Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Shorten a big plane ,rather than stretch a smaller one

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Shorten a big plane ,rather than stretch a smaller one

Old 17th Jun 2019, 01:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 871
Received 31 Likes on 25 Posts
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.
fitliker is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 02:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Anilv is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 02:13
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,084
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
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
stilton is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 02:57
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
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.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 03:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,780
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
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".
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 06:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 557
Received 28 Likes on 12 Posts
a focus on passenger comfort a priority,
Only in your dreams, if they could get away with it we would all be anesthetised, stacked on pallets and lashed down.

IG
Imagegear is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 06:07
  #7 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,497
Received 311 Likes on 165 Posts
Has anyone successfully shortened a big aircraft to make a smaller one ?
Try looking up the Boeing 747SP.

Remember watching that type in the Far East, climbing like no other.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 07:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,737
Received 163 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
The 737-500 and 600 where both shortened versions, and neither were very popular.
That's an understatement, at least in the case of the -600. While Boeing sold almost 400 of the -500 series, only 69 -600s were ever built, almost half of those for a single airline (SAS).

Originally Posted by ShyTorque
Try looking up the Boeing 747SP.

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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 11:42
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,084
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Bend alot
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.


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
stilton is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 13:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only way you will stop pax from trying to evacuate with their luggage, is to remove the bins and put everything in the hold...
The Bartender is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 13:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by stilton




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
Open lockers and close lockers only by cabin crew.

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.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 13:30
  #12 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,899
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"........anesthetised, stacked on pallets and lashed down."

Which would be a great deal pleasanter than travelling cattle-class for long journeys these days....

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,513
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
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.
krismiler is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 440
Received 31 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Imagegear
Only in your dreams, if they could get away with it we would all be anesthetised, stacked on pallets and lashed down.
As an Australian, many hours from pretty much anywhere else, YES PLEASE!
nonsense is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:27
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:40
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 206
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.
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 14:58
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In some respects, the 787-3 was shortened..at least the wingspan...
Smythe is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 15:15
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A330 sales were sluggish until the shrink A330-200 came along to kill off the 767
oldchina is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 15:31
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fitliker
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.
The 737 is not a stretched 707.
oggers is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2019, 19:15
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,295
Received 135 Likes on 66 Posts
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.

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.
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.
tdracer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.