing andnot much interest in the -300, Boeing didn't pursue the llonger-range -200 model.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997%20-%202275.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...e/view/2000/2000-1%20-%200960.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...e/view/2000/2000-1%20-%201469.html
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:39 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Completely different.

Interesting. I have been enlightened.   
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:28 am

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.

I'd also expect some, but how much?
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:51 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
That is an internal name only

Is this a verbal term or officially stated in Documents?
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4964
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR?

Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:15 pm

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":

http://www.delta.com/planning_reserv...ft_types_layout/757200er/index.jsp

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests