Why Hasn't Boeing Re-Engined the 757?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 ноя 2019
- The Boeing 757 never sold all that well. During its run of production, just over 1,000 units were built. Comparatively, its single-isle brother - the 737 - has been ordered over 15,000 times. And yet, over the past couple of years, airlines have continually delayed the retirement of their 757s, as shifts in consumer preferences are making the 757's business proposition extremely attractive. So why haven't we heard anything about Boeing reengining the 757? Let me explain...
If you enjoyed the video, leave a like and *subscribe*, it's the easiest way to help me grow the channel and continue delivering great aviation videos. Also, head on over to instagram and follow me at @cobyexplanes for more awesome airplane content, to ask more questions, and to help me decide on future video topics. 
Авто/Мото
I have a question: could airlines retrofit existing 757s with new engines like the GeNX? That way they wouldn’t have to rebuild the supply chain and would add a better engine to allow longer range and greater efficiency
Excellent question. This sounds good in theory, however in practice it wouldn't work. The engine pylon would need to be reworked to accommodate the larger GeNX. Further, GE would need to develop a new, de-rated version of the GeNX - as it currently stands the GeNX has too much thrust for what is already an overpowered jet. Finally, the airplane would need to be re-certified by the FAA. Considering the new leap engines changed the handling characteristics of the 737 MAX and lead to a couple of crashes, something as simple as sticking these engines on the air frame with minimal adjustment would likely still result in an extensive flight test program. These are just a few of the complications putting the GeNX on the jet would present, so the 757 is stuck with its RR and P&W powerplants
This would be one sexy plane...
A lot of B707 and DC8 had their JT8D replaced with CFM56 so this has been done. They mostly ended up as freighters. Not sure if there is an engine around in the right thrust range.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs This was primarily done for the US military's tanker program and did require some extensive certification. Some of the DC8s did end up as freighters, though
@@cobyexplanes well actually is it as easy as just sticking new engines on (ofc not literally). The problem with the max was not the engine, it was the ground clearance. The 757 has enough ground clearance to fit the leap engines without needing to place them further forward and up.
Why Hasn't Boeing Re-Engined their management and culture?
FujinBeatz they just fired the CEO last month.
McDonnell-Douglas should've never been merged with Boeing
boeing trying to control the market, first attempting to make the Cseries a failure, then merging with embraer and even tho boeing has one of the best regional jets, the 717, they rather fuse with a company that produces regional jets so they can control part of that market since airbus gave boeing a good slap in the face with the cseries
@@ishiddddd4783 boeing 717 (being McDonnell Douglas designed) was undermarketed because boeing always try to sell their 737 (their own design) even if they dont fit the market need.
Only now most 717 operator realized how good the 717 was and why most airline still hold onto it especially Qantas, Hawaiian and Delta
When the merger happened people thought that Boeing tookover MDC, but the management of MDC tookover. Stoneciphere's MDC worked out the deal, when I was there at that time, the bean counters were taking over and not engineers. So parts were made all over the world, called just in time. Which meant the parts arrive in time for assembly, which never happened or was not up to specs. The last two designs, the MD95 (B717) and the C-17 were quality built by MDC as this bean counter syndrome was taking place, which this mentality took over Boeing. That is why you now see production problems, example 737 max. Boeing never pushed the B717 or tried to make a civilian version of the C-17. MDC had the plans and also a stretch version of the B717.
The 757 is the greatest narrow bodied commercial jet to be engineered till this day! Hands down!
Absolutely agree with you
Surely it must of crossed Boeing's minds a few times in the past several years that closing down the production line and all of the tooling for the 757 was and is regrettable. 757 with an updated wing, engines and structural changes to carbon materials really would of been the aircraft of the 2020s.
My dad flies the 757 and I jumpseat with him quite alot. A flying beauty.
Awesome!!!
Your dad would hate flying the 737. Stick with the 757 as long as he can.
Michael B He used to fly the 737 6 years ago and quite enjoyed it and TUI are phasing them out for the Maxes
Joshua Kerry-Wookey not the MAX 😬😬😬
@@alek488 they are phasing the 757 200 out for the 737 max. My dad flew the 737 NG
The 757 is my all time favorite.
The 757 no longer has tooling in existence.
Same. I was on a 757 about 10 months ago. The “pods” in first class look comfy. I spoke with the pilot and he said it was almost as cool to fly as the 777. Great vids, btw.
Mine too!!!!
I think the 757 is the best looking airliner.
Craig O'Brien are you joking. It looks like a blunt pencil. The 787 Dreamliner, now that’s what I’m talking about.
Kapow Gaming the 757 is a damn rocket.
Kapow Gaming the a350 is fitter than the 787 😝
Bad ass plane! I've worked on them!
Especially the -300!
Flew on a 757 once. Was really tired, and was falsely expecting to be on another 737 (as the JFK to SEA route is usually served by). But the 757 was just more comfortable over all.
757/767 are still very capable airplanes, especially during this pandemic. Could use an engine refit though. Still in use with a lot of cargo operators.
