BA757 in "retro" colours...
Discussion
This takes me back... apparently BA are retiring the last of their 757's this month, and to mark the occassion, they have painted one in the colours that the first ones would have used.
Takes me back to being a kid when I saw G-BIKB arriving at LHR for the first time... God I feel old!
Takes me back to being a kid when I saw G-BIKB arriving at LHR for the first time... God I feel old!
Edited by thatone1967 on Wednesday 6th October 08:03
B757 + RB211 = 
The 75 is the perfect combination of technology and piloting. Big thrust levers and control column, massively overpowered coal burning engines. Perfect.
After them it was all downhill with glide path angle and PRNAV and plastic planes made for accountants (no offence eric)
The 75 is the perfect combination of technology and piloting. Big thrust levers and control column, massively overpowered coal burning engines. Perfect.
After them it was all downhill with glide path angle and PRNAV and plastic planes made for accountants (no offence eric)
el stovey said:
B757 + RB211 =
The 75 is the perfect combination of technology and piloting. Big thrust levers and control column, massively overpowered coal burning engines. Perfect.
After them it was all downhill with glide path angle and PRNAV and plastic planes made for accountants (no offence eric)
I loved the 757 - totally overpowered.The 75 is the perfect combination of technology and piloting. Big thrust levers and control column, massively overpowered coal burning engines. Perfect.
After them it was all downhill with glide path angle and PRNAV and plastic planes made for accountants (no offence eric)
It replaced the Trident 3B - which was the complete opposite - totally underpowered.
Please excuse my ignorant accidental arrival into this forum looking for some retro graphics, but why would Boeing deliberately (I assume...) design an overpowered plane, ie presumably one with more engine power than necessary? Wouldn't cost concerns normally put a stop to that, or is that just these days?
I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
Edited by nonplussed on Tuesday 5th October 12:01
nonplussed said:
Please excuse my ignorant accidental arrival into this forum looking for some retro graphics, but why would Boeing deliberately (I assume...) design an overpowered plane, ie presumably one with more engine power than necessary? Wouldn't cost concerns normally put a stop to that, or is that just these days?
I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
I guess it's to do with the technology available at the time.. beside.. if you only put one engine on, presumably, it would fly around in a bloody big circle..I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
Edited by nonplussed on Tuesday 5th October 12:01
nonplussed said:
Please excuse my ignorant accidental arrival into this forum looking for some retro graphics, but why would Boeing deliberately (I assume...) design an overpowered plane, ie presumably one with more engine power than necessary? Wouldn't cost concerns normally put a stop to that, or is that just these days?
I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
By the time the 757 was being designed (mid 1970s) really powerful large high bypass turbofans were available. These large and powerful engines (40,000 lbs thrust category) had originally been designed to power the new breed of large military cargo aircraft (such as the C-5 Galaxy) and a whole host of large wide bodied airliners (the Boeing 747, Airbus A300, Lockheed L1011 Tristar and Douglas DC-10).I should add that I know sod all about planes, which is hopefully evident from the above
Edited by nonplussed on Tuesday 5th October 12:01
The 757 was designed to replace the Boeing 727 in the Boeing range. The 727 was powered by three tail mounted Pratt and Whitney JUT8D low bypass turbofans of aboyt 15,000 lbs thrust each. The Rolls Royce RB211s on the 757 were about 40,000 lbs thrust each - delivering 80,000 lbs thrust in all. However, despite the extra power, they were still more fuel efficient, quieter and less polluting than the old technology JT8D.
Another incentive was that BA and Eastern Airlines were a launch customer of the 757 and both airluines operated a large fleet of Tristars which were RB211 powered. For economic reasons, it was deemed sensible to have RB211s on the 757. Other airlines specified Pratt and Whitney engines for their 757s.
The other major selling point of the 757 was its commonality with the Boeing 767. Both aircraft were designed so that qualifying on one would allow qualifying on the other with minimal training, Flight decks and control systems were very similar. Boeing hoped that 757 customers would also order the bigger 767s and to some extent, the ploy worked.
BA pilots really appreciated the extra power of the 757 - especially those pilots who transferred over from the severely underpowered Trident 3B.
Eric Mc said:
The other major selling point of the 757 was its commonality with the Boeing 767. Both aircraft were designed so that qualifying on one would allow qualifying on the other with minimal training, Flight decks and control systems were very similar.
I thought the 757 was originally based closely on the 727 and only modified to make it closer to the 767 later on in the process. I've seen a picture of an early proposal with a T tail straight from the 727, apparently it was only changed because BA didn't like T tails.There is also a picture somewhere of a unbuilt Hawker Siddeley proposal for a Trident replacement. Basically a Trident fuselage with 2 underwing engines, and a conventional tail to keep BEA/BA happy. The resemblance to the 727 is striking.
Boeing started their 727 replacement project by looking at derivatives of the 727 itself. However, in the end, they decided that an all new aircraft was needed, although the 757 retained the same fuselage cross section used on all previous Boeing single aisle airliners (707, 720, 727 and 737).
Some of the original proposals did indeed feature T Tails but by the 70s, manufacturers were moving away from T-Tail designs for airliners. These days, you only tend to see them on biz jets.
I think from about 1978 onwards, commonality with the emerging 767 design was a key factor in the 757 design.
I suppose BA's dislike of T-Tails was related to the crash of Trident G-ARPI in 1972 - although they did operate T-Tailed BAe 146s later on.
Some of the original proposals did indeed feature T Tails but by the 70s, manufacturers were moving away from T-Tail designs for airliners. These days, you only tend to see them on biz jets.
I think from about 1978 onwards, commonality with the emerging 767 design was a key factor in the 757 design.
I suppose BA's dislike of T-Tails was related to the crash of Trident G-ARPI in 1972 - although they did operate T-Tailed BAe 146s later on.
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 5th October 12:53
Eric Mc said:
Oh, we had slipped into ICAO lingo.
Yes, the Singapore colours were nice. Weren't they carried on one side only?
Concordes also flew in Branniff International and (strangely), Pepsi Cola colours.
SQ is the IATA designator.Yes, the Singapore colours were nice. Weren't they carried on one side only?
Concordes also flew in Branniff International and (strangely), Pepsi Cola colours.
SIA is the ICAO designator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_codes-S
Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 5th October 15:33
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff