Boeing 767

[Daryl J.]

Seeing Jenning's civvie 767's livery made me wonder if the tubby fuselage of the 767 would make it an acceptable replacement for the Tyranosaurus Rex?..er P-3C?   Would that job better be left to the 737-700/800?


PDX gets a fair bit of Orion traffic during the evening commute and I love seeing that classic profile in the sky but do often wonder what the new-and-improved version could be.


Daryl J., somewhat sorry we don't have Nimrod's actually, but that's a different discussion.    

[Shasper]

In theory it can, but the landing "footprint" maybe to large compared to the P-3 & P-8

[Jennings]

Boeing's already way ahead of you...

P-8A Poseidon Homepage



J

[elmayerle]

the 737-based P-8 makes much more sense, the 767 is a far bigger aircraft and, really, is too big for most ASW purposes.  I suspect the crews transitioning from the P-3 to the P-8 will love the extra room (P-3's have a rather small cross-section).  I suspect that, now that the USN's pulled out of ACS, we'll see an EP-8, too, which'll give the ELINT folk a much better and roomier platform to work with - the only aircraft I know to be more crowded than a fully-staffed EP-3 would be an E-2 because that's got an even smaller cross-section.

[The Rat]

I've always thought that the 757 would be a better platform for mods. With the greater clearance between the bottom of the fuselage and the ground you can hang more (and weirder!) things.    

[elmayerle]

Having crawled around in late-model 737s and in P-3Cs (slated for conversion to EP-3Es), I think I can say that just the increase in useable volume in stepping up to a 737 derivative should more than accomdate 'most any equipment fit they'd want.  There's also an element of commonality with the C-40s and VC-40s already being operated.

[Daryl J.]

....and there ya' have it!    

So much for my knowledge of current events, eh?    But, it did lead me to the E-10x, Nimrod, and Wedgetail! B)  B)  B)


Now, if I have it right, the 737 originally was based off the 707 sharing major fuselage components yes?


Thanks so far too.
Daryl J.

[elmayerle]

Well, the main fuselage cross-section is the same between the 707, 727, and 737 (to the point where I suspect, at least structurally, that 'barrel sections' could be shared among them) and I believe there are great similarities in the nose and cockpit.  Boeing had a good basic concept and used it all they could, that's just simply smart.

[Daryl J.]

Thanks.

It just rather tickles me to watch the video clip of the chandelle roll over Seattle with the knowledge that parts of the basic design are still current and could potentially be with us for another 40-50 years.


,
Daryl J.

[elmayerle]

I'm not sure how much of the original design is still there as there's been a lot of material changes and design improvements over the years, if nothing else, high-speed machining has allowed a drastic reduction in part count while speeding asembly time and improving sturctural integrity.  Add to that a greatly increased use of composites and you get a similarity of line and structure, but nowhere near identical structure anymore.

[B777LR]

I've always thought that the 757 would be a better platform for mods. With the greater clearance between the bottom of the fuselage and the ground you can hang more (and weirder!) things.  

Ah, they also climb like rockets apparently...

But nobody bought them, order book dried up, so boeing scrapped the plane  

[Jennings]

Several things:

1.  Yes, the 707, 727, 737, and 757 share the same *upper lobe* fuselage section.  The 707, and aft of the wing on the 727 have a deeper lower lobe, so the fuselage is "taller".  The 727 fwd fuselage, the 737, and the 757  have a shallower lower lobe, since (originally) they were short to medium range designs, and weren't thought to require the same cargo capacity as the 707 was.

2.  The 757 *could* be used for all sorts of things, but a) it's got the same fuselage cross section as the 737NG, and B) it's no longer in production, where the 737NG is (at least until the 797 comes along).  So there would be no advantage to using it compared to the NG, especially as the -800 and -900 have as much floor space (for all practical purposes) as a 757-200 does.

3.  While similar structurally from an engineering standpoint, from a manufacturing standpoint, you can't just build barrel sections and swap them from 707s to 757s to 737s to 727s.  Airplanes aren't built that way  Alloys have changed over the years, etc, etc.  The 737NGs are built in a much more modular fashion than the 707 was, even though they share the same basic fuselage structure design.

4.  Very few people realize that most (not all) 707s and 720s had smaller cabin windows than the airplanes that came after.  One early criticism of the 707 was its small (especially compared to the DC-8) cabin window size.

5.  The 707, 717 (the real 717, the KC-135), 727, and 737 all share a structurally identical Section 41 (the cockpit cab section).  I know this, because I've seen the tooling jigs used to build up 737 cockpits in the Renton factory, and they were marked "Accepted 8/23/57" and such  They weren't building 737-300s in 1957!

6.  I think the whole "E-10" project is officially dead.  The USAF's eyes got bigger than its belly, and we've wasted **so** much money in Iraq, there simply isn't funding for such a thing.  I know the Navy has proposed a SIGINT version of the P-8, but with the explosive growth of UAV technology, the days of the manned SIGINT platform are probably quite numbered.  I'd be surprised if an EP-8 ever flies.  It's much safer to load up a Global Hawk with SIGINT gear and datalink it to Ft. Meade than to risk 15-20 lives and a hugely expensive airframe flying over or near Bad Guy Land.

7.  Dash-80 barrel roll over Lake Washington:  Tex Johnston was a God

J

[Daryl J.]

One quick 757 story before wrapping this thread up.

Flying on Northwest out of PDX circa 1988-89 we left for MSP in a 757.   Portland residents had recently put up a real fuss about airport noise and airlines were encouraged in the press to do what they could as well.

The pilot of this 757 oblidged!  

I was against the rear bulkhead and was really startled at the launch.   They went to full throttle and held on the brakes for a bit.   The aircraft was shaking as were the old ladies near me. The brakes released and we shot down the runway.  When we rotated, we *dropped* like a rock and the old ladies screamed, hands towards the sky.   After liftoff, we pulled up hard and for what I could determine looking out the window, we were in excess of 50 degrees climb.  Up!!!!!   The old ladies kept screaming.  

Then it was silence.   They throttled back and very quickly we leveled out.  Against that rear bulkhead we suddenly pitched the other way.   The only sound was the the now amusing screaming of the old gals, convinced they were only one step from hell.

The galley was behind the rear bulkhead and the stewardesses there were grinning from ear to ear and excitedly said to each other  "He *did* it!"  


Yes, the 757 can climb like a rocket.   It's fun!      


Daryl J.

[anthonyp]

Wasn't there a 757 derivative in the running for the failed "P-7" competition?

(muzak plays while checking files)

Yep!  There was!  I'm sure the Secret Projects site has a thread on this, but I'm too lazy to look.

[Jennings]

Yes, the 757 can climb like a rocket.   It's fun!      

A friend flies 757/767s for AA.  He lost an engine on takeoff from Quito (elev. 9200MSL), and said that other than the horns blaring and the engine instrument indications, you'd never even have known it.  He said they calmly shut the engine down, made a leisurely circuit, and landed uneventfully.  Truly a rocket.

J