Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The Boeing 757...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Best airplane to fly...1900
Best airplane to program and manage.....757
 
AAflyer said:
Sure you can manage it, but when you click off the magic she flies Sweeett!
Click to expand...

True!

You just don't get to "fly" as much once you leave the no-autopilot world.
 
Sweet, sweet airplane. Flew it for three years at my previous employer, loved it. Best memory was a ferry flight from DFW to IND, and the captain decided to do a max. power takeoff and climb as one was due. (every 7 days) Long story short, both of us were so far behind the airplane (astounding performance) that we were through 3000 feet before the gear came up, had to pitch up over 20 degrees to keep the speed reasonable, and leveled off at 10,000 in 1 minute 20 seconds, although I couldn't see the airport boundry, I'm sure we were not that far out of it when we leveled.

(those who have flown the RR powered 757-200 empty can attest to the performance.)

While I don't think that I would try and empty max. power takeoff and climb again, it was great fun.
 
B1900FO said:
Is it a joy to fly?

Please, share your experiences!
Click to expand...


Yes, yes and yes!

Great airplane, and the B767-300ER flies better!

Almost as fun as the B727 with the magic off.......
 
The 757 does perform very well, but it has nothing on the 767-200. Climbing out of EWR with a full boat of people plus 12,000 lbs on cargo we went through FL370 at 4000ft/min and M.82.

The 757-300 is a dog though. You are limited to FL340 or lower most of the time. It does ride better in turbulance then the 757-200. It is also very easy to a great landing in the 757-300.
 
Finger-tip flying airplane. The -200 w/ RR are sports cars. Stiff in turbulance.

L10 was the best hand-flying airplane I've flown, but would take the B757 over the L10 anyday, overall.
 
Was this you guys????

http://www.trendpimp.com/media/336/A_757_does_a_flyby_and_then_goes_vertical.html
Sferguson737 said:
Sweet, sweet airplane. Flew it for three years at my previous employer, loved it. Best memory was a ferry flight from DFW to IND, and the captain decided to do a max. power takeoff and climb as one was due. (every 7 days) Long story short, both of us were so far behind the airplane (astounding performance) that we were through 3000 feet before the gear came up, had to pitch up over 20 degrees to keep the speed reasonable, and leveled off at 10,000 in 1 minute 20 seconds, although I couldn't see the airport boundry, I'm sure we were not that far out of it when we leveled.

(those who have flown the RR powered 757-200 empty can attest to the performance.)

While I don't think that I would try and empty max. power takeoff and climb again, it was great fun.
Click to expand...
 
I hand flew the 75 to cruise all the time back in the day. It is one of the best hand flying jets I ever flew. It was light on the controls and very responsive. The glass made precision and smoothness easy. It was also a great jet to program and sit back and watch on a 10.5 leg.
 
We had pratt 2040's 42k per side. It would run like a scalded dog. I had many a chance to fly the jet empty on trainers. I won't claim our climb rates here, no one would believe them. But we limited our deck angle to 35 degrees to keep all the pumps covered. I suspect the RR engine is similarly powered.
 
big_al said:
I thought the same thing stepping out of a ferrari enzo I test drove
Click to expand...
I first thought that after a LAS-PHX leg with about 10k of fuel and maybe 40 pax. An engine limiter was MEL'd so we had to use max thrust. I was a hi-mins f/o, my leg.
Barely got it leveled at 7000.:D
 
incredible. did they really go vertical? did they pull it inverted at the top to keep it positive, then roll it level, or did they roll hard and let it fall through, or did they do a negative push-over?
 
Sferguson737 said:
Sweet, sweet airplane. Flew it for three years at my previous employer, loved it. Best memory was a ferry flight from DFW to IND, and the captain decided to do a max. power takeoff and climb as one was due. (every 7 days) Long story short, both of us were so far behind the airplane (astounding performance) that we were through 3000 feet before the gear came up, had to pitch up over 20 degrees to keep the speed reasonable, and leveled off at 10,000 in 1 minute 20 seconds, although I couldn't see the airport boundry, I'm sure we were not that far out of it when we leveled.

(those who have flown the RR powered 757-200 empty can attest to the performance.)

While I don't think that I would try and empty max. power takeoff and climb again, it was great fun.
Click to expand...


You should fly a dornier sometime... of course, the cruise speed is lacking.. :)
 
Benhuntn said:
We had pratt 2040's 42k per side. It would run like a scalded dog. I had many a chance to fly the jet empty on trainers. I won't claim our climb rates here, no one would believe them. But we limited our deck angle to 35 degrees to keep all the pumps covered. I suspect the RR engine is similarly powered.
Click to expand...

Murf,

I thought the Pratts were rated at 38K? Did the Airforce have different engines than what they put on the civilian birds? The RR we have here are rated 43K (actually 43,100).

AA
 
AA--The TWA variants had PW 2037's. I didn't know there was a 2040.

I echo what benhuntin said about the flying qualities. It was well balanced (the 767-200 was too light on the ailerons) on the controls. I didn't fly the 767-300 enough but I just can't imagine doing the same patterns in that as I did in the 757. TC
 
AA717driver said:
AA--The TWA variants had PW 2037's. I didn't know there was a 2040.

I echo what benhuntin said about the flying qualities. It was well balanced (the 767-200 was too light on the ailerons) on the controls. I didn't fly the 767-300 enough but I just can't imagine doing the same patterns in that as I did in the 757. TC
Click to expand...

Thanks TC,

I was guessing the military had another variant.

Great airplane, and now we hand the 19 newest in our fleet over to DAL.

AA:(
 
The 757 always looked like a nice performer and all the friends who fly it think it's awesome......but....as a poor schmuck who has to ride around in the back of one to get to work (as a paying passenger), bring on the Bus. Or the Mad Dog. Or the 737. Or even the CRJ. I hate riding in a 7-5.
 
I'm curious...

Benhuntn said:
We had pratt 2040's 42k per side. It would run like a scalded dog. I had many a chance to fly the jet empty on trainers. I won't claim our climb rates here, no one would believe them. But we limited our deck angle to 35 degrees to keep all the pumps covered. I suspect the RR engine is similarly powered.
Click to expand...

So what was the climb rate???
 
Our engines derated to 33k and 37k so I assume the pw2040 was just an uprated 2037.

I saw a climb rate of 20k per minute with a 20k fuel load and 3 pilots on a departure out of KADW. We departed over DCA and had to maintain 4000'. We leveled and the controler called and asked if we could give him a good rate to 170. We said we could be there in 2 min. He said I'd like to see that. We didn't miss it by much. He was pretty impressed.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom