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'....

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.

It was pretty standard to include "can give you high rate of climb" on the first call to Departures in the hope of getting an uninterrupted climb above the inbound stacks. It was an incredibly versatile aeroplane and lovely to fly.

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".

Comet 4b's of BEA often used to 'stack jump' in the late 60s/early 70s.(not the 4c of BOAC though)

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)

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?

Yes.

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."

Used to fly both 757 and 767. Biggest problem remembering whether I had to step down entering flight deck:{

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.

That effect was caused by landing with crab on - often as a result of ignoring the Boeing autopilot's masterly demonstration of how to land in X-winds with crossed controls.

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

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c3...pse5061a44.jpg

G-BIKF Malaga, 1983

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps595e0f46.jpg

G-BNSF with RB211-E4 engines Banjuil Feb 1990

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c3...tion/GBNSF.jpg

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.:=

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 :)

EI 757 just out of paint shop
 

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?

The fan blades loosen in their mountings when they are not under load.

Often used to get the 757 Shuttle from Heathrow to MAN and it was sometimes on a remote stand so we got bused out to it and entered via steps. Always used to amuse me watching the look on the faces of the pax as they climbed the steps in front of those engines, clanking round in the wind like a couple of knackered wheel bearings.

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?

Too late for me, sadly. Last flight on the 757 in 3 weeks and then I start on the 738. :{

I went as far as Penang in the east and Acapulco in the west with AE 757's.

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?

My longest was Karachi - Gatwick with 229 passengers in a standard 757 - 09.05.

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.

Really? A 757 at LBA pre-extension? :eek:

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.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94...scan0008-2.jpg

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.

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?

Was it not a part of the 757 design philosophy to utilise as high a proportion of 727 components as possible?
Hence the original T- tail.

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)

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.

If that's a generalisation, BAe and Antonov might disagree. :O

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!).

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 ?