Shorten a big plane ,rather than stretch a smaller one
Thread Starter
Shorten a big plane ,rather than stretch a smaller one
Has anyone successfully shortened a big aircraft to make a smaller one ?
Rather than stretch the 737 ,which already a stretched 707 , why did they not cut twenty feet of the front and twenty feet off the back of a 757 ?
A shortened 757 might work better than an over stretched 707.
Rather than stretch the 737 ,which already a stretched 707 , why did they not cut twenty feet of the front and twenty feet off the back of a 757 ?
A shortened 757 might work better than an over stretched 707.
i believe the wings are design for a specific mission, ie what works for a 757 for flights more than 3 hours will not be as effecient as a wing designed specifically for shorter flights. Also the bigger engines on the 757 would cost more, the landing gears also as they are tall to enable the engine clearance.
Shortening aircraft has been done before.
The 747 was shortened which resulted in the 747-SP.
The A320 was shortened to produced the A319/318
The 707 was shortened and became the 720
Anilv
Shortening aircraft has been done before.
The 747 was shortened which resulted in the 747-SP.
The A320 was shortened to produced the A319/318
The 707 was shortened and became the 720
Anilv
Boeing proposed a shorter 757-100 but there were no takers, the seat costs were far better to go with the standard-200 model
Furthermore a shorter version of the -200 would be ‘overbuilt’ and heavier than optimal as the structure was optimized for a larger aircraft
Always more economical to stretch than shrink
Furthermore a shorter version of the -200 would be ‘overbuilt’ and heavier than optimal as the structure was optimized for a larger aircraft
Always more economical to stretch than shrink
The prototype B757 rolled out 37 years ago.
The B737 needs a new clean sheet replacement.
20% more fuel efficient than the NG should be realistic, a focus on passenger comfort a priority.
Lockable overhead bins and live data feeds standard.
The B737 needs a new clean sheet replacement.
20% more fuel efficient than the NG should be realistic, a focus on passenger comfort a priority.
Lockable overhead bins and live data feeds standard.
The 737-500 and 600 where both shortened versions, and neither were very popular. Similarly, the F-70 was a shortened F-100.
The problem is shortening an aircraft usually results in an over-engineered aircraft, where as stretching one and doing whatever engineering is necessary to accommodate the stretch leave one just about right.
The 777-300ER is probably the best example of a successful "stretch".
The problem is shortening an aircraft usually results in an over-engineered aircraft, where as stretching one and doing whatever engineering is necessary to accommodate the stretch leave one just about right.
The 777-300ER is probably the best example of a successful "stretch".
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Has anyone successfully shortened a big aircraft to make a smaller one ?
Remember watching that type in the Far East, climbing like no other.
A great performer, but commercially it fared even worse than the short 737s - there's no way that selling 44 aircraft got anywhere close to covering the NRCs.
live data feeds sound like a good idea, locking the overhead bins in the hope this will speed evacuations, preventing passengers from taking their carry ons is not
In the heat of the moment, despite any and all PA announcements passengers will delay evacuation even further as they attempt to pry open the ‘inexplicably’ jammed bins and retrieve their duty free, etc, some will not give up until they’re found by the fire services later
It’s a well intended idea that will actually make things worse
live data feeds sound like a good idea, locking the overhead bins in the hope this will speed evacuations, preventing passengers from taking their carry ons is not
In the heat of the moment, despite any and all PA announcements passengers will delay evacuation even further as they attempt to pry open the ‘inexplicably’ jammed bins and retrieve their duty free, etc, some will not give up until they’re found by the fire services later
It’s a well intended idea that will actually make things worse
Soon all learn only cabin crew can open and close the bins - just like waiting for a meal or a drink - must wait and takes time.
Plastic PPRuNer
"........anesthetised, stacked on pallets and lashed down."
Which would be a great deal pleasanter than travelling cattle-class for long journeys these days....
Mac
Which would be a great deal pleasanter than travelling cattle-class for long journeys these days....
Mac
Something designed from the start for a specific purpose will usually be better than adapting something else to fit. There is normally a bit of leeway with a design and some variation is feasible but there comes a point where a new design would be a better option. The DC8 Super 60s series was stretched to about the longest practical length possible for a narrow body and any further increase in passenger numbers needed to be accommodated through increased width rather than length. Had the A380 been a commercial success there was the possibility of increasing the length but there wasn't enough demand for an upgraded variant.
There have actually been quite a number over time, some mentioned above. Most major manufacturers have done one or more shrinks. The A319 is probably the most successful of all, but the 737-500 also sold in good numbers. Both types had good secondhand value as well.
I think a BAC One-Eleven prototype was unique in being physically cut and lengthened to be the prototype series 500, and then the same airframe was again cut and shortened back to be the prototype series 475.
I think a BAC One-Eleven prototype was unique in being physically cut and lengthened to be the prototype series 500, and then the same airframe was again cut and shortened back to be the prototype series 475.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 777-300 / 300 ER are not really streches in the true sense of the word, the 777 programme from the design stage always planned two fuselage lengths and A, B and C 'market' ranges.
The A380-800 is actually a shrink, the wing is optimised for the longer fuselage -900 which never went into production.
The A380-800 is actually a shrink, the wing is optimised for the longer fuselage -900 which never went into production.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone successfully shortened a big aircraft to make a smaller one ?
Rather than stretch the 737 ,which already a stretched 707 , why did they not cut twenty feet of the front and twenty feet off the back of a 757 ?
A shortened 757 might work better than an over stretched 707.
Rather than stretch the 737 ,which already a stretched 707 , why did they not cut twenty feet of the front and twenty feet off the back of a 757 ?
A shortened 757 might work better than an over stretched 707.
It's probably worth noting that the 737-500/600 are basically the same size as the 737-200 - which was technically a stretch of the 737-100 (granted not many of the -100 variant were built). What killed the 757 was that when the 737NG came along (particularly the -900 variant), it could do most of what the 757 could do and had better operating economics, only falling short on range. Further, the 737 was way cheaper to build than the 757
'Shrinking' an existing design seldom goes well - as noted the wing is too big and heavy and much of the rest of the structure is similarly sub-optimal. Off hand, I can only think of the A319 as a reasonably successful 'shrink', while the A318 was a major flop.
The 747SP filled a specific need for more range - trading payload for fuel. I don't think the SP was a financial failure - at least not a major one. The market and NRC structures were far different in those days so it was much cheaper to bring the SP to market than it would be today, and the margins that aircraft sold for were much larger.
'Shrinking' an existing design seldom goes well - as noted the wing is too big and heavy and much of the rest of the structure is similarly sub-optimal. Off hand, I can only think of the A319 as a reasonably successful 'shrink', while the A318 was a major flop.
A great performer, but commercially it fared even worse than the short 737s - there's no way that selling 44 aircraft got anywhere close to covering the NRCs.