Re: 757-300?

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Date:         23 Mar 93 01:09:48 PST
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

H. Andrew Chuang writes:
>I really doubt Boeing will seriously consider this program.  With the
>stretch, a "757-300" will have similar range and capacity as a 767-200.

I'm not sure how important the 767-200 really is these days -- my
impression is that most new 767 orders are for the -300.  In any case
the 757 would probably have significant fuel burn advantages as well
as a lower acquisition cost versus a 767.

>a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for
>long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers!

The 757 already operates some pretty long routes, including trans-
Atlantic charters and U.S. to Hawaii.  In choosing to operate the 757
on the latter routes, United noted that most of the traffic would be
vacation travellers who were more interested in low fares than in
comfort -- United's DC-8s served well on these routes until quite
recently.

>IMHO, the only 757 derivative that makes sense is a shortened version to
>fill in the gap between 737-400's and 757-200's (as well as to compete with
>A320's).

I noted last year that a shortened 757 seemed like a winner, to which
Greg Wright commented that Boeing had never successfully shortened an
aircraft.  I still think the reasons for that are irrelavent to a
"757-100" but it got me thinking about the 757 further.  After doing
some research I was amazed at just how large an aircraft the 757 is.
Wing area is about twice a 737 and MGTOW is nearly twice the heaviest
737.  In these figures a 757 also greatly exceeds a 727-200 Advanced
and has tremendous range to boot -- over 4,500 miles.

Something roughly comparable to the 727-200, perhaps a wee bit bigger,
seems quite desireable.  But the more I look at the 757 the clearer it
seems that it isn't the right place to start, despite first appearances.
(This is borne out by comments from several Boeing folks who cite a
variety of economic and political reasons as well.)

>However, this will be feasible only if a derated PW2000 or RB211-535
>is available.  To "re-engine" the 757 derivative with CFM56's or
>V2500's most likely will not be well-received by current 757 customers.

Not only that but a "757-100" with reasonable range would likely push
the CFM56 and V2500 to their limits.  Look at the A320, which barely
has sufficient range for many North American routes (some would say
that it isn't even barely adequate), and the A321, which isn't even
close (though it may do just fine for most European routes).

There really does seem to be a gap in engine offerings here.

>Since I mentioned that re-engining a 757 may not make sense ...

...

>H. Andrew Chuang
>GE Aircraft Engines

Come now, you'd really like to see Boeing re-engine the 757 -- with GE
engines, right?  ;-)  (Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of
the engine manufacturers contributing to the group.  Welcome!)

--
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com		
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com