MajMattMason wrote:

The 767 is a "tale of two versions". While both are fabulous flying machines, the -200 is definitely a "dump truck". But the -300 is it's much nimbler cousin. And slap a pair of winglets on a -300, then she becomes the girl you're leaving the dance with!!

But from a pure aesthetic point of view, there is something sexy about a long legged, narrow body, blended winglet 757-200!!

As a kid, I never got to ride a 752, from my airports it was always 732's and 733's as options, but boy i loved the look of them, Britannia and Monarch liveries just popped on it and for the only time in my life wished my parents would take me on holiday from LGW so I could ride on one. But alas not to be.

On the subject of popularity, just because an aircraft does not sell 000's of units, does not make it unpopular, both variants 757 and 767 had their roles to play and the fact is, the airlines who run them seem to love their versatility, if that's not part of the definition of popular not sure what is

I really wonder about all these B757 (and 767) threads - even as I write, there are 2 other active 757 threads (The mighty 757, and the 757 using reverse thrust). Maybe, Dear Moderators, you could open a new thread category for B757), or at least only allow one 757 thread at a time (with, if possible, a year interval or more between them). A.net's own reputation is under pressure by allowing all this multitude of low-quality threads regurgitating the same subjective adolescent BS week in, week out.

I would like someone here - preferably the OP - to define what is meant by "popular".

The 737 and 320 have sold an order of magnitude more frames - so they must be super popular!

The more recent wide bodies have sold more, and should therefore be more popular. What's popular about planes most of which are parked in some desert anyway?

However, if it is not sales figures that make one model "popular", then what? Was/is Concorde popular? The Constellation? The BN-2? The C152?

To the posters on here who don't like the 757 or 767, the solution is simple, don't read the thread. Really, it is that simple, if you don't have something constructive to contribute, then simply don't bother. Another 757 thread is no worse than another production thread on its 200th page. Surely now that the 350, 320neo, 737max, etc are in service, we no longer need those threads either ? I'm not interested in them, I don't bother reading them.

Having said that, the 757 is popular on these boards, mainly because of its looks and performance. I love them, they are extremely photogenic and watching one climb out, especially a lightly loaded one, is one of the best things to see as an aviation enthusiast. Airlines loved them, because they are versatile, short field performance, equally at home on short or crossing the Atlantic, they are relatively efficient, but of course with age comes increased maintenance costs and lighter aircraft can carry almost as many passengers on the majority of its routes more cost effectively now. However, when it came out, it was super efficient compared to the remaining DC8's and 707's and early build 727's it was mainly replacing.

The 767 as well, while not as aesthetically pleasing as the 757, pioneered large twin jets. Again, like the 757, airlines loved it's versatility, short haul, medium haul and long haul, if you had the right model it would do them all. Passengers liked them because of the unique cross section, 7 abreast in Y is great, unless of course you get stuck on a charter aircraft at 8 across, no thanks. The true test of the 767 is that it is still being built, the aircraft is equally at home hauling 45-50 tonnes of freight, or pumping fuel to fighters, as it is taking passengers on 11-12 hour flights.

If the market size for these aircraft was the same as the 737 and 320, they would've sold many more copies, as would Airbus with the 310. So comparing different sized aircraft, designed for different markets, is just not a sound judgement on popularity and if you ask most people on here if the Concorde, or Connie are popular, bloody oath they are.

Remember that the typical seating configuration for the 757 was between 180 seats and 190s (F+Y). Earlier planes that could carry that many people were the 707 and the DC-8. They could not operate from airports with short runways, like MDW, DCA, and SNA. But, the 757 can easily handle departures out of those airports, flying routes of 1000 statute miles or more.

I remember being on an AA 757, flying ORD-SEA. The flight was full, and it appeared that a decent amount of bags, cargo, and mail went into the cargo hold. Yet, we were easily airborne, using about 5200 feet of runway.

sassiciai wrote:

I really wonder about all these B757 (and 767) threads - even as I write, there are 2 other active 757 threads (The mighty 757, and the 757 using reverse thrust). Maybe, Dear Moderators, you could open a new thread category for B757), or at least only allow one 757 thread at a time (with, if possible, a year interval or more between them). A.net's own reputation is under pressure by allowing all this multitude of low-quality threads regurgitating the same subjective adolescent BS week in, week out.

I would like someone here - preferably the OP - to define what is meant by "popular".

The 737 and 320 have sold an order of magnitude more frames - so they must be super popular!

The more recent wide bodies have sold more, and should therefore be more popular. What's popular about planes most of which are parked in some desert anyway?

However, if it is not sales figures that make one model "popular", then what? Was/is Concorde popular? The Constellation? The BN-2? The C152?

