Boeing 757
I noticed on 505EA and subsequent examples I flew in belonging to Britannia, Monarch and Air 2000 that there was a noticeable sideways oscillation at the front end on climbout whilst accelerating through about 250 kts. It only lasted about 15 seconds but was quite noticeable.
"Got a ride in the Eastern Airlines one at Farnborough when it appeared there (82?). The Boeing company don't do flying displays, so it did customer demos, departing and arriving back during the display. Went to Lands End and back; no alcohol served on board"......said Chevron.
...and I blagged the DL 767 down to Lands End on the Tues of the same show!
Shame it was 'dry ship'....
...and I blagged the DL 767 down to Lands End on the Tues of the same show!
Shame it was 'dry ship'....
I attended Farnborough '82 wearing my hobby "Press hat" for a local paper .
Managed a demo flight on the 757, then next day blagged my way past the officious company rep to go on the 767.
On the pretext of doing a cockpit layout comparrison!!!!, so lots of time on the flight deck of the 767.
Enjoyed both trips out to lands end, I still have 2 complimentary ties from Boeing with the London logo of Royal Palace guards. Different colours for the different aircraft.
Those were the days.
My next 757 trip was in 1984 Heathrow-Schiphol on G-BIKI, which I think is still going strong with DHL.
Managed a demo flight on the 757, then next day blagged my way past the officious company rep to go on the 767.
On the pretext of doing a cockpit layout comparrison!!!!, so lots of time on the flight deck of the 767.
Enjoyed both trips out to lands end, I still have 2 complimentary ties from Boeing with the London logo of Royal Palace guards. Different colours for the different aircraft.
Those were the days.
My next 757 trip was in 1984 Heathrow-Schiphol on G-BIKI, which I think is still going strong with DHL.
Last edited by Old Photo.Fanatic; 12th Feb 2014 at 15:19.
ATC invited us to go over the inbound stacks rather than under as was the norm
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many hours on the 757/767 and often offered and got the high rate of climb from ATC. Previous aircraft was the 1-11 and once offered ATC a "Good Rate" on an empty ferry LHR-MAN with little fuel. The reply "First Rule of ATC - Never Climb a 1-11".
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago I spent some time in the paddock of Donington Park race circuit, which lies a stone's throw from East Midlands airport. The paddock was (presumably still is) completely surrounded by tall, flat metal fencing, the only gaps being for the gates in & out. The airliners were landing from overhead that day: whenever a 757/767 flew overhead it left behind the most curious whistling, roaring echo that reverberated around the paddock and persisted long after the aircraft itself had disappeared. Other aircraft were just...other aircraft. A bit noisy as they were so low but no trace at all of the mysterious echo.
(chevvron, BOAC never operated the 4c: 4 only I'm afraid)
(chevvron, BOAC never operated the 4c: 4 only I'm afraid)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was/is the 757 classed as a 'heavy' for ATC purposes?...I recall some comments about powerful vortices from it, though its weight and size were in the 707/DC-8 bracket....presumably the 767 is a heavy?
Was/is the 757 classed as a 'heavy' for ATC purposes?...I recall some comments about powerful vortices from it, though its weight and size were in the 707/DC-8 bracket
From the UK AIP:
"All Boeing 757s are classified as Upper Medium for wake turbulence separation application, irrespective of weight. This is due to an unusually high core vortex speed as generated by the B757 wing."
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 wake vortex was indeed powerful. Sitting in the garden of the 'Railway' pub at Mobberley when MAN were landing easterlies it was the only aircraft (inc 747s) that produced that weired whistling rushing sound of wake vortex.
Mate of mine used to fly them for BA. He says a firm touchdown would produce what they used to call a 'wet dog' landing; the whole aeroplane would shake laterally from tail to nose, like a dog shaking itself on getting out of a river.
I noticed on 505EA and subsequent examples I flew in belonging to Britannia, Monarch and Air 2000 that there was a noticeable sideways oscillation at the front end on climbout whilst accelerating through about 250 kts. It only lasted about 15 seconds but was quite noticeable.
Mate of mine used to fly them for BA. He says a firm touchdown would produce what they used to call a 'wet dog' landing; the whole aeroplane would shake laterally from tail to nose, like a dog shaking itself on getting out of a river.
It is true that those choosing to remain with the kick-off-drift school often did produce a firm landing -- so his confusion is understandable
Air Europe, BA and Monarch were the first UK airiness to operate the B757 in March/April 1983. Air Europe took over two early BA slots at short notice to reduce BA dept prior to privatisation. I completed the B757 course in Seattle during Feb/Mar 1983 and returned to Gatwick with AE's first 757, G-BKRM in the first week of April. G-BIKF arrive in May, leased from BA for the summer season together with 6 F/D crews. It returned to BA at the end of October. AE's second B757 G-BPGW joined KRM in March 1984 and 6 BA crews returned for six months. At the end of the summer season KRM was leased to BA for the winter of 84/85. More AE 757's arrived in 1985 and the crews were trained in house.