I've flown on the 757 a few times, really nice plane.
03chrisv definitely favourite aircraft. Got craploads of extra power, great range, compatibility with 767, and os a quick little bugger.
Same I flew on it from London Gatwick to Grenoble on Thomson
Agree. It's so much more comfortable than even the newest 737's.
I’ve flown almost all of the flights in my lifetime on a 57 and it wasn’t great seating quality wise, but that was more united than the plane itself
*it's a very good plane even better than a320 especially when it has rb211 engines only though*
The 757 needs a revamp. That's an excellent plane.
Dru Talero except it has been out of production for 16 YEARS !!!!!! DUUUUUHH!!!!!!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 so? Once the 737 Max production ends, Boeing can re-engineer and restart production of the 757 as their smaller single aisle jet. They would not have to spend quite as much money creating a brand new plane from scratch. All they would need to do is redesign the wing, the tail plane, and the engines. And the 757 is high enough off the ground to accommodate larger engines in the future.
It's gonna be failure. We already have Boeing 777,Boeing 787,Airbus A350 and Airbus A330
@@FinalLugiaGuardian Brilliant! Amongst all the complex scenarios and arguments for and against rebuilding an upgraded Boeing 757 .... this is the best prognosis I've seen so far!
I'll never understand these types of comments. Did you read your comment to yourself Dru before typing it?
The 757 should have been the 737 replacement by scaling it down to 737 size and giving it new wings.
Yes that would have made a lot of sense!
My favorite airplane is the 757 a beauty
Ron's aviationchannel It’s always been such an under-appreciated aircraft...
Specially the 757-300
I've always wondered how they managed to keep the structural rigidity of such a long and narrow plane. Spectacular machine to watch taking off or landing
@@ernodios I agree
Greatest narrow body ever built
The 757 is still a decent plane just that WHY DID AIRBUS RETIRE THE A380?!
They could call it the 757Max. No...wait
I know. Their last attempt at slapping new engines on an old plane went down like a lead balloon. Literally.
Noah Bowie lmfao
**Stall Horn**
Noah Bowie difference with the 757 is that the engines would stay in the same place and wouldn’t need a thrust increase; they could simply make the RB211 more efficient; the 757 wouldn’t need a shift in position or CG because the fuselage sits much higher above the ground.
Coby Explanes already said that it's a bad idea to re-engine the 757. So stop talking about it!
Amazing explanations, Coby, to some very relevant strategic questions.
Boeing management and their board will have to answer for this towards the shareholders, as this scenario has developed over a very long space of time.
In the end, it came down to two strategic decisions Boeing took over the past 20 years.
They effectively decided to terminate the 757/767 program 15 years ago (These two planes shared a lot of commonalities and formed an ingenious ecosystem with lowered maintenance costs and pilots that could easily be trained to cross platforms).
Such a program termination is fine when you have put a replacement platform in place and started producing the new plane while gradually winding down production of the old plane. You would then focus on delivering planes to tail-end commercial operators like Freight Companies and the Military who have a strong focus on reliability, cost and safety.
Boeing perfectly executed this with the 767 vs. the 787.
Incredibly and inexplicably, though, Boeing completely chose to ignore this maxime with the 757.
They chose to replace the 767 wide-body jet while leaving the 757 narrow body without a replacement.
This is understandable from a 2004 vantage point of view, but the emergence of long-and-thin routes and the end of the hub-and-spoke model is 15 years in the making.
There is simply no excuse for such a serious management oversight.
In fact, Boeing pretty much left so much time that Airbus could develop several aircraft to populate the long-and-thin space: A321XLR and A330 neo. In fact, at the bottom end, this space is now even going to be populated by the A220-300s and, if developed, A200-500s.
Unlike other industries, strategic aerospace decisions cannot be rectified overnight.
They are prohibitively expensive when you get them wrong.
They take USD 10-20B in investment and 5-8 year implementation cycles until serious commercial deliveries can be made.
Interestingly, Airbus is guilty of the reverse scenario. While Boeing chose not to build the right plane at a seemingly wrong time (757 replacement in 2004). Airbus chose to build the right plane at the wrong time (A380 - A magnificent plane which was built 10-15 years too late).
Airbus chose to build the A380 around the now incorrect assumption that more airlines would choose to fly more passengers out of hubs with a severely limited number of slots.
In my opinion, even once Boeing fixes the 737 certifications, relaunches production and launches a commercial 797/NMA mock-up in July 2020 at Farnborough, we cannot expect serious commercial production before 2027/2028.
Given the age of the 757s in service today, most major operators will have had to modernise their fleets with modern planes between 2023 to 2026.
Boeing chose not to offer their customers (Mainly, Delta, American, United, South-West,...) a plane that can fill their replacement needs.
Boeing chose to go cheap by stretching a 50-year old 737 system into a Max 10 rather than investing big to retain the competitive advantage they had fought so hard to build.
This reflects their current management mindset:
Short-term profitability versus long-term shareholder value.
