Shortening is quite common with Airbus. The A310 is a shortened version of the A300, the A319 is a shorther version of the original A320 and the A330-200 is a shortened version of the original A330-300.

That was actualy the "shortened" stretch. It start with the -61. Then new engines and a center tank gave way to the new higher performance (range) -63 and the longer range (by way of shortening) -62.

Yeah, but the DC-8 didn't really get going until the Super 70s with the refit of those huge (relative to previous DC-8s) CFM 56s (?). I fondly remember many an MCO-ATL flight on DL Super 70s. The feeling of power those things had on take off always made me think that we could go into orbit if the need arose.

http://airliners.net/Airliners_net_i...e=MTcyOTQ2&id=

http://airliners.net/Airliners_net_i...e=MTcyMzM5&id=




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 04-03-2002).]

Actually, even this is not true. That was what I too had thought but the 757 fuselage cross-section is only similar to but is not identical to that of the other 3 models.

I concur, the 727 nose is the best jet airliner ever. However, having said that, I like the 75 nose as well. Even though I'm an engineer, and I don't play one on TV, I don't know the engineering rationale behind the 75's nose. I would imagine it has a lot to do with aerodynamics and perhaps pilots' view, given that it sits pretty high.

My vote for favorite airliners goes first to the 74, then the 72.

My vote for Edsel noses goes to MD, their DC-8's and -9's and subsequent MD-80's are beyond ugly.

A friend of mine's friend is an HP captain on the 75. He says in good turbulence the fuselage flexes so much that there are times (or used to be, before hardened doors) that they would look back and couldn't see the rear of the plane. That's reassuring, in the sense that you'd rather see it flex than break, but still somewhat disconcerting.

[This message has been edited by Western Airlines (edited 04-03-2002).]

There is obviously a limit on how much you can stretch these birds... Im assuming that the 747 fuselage is pretty much near its limit... if this were not the case, Boeing could have just added length to the 744 and killed the A380, or...?

I should have been more specific. The 727 and early 737 fuselages were exactly the same as the 707. The 757, as a completely new design, does differ in many ways from its ancestors but the four aircraft do in fact have the same 11'-7" interior cabin width.

Boeing has actually considered this with the -500X at 250 feet long and the -600X at 279 feet long. The wingspan on both is 251 feet, which generally is the limiting factor. That's why the -400 has winglets, it allowed a shorter span, thereby allowing the plane to use existing airside facilities. Both versions involve fuselage stretches in front of and behind the wing, new wings, wing fairings, engines, stabilizers, elevators, and rudders.

They have also considered a completely double-deck 74. As far as I know, all these plans are currently on the shelf.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FWAAA:
[B]Call me overly picky, but the 757 would look a whole lot nicer if the front end resembled the 707/727/737 nose. It is surely Boeing's Edsel (appearance-wise).

When I look at the nose of the 757 in comparison that of the 707/727/737 I can think of at least a couple of reasons that might explain the shape, though this is complete speculation of my part.

(1) The more bulbous nose may be a way of accommodating a larger more sophisticated on-board Dopler radar.

(2) The Drop-nose effect seems to make for a more commanding forward-downward view from the pilots seat, which seems logical given how much higher the 757 sits compared to earlier aircraft.



[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 04-03-2002).]

The limit must be how much lift the wing can generate.

The basic 747 (-100, -200, -300 and -4000 has never been stretched from the -100's 70.6M length, just shortened (SP). The only "lengthening" has been extending the upper deck backward.

I've been on one of the stretched 777s -- the 777-300. I think it's longer than the 747-400. Boarding and deplaning really took forever. I was sitting near the back and you just keep walking and walking and walking past bulkheads and more bulkheads and galleys and lavatories and more bulkheads.

No one mentioned that the 757 and 767 have similar cockpits. They have a similar or same pilot rating. The 767 has to fit into the narrower 757 so the cockpit is one step lower than the rest of the floor of the plane.

Actually shrinking is not as common as stretching because the resulting plane has to carry all the basic weight (same wings and other stuff) as the base model. What shrinkage have we seen? (747SP, a few 707's such as for Qantas, 737-500, A319/318, A310, L1011-500)

Ok, so I admit I didn't quite check the accuracy of my figures. (last time I yell out to the whole cubicle farm if anyone knows how many feet in a mile ) I guess this is why I would never make it as a professional journalist, I don't confirm my sources.

Indeed. The 757 and 767 share the same pilot type rating. You get two for the price of one.



------------------
Jeff

DFW AAdvantage Platinum

The 777 is already offered in two lengths, the original -200 (also available in LR and ER versions) and the longer -300 (also in ER).