I meant to ask why it is so popular among fans specifically. I've been following the A.net forums for a long time, and it seems no matter what, the 764 and especially the 757 have a lot of uber fans and defenders. I distinctly remember when Airbus first announced the A321LR as a potential replacement for the 752 on long and thin TATL routes, there was one fan who posted something along the lines of: "No matter what Airbus builds, nothing will ever be able to stand up to the 757, therefore it will never actually be replaceable. Airbus can never create a place that will look, feel, sound, or even smell like the 757."

I could have probably found the exact quote, but it was something along those lines; the thing that stood out most for me was that the poster talked about the 757 as if it was a beautiful smelling rose on a sunlit day in autumn that you present to your high school sweetheart as you ask her to go out with you. It was just waaaaaayyyy too dramatic, and it never really made sense to me. This sheer obsession with the 757, and to a lesser extent the 764, among aviation fans/A.net-ers is what I meant by "popularity". What makes these birds essentially give orgasms to some avgeeks just at the thought of them?

I've flown both birds extensively and have no particular opinion on them. So yeah, not meant to insult anyone or their beliefs, etc. I'm just genuinely curious.

That being said, it was fascinating to read everything that has been posted so far, especially about the history and evolution of aviation as a result of these two birds.

Actually, I think Boeing screwed up. If the 757 had been a straight 727 replacement without being a substitute for a 727-300 stretch, it would have been a much more successful model. Instead of having stretch after stretch of the 737, the 757 could have been the family that could have taken on the Airbus A320 series. The 757-200 and 767-200 were too close in size. It would have been better if the more modern 757 which has system commonality with the 767 had been smaller.

jupiter2 wrote:

Another 757 thread is no worse than another production thread on its 200th page. Surely now that the 350, 320neo, 737max, etc are in service, we no longer need those threads either ? I'm not interested in them, I don't bother reading them.

The difference is that on the threads about 737Max, A320neo, 787, A350, etc, the discussions are mainly objective while in the thread about 757 the posts are mainly subjective. Objective discussions give us more information and knowledge. I joined A.net because I want to get more information and knowledge about aviation. I'm not against subjective opinions though.

zkncj wrote:

It pretty much was, it enabled an twin jet 200 seater cross the Pacific with only on stop required. The DC-8 had to hop its way from AKL-HNL.

I wonder where the DC-8 would've stopped along the way, and whether each of the legs between the stops could have been sold separately as a way to reach to any vacation destinations. Did any of these stops subsequently grow into major tourist destinations solely because of these visits? Interested here.

Geoff1947 wrote:

Don't get why the 757 has so many fans on A.net. It is the worst selling jetliner family ever built by Boeing. It looks different to most modern jets so maybe that's it.

Geoff

It filled a key niche for many airlines by providing a 727 replacement with a bit more capacity and longer range. 1,050 sales may be low compared to other models, but certainly a not a failure.

The 757 was an Anglosphere airplane. It was popular in the USA/UK. Outside of that it was decidedly not common,

Geoff1947 wrote:

So you think a narrow body selling a thousand is selling well !! Even sold less than the 767.

By your logic, most aircraft are unsuccessful. There are rare instances where aircraft exceed 1500 frames, but most of the time it is below that. Granted, the 737 series and A32X series are ridiculously successful, but the 757 still held it's own. If you want to compare apples to apples, in the 23 years the 757 was in service, they created 1050 frames. In 23 years of it's direct competitor, the A321, they only sold roughly 1020 frames. And as for selling more than the 767, that's not even a comparable notation as the 767 is still being produced; of course it's going to outsell an aircraft that isn't being produced anymore.

One of the advantages of the 757 was that, while it was too large to replace the 727, as originally intended, it did great for long haul thin flying.

Balerit wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

Don't get why the 757 has so many fans on A.net. It is the worst selling jetliner family ever built by Boeing. It looks different to most modern jets so maybe that's it.

Geoff

and the ugliest

1) It out sold the 707, all models

2) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and she looks pretty good to me.

And as a fun fact, the 757 was the first use of high bypass ratio engines on a single aisle airliner.

LatAmFlyer wrote:

zkncj wrote:

It pretty much was, it enabled an twin jet 200 seater cross the Pacific with only on stop required. The DC-8 had to hop its way from AKL-HNL.

I wonder where the DC-8 would've stopped along the way, and whether each of the legs between the stops could have been sold separately as a way to reach to any vacation destinations. Did any of these stops subsequently grow into major tourist destinations solely because of these visits? Interested here.

Stops we're in usually made in NAN,TBU,APW,RAR,PPT sometimes it was just an single stop, other-times the route could stop at couple of islands on the way depending on the flight.

All of these are now stand alone destinations ex-AKL with both NAN & RAR getting multiple flights on busy days. An mix of 738s,320,772,77W,789s,343,332 are now used on these routes ex-AKL, without the early DC8 services these Islands are likely not to have been a swell serviced as they are today.

BoeingGuy wrote:

DeltaXNA wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

Don't get why the 757 has so many fans on A.net. It is the worst selling jetliner family ever built by Boeing. It looks different to most modern jets so maybe that's it.

Geoff

Here is a list of Boeing aircraft by number built:

Boeing 717: 156
Boeing 787 family: 553
Boeing 707 family: 865
Boeing 757 family: 1050
Boeing 767 family: 1099
Boeing 777 family: 1490
Boeing 747 family: 1532
Boeing 727 family: 1832
Boeing 737 family: 9522

The Boeing 757 is NOT the worst selling. However, the 787 will likely surpass it.


AIRBUS

A300: 561
A310: 255
A320 family: 7610
A330 family: 1348
A340 family: 377
A350 family: 86
A380: 213

The A320 and A330 families are the big ones. A350 will probably get close to 1000 or above.

Great list. In my book the 720 is a 707. Not sure if you included those numbers. I thought the 707/720 sold over 1000.

Nope, the 707 number of 865 includes the 720.

And the 777 number is incorrect. 777 sales now stand at 1911, the most popular twin aisle airplane of all time.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Actually, I think Boeing screwed up. If the 757 had been a straight 727 replacement without being a substitute for a 727-300 stretch, it would have been a much more successful model. Instead of having stretch after stretch of the 737, the 757 could have been the family that could have taken on the Airbus A320 series. The 757-200 and 767-200 were too close in size. It would have been better if the more modern 757 which has system commonality with the 767 had been smaller.

Bald1983 wrote:

One of the advantages of the 757 was that, while it was too large to replace the 727, as originally intended, it did great for long haul thin flying.

The 757's size left a perfect gap for the A320 to fill, much to Boeing's long term detriment.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

DeltaXNA wrote:

Here is a list of Boeing aircraft by number built:

Boeing 717: 156
Boeing 787 family: 553
Boeing 707 family: 865
Boeing 757 family: 1050
Boeing 767 family: 1099
Boeing 777 family: 1490
Boeing 747 family: 1532
Boeing 727 family: 1832
Boeing 737 family: 9522

The Boeing 757 is NOT the worst selling. However, the 787 will likely surpass it.


AIRBUS

A300: 561
A310: 255
A320 family: 7610
A330 family: 1348
A340 family: 377
A350 family: 86
A380: 213

The A320 and A330 families are the big ones. A350 will probably get close to 1000 or above.

Great list. In my book the 720 is a 707. Not sure if you included those numbers. I thought the 707/720 sold over 1000.

Nope, the 707 number of 865 includes the 720.

And the 777 number is incorrect. 777 sales now stand at 1911, the most popular twin aisle airplane of all time.

For the 707, it's best to look at Boeing's delivery numbers:

707-320B - 174
707-120 - 56
707-E3A - 61
707-138 - 7
707-E3D - 7
707-E6A - 17
707-KE3 - 8
720-000 - 65
707-120B - 72
707-220 - 5
707-420 - 37
707-138B - 6
720-000B - 89
707-320C - 337
707-320 - 69
707 Total - 1010

If we group that a little:

707-120 series - 141 aircraft

• 56x 707-120
• 7x 707-138
• 72x 707-120B
• 6x 707-138B

707-220 series - 5 aircraft

• 5x 707-220

720 series - 154 aircraft

• 65x 720-000
• 89x 720-000B

707-320 series - 580 aircraft

• 69x 707-320
• 174x 707-320B
• 337x 707-320C

707-420 series - 37 aircraft

• 37x 707-420

707-E3/-E6 series (707-320 airframes built for AWACS and TACAMO missions) - 93 aircraft

• 61x 707-E3A
• 7x 707-E3D
• 8x 707-KE3
• 17x 707-E6A

If we then group those further, we could say:

• 763x 707s
• 154x 720s
• 93x E-3/E-6

However since the E-3/E-6 are 707s, we could then say:

• 856x 707s
• 154x 720s

However since the 720 is really a 707-020 which was given a different name for marketing reasons due to customer United Air Lines, we can then say:

• 1010x 707s

I'm not sure where someone got the number 865 from - perhaps it was 856 with the digits transposed?

Another interesting factoid: the line number count of the 707 goes up to 1012; two airframes (line numbers 856 and 858 , both delivered to the USAF as EC-137s) were rebuilt with new line numbers (898 and 920) as part of the E-6 programme.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the 777 number is incorrect. 777 sales now stand at 1911, the most popular twin aisle airplane of all time.

No, the number is correct, but you're counting different things: at the end of May, 1911 orders had been placed, of which 1490 had been delivered.

V/F

The 757 has tremendous capabilities and it is a great looking airplane. What's not to like?

VirginFlyer wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great list. In my book the 720 is a 707. Not sure if you included those numbers. I thought the 707/720 sold over 1000.

Nope, the 707 number of 865 includes the 720.

And the 777 number is incorrect. 777 sales now stand at 1911, the most popular twin aisle airplane of all time.

For the 707, it's best to look at Boeing's delivery numbers:

707-320B - 174
707-120 - 56
707-E3A - 61
707-138 - 7
707-E3D - 7
707-E6A - 17
707-KE3 - 8
720-000 - 65
707-120B - 72
707-220 - 5
707-420 - 37
707-138B - 6
720-000B - 89
707-320C - 337
707-320 - 69
707 Total - 1010

If we group that a little:

707-120 series - 141 aircraft

• 56x 707-120
• 7x 707-138
• 72x 707-120B
• 6x 707-138B

707-220 series - 5 aircraft

• 5x 707-220

720 series - 154 aircraft

• 65x 720-000
• 89x 720-000B

707-320 series - 580 aircraft

• 69x 707-320
• 174x 707-320B
• 337x 707-320C

707-420 series - 37 aircraft

• 37x 707-420

707-E3/-E6 series (707-320 airframes built for AWACS and TACAMO missions) - 93 aircraft

• 61x 707-E3A
• 7x 707-E3D
• 8x 707-KE3
• 17x 707-E6A

If we then group those further, we could say:

• 763x 707s
• 154x 720s
• 93x E-3/E-6

However since the E-3/E-6 are 707s, we could then say:

• 856x 707s
• 154x 720s

However since the 720 is really a 707-020 which was given a different name for marketing reasons due to customer United Air Lines, we can then say:

• 1010x 707s

I'm not sure where someone got the number 865 from - perhaps it was 856 with the digits transposed?

Another interesting factoid: the line number count of the 707 goes up to 1012; two airframes (line numbers 856 and 858 , both delivered to the USAF as EC-137s) were rebuilt with new line numbers (898 and 920) as part of the E-6 programme.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

And the 777 number is incorrect. 777 sales now stand at 1911, the most popular twin aisle airplane of all time.

No, the number is correct, but you're counting different things: at the end of May, 1911 orders had been placed, of which 1490 had been delivered.

V/F

It's too bad there weren't about 20 more 707-700's with CFM-56 engines built for the E-8 JSTARS program instead of trying to refit used 707-300 airliners. It would have been cheaper, and the planes would still have a long life ahead of them.

Also, why were the E-3 AWACS planes built in the 70's with JT3D engines. Why couldn't more advanced JT8D engines been used instead?

Varsity1 wrote:

The 757 was an Anglosphere airplane. It was popular in the USA/UK. Outside of that it was decidedly not common,

True, but it still does not diminish the fact that the 757 was a successful aircraft.

For me the 757 is a unique aircraft. It has good range, carries a good payload, has great short\high\hot airfield performance. Plus it looks great with those over sized engines. And for being a narrow body it taxis and flies like a wide.

AI126 wrote:

I meant to ask why it is so popular among fans specifically. I've been following the A.net forums for a long time, and it seems no matter what, the 764 and especially the 757 have a lot of uber fans and defenders...

For the same reason most if not all car enthusiasts are attracted to high performance cars. The 757 is as some like to say the Corvette of the sky. It's something else for many of us just how well it can climb especially when on board. People are also attracted to things that are rare and the 757 is sadly heading down that path. If you ask 757 pilots why they like it, they will tell you much the same. I know people who have flown it and they all have said it is great.

As for the 767-400 specifically I'm not sure why other than that many of us think it looked good, but I personally prefer the 767-300 as it is my all time favorite aircraft, aside from the cockpi which is much better on the -400. Now the 767 also is generally thought of as one of the best widebodies for cabin layout alongside the A330. Relatively wide seats, but only one middle seat per row. Otherwise I think it is an under appreciated plane by many, especially those that don't know much about it. If the 757 is the sky Corvette, the 767-300 is the sky Cadillac CTS V. The CTS V dispite having the same engine as the Corvette doesn't exactly perform as well as it is a sedan and is larger and heavier, but it still performs exceptionally well while still looking sporty, yet not quite to the degree of the Corvette. The 767 specifically the -300 may not quite be as sporty as the 757, but it is still very close and is often considred to be peppy by pilots. I personally think the 767-300 equipped with winglets and especially with PW4000s is a very good looking jet, definetly the best of any twin widebody followed by the 777. I do agree with most that the 757 looks better, but really not that much as the 763 almost as good. The reason people may be attracted to the -400 specifically is that it looks more interesting than the -300 with the raked wingtips and larger landing gear giving it a mini 777 look and also again because of its rarity. Again if you ask pilots they say that it is great, but generally they say it's even better to fly than the 757 as the controls are more sensitive and various other things seem better.