You get to this level of thinking when you rely on juicy, non-contested government contracts for too long.
Boeing needs to return to becoming the excellent engineering company they have been for the first 50 years of their existence.
They owe this to their employees and customers.
I agree with all your points except the one saying Boeing will be launching a prototype 797 NMA in July 20 farnborough. Do you know people who are on the board at Boeing? Boeing have gotten away with the 737 max disaster with much less damage than if it was airbus. So many people died and all the Boeing supporters including you Just want to put it under the carpet. I’m not sure why people at Boeing haven’t been arrested and are facing jail time... complete double standards with the FAA who are also accountable. Hopefully more comes out but it’s doubtful.
Andrew Pitt
Valid points, Andrew.
In am not at all a Boeing supporter in this matter. I am just trying to keep a neutral outlook.
Great point regarding severity of punishment and the typical double standards.
There is a definite perceived bias regarding foreign manufacturers in terms of punishment. Here is another example:
GM
124 people are been reported to have died as a result of faulty GM ignition switches and the resulting accidents.
GM settled for USD 900m.
Nobody went to jail.
VW
Volkswagen built an emission defeat switch into their cars. Emission levels went up.
Casualties: 0.00!
This is in a country where pickup trucks count amongst the most popular vehicles and easily consume twice as much as a modern, efficient sedan.
2 executives went to jail.
Volkswagen was fined USD 2.8B.
Do we really expect to see any serious efforts to fine Boeing and take their executives to task? They are the largest US defence contractor, after all.
By their own standards, how much should Boeing be fined: USD 15B, 20B?
How many executives should go to jail?
15, 20?
Excellent comments. I came across an article that further adds to what has happened to Boeing's culture and vision leading to the issues currently faced. This article seems to peel the layers back and uncover the smelly root of their problems. qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis/
So glad I found your channel... this was one of the questions I was wanting answered and you did wonderfully
I'm glad you found it too :)
I just flew on a 757-200 from Jacksonville Florida to Minneapolis about a week ago. Big plane, it had 270 seats. Very nice.
What looks easy to a layman is not so easy when all factors taken into consideration. Great video.
I only covered two of that factors as well, there's honestly so much more to talk about on the subject!
True , Geoff Lane
Our airline’s 757’s are so old. Older than most of our mechanics working on them.
That is actually true
Hi Coby Thank you for producing an excellent line of well thought out, interesting, analytical yet easy to understand videos. Highly appreciated! Brian
Love this video I think it's your best one yet
Thanks! I like this one a lot
Pilots like the 757. One told me that it was a "hot rod," with more power than similar aircraft.
The 757 was unbeatable for a long time. Delta's pilots can also get their hands on the other "hot rod" runway-jumping fast-climbing aircraft, the Airbus A220.
RB211 - The gift that keeps on giving ...
I always wondered this. Now I know. Thank you for all you do. :)
Great explanation, Coby! Thanks
0:20
"Recently though, 757's have become a hot commodity"
Shows 767's
Hahaha I was wondering when someone would catch this, congrats you’re the first :)
@@cobyexplanes I caught it also but didn't say anything
@@Gamerboy-gy1rl so far only 3 people have caught it - you've got a keen eye
Full disclosure, didn’t make connection, very good.
Coby Explanes it was hard to catch, but I could tell by the doors, the 757 has a very distinct door
I’ve been wondering this and so glad someone finally made a video about it. Airlines want a long range single aisle jet hence the 737 Max. I still think a revamped 757 is a perfect idea.
Waiting for the 757 PLUS and the 767 X :-)
Yes :) my 2 fav Boeings, the 757 and 767
Great video, great channel! Congrats and keep on doing good work, although beginning may not be easy!
Thanks for the support!
They should re-engine with much larger engines, shift the engine higher and forward and also add the MCAS.
Lol sarcasm?
@@omnia001
Need some family resemblance in the different models. 😂🤣😂
*and not say anything about mcas*
Well no uh idk
Jon Can 757 is pretty dang high above the ground. It can easily take the new CFM engine with little modifications.
"The 737 has been re-engined multiple times with great success" Sure about that one?
Considering re-engined 737 variants have been ordered about 15,000 times, I'd say ya I'm pretty sure
@@cobyexplanes Except that the latest re-engining has resulted in the type being grounded for months, now looking to be around a year. I've long felt the NMA/797 was/is vapourware. I think that's even more the case now given the grounding of the MAX has diverted effort from the 797, as has problems with the 777X programme. I hope the MAX is flying again soon but not at all rushed into service.
@@michaelpillingnow but it was redone multiple times, so he was correct. Just the latest generation has issues.
@@disbsam333 which goes to show: one can only go so far to re-engining an old design. at some point, something terrible will happen as, alas, has happened. profit over safety has already had the effect of a boomerang against Boeing...
The 737MAX would have been a safe, successful aircraft if they simply deleted the MCAS system, restricted its trim capability, or replaced it with an expensive and mature full fly-by-wire system. However, it would have required airlines to spend extra money and time re-certifying pilots on an aircraft that flies differently from previous generations of the 737 aircraft.
Nothing replaces the 757s.
my favorite airframe in the world, always was and will be. the very first time I ever flew a Delta 757 from TPA to ATL i was in first class, and I thought I was on a rocket, we took off almost vertically it was a kick.
Eastern Airlines upgraded the engines on their existing 757’s to RB2-11E4’s in the early 80’s. British Airways bought their secondhand engines to save money and had them fitted to new airframes. This was because BA did not plan to use the 757 on longer routes such as trans-Atlantic.
However subsequently, a subsidiary of British Airways called British Airtours ordered 757’s with the E4 engines. BA then ordered some more and was able to operate Glasgow and. Birmingham to New York. The 757’s with the C1 engines were sold off and DHL bought most of them and converted them to freighters...
Most savings in efficiency come from the engine. It would be possible to use an updated version of the RB2-11 E4 with a new core and HC section. This would be much cheaper than buying new aircraft and providing the engine is not physically any different, re-certification would not be necessary.
The 757 is much taller on its undercarriage than the 737, and would be a better proposition for the new LEAP engine without adversely affecting the aircraft’s CofG.
LEAP engine doesn’t have enough thrust
D S LEAP can get at least 33,000 lbs thrust, only 4,000 less than a 757’s entry level 37,000 lbs thrust per motor. There might have been a test that got the LEAP up to 35,000. Either way it’d need about 40,000 lbs thrust per motor.
ecoRfan the RB211-535 E4 produces 43,100 lbsf thrust at sea level ISA on a roughly 5:1 bypass ratio. The LEAP is therefore not only significantly down on thrust but would be hampered by a 9:1 bypass ratio where thrust lapse at altitude would impact its thrust more than the 535. If you want to look at what happens when an engine is stretched to its limits, look at the climb performance of the A340 with the CFM-56C.
D S As the LEAP engine is so close in power to the RB2-11E4, it would not be too difficult to match the power without significant changes to the architecture. There are a lot of 757’s sitting in boneyards that might still have life left in them yet. Look what the CFM56 did for the DC8. Incidentally, the DC8 was the first jet airliner to go deliberately supersonic during a shallow dive in 1961 and maintained that speed for 16 seconds.
Rolls-Royce were able to offer a very successful upgrade of the RB2-11 524 C2 to D4 fitted on the British Airways 747-236 fleet, when they found the Trent 700 core was compatible. Not only was power and fuel economy enhanced, the engine ran cooler at high rpm for instance on take off, and reliability was also improved.
D S The A340-200 had desperately poor climb performance and was slower than the 747. Many a time out of HKG Kai Tak for instance, a BA 747 commander would try and pushback before the Virgin A340-200, otherwise you would be stuck underneath him to at least the Gulf.
This one is my favorite video. The 757 mode is my favorite aircraft due to design. It looks like a mans plane if you know what I mean. Also it has been in service for many years and nothing compares to it so they can’t just replace it with something else as soon as something new comes out. It’s a solid plane and I hope to see it in use for many years to come!
it really is the sports car of the aviation world!
Cody Petersheim "It looks like a man’s plane if you know what I mean."
I have no fucking clue what you mean there, bud.
Yep I learned something new , thanks for sharing Coby.
Of course, glad you enjoyed :)
Very informative. Thank you for sharing It could be noted that the stretch DC-8s were Re-engined without redesigning the wings. This extended their practical lifetimes
This is a good point, but they were re-engined primarily for military purpose. As such the needs were a bit different
If they cannot re-engineered it... Why can’t they just re-new the production of the iconic jet??
I think you might want to re-watch the video since it answers your question completely. It's economically unsound; building a new plane from the ground up gives better results (and return on investments).
2:24 "it's been reengineered multiple times with great success"
*shows image of 737 max* lmfao
Success in terms of orders. Maybe not so in terms of making a plane that isn’t suicidal.
1,000+ units is an aircraft type that sold well. More than the original DC-9, A300, A340... hardly failed programs in their own right.
*yes 757 sold pretty well don't watch coby explains he's false see maximus aviation or else dj's aviation*
Appreciate the knowledge.
There is the a321XLR or the A321LR
You said the 737 was engined with great success. fast forward to 2019 pls
I've seen how fast they rotate & lift! Absolutely amazing!
If I want to get out of town fast that's my ride!😁👍
Production line and tooling for the 757 had been long gone dismantled, more likely Boeing secretly regretting it. The cost of brining the 757 production line back is probably almost as much as introducing a new airplane model.
