Talk:Boeing 757

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Accident summary

Figures are identical to those for the 767... that seems highly unlikely. Pretzelpaws 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is that? Both have lost 9 airframes:
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_manu_details.cgi?aircraft=757
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_manu_details.cgi?aircraft=767
Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:41:20, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

[edit] Winglets

Could someone merge the most recent entries regarding winglets? One was mine and another was added more recently. Perhaps someone could reconcile them? I don't want to revert as that would just be snippy :) Dowlingm 15:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Josh59x 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Range

Continental offers 757 flights form Newark to Hamburg, a distance of 5,239 miles. I cannot believe it, but it is true: [1]. So the 757 is a long-haul jet--Arado 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The 737-700ER has a similar range, too, so it can perform some of the same missions. Mind you, it can't haul as many pax. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that 5239 miles is correct - maybe that's the miles you get for your OnePass account, depending on your booking class. The actual distance is about 3300nm/3800mi/6150km. Anyway, the Continental 757-200 for intercontinental services are not standard 757-200 as they came from the production line - they had some modifications done, including the winglets and a range increase. Also, the 757 lacks the comfort that real long haul jets provide. Concerning the differences between 757-200 and the 737-900ER:
•The 737-900ER seats 15% less passengers,
•does not fully reach the 757-200's range,
•doesn't provide the 757-200's lift capacity (757 has a 35% or 30t higher MTOW),
•and in general lacks the 757-200's hot-and-high-capability.
-- C. Deelmann 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airlines consider it too big for domestic ops

What a load of garbage, maybe in the US but Qantas frequently used it for operations (along side larger planes including 767 and a330) between melbourne and sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.14.194 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Qantas does not operate, nor has it ever operated, the 757. Ansett looked into it during the 1980s, but ended up ordering a smaller aircraft, the A320, instead. I do agree with you however that the phrase is in need of some explanation or reference. --Nick Moss 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to size not the actual plane --60.224.14.194 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Boeing 757-300]] is changed to [[Boeing 757#757-300 |Boeing 757-300]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winglets, Pt. 2

I have removed TWO separate winglet sections from the article that have lots of facts and figures, but no sources. This is beginning to seem like apromotion for Aviation Partners, the company the additions claim is adding the winglets. We must have independent, verifiable sources for any perfomance figures in the text. Simple physical descriptions from a company are OK, as they are most likely to know how long or high their products are. I will try to find some verifiable sourses this week, and put some of the info back in, in ONE place only. And we certainly don't need a second-level heading on Winglets! - BillCJ 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I combined the -200WL and Winglets sections since they were fairly redundant. I'm looking for references too. Having trouble finding something that state 5% fuel burn and 200 nm range improvements. -Fnlayson 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What you've done so far looks great! As long as we've got sources on the rest of the info, we can remove the section tag, and place a {{fact}} on the performance figures for a few weeks. I'd be OK with a company press release stating the figures, as long as we state it as such. - BillCJ 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this help http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/news/benefit_of_winglets.pdf Oh nevermind. Guess I should read the part first. ~David

[edit] Trivia

I have removed the trivia section as most of it was not notable and trivial. Can I suggest that we create a new heading of Other facts if anybody wants to restore encyclopedic and relevant citable content. MilborneOne 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I preferred cutting the section down, but that's alright with me too. -Fnlayson 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly did not see anything worth keeping in what was left in the section. There were only 4 items left: 3 were definitely non-notable, and wing area should be included in the specs. (WIng area is a field in the standard specs, but not the table the article uses instead.) - BillCJ 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seating configuration?

For those sorry souls among us who are just mere passengers, it'd be pretty acool to include a schematic of typical seating configurations. Does anyone have that kind of graphic? How about interior photos? Thanks-- Jeremy Tobacman 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • A basic layout can be found in Section 2 of 757-200/300 Airplane Characteristics. If you want more look at major airline pages. They usually have layout figures, maybe some pics too. I doubt if you'll find free public domain images. -Fnlayson 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safest commercial passenger jet?

Given that no lives have been lost as a result of structural failure, decompression, engine failure etc, is this the safest jet?

  • Probably the Boeing 777. Not in service as long as the 757, but still only a couple incidents over some 10 yrs. But drawing this conclusion in an article would original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)