B757

[Espada III]

I'm confused by different comments about the B757.

It seems to have morphed from a short/medium haul high capacity plane to a medium/long haul lower capacity. Is this right? What was it designed to do? What do airlines use it for now and why the switch? If it is so good why is it not replaced by a similar aircraft? People talk about its power and large wing. Can you please explain?

Thanks.

[Diverskii]

Someone else may be better qualified to answer, but I guess it depends who is using it.

European charter airlines love it for it's short/medium high capacity role. Stick in an all Y cabin and ship 239 people on their holidays. But then some of the American legacy carriers also use her on longer routes. The 757 has great range and by enables airlines to increase frequency on the longer routes.

It's an extremely versatile aircraft. It has a large wing and is extremely "overpowered". That makes it an amazing aircraft out of hot and high, and short field airports. That's why it's nicknamed the Rocket.

[SeenItAll]

And the problem that airlines have faced the the 757 is that it is over-engineered. It's large wing and powerful engines not only make it very capable, but also make it heavier and more expensive to operate on sectors that don't require these capabilities. Especially since the almost-as-large and far lighter 737-900 has come along. Thus, as pointed out, the niche that it now fills is as a high-volume European charter carrier and as a low volume TATL transport.

[Station_Calling]

Especially since the almost-as-large and far lighter 737-900 has come along

There's nearly 30,000Kg's difference in the max take off weight between the B739 and the B752! Whilst it might take almost as many pax, it may not take all their baggage, or take them nearly as far!

The B757 was originally designed to be a 2-engine, 2 crew replacement for the B727 and was to be able to fly coast-to-coast America. It's versatility made it very popular, and it soon got ETOPS approval and was adopted by many airlines.

Versatility wise there is no other option - it can lift 115,000KGs, fly for 7+ hours, is great hot & high, and is so over-powered it's a dream. Add great brakes and there really is no other airliner like it. It's also by far the best looking airliner - everything is in proportion and winglets really finish it off.

And yes, I am very biased and very privileged as it is my place of work!

[SOPS]

And I have always wondered why Boeing has never made a proper replacement for it.

[Diverskii]

Rumour has it they are planning a replacement for after the 737MAX. I don't think anything will come of it though as most airlines will have replaced the 757s by the time the MAX is in full swing.

It is objectively the best looking Boeing That nose is just wonderful.

[pax britanica]

A great machine but less appealing to the accounting fraternity. For high density euro charters the A321 is much more cost effective , lighter structure from a smaller wing and later design techniques and a less complex smaller main gear.
In US several airlines have replaced their coast to coast &5s with new model 321s which can do the trip much less expensively now they can make it westbound reliably and the wider 321 cabin adds pax appeal. The 739 tho is a pretty horrible aircraft-a stretch too far from its excellent cousin the 738. It has the seats but as pointed out often cannot carry the bags of 200plus pax and it really is pushing the limits of the 73 design.

However the 757 really served markets that no longer exist as unique requirements, long haul out of LA Guardia, Hot and high from Denver , short difficult runways on Greek islands, busy US and Euro city pairs. When it came out the &% was perfect foe all these missions but like everything time has caught up and other aircraft -the 73 and A32 series can do 95% of what most 757 operators could do .

It is a shame as it is a great looking aircraft and a great sounding one if a pax hearing those cropped fan RB211 growl as they spooled up for take off and rocketed the thing into the sky like no other airliner before or since

[Airbanda]

Wikipedia provides a pretty good account of how 757 came to be what it was/is. As abovee it was originally specced as a 2/engine/2 crew replacement for the 727. IIRC the overpower was because at time of design there was no suitably matched engine. The best option, as fitted, was the RB2-11 with a so called 'cropped fan'.

As an example of its performance from short runways here's an anecdote from 1984. At time runway at Leeds/Bradford (LBA/EGNM) was 5400 feet, though in process of being extended to present 7380. UK tour operators were using 737 200ADV versions to near Med destinations such as Palma but it only needed a full load and wind less than straight down runway for an outbound tech stop to be required for fuel. Among airlines were Britannia and Monarch. In Feb 84 Monarch's 737 was tech and they subbed a 757. Not only did it fly non-stop to PMI off the short runway it also took baggage from co-timed Britannia flight obviating need for that a/c (737-204ADV) to put down for fuel at Luton.

[boeing_eng]

You only need to compare the price of jet fuel when the 757 entered service in the early 1980's to now to see why the bean counters prefer other types. Its also a fairly maintenance intensive aircraft but will continue in the fleets of many airlines for a while due to its unmatched flexibility and very low lease costs.

[adfly]

Britannia used to fly them SOU-TFS (about 4 hrs) non stop with (I believe) a full load of passengers and their bags. SOU's runway is 1723m long and has a few near obstructions. To give you idea of how impressive that is the E195/737/A320 can just about make it to AGP/FAO offf of SOU's runway, a mere 2 1/2 hours flight. That must have been some takeoff!

[The Flying Pram]

For those who haven't already seen these clips, here are two demonstrating the 757's STOL capabilities, and one just showing off at an airshow. The first clip was filmed at Madeira, and using Google Earth's ruler function the main gear left the runway in 740mtrs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVeC5bVBcic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEoDW6t0SWE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv6UvYnf3s

Oh, and don't forget how well they continue to climb with one engine out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

[SeenItAll]

Versatility wise there is no other option - it can lift 115,000KGs, fly for 7+ hours, is great hot & high, and is so over-powered it's a dream. Add great brakes and there really is no other airliner like it. It's also by far the best looking airliner - everything is in proportion and winglets really finish it off.

Agree with all of these things, especially the last sentence. My favorite view of a 757 is when it is coming in to land. Those long gear legs hanging down. It looks just like an eagle or a vulture coming down to snatch up some prey with its talons.

My understanding is that it is so over-powered that it can do touch-and-goes with only one engine. So no commitment to land if a single engine approach gets stuffed.

[chiglet]

You get what you get...Nobody has replaced the DC3......yet

[tdracer]

IIRC the overpower was because at time of design there was no suitably matched engine. The best option, as fitted, was the RB2-11 with a so called 'cropped fan'.

Not sure I agree with this comment - yes the RB211-535 was a clipped fan version of the -524, but all engine options were targeted at ~37k-38k during the initial design phase, and the PW2000 was pretty much a point design for the 757 (the C-17 came along later) - GE cancelled the CF6-32 (clipped fan CF6-50) as soon as Pratt launched the PW2000. IIRC there were only 6 orders for the CF6 power 757 when GE killed it.
One thing that helped kill the 757 was that it was relatively expensive to build, costing a lot more to build than a 737-900. So even though the 737-900 didn't have near the flexibility or range of the 757, Boeing could sell it for a whole lot less money. Meanwhile the 757-300 fell pretty flat - although it had good seat mile costs, it takes forever to load/unload that many people in a single aisle airplane so it's turn times are horrid.

BTW, you guys commenting on the 757 nose do know that the flight deck external structure (what Boeing calls the "41 Section") is common between the 757, 767, and 777

[HZ123]

BA operated ETOPS BHX -JFK -BHX.

[keesje]

If Boeing waits as long enough with a 757/767 replacement, maybe Airbus will move. They will have the resources later this decade.

[philbky]

This thread has brought back memories of when the 757 was very new. Used on the LHR -MAN shuttles they were a blessed relief from the Trident, especially when used as back ups whilst accumulating crew time/experience when new.

One night, having got in very late from Germany due to weather and having missed the last regular shuttle, I was very relieved to find a brand new 757 waiting as a back up. This was to be my second 757 ride. With only 13 plus crew on board, a departure after 22.30 and no SIDS we stood at the end of 28R at LHR. Seconds later we were crossing the opposite threshold approaching 3000ft as we were gleefully informed from the cockpit. 23 minutes later we touched down at Manchester. I realised I'd only ever experienced a similar performance on one or two Comet 4s albeit with much more noise.

[Una Due Tfc]

Airbus may be most of the way there already, even before the NEO

An Airbus A321 with a 97-ton Maximum Weight - Where Can I Get One!? - AirlineReporter.com

[tdracer]

Right now, the main thing preventing Boeing from doing a 767 NEO (which is what the A360 pictured above basically is) is the lack of a suitable engine. We're talking ~50k-60k lb. thrust class, with the SFC of GEnx or Trent 1000 (or better). There isn't even anything on the drawing board at the big three engine makers in that thrust class.

Engine development costs what they are, you're talking a couple $Billion just for the engines. Unless someone determines that market for a 757 replacement is a whole lot bigger than most current estimates, it economically just doesn't work. If such an airplane is developed, my expectation is it'll be twin aisle (see my comment above about turn times on 250 passenger single aisle). And if it's not a derivative of a current aircraft, I doubt the fuselage will be 'round'.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Reading through the older part of this thread it dawned on me just how radical it was when passenger ETOPS came into being and how the 757 was the first 'small' aircraft to do longer over water routes, when before it was 3 or 4-holer or nothing. I remember flying a United 757 from LAX to KOA within the first few weeks of the 757 going ETOPS (and then only certain ones for some reason) and I don't mind admitting to not enjoying the 5hrs across open water due to my fear that of what would happen if one engine went out. These days it's SO normal for all kinds of 2 engine aircraft to be ETOPS equipped that no-one blinks an eye, a testament to the reliability and engineering excellence of the aircraft/engine manufacturers.