Boeing 757
There was a very nice T Tail model on display in Boeing's Training School when I was there in Mar 83, but I am almost certain it had a Boeing Colour Scheme
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.
( No ,I don't know either, following on from the Il -76 and referencing the Lockheed C141 and C5 and even the proposed "Jet Belfast" it certainly surprised me when it emerged.)
Sorry about the thread drift......
I tried to do POP to LGW in '94, but chickened out and went to Cardiff for some gas after 8hrs 20mins. It was a VERY full load of 233 and some very old 'children' on the load sheet,(if you see what I mean)!!
The planned routing was BKK - KHI - BEL - LGW - Copenhagen with a full load of large Danes. I was keen to reduce the aggro caused by an impending Gulf War and used every trick I had learned when flying DC8 freighters. As it was a night flight traffic was light and we were given optimum flight levels for most of the route. I used manual throttles a lot as the auto-throttles tended to hunt up and down at that time. Numerous direct routings also helped. At TOD around Abbleville the fuel was comfotably above the line and well above the legal minimum on shut down.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky enough to get a flightdeck trip on a BA 757 from Heathrow to Schiphol one evening a few years ago (pre-2001 of course). For such a short trip I guess we were pretty light, so ATC invited us to go over the inbound stacks rather than under as was the norm. (I think they termed it "can you be at FL120 by such and such a point" but I understood to amount to the same). I don't remember how quickly we were up over 12000 feet, but it didn't take long. As fog had been forecast for Schiphol (but hadn't materialised when we got there - was as clear as a bell) the captain asked me to decide if they should do an autoland or a manual. Naturally never having seen an autoland closeup I asked for that, which was kindly obliged.
A truly memorable ride due to the hospitality of the flightdeck crew, such a shame that I won't get the experience again.
A truly memorable ride due to the hospitality of the flightdeck crew, such a shame that I won't get the experience again.
Such happy days.
The planned routing was BKK - KHI - BEL - LGW - Copenhagen with a full load of large Danes. I was keen to reduce the aggro caused by an impending Gulf War and used every trick I had learned when flying DC-8 freighters. As it was a night flight traffic was light and we were given optimum flight levels for most of the route. I used manual throttles a lot as the auto-throttles tended to hunt up and down at that time. Numerous direct routings also helped. At TOD around Abbleville the fuel was comfortably above the line and well above the legal minimum on shut down.
I was Ops controller at Ogdens when we handled AE until the end so we may have met....I often wandered out to the 757's to see how the turnarounds were going...A few pals were AE CC too
Flew AE (and MON) 757 as pax LGW-BAH-CMB-MLE a few times on my hols....a looooong drag to get to a desert island
Last edited by rog747; 2nd Apr 2019 at 07:06.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Very much a 757 before the 757 but of course at that time British industry wouldn't start any project without Government backing, so it was filed away.
Meanwhile Boeing took out commercial loans and go on with work.
Ah the secret RB-178 engine turbofan prototype which was originally known as the "Super Conway". This was the first large three-shaft commercial high by-pass ratio turbofan designed by Rolls-Royce in 1966; it was intended to power the following:-
Hawker-Siddeley HS-132 & HS-134 "projects"
BAC VC-10 DB265 "project". RB.178-14 27,500lbs thrust version. (double decker)
Bréguet Br.124 "project".
Shorts SC5 ./45 "project". Belfast with jets
A 44,000lbs thrust version was rejected in favour of the competitive Pratt & Whitney JT9-D turbofan for the Boeing 747 in 1966 but for the refusal of Boeing to accept the Rolls-Royce engine on the transatlantic 747.
The RB.178 engine was never flight-tested and never went into production as most of the intended applications remained unbuilt "projects"
The RB 207 intended for the abortive original Airbus A-300" project" of 1967/68 - went on to become the RB211 engine first used on the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
Hawker-Siddeley HS-132 & HS-134 "projects"
BAC VC-10 DB265 "project". RB.178-14 27,500lbs thrust version. (double decker)
Bréguet Br.124 "project".
Shorts SC5 ./45 "project". Belfast with jets
A 44,000lbs thrust version was rejected in favour of the competitive Pratt & Whitney JT9-D turbofan for the Boeing 747 in 1966 but for the refusal of Boeing to accept the Rolls-Royce engine on the transatlantic 747.
The RB.178 engine was never flight-tested and never went into production as most of the intended applications remained unbuilt "projects"
The RB 207 intended for the abortive original Airbus A-300" project" of 1967/68 - went on to become the RB211 engine first used on the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
Good aircraft, outstanding performance but a very rough ride in turbulence and a dead spot in pitch on rotation and after landing when lowering the nosewheel
The 767 was much nicer to fly apart from that unforgiving landing gear configuration
The 767 was much nicer to fly apart from that unforgiving landing gear configuration
That sketch of the HS.134 caused me to dig out Graziano Freschi's excellent book "The BAC Three-Eleven". The following is his description:
"The HS134 study was launched in 1966 on the basis of a radical development of the Trident airliner...to be powered by two RB178 high bypass turbofans mounted on pylons under the wing. The later was based on a high aspect ratio, highly efficient supercritical design. The Trident cockpit and fuselage width were retained, but the stretched fuselage and low tailplane mounted at the end of the fuselage gave the aircraft the general appearance of the much later Boeing 757....The only good that came out of Hawker Siddeley's effort on the HS134 was the know-how on advanced supercritical aerofoils and on the general aircraft configuration (large wing mounted engines), knowledge that the company later put to good use in helping with design of the Airbus A.300"
So HS pretty much defined the configuration of the modern under-wing turbofan twin, both narrow and widebody
"The HS134 study was launched in 1966 on the basis of a radical development of the Trident airliner...to be powered by two RB178 high bypass turbofans mounted on pylons under the wing. The later was based on a high aspect ratio, highly efficient supercritical design. The Trident cockpit and fuselage width were retained, but the stretched fuselage and low tailplane mounted at the end of the fuselage gave the aircraft the general appearance of the much later Boeing 757....The only good that came out of Hawker Siddeley's effort on the HS134 was the know-how on advanced supercritical aerofoils and on the general aircraft configuration (large wing mounted engines), knowledge that the company later put to good use in helping with design of the Airbus A.300"
So HS pretty much defined the configuration of the modern under-wing turbofan twin, both narrow and widebody
No, obviously not. But the assertion didn't specify high-bypass fans:
So substituting Boeing for HS in that statement would be more accurate.
So substituting Boeing for HS in that statement would be more accurate.
Dave, respectfully, no. I inserted the high bypass bit, the original statement regarding turbofans should still stand.
Maybe it would be possible to suggest that Boeing's underslung turbojet installations owe their origins to the He 280
?
Maybe it would be possible to suggest that Boeing's underslung turbojet installations owe their origins to the He 280
?
Thanks HQ for getting my drift. I thought reference to the RB178 alone was the pointer to the modern configuration supposition
