|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11171862)
"A bigger cross-section to improve weight" ?
It becomes extremely long and bending moments around the middle of the fuselage require lots of material (additional weight) to keep it stiff and strong enough. That also become a factor when 2-3 or 3-3 cross section are stretched real far. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cc10a19359.jpg https://www.aircharter.com.hk/aircra.../boeing757-300 |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 11170968)
The 737NG really killed demand for the 757. Aside from long range, a 737-900 could do most of what a 757-200 could with lower operating costs and it cost a lot less to build than a 757, so Boeing could sell it much cheaper. When the production rate of the 757 got down to 1 or 2 per month, the factory space needed became a killer - in short Boeing could make far more money by devoting that factory space to another 737 line and increasing the 737 production rate.
As far as long range, it's pretty telling that for the PW2000/757, 37k and 40k ratings were available but it was mainly the freight operators that sprung for the 40k - passenger operators staying with the 37k. When we did the Pratt powered 757-300, we offered a 43k rating but it wasn't bought - I'm not sure it was even certified. It's also rather telling that in spite of very good operating costs, no body bought the -300 aside from the launch customers. |
Originally Posted by Rwy in Sight
(Post 11180337)
An updated 757. Would history for the model and Boeing would have been different if there was a serious update on the 757 was offered instead of shutting down the line - engines plus electronics?
There was a plan to use the updated (777 based) flight deck and avionics from the 767-400ER on the entire 757 and 767 line (the lack of FADEC on the RB211-535 being a stumbling block), but when the 767-400ER flopped and with demand for the 757 rapidly falling that plan was abandoned. Pratt did some major upgrades to the PW2000 engine around the year 2000 (we called it 'the Y2K package') that improved the fuel burn by (IIRC) a couple percent. Granted not as much as they could have gotten with an all-new engine but that would have cost a fortune. In short, at the time the 757 line was shut down, the demand for its capabilities hadn't developed yet. Even today, I question if there is sufficient demand for such capabilities (in excess of that provided by existing narrowbodies) to justify an all new aircraft. |
In short, at the time the 757 line was shut down, the demand for its capabilities hadn't developed yet. Even today, I question if there is sufficient demand for such capabilities (in excess of that provided by existing narrowbodies) to justify an all new aircraft. Mostly for short-medium <5hr flights. Apart from that, it slowly seems to sink in that the MAX isn't doing fine for the rest of the decade & something lean /modern is needed.. The MoM/NMA concepts have been shrinking since it's inception. Naming it a "Boeing 737 Replacement" is still a no go though. |
The smartest Boeing move would be to go from like MAX 8 size to above the A321neo size and cover everything up to 787 size. This might require two pairs of wings.
|
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 11189469)
The smartest Boeing move would be to go from like MAX 8 size to above the A321neo size and cover everything up to 787 size. This might require two pairs of wings.
My biggest concern would be 120-180 seats <1500NM. That's the bulk (80+% ?) of the all NB flights globally. You don't want to have severely reduced competition there.. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....fc58af2cdb.jpg Possible 150-170 seats lean A220 variant |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.