B757 tooling was destroyed by a flood a few years after production was shutdown which would also add to the difficulty. The A321XLR with a range of 4680NM will handsomely outrange the B757-200 with a range of 3915NM. Takeoff run, climb rate, cruising speed and cruising altitude are all better in the B757 though if you remove the extra fuel the A321XLR has these close up a little. The strength of the A320 program I suspect is the commonality and the support system. Boeing did study a shortened B757-100. It would have had spectacular performance and range but the extra airframe to carry the extra fuel would have made it more expensive on the routes like Dublin to London (400km) that is the bulk of B737 trade. It would have been the size of a B737-800 or A320ceo. The B737 MAX 7 pretty much replaces the B757-200 in performance and matches it in range (At 3850NM its 65NM or 1.6% shorter) except it only carries 2/3rd the passengers. I think the MAX 7 will find it’s niche. The B737-700 is being replaced by the bigger B737 MAX 8 but the range and performance of the MAX 7 means it has new markets. I’d be surprised if the B737 MAX 7 can’t replace the B757-200 on any route outside of its lower capacity, and maybe you want less at times.
The only issue with the XLR is that at maximum passenger capacity of 244 passengers the range is cut to about 4000 nautical miles. A fully loaded 757 can carry more passengers at 4600 nautical miles of range, albeit less efficiently
The 737-700's are horribly inefficient because of poor airframe optimization. what makes you think the max7 will be any different? airlines hvae voted with their wallets and they don't want the max7
Coby Explanes The A321XLR quoted 4700NM range seems to be for the same 206 passengers they use to get 4000NM range quoted for the A321LR. United B757-200 used on transatlantic flights are fitted out for 169 passengers. On these long flights the full 244 exit limit of the A321 is generally not called for. (B757-200 exit limit is 239). On those long flights curtained of premium economy and business class seats need to be allocated as crew rest areas. Those quoted ranges are insufficient for realistic use as the Airbus Standard is for +3% , +200NM diversion, +30 minute hold. You need to add at least 10%-15% on top of that for headwinds, diversions etc. Leeham say a A321XLR with 150 seats (business, premium, economy) will connect cities up to 4600NM with plenty of reserves. I’ve been on a standard Philippine Airlines A321neo fitted with an ACT between the 3300NM between Sydney and Manilla, that comfortable flight had 12 lie flat business with 182 total seats. Air Lingus say they can connect to any American city from Dublin with the A321XLR. I assume that’s with about 182 passengers. The capability of the aircraft is substantial. Airlines such as Cebu Pacific will no doubt utilize the full 244 seat exit limit and they’ll be able to deliver those people nice distances (eg Sydney to Manilla). The B757 cruses faster and higher so there will be room for a new aircraft that’ll get pax there an hour earlier and a bit more comfortably over weather.
Plane Shane South West have about 500 B737-700, it’s about 65% of their fleet, so it couldn’t be too bad. Southwest have 280 MAX 8 and 30 MAX 7 on order so it seems they are converting to a MAX 8 oriented fleet (replacing B737-300/500 first I imagine. It’s obvious the MAX 8 has the same (slightly better) performance and range as the -700 only with less fuel burn and more passengers so Southwest have moved up in size. The same happened to Airbus with the A330-200/300 with the longer A330-900 neo now outselling the shorter A330-800 neo because most airlines just don’t need the extra range. This is the opposite of the previous situation with the ceo. Nevertheless the B737 MAX 7 is sill optimized for long range flights, only they are now much longer than Southwest needs.
A MAX 7 has a range of 3850NM however from 2021 Boeing Promis 3915NM (same as the B757-200). The B737 MAX 7 is also 1.69m longer which means about 2 extra rows. So if United replace their B757-200 (169 seats) with B737 MAX 7 configured for about 128 seats (instead of 155 in 2 class normally quoted so as to give a generous lie flat brininess class) the aircraft could do the mission. New York to Prague etc. Admittedly Boeing only seem to have 100-200 orders out of 4000 MAXs on order.
Are we getting an update soon on last week’s giveaway?
One more week to go in the giveaway ;)
The 757 with the RB211 was a fucking beast.
Its way more than just "adding" new engines, you have to reinforce the frame and structure to accommodate for the increase in thrust, you also have to rebalance the airplane for the added weight from not only the bigger engines, but also the new heavier glass cockpit displays, etc.
Something Id like to point out to you about the 57: The aircrafts Wing is why its so good on those long and skinny routes. The wing provides excellent lift characteristics and provides the space for the extra fuel for the range. In fact a fully loaded 57 has a shorter takeoff and landing distance than a 37max (9,10 for sure and possibly the 8 as well). This then makes it even better for lower demand routes that fly into smaller airports with shorter runways. So you wouldnt really want to redesign the wing to be more fuel efficient as that would negate the advantages it has vs the 37 max.
If they do, they can't forget the Mass Casualty Activation System
That is completely inappropriate. I laughed.
aka May Crash Any Second
What about the 767 MAX? I heard Boeing might go after that plane instead
Davey Wavey I think it’d have the same issues, no?
Good question - I could try to write about it on here but I think it demands its own video. Should I make one on it?
@@alphamalegold Not exactly....I'll make a video about it
Flying mag last month did a piece extolling the virtues of the 757. Given all of Boeing's problems I could definitely see them bringing it back.
