It lives under an awning at the St Louis airport, so if you know where to look when taking off or landing you can see it.
They also take it to the St Louis air show, which is at another airport a few miles away. I’m hoping to see on the ridiculously short flight this year.
Fly with delta or united, they still use a lot. I added 2 layovers and an extra 11 hours to a trip journey just so I could have a leg on a 757, and it was totally worth it.
Yeah, last time I visited North American continent was two years ago. Maybe if it happens again I might book a domestic trip inside US and try. Mine are usually international flights, and those are either 777 or 380.
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval. Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Political comments can result in a ban.
Does anyone know why the 757 never ended up being the replacement for the 737? Seems like it would have been a perfect narrow body replacement for the 50+ year old platform that was never built for high bypass engines...
It was never intended to replace the 737. It was a 727 replacement. The 757 had higher pax capacity, much longer range, and most importantly the excess performance and higher MTOW allowed it to operate in rough field environments. It wasn't designed for short-medium routes like the 737. By the time it was used for point-to-point routes across the Atlantic thanks to ETOPS, production was already over and thus everyone realized the 757s true potential too late. That's why I kinda scoff every time I see people say Boeing should've cancelled the 737 in favour of the 757; it wouldn't make any sense.
Because the 737 was an extremely popular aircraft already and I assume Boeing saw the airframe still had potential with upgrades. However the 737 already had high bypass turbofans before the A320 first flew, with the -300 flying in 1984 compared to the A320 first flying in 87. It was hardly a first, as manufacturers were doing that with older airframes such as the 707 and DC-8. To put it into context, the first 737 ever only flew 17 years earlier, which isn't that long for airliners.
I'd like to throw in that the MAX iteration would've been completely fine if Boeing didn't cut corners with the MCAS system and had built redundancy into it. People like to say the 737 design was pushed too far but I strong disagree with that statement, and evidently so do the airlines since it's selling very well.
The 757 was made from widebody parts for commonality with the 767 (widebody engines, wings, landing gear, and tail).
That made the 757 a very heavy narrowbody aircraft (15,000lbs heavier than an A321), and it also made the 757 require widebody gates to fit the wings and ramp equipment to accommodate the tall landing gear.
In the end, the 757 had narrowbody revenues and widebody expenses, which is why airlines stopped ordering them 25 years ago.
While the 757 had some unique performance characteristics, only 7% of 757 flights couldn't be done with a cheaper to operate aircraft, which is why it fell out of favor with airlines.
757 was intended to be a 727 replacement.
It needed to match the 727 field performance (727 had a pretty advanced wing leading / trailing edge devices, plus engines in the back made the wing "clean"), so it was given A LOT of excess thrust.
757 is taller and a bit less rugged than a 727 due to US airports mostly been developed by its introduction to handle and service taller jets. 727/737 were supposed to go to airports with minimal ground support - so both are lower which in turn limited the use of higher bypass (larger diameter) engines.
737 still faces this issue today, after multiple redesigns.
The whole frame really wasn’t optimized and economical as much as a 737 fitting the same number of passengers. It has a higher empty weight for all that structure and with heavier thirstier engines it’s hauling around. Which also leads to a double bogie landing gear. The 737 is most of its variants is even lighter than the A320 family if that helps also understand the scope.
For me one of the most beautiful airplanes due to the proportionality of its shapes and design. If I'm not wrong, it is the longest narrow-body aircraft, with just over 54 m in its 757-300 version.
Rule of thumb for airliner propulsion is 200% thrust more than necessary to stay aloft. This was apparent with the test bed, loaded with recording gear and sensors. Later on, it will be loaded with water ballast tanks to simulate passenger and cargo loading scenarios.
If you want to see a breath-taking launch, Google A380 Paris Airshow display.
UberGerbil@reddit
Lucky enough to fly a 757 off of that same runway at BFI. Always give the people on the fence at the museum a wave.
ProfessorNob@reddit
This is RNT :)
njsullyalex@reddit
Fun fact: this particular 757, N757A, is still in service as of 2025. It is used as a tested for F-22 Raptor avionics.
Trashy_pig@reddit
Look how they massacred my boy 🥴
ABlueCloud@reddit
He looks great in his hat
Bright_Broccoli1844@reddit
It reminds me of the habit of the flying nun.
FMC_Speed@reddit
Yeah but it can see and if you put a missile rack, can shoot you down too
willyougiveittome@reddit
It lives under an awning at the St Louis airport, so if you know where to look when taking off or landing you can see it.
They also take it to the St Louis air show, which is at another airport a few miles away. I’m hoping to see on the ridiculously short flight this year.
