Re: 757-300?

From:         h andrew chuang <chuang_hsin@ae.ge.com>
Date:         25 Mar 93 00:08:07 PST
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Karl Swartz wrote:

>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

Is that right?  How about 720 (shortened 707-100) and 747SP (shortened 747)?
Neither sold very well, but I don't consider them aerodynamically
unsuccessful.  And, technically speaking, isn't the 737-500 a shortened
version of 300/400, rather than a lengthened version of 100/200?

>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

I noticed the same thing when I was comparing the 757 with A321.

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

Agree.  That's why Airbus will have a hard time to find a powerplant if it
plans to grow its A340 beyond -300.  But the gap is really within an engine
manufacturer not the engines.  Thrust-wise, the gap between a PW2037 (37K)
and a CFM56-5C4 (34.5K) is very small.  Size-wise and weight-wise, PW2000
is a lot larger and heavier.  Unfortunately, it will be very undesirable for
Airbus to offer the A340 with CFM engine at one end, and P&W engine at the
other end.  Also, Airbus needs to structually change the wing to mount the
heavier P&W engines.

>Come now, you'd really like to see Boeing re-engine the 757 -- with GE
>engines, right?  ;-)  

Actually, GE did have an engine for the 757 -- CF6-32.  Unfortunately the
program was cancelled when GE was not able to secure an order from AA.
Ironically, AA ordered a lot of PW2000's without ordering the 757, and later 
cancelled that P&W order.  Presently, AA is flying RR-powered 757's.

However, by "re-engine" I meant introducing a brand new engine for the 
"new" 757.  Obviously, this kind of "re-engine" is very unpopular: for
example, Rolls Royce was a late comer in the MD-11 program (since RR engines
was not offered on the DC-10), and RR was only able to find one customer
(but the airline went bankrupt, and MD-11/RR program was cancelled).  
That's why I said using CFM engines on "757-100" does not make sense from
an airline's point of view.  IMHO, GE is very lucky that it only misses the
757 market, since the 757 is probably the least successful Boeing program.

>(Seriously, it's good to see someone from one of
>the engine manufacturers contributing to the group.  Welcome!)

I am glad to be here, but I probably can't provide as much "insight" to the
engines as the Boeing guys can to their airplanes. :-(

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
|  H. Andrew Chuang         || Tel:   (513) 774-5267          |
|  LEA                      || Fax:   (513) 774-5171          |
|  GE Aircraft Engines      || Email: chuang@hp659.crd.ge.com |
---------------------------------------------------------------
 personal opinions... not speaking for GE Aircraft Engines