Someone said the jigs, molds and rigging for it are gone but I find that hard to believe.
@@larrystimely5628 The program was shuttered 15 years ago - there's no reason for Boeing to keep the manufacturing infrastructure around for that long given the spacial constraints they have. It's almost a certainty that they're gone
That wing design of the 757 called a super critical wing is what gives the 757 its incredible short runway and high altitude airport landing characteristics. It may be old but it is well engineered. I love the 757 in light of the 737max debacle Boeing should revamp the 757. There is not an airline that would turned them down in today’s market.
The 757 is a favorite of mine but could be a lot better with petroleum usage. To match the 321XLR’s efficiency it’d need both new engines and new wings. However like the 777X, those wings should be curved (forget folding) to get more lift and efficiency alike. Also weight savings should really be applied. But I will say, the 757 is one of the safest and most versatile airplanes in use. And the sports car type performance is pretty much unbeatable.
Nice job. Good explanation of why this is unreasonable and a clean sheet design is necessary.
The 757 is done, and has been for years. I would love to see them bring it back, new wing new engines, that would be great, but that wont happen. Imo the 757-300 is the best looking single aisle plane, and it's a great plane to fly in, fast take off, really fast and steep climb. Boeing should of kept the 757 program and stopped the 737 around the 700 series.
The 757 just seems rightly-sized.
Listing the ranges and passenger loads would be helpful.
Cancellation of the 757 line is a great loss that they have to make 797 to "replace" the forsaken almost perfect 757
*757 is coming in a newer version to take revenge against the a320 and a330 and a330 mrtt as well*
the 757 could have been so much more if Boeing took the time
Killed it off before it became the bird of choice for long and thin routes. Basically before ETOPS.
skylineXpert Boeing discontinued the 757 because the sales dried up !!! No sales in 2 or 3 years and all orders were filled !!! NO customers, no production !!!!
A plane that was ahead of it's time. Would have had a better reception now.
The 757 was ahead of it's time. The flying pencil was beings best plane in my view.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Agreed. Many airlines are replacing their 757 with Airbus's new A321xlr.
Why haven't they re engined the 757.... Because RB211's are awesome! 😀
Yes I thought that was deserved of a mention, they are very reliable and efficient for their age.
Yes! The RB211 is an amazing engine
The Boeing 757 was ahead of its time ... at the time it was produced. It was also ridiculously, though awesomely, OVERpowered with the RB211 engine variant.
If Boeing and Rolls Royce had stayed with the 757 and the RB211 ... it would have sold awesomely well now ... but that’s the benefit of hindsight!
Trying so hard to wow the majority of passengers with sparkly new jets and engines when they really don’t give a s**t if it’s a 747, 757, 787 or A330 ... all they care about is comfort, good food and on time performance! The 757 gave it all and Britannia Airways set the standard when I was a kid! The 757 was always the type we flew on out of Glasgow every summer, the comfort, service and food were awesome and you always got away on time and landed on time or early!
Maybe I’m a little biased ... but a through and through Boeing 757 fan I am! 😊
The 757-200 my favourite airplane, the Aston Martin of the skies spent many years flying the 767-300 all over the world but always looked forward to being assigned flights on the 757. the performance and the handling always made me grin.
Love your videos bro but this one is a stretch 747-8 wasnt in production for decades and it was seamless no issues with making a new wing or deploying new engines ... let's talk abt it good video tho 👍🏾
The last 747-400 variant was delivered in late 2009, which is when production of the 747-8 began so there was definitely overlap. Appreciate the support though!
@@cobyexplanes What about putting new engines on the 747 making it a 2 engine aircraft? You could use a smaller variant of the plane, make the hump shorter, and the 2 engine configuration would be more efficient. Airlines would buy it. You would have to redesign the wing probably, but not impossible. I know the 777 has nearly the capacity, but you coud use the same engines as the 777. I think it would sell and be useful. What do you say?
I like your videos by the way.
@@davemiller6055 Glad you're enjoying the videos! There are a couple issues with a 2-engined 747 approach, though probably the biggest is that the 747 wing is optimized to handle the load of 2 engines each - removing on engine on each side would require a rework of the wing and wing-body joint to effectively handle the new weight distribution. Would be very cool in theory, though!
They should rid themselves of the 737 MAX and bring the beautiful 757 back in several flavors.
True . I wouldn’t call the new 757 a max. Maybe a 757-400 or -500?
MAX production has stopped, apparently permanently now, announced a few weeks ago. What Boeing will do now is not something that has been announced.
@@LOLmusics 757 Plus
@@Waddle_Dee_With_Internet Yeah. I kinda wish they'd name it 757X
*a tanker variant of the new 757 plus would do freighter passenger and private jet variants too*
Boeing invested a huge amount of money in tech for the new 787. When they did it, they said they would use the new tech in all their new models. They need a 797, with composite fuselage for weight savings and scaled down versions of their tech that makes the 787 so popular. Of course Boeing won't, they are stupidly tight with development funding.
The Boeing NMA concept originally started out as a new generation 757 with new wing and engines. However, It was the private discussions with the airlines that resulted in characteristics that have been talked about:
1. Composite Fuselage for longer life
2. New Composite Wing
3. 45,000-50,000 lbs thrust high efficiency engines.
4. 2-3-2 twin aisle economy section
While little is still out in the public as Boeing focuses on the 737 Max, the top airline executives have seen what Boeing has been working on and considering.
Yes
Yes
everything that you said about what is needed in order to come up with a re-engined 757 is what Boeing should have done for the 737 max. the problems now besieging the 737 max are a result of the aircraft design no longer able to house the needed changes like larger engines. one should not wonder therefore why the 737 max has been grounded worldwide and safety concerns have now swamped Boeing. if you ask me then, Boeing should have gone ahead to redesign the 757 in the same way it should have gone ahead to redesign the 737 max. failure has resulted in 346 dead people in the two crashes of the 737 max. one can tinker with an old design only so much; at some point, it just does not work anymore. but Boeing was greedy and anxious about the challenge coming from Airbus. so there.
Coby Explains.......... You can't beat that old dog into a new life without creating an inbreed like the 737MAX that turned out to be over designed and dangerous to fly. I flew for TWA and we had a very diversified fleet throughout. From CV880/ DC9-MD80/ Boeing 707/ Boeing 727/ Boeing 747, Boeing 767/ Boeing 757 and my favorite throughout my tenure the L1011. In recent years after retirement I've lost all confidence on Boeing and prefer AIRBUS product at this point..
I'm a 757/767 captain for a major US airline. You hit the nail on the head with your video. A757 revisit sounds like a good idea but is nothing more than sidewalk surgery.
Explain side walk surgery??
Jealous! I love the 767 - it's easily the most underrated passenger jet out there
And MD.s, And 727.s....
If they go with a 797, it probably would be a "all composite" aircraft, like the 787. Composite is the material for all future aircraft. It is stronger than metal and for flexible.
Currently the 797 program is on permanent hold, you seem to have missed that little tidbit. All engineering efforts are being pooled to get the 737max back in the air. Also Boeing has been asked to make the 797 and out of aluminum, composite aircraft, like the 787, and the A350 are an absolute nightmare when they are in for post lighting strike inspection. If Boeing could build the 757 with modern avionics and engines I know that many airlines would jump on the opportunity to buy them. The airline where I work is one of the largest operators of the fleet type, and we couldn't survive without them. They are also growing long in the tooth, and we need a replacement. The A321xlr is close, and it's just not the same aircraft, but also there is nothing in the pipeline to replace it.
Great video as always. IMHO the 757 is the most beautiful single aisle twin engined aircraft ever built.
couldn't agree more!
My brother is a 75/76 driver, we were discussing the 737 Max and the problems it’s had, And wondering why Boeing keeps trying to stretch the 737 capabilities beyond what it was really supposed to do, when there’s a perfectly good airframe for what they’re trying to do with it...i.e. the 757..interesting vid 👍🏻
Isn’t 1000+ units the threshold of a successful line?? Plus the 767 only has a few hundred more and is also considered a great plane. What gives??
1000 is great for widebodies, but the volume of single isle aircraft is much higher. Generally the larger the plane the less it sells (less demand), so considering the 757 was Boeing' second smallest plane at the time the fact it was selling less than the 767 and 777 is a concern
Tu-214, an alternative.
Which is going to end production soon.....
@@farhanatashiga3721 MC21 is another option, longer range but slightly less capacity, plus if they order enough 214's it could incentivize it for further production, it makes a good cargo plane.
Not as sexy. The 757 is the beauty ideal for airliners IMO
@@dosvidanyagaming4123 They are virtually identical except the nose, I prefer the 214.
@@REPOMAN24722 214 is shorter, has an ugly airbus-like nose, whack windscreen, skinny engines (Ewww PS-90) and disproportionately tiny winglets.
Even though it would probably be just as expensive to re vamp the 757 as it would to create a new aircraft, re designing the 757 would still be very profitable. Not only is that type of plane very high in demand, but the 757 is also a very trusted and loved airplane by many.
Still could be a very good idea if done properly. Of course new engines and wings would be a must
Remember that the 757 was meant to replace the 727. But, Eastern talked Boeing into stretching the fuselage, so it was more of a 707 replacement. That led Boeing to develop the 737-300 and 737-400 to replace the 727 and opened the door for the MD-80 and A319/A320.
In addition, the 757 offered the L-1011's engine, the RB211 as an engine choice, making it capable of operating from airports at high altitude or with short runways while carrying a heavy payload. It's why it was popular for fights to ski resorts like Vail and Jackson Hole.
The only jets that have been successfully re-engined are the DC-8 and the KC-135. Re-engined DC-8s got another 10 years of service. But, by the time the Air Force re-engined the KC-135s, most civilian 707s had gone into retirement.
Because the airlines which own it don’t want it and because no more are being built.
The 737 "has been re-engined many times with great success". I guess you've not been up to date with the MAX.
As a whole statement, he is correct.
Over 9000 Classics and NGs built between 1983 and 2020 all with different engines than the original 737.
I flew the B-757-200 for a major airline for 3 years. The wing design makes it reactive to turbulence more so than other planes. It’s difficult to get a smooth landing and easy to get a tail strike. Glad I moved on to a different plane. Ret Captain
Well that is strange. I must have been a very lucky passenger then because I have flown on numerous 757s in variable conditions and each flight and landing was as smooth as silk. I am aware of the wake turbulence the 757 creates for other aircraft behind it however.
I think Boeing should have done a 757max instead of a 737max. Remember that the 757 was designed to have a 100 varient. The 757-100 would have been around the size of the 737-800 or a320. With the 737max 7 not selling the more efficient 757max could have worked. They also could probably build a 757 between the size of the proposed 757-100 and 200 to fill in for the 737max 9
737max MCAS all over again.
There would be no need for MCAS on a re-engined 757. The wings are higher off the ground than a 737, so there would be plenty of ground clearance with the CFM1-LEAP engines.
Probably shouldn't build anything called MAX ever again lmao
757 airframes are tired and ready for the scrapyard. General Dynamics made the 757 fuselage, not really sure if they can manufacture the 757 again.
He knows about the max people.. the 737 was a great success for a long time, now's it's in the history books
Boeing screwed up when they cut up the tooling, they need a new airplane, Boeing has a bad reputation and will take 10 years to recover from the max disaster.
Aviation's biggest blunder by Boeing,,,destroying the 757s tooling. They went on to waste time and a boat load of money on the older and less useful 737, which is now a thrice warmed over rotten egg.
Boeing used to be a great company. Now it's a shitshow.
Good video Sheldon.
Redesigning a new wing and putting new engines is the easy bit. As you say rebuilding the supply chain, resigning the avionics & electrical systems for the latest technology would be a massive headache. The 797 is certainly the future.
Thanks!
757 is gorgeous!😍
Thank you.
Love the 757, sleekest looking airliner, looks like it doing Mach .9 sitting on the ramp.
It does have a mean mug, doesnt it
I recently flew Icelandair 757 Paris -Newark, changing in Iceland. It was great, two short flights with a break in the middle. And I prefer single aisle planes anyway.
Great video and channel hope the best this 2020, but I think there is something that you could make clearer in the video. The thing is, the costs to adopt new engines and certificate them to the 757s is definitely cheaper than to develop a new plane but there are only 1049 potential clients (which are likely small airlines and cargo airlines). On the other hand you have the cost to develop an entirely new aircraft with much modern technology, composite materials and of course new engines with the potential of thousands of clients and sells. That's why comparatively is cheaper to develop a new plane because the profits are (potentially) much larger.
Cheers from Chile!
Took off from KMDW in a B757-300 about full of passengers and touched down at KSNA a few hours later piece of cake -- no effort.
I don't know of another liner that size that can do that.
757s were overpowered for their size/weight/capacity especially with R-R RB211s and the fuselage was never stretched so they didn't need to be "re-engined." The power (40,100 lbf) was more than adequate and most take-offs were made with 80% full power. They were a pilot's favorite, nicknamed the hot rod from Seattle and were so good out of the box that they didn't need continuous redevelopment like the 737. Fitted with RB211s they were a match made in heaven and will be sorely missed by plane enthusiasts and pilots, especially the acceleration, high-pitched scream on spool-up followed by the characteristic RR buzzsaw sound on take-off. Sample: ruclips.net/video/dXjZB0np6D8/видео.html
How sweeeeeet is that?
I love your videos
the 757 was co-developed with the 767, using common parts were possible. it was intended to handle long domestic flights, either just beyond the range of the 737 (classic generation) and not originally capable of trans-Atlantic, which only became more viable with the winglets.
The 767 later got bigger engines, enabling it to handle trans-Atlantic routes, but these were way to big for the 757, which already over-powered on the original 40,000lbf engines.
The 737NG then largely took over 757 domestic routes, except when higher seat capacity is desired. (it is asserted that 757 is profitable on domestic, but I see it used on NY-LA/SF).
With the winglets, 757 is somewhat trans-Atlantic capable. The suitable trans-Atlantics routes typically involve one or both ends being a smaller airport. The shorter ones (NY-London) calls for wide-body for capacity. In the winter months, there is a chance that west-bound flights will encounter strong head winds, requiring a fuel-stop.
So, the low-density trans-Atlantic requirement is not just the distance between cities, but also to account for weather patterns.
I'm in the Not Bill Nye camp. Back in the '80s existing DC-8s were re-engined with CFM56 engines replacing the old JT3Ds. It extended the lives of those planes well beyond their Boeing counterparts. One could still see air freight using them in this century. Couldn't something similar be done with existing 757s?
Just an aside, DC-8 production ended in 1972. However, between 1982 and 1988 over 100 of those planes were fitted with new high-bypass turbofan engines.