Boeing 757
The 75 appeared to have an amazingly bendy fuselage. I used them regularly on the Manchester shuttle, and sitting in an aisle seat right down the back, my eye had clear reference points (once it was the windscreen pillar!), and the flexing during an approach with a decent crosswind component was fun to watch. The motion could also be felt at the back.
Can anyone tell me what made the "coke can in an empty washing machine" noise when the engines were shut down but the visible blades turning slowly? Was this some of the blades rubbing/touching?
Can anyone tell me what made the "coke can in an empty washing machine" noise when the engines were shut down but the visible blades turning slowly? Was this some of the blades rubbing/touching?
Can anyone tell me what made the "coke can in an empty washing machine" noise when the engines were shut down but the visible blades turning slowly? Was this some of the blades rubbing/touching?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Can anyone tell me what made the "coke can in an empty washing machine" noise when the engines were shut down but the visible blades turning slowly? Was this some of the blades rubbing/touching?
The fan blades loosen in their mountings when they are not under load.
Can anyone tell me what made the "coke can in an empty washing machine" noise when the engines were shut down but the visible blades turning slowly? Was this some of the blades rubbing/touching?
The fan blades loosen in their mountings when they are not under load.
brakedwell beat me to it lol
BA's 757 B-BIKF went to AE on summer lease in 1983 and i flew to IBZ on it -
very nice it was too - night flight and a jump seat ride -
I joined MON in 1985 at LGW and by then all our 4 757's had E4 engines and a 223 pax fit.
always fell down the step into the cockpit.
the 757-200 imho is irreplaceable - all of the IT airlines bought it and BA had a very successful career with it in their fleet.
my last flight in one was on a Astraeus back from JMK.
you can bung it into places like Skiathos, Mykonos, and Bristol and use it on a short ski flight or a Palma in the morning then out to the Maldives or even further.
MON/AE/AMM sent theirs down there once ER'd - and to MCO, MBA, Phuket and as far as Puerto Vallarta.
Thomson are intending soon to replace theirs based at BRS but it is apparent the landing performance of their 738's will not be as optimum for the high operating weights that they can take in with a 757.
The t/o and landing performances are impressive on the 752.
the early/mid 1980's were formative in new a/c types a bit like today-
Britannia took their first wide body 767-204's in 1984 with 270 seats and were an instant hit -
British Airtours took some 393 seat Tristars from mainline.
the previous wide body IT op was the short lived Court Line Tristar operation 1973/4 and Laker was sadly gone by 1982.
seems on another post on Prune that Boeing is now saying they are looking at a need a 757 replacement -
er?
BA's 757 B-BIKF went to AE on summer lease in 1983 and i flew to IBZ on it -
very nice it was too - night flight and a jump seat ride -
I joined MON in 1985 at LGW and by then all our 4 757's had E4 engines and a 223 pax fit.
always fell down the step into the cockpit.
the 757-200 imho is irreplaceable - all of the IT airlines bought it and BA had a very successful career with it in their fleet.
my last flight in one was on a Astraeus back from JMK.
you can bung it into places like Skiathos, Mykonos, and Bristol and use it on a short ski flight or a Palma in the morning then out to the Maldives or even further.
MON/AE/AMM sent theirs down there once ER'd - and to MCO, MBA, Phuket and as far as Puerto Vallarta.
Thomson are intending soon to replace theirs based at BRS but it is apparent the landing performance of their 738's will not be as optimum for the high operating weights that they can take in with a 757.
The t/o and landing performances are impressive on the 752.
the early/mid 1980's were formative in new a/c types a bit like today-
Britannia took their first wide body 767-204's in 1984 with 270 seats and were an instant hit -
British Airtours took some 393 seat Tristars from mainline.
the previous wide body IT op was the short lived Court Line Tristar operation 1973/4 and Laker was sadly gone by 1982.
seems on another post on Prune that Boeing is now saying they are looking at a need a 757 replacement -
er?
you can bung it into places like Skiathos, Mykonos, and Bristol and use it on a short ski flight or a Palma in the morning then out to the Maldives or even further.
MON/AE/AMM sent theirs down there once ER'd - and to MCO, MBA, Phuket and as far as Puerto Vallarta.
MON/AE/AMM sent theirs down there once ER'd - and to MCO, MBA, Phuket and as far as Puerto Vallarta.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longrange 757
I use to fly a 757 that had nine aux tanks in th belly. Longest flight was from Instanbul, non-stop to Boeing Field, Washington. 12:40. Wonder if there have been any longer legs recorded in the 57?
The 757 certainly had redeemable TO performance.
The first to visit Leeds/Bradford was in early 1984. At time runway was 15/33 and only 5400feet.