The first B757's were powered by RB211-C engines which had separate Jet and Fan effluxes and were prone to noisy burner vibrations when idling. In fact the noise was powerful enough to shatter windows in the Malaga terminal on at least one occasion. Later aircraft were fitted with RB211-E4 engines, which had scimitar shaped fan blades and a common Fan/Jet efflux.
At that time the B757 had the highest body/ground clearance of any aircraft built by Boeing, which made smooth landings tricky as there was very little air cushion. It was possible to land a B767-300ER smoothly almost every time and it was also more stable on the approach.
G-BKRM with RB211-C engines, Malaga 1983
G-BIKF Malaga, 1983
G-BNSF with RB211-E4 engines Banjuil Feb 1990
The first B757's were powered by RB211-C engines which had separate Jet and Fan effluxes and were prone to noisy burner vibrations when idling. In fact the noise was powerful enough to shatter windows in the Malaga terminal on at least one occasion. Later aircraft were fitted with RB211-E4 engines, which had scimitar shaped fan blades and a common Fan/Jet efflux.
At that time the B757 had the highest body/ground clearance of any aircraft built by Boeing, which made smooth landings tricky as there was very little air cushion. It was possible to land a B767-300ER smoothly almost every time and it was also more stable on the approach.
G-BKRM with RB211-C engines, Malaga 1983
G-BIKF Malaga, 1983
G-BNSF with RB211-E4 engines Banjuil Feb 1990
Last edited by brakedwell; 13th Feb 2014 at 16:31.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brakedwell
I beg to differ. I found the B757 easy to land whereas the B767- 200 and 300 the wheels always clonked due to their geometry which made a good landing always sound bad compared to the B757.
I beg to differ. I found the B757 easy to land whereas the B767- 200 and 300 the wheels always clonked due to their geometry which made a good landing always sound bad compared to the B757.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
757
I have to agree with thegypsy. The 757 had excellent landing qualities followed by the 767-300 and next the 767-200. All very nice handling aircraft.
BTW, when the FAA first designated the 757 as a Heavy aircraft it was only for aircraft with MGTOW weights in excess of 255,000 LBS. Boeing only built a few 757s with MGTOW at 255,500, along with MTW of 256,000 thus the true Heavy 757 was a rarity in those days.
BTW, when the FAA first designated the 757 as a Heavy aircraft it was only for aircraft with MGTOW weights in excess of 255,000 LBS. Boeing only built a few 757s with MGTOW at 255,500, along with MTW of 256,000 thus the true Heavy 757 was a rarity in those days.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derby UK
Age: 59
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RB211-535C engine was the planned engine for the 757, but P&W claimed 8% better fuel consumption so Boeing put us under pressure to upgrade the engine.
To make the 535-E4, the 524 Core was de-staged and put into the 535 along with the snubberless, wide chord fan blades. We also used composites in the fairings, fan nose cone and thrust reversers, and as stated blended the outer duct over a pastry cutter inner duct which got the noise down a lot.
We still couldn't quite mach the fuel economy, but we had better reliability and a quieter engine.
A lot of the tech such as non heated fan nose for self de-icing and wide chord fan blades was passed back to the 524 which formed the RB211-524-D4D with the addition of FADEC.
To make the 535-E4, the 524 Core was de-staged and put into the 535 along with the snubberless, wide chord fan blades. We also used composites in the fairings, fan nose cone and thrust reversers, and as stated blended the outer duct over a pastry cutter inner duct which got the noise down a lot.
We still couldn't quite mach the fuel economy, but we had better reliability and a quieter engine.
A lot of the tech such as non heated fan nose for self de-icing and wide chord fan blades was passed back to the 524 which formed the RB211-524-D4D with the addition of FADEC.
While the 757 was in general a nice aeroplane to land, we did find that the perception of the quality of said landing could vary depending on position within the aircraft with 'greasers' sometimes attracting criticism and vice versa.
Due to the difficulty of simultaneously occupying seats in the cockpit and in the rear of the aircraft, I am not aware of any reliable research into this phenomenon.
Due to the difficulty of simultaneously occupying seats in the cockpit and in the rear of the aircraft, I am not aware of any reliable research into this phenomenon.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought it was strange that Boeing terminated the 757...I'm guessing it never quite sold well enough (especially the -300) and they had the 737-900 which could offer the same sort of passenger capacity and was more profitable to build? (The DC-8 was killed in a similar way to reduce competition for the DC-10, I think...and there wasn't at that time a suitable high bypass engine for the DC-8)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A three-page 757 thread, and no mention of the glorious RB211 buzzsaw noise? Used to watch the afternoon BA 757 land at ENFB Fornebu, sadly now closed, here in Norway when I was a child, plane spotting with Dad. Music to my ears the 757 was 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: dublin
Age: 64
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts