Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

757-100?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 757-100?

    How come Boeing did not produce an 757-100? Or why, since the 757-200 cme out first, wasn't the 757-200s called 757-100s? The same for the 767, 777 and 717. Did I miss any? As for the A380, why did they start with such a high numer? Why not the A380-100, therefore they could build more models and possibly expand withouth having to find a new designation, because after they bulid the 900 serise then they will need a new designation.
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

  • #2
    there was a 757-100 but airlines found it to small and went to the larger version the -200.

    Comment


    • #3
      just like the 767-100. Boeing scrapped it, it was bigger than the 762 and was better. 3 man crew though. Early 767's had them. Ansett had one or two.
      -Kevin

      Comment


      • #4
        There was also a 777-100HGW proposal... it was Boeing's first idea for a C-market 777.

        They proposed it to airlines like SQ, QF, and MH; all of whom found its CASM intolerable.
        Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

        Check it out!

        Comment


        • #5
          I read somewhere that Boeing decided to start numbering some models from -200, in case they plan for a small version in the future... is there any truth to this?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by avro_arrow_25206
            I read somewhere that Boeing decided to start numbering some models from -200, in case they plan for a small version in the future... is there any truth to this?
            Sure is!!! Boeing wanted room to reduce capacity. They knew they could always expand, but couldnt "go back" So they would start with the -200 or -300, saving the -200 or -100 varient.

            Alex
            Stop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by [email protected]
              Sure is!!! Boeing wanted room to reduce capacity. They knew they could always expand, but couldnt "go back" So they would start with the -200 or -300, saving the -200 or -100 varient.

              Alex
              Ya that's what I had in mind, but I asked because other posters in this thread said Boeing actually had a -100 designed and proposed to airlines, then scrapped later

              Comment


              • #8
                ...the irony with that being, with rare exception (the A319 is one of the few examples thereof) model-shrinks turn out to be relatively piss-poor performers; only good for patchwork market application.

                A318, 736, 747SP, etc.
                Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                Check it out!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                  ...the irony with that being, with rare exception (the A319 is one of the few examples thereof) model-shrinks turn out to be relatively piss-poor performers; only good for patchwork market application.
                  Which is why the proposed shrinked A380-700 would probably be less successful than even the 74L.
                  Stretching is usually the way to go (753, 734, 738, 773, A321), although even there there are exceptions (739 (for now), 764).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Really odd thing though...

                    ...is that both of Airbus' two top performing models are shrinks!




                    Seems that they generally can't build a stretched model (A345, A346, A321) worth a damn against its competition, but (excepting the A318, which is a double-shrink) they seem to have the whole shrink concept mastered
                    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                    Check it out!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                      Seems that they generally can't build a stretched model (A345, A346, A321) worth a damn against its competition, but (excepting the A318, which is a double-shrink) they seem to have the whole shrink concept mastered
                      Airbus was/is well aware of this that is why the A388 was built with a "huge" wing to effectively accomodate a possible further stretch (A389).

                      It looks like Airbus is also focusing the A350 design on the 900 model (supposedly the stretch) rather than the 800. If this is truly the case, then its almost like the A333 (base) and A332 (shrink) all over again.

                      Btw, the A321 is marginally successful given its respectable order book (but if the plane was viewed as a 757 replacement, then it was a piss poor performer).
                      adaequatio rei et intellectus

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by vojoboy
                        but if the plane was viewed as a 757 replacement
                        Not so much a replacement as a competitor.... was the standpoint taken.
                        Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                        Check it out!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                          Not so much a replacement as a competitor.... was the standpoint taken.
                          Ok doki!

                          Anyways, the A321 will get a taste of a real competitor if and when the 737-900ER(X?) will be launched.
                          adaequatio rei et intellectus

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ACman
                            just like the 767-100. Boeing scrapped it, it was bigger than the 762 and was better. 3 man crew though. Early 767's had them. Ansett had one or two.
                            Ansett had some of the early 767-200. The ordered 5 -277 aircraft and they were the only ones fitted with a 3 man crew. Ansett backed down on presure from the unions to have them as a three man crew. funny thing is the unions even wanted three man crews on A320 and even the DC-9. Early Australians are wreid.

                            When Ansett brought those 767-204 aircraft of britanaia Ansett converted their early 767-200 with 3 man crews into 2 man crews (how they should have been).

                            Getting on topic i think the 757-100 was took much like the 737-400 and -900
                            Some people in today's society are so thick!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ConcordeBoy
                              Not so much a replacement as a competitor.... was the standpoint taken.
                              Yeah a smaller competitor. Less seats.
                              -Kevin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X