It's official...Boeing to end B757 line
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were hot rumors about in Memphis that FDX was going to buy the last 16, thus keeping the line open awhile. They did this on the 727. Alas, it is not to be.... Plenty of slightly used ones on the market, though.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in 757 maintenance for almost 20 years, I'm not going to let the rosy tint of nostalgia make me forget the many hours of fighting with a PRSOV change in the cold and wet.
I will however be disappointed to see the demise of the 757.
I will however be disappointed to see the demise of the 757.
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice looking aeroplane but used to worry me watching at the start of the take off role as power is applied...........the whole tailplane shakes in the engine vortex as if it was going to shake itself to bits! Must have good glue at Boeing as not seen one come off yet!
Never seen that on a 727....but they were milled out of a solid block.
A fine ship none the less and even though I am a dedicated 727 man, it will be sad to see production end. Does that mean the -300 as well?
Coop & 727 bear
Never seen that on a 727....but they were milled out of a solid block.
A fine ship none the less and even though I am a dedicated 727 man, it will be sad to see production end. Does that mean the -300 as well?
Coop & 727 bear
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodbye then to the aircraft that can almost always be relied upon to climb excellently, turn nicely, fly through whatever weather, and accept pretty much whatever level it's given.
I suspect though that current operators of the a/c will be using them for many many years to come. Or at least I hope so.
I suspect though that current operators of the a/c will be using them for many many years to come. Or at least I hope so.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly can't think of a 757 hull loss stemming from a design flaw or tech problem (leaving pitot covers on notwithstanding).
As somebody else said, of the (I think 5) hull losses of the 75, none have been attributed to a fault with the airplane.
1) They design from the ground up, taking into consideration those who are going to drive the machine and the highest standards of construction practice.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only......
If you If you want the highest standard of construction find yourself a Douglas built aircraft!
When Douglas was bidding on the C5A against Lockheed each of the two companies had to build a mockup to demonstrate the ability to carry various weapons systems. Lockheed built a full-scale mockup and they built full-scale weapons systems. This mockup was built mainly of wood and was only representational of the real aircraft.
Douglas on the other hand built a hard mockup that was exactly like the full-scale aircraft. However it was built to a smaller scale as were the various weapons systems and vehicles and it was so accurate that detail drawings of the fuselage profiles as well as the wings could be taken and transcribed onto paper. Their reasoning was that if they got the C5A contract they could build an aircraft that would directly compete with the 747.
In the Douglas design they proposed to use former rings for the structure that were made in Titanium subassemblies that were Huck Bolted © together. Lockheed proposed that the former rings be made of one piece of Titanium. When the C5A went into service the former rings would stress relieve in place and warp requiring major rework.
In the AWACS competition Douglas proposed the DC-8 with a fuselage mounted Radome. Their bid was unsuccessful but the Air Force who owned the drawings replaced the 707 Radome, which was tail, mounted, and used the Douglas design instead.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy smoke
In almost all cases the final seal on aircraft doors was the buildup of cigarette tars contained in the smoke. With the advent of the no smoking ban the tars were no longer present and when the aircraft went into check the door seal areas were cleaned and as a result many doors leaked. This might be the reason.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hans Solo.
Doupt it - by the time that TOGA thrust was applied, they were pretty much screwed!
RIP
Would the Cali accident have been prevented if the speedbrakes auto-retracted on application of TOGA power like they do on the Airbus?
RIP
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure BB. I think the final NTSB report said they'd had TOGA on for some time and had been flying against the stick shaker, mainly because they still had the speedbrakes deployed. There was discussion about whether they would have made it if the speedbrakes had been retracted, especially as they hit very close to the top of the mountain. Anyone remember the full details of the incident?
Our pilots never have anything negative to say about the plane, but our flight attendants do not like the stronger turbulence at the aft galley, being so far behind the wing, and it must be the same with the stretched DC-8s.
How does anyone compare turbulence in the back of a 757 compared to the A-321 which has fly-by-wire?
How does anyone compare turbulence in the back of a 757 compared to the A-321 which has fly-by-wire?
Paxing All Over The World
Difficult to say, right off the top but I would say that I have noticed more 'shimmy' down the back of 321s.
I spent 18 months working in MUC and shuttled on (mostly) LH's Airbus'. I was often down the back - right at the back. I cannot recall a single unpleasant sector in a '5' but then, I am biased. (See my earlier post)
I spent 18 months working in MUC and shuttled on (mostly) LH's Airbus'. I was often down the back - right at the back. I cannot recall a single unpleasant sector in a '5' but then, I am biased. (See my earlier post)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One assumes that the 767 will not be too far behind.
What effect will the completion of the 757 have on the 2 engines certified to fly on it? I believe that only the 757 uses the RB211-535 (and its variants), while the C-17 also uses the PW2000. How will the lower production numbers for the PW2000 effect the C-17 program?
What effect will the completion of the 757 have on the 2 engines certified to fly on it? I believe that only the 757 uses the RB211-535 (and its variants), while the C-17 also uses the PW2000. How will the lower production numbers for the PW2000 effect the C-17 program?
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my favourites for sure, and I've got the same score as Raamjet on types flown plus a couple more.... particularly liked the RB211-535E4 version, a real rocket ship. Excellent mix of stability and responsiveness, and a delight to hand-fly; one of my great memories is flying the Canarsie into JFK at night in a 757, something I did more than a few times at a former base. Agree with the comments on the turbulence down the back, however, but hey! we's up the front! 
Was always worth a call down the back to see just how it was at the other end of that long moment-arm, mind you. Could be very unforgiving if you didn't deal with the drift on a crosswind landing.. shakes its tail like a wet dog then! Or maybe that was just me being crap....
Don't think they'll be vanishing from our skies overnight... will definitely be a real sturdy workhorse for years to come. Its hard to think of an airliner that looks "more" right than the 757..."as" right perhaps, but not more....
Was always worth a call down the back to see just how it was at the other end of that long moment-arm, mind you. Could be very unforgiving if you didn't deal with the drift on a crosswind landing.. shakes its tail like a wet dog then! Or maybe that was just me being crap....Don't think they'll be vanishing from our skies overnight... will definitely be a real sturdy workhorse for years to come. Its hard to think of an airliner that looks "more" right than the 757..."as" right perhaps, but not more....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flt Safety: I believe the L-1011 -250/-500 series have 535's...but not many operators left (thank god - another of my types I've flown, and it was grossly overcomplicated but also an excellent safety record. Never flew the later ones though.)
Have to disagree with the MD/Boeing quality analogy from an earlier posting. I think the MD-80 is the cheapest, tackiest, most add-on bits-as-afterthoughts-with-interior-trim-falling-off jet I've flown. All kinds of wierd handling revisions and technical wobblies throughout it's history; just not in the same class as the 757.
SS: agree with the crosswind landing thoughts...but a sweet one is really sweet!!
Have to disagree with the MD/Boeing quality analogy from an earlier posting. I think the MD-80 is the cheapest, tackiest, most add-on bits-as-afterthoughts-with-interior-trim-falling-off jet I've flown. All kinds of wierd handling revisions and technical wobblies throughout it's history; just not in the same class as the 757.
SS: agree with the crosswind landing thoughts...but a sweet one is really sweet!!