Monarch put a 75 on what was normally a 737 operation to Palma. Presumably only carrying the 73's pax load but rumour had it they took baggage from co-timed Britannia flight saving that flight a tech stop for fuel.
The first to visit Leeds/Bradford was in early 1984. At time runway was 15/33 and only 5400feet.
Monarch put a 75 on what was normally a 737 operation to Palma. Presumably only carrying the 73's pax load but rumour had it they took baggage from co-timed Britannia flight saving that flight a tech stop for fuel.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little bird tells me it was BA's request for a "low-tail" version which fundamentally altered the proposed design for the "mighty" 757.
It was arguably a victim of the continued success of the B737. From the airlines' perspective it was far more cost-effective to demand a stretched 737 rather than pay for conversion to the 757 - an aspect of the industry that Airbus capitalised on by making their entire FBW range practically identical flight deck-wise.
It was arguably a victim of the continued success of the B737. From the airlines' perspective it was far more cost-effective to demand a stretched 737 rather than pay for conversion to the 757 - an aspect of the industry that Airbus capitalised on by making their entire FBW range practically identical flight deck-wise.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although not having the same range but similar capacity, if BA were to order a fleet of 19 B737-900s today and using Boeing price lists, it would cost them around about UK1088 million. I've not allowed for any discounts but look what inflation has done!
The interesting thing about the late change to the 757 tail is that I recall a sketch in Flight in the sixties (I think) for a new Hawker Siddley twin-engined concept. The suggested dimensions and configuration were almost identical to the eventual 757. Can't remember what engine was suggested.
Could it be that a lot of HS designers ended up in Seattle - and eventually won the battle with the T-tail lobby?
Could it be that a lot of HS designers ended up in Seattle - and eventually won the battle with the T-tail lobby?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With wing-mounted engines a T-tail surely makes no sense. It simply adds weight because a stronger fin is required to take tailplane loads. Would use of the existing 727 tail, thereby saving some development cost, be worth that?
Apparently the low tail was initially adopted c. 1976 with the then "7N7".
By 1977 it was changed to a 727 derived "T" tail ( along with 727 fuselage cross section) Boeing apparently stated that the "T" tail improved engine out performance and served to decrease cruise drag and therefore fuel consumption.
In 1978 the two configurations were fairly evenly matched in terms of stability , weight and drag, however the shorter overall length of the "low" solution fuselage for the same length passenger cabin claimed advantages in ground maneuverability.
By 1979 the design evolution had moved away from the "727" commonality of the tail as it would have needed major redesign for stability and control requirements of the then longer fuselage and wing mounted engines.
The low tail plane was thus finally adopted.
(Source largely Air International Jan. 81)
By 1977 it was changed to a 727 derived "T" tail ( along with 727 fuselage cross section) Boeing apparently stated that the "T" tail improved engine out performance and served to decrease cruise drag and therefore fuel consumption.
In 1978 the two configurations were fairly evenly matched in terms of stability , weight and drag, however the shorter overall length of the "low" solution fuselage for the same length passenger cabin claimed advantages in ground maneuverability.
By 1979 the design evolution had moved away from the "727" commonality of the tail as it would have needed major redesign for stability and control requirements of the then longer fuselage and wing mounted engines.
The low tail plane was thus finally adopted.
(Source largely Air International Jan. 81)
The original 757 design was basically a revamped 727 as mentioned above, hence the T-tail.
I think the claim that BA had a lot of influence in the switch to the low tail is rather over stretched. The 757 rear fuselage is basically a scaled down 767 rear end (almost, not quite!). The proposal from Boeing that the 767/757 could have a common type rating would have had a lot to do with the switch to a similar configuration so that handling was similar.
I think the claim that BA had a lot of influence in the switch to the low tail is rather over stretched. The 757 rear fuselage is basically a scaled down 767 rear end (almost, not quite!). The proposal from Boeing that the 767/757 could have a common type rating would have had a lot to do with the switch to a similar configuration so that handling was similar.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both high wing innit. The tailplane and elevator would be in the downwash of the wing and in line with the engine on a high wing / low tail design.
The 146 is an odd fish anyway; 4 little engines instead of 2 larger ones!
The 757 is perhaps one of the best looking, if not the best looking, of 'modern' airliners. With a T tail it looks very odd! (If it looks right, it flies right. Usually!).
The 146 is an odd fish anyway; 4 little engines instead of 2 larger ones!
The 757 is perhaps one of the best looking, if not the best looking, of 'modern' airliners. With a T tail it looks very odd! (If it looks right, it flies right. Usually!).
I recall BA News at the time had a photo of a local model-maker (Hi Brian)
surrounded by T-tail 757 models in BA colours. Seems Mr Boeing bought them all back from him, did any survive, I wonder ?
surrounded by T-tail 757 models in BA colours. Seems Mr Boeing bought them all back from him, did any survive, I wonder ?