WhiskeyMikeMike@reddit
By the way, tickets are $35 right now so if you get them now you can avoid paying 64 bucks
WhiskeyMikeMike@reddit
in past years I’ve seen them fly it around a bit before going to spirit airport, not just a direct short flight
AeroSixNorth@reddit
Good lord, it's like orthodontic headgear
Shahidsp@reddit
Average Kerbal Space Program plane
can_i_has_beer@reddit
Far_Breakfast_5808@reddit
So it's a reverse B-HNL? Initially fitted with Rolls-Royce engines then re-engined with PWs?
reddeagle99@reddit
Funny thing is they both produce similar amounts of thrust. 70k on F-22 vs 80k lbs on the 757.
EstateAlternative416@reddit
And I bet even this is was a D TO 2 takeoff
wazurname@reddit
The Pencil
dredeth@reddit
I wish I had a chance to fly on it...
It was before my time.
PlanesOfFame@reddit
Fly with delta or united, they still use a lot. I added 2 layovers and an extra 11 hours to a trip journey just so I could have a leg on a 757, and it was totally worth it.
dredeth@reddit
Yeah, last time I visited North American continent was two years ago. Maybe if it happens again I might book a domestic trip inside US and try. Mine are usually international flights, and those are either 777 or 380.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
AutoModerator@reddit
To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval. Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Political comments can result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
snamuh@reddit
Best Boeing ever made. What a tank.
airpab1@reddit
Yes! Right there with the 747
Tiny-Plum2713@reddit
When did Boeing have this livery? Very similar colors and style to the Airbus livery in 90s/00s
Realistic_Mix3652@reddit
Does anyone know why the 757 never ended up being the replacement for the 737? Seems like it would have been a perfect narrow body replacement for the 50+ year old platform that was never built for high bypass engines...
9999AWC@reddit
It was never intended to replace the 737. It was a 727 replacement. The 757 had higher pax capacity, much longer range, and most importantly the excess performance and higher MTOW allowed it to operate in rough field environments. It wasn't designed for short-medium routes like the 737. By the time it was used for point-to-point routes across the Atlantic thanks to ETOPS, production was already over and thus everyone realized the 757s true potential too late. That's why I kinda scoff every time I see people say Boeing should've cancelled the 737 in favour of the 757; it wouldn't make any sense.
Realistic_Mix3652@reddit
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
Why do you think Boeing never made a 737 replacement in the 1980s when competition from Airbus and new high bypass engines would made sense to do so?
9999AWC@reddit
Because the 737 was an extremely popular aircraft already and I assume Boeing saw the airframe still had potential with upgrades. However the 737 already had high bypass turbofans before the A320 first flew, with the -300 flying in 1984 compared to the A320 first flying in 87. It was hardly a first, as manufacturers were doing that with older airframes such as the 707 and DC-8. To put it into context, the first 737 ever only flew 17 years earlier, which isn't that long for airliners.
I'd like to throw in that the MAX iteration would've been completely fine if Boeing didn't cut corners with the MCAS system and had built redundancy into it. People like to say the 737 design was pushed too far but I strong disagree with that statement, and evidently so do the airlines since it's selling very well.
FormulaJAZ@reddit
The 757 was made from widebody parts for commonality with the 767 (widebody engines, wings, landing gear, and tail).
That made the 757 a very heavy narrowbody aircraft (15,000lbs heavier than an A321), and it also made the 757 require widebody gates to fit the wings and ramp equipment to accommodate the tall landing gear.
In the end, the 757 had narrowbody revenues and widebody expenses, which is why airlines stopped ordering them 25 years ago.
While the 757 had some unique performance characteristics, only 7% of 757 flights couldn't be done with a cheaper to operate aircraft, which is why it fell out of favor with airlines.
kittenfartastic@reddit
757 was intended to be a 727 replacement. It needed to match the 727 field performance (727 had a pretty advanced wing leading / trailing edge devices, plus engines in the back made the wing "clean"), so it was given A LOT of excess thrust.
757 is taller and a bit less rugged than a 727 due to US airports mostly been developed by its introduction to handle and service taller jets. 727/737 were supposed to go to airports with minimal ground support - so both are lower which in turn limited the use of higher bypass (larger diameter) engines.
737 still faces this issue today, after multiple redesigns.
fly_awayyy@reddit
The whole frame really wasn’t optimized and economical as much as a 737 fitting the same number of passengers. It has a higher empty weight for all that structure and with heavier thirstier engines it’s hauling around. Which also leads to a double bogie landing gear. The 737 is most of its variants is even lighter than the A320 family if that helps also understand the scope.
12x20x1@reddit
Was that a 24kt tailwind at takeoff?
Fluid_Maybe_6588@reddit
I was wondering the same thing. Makes no sense. We’re limited to max 10 tailwind but I guess that’s what test pilots do.
beezxs@reddit
I wonder at what point did Boeing realize they built a rocket disguised as an airliner
FormulaJAZ@reddit
When they spec'ed widebody engines on a narrow-body aircraft.
FriedChickenWatch@reddit
people used to be way more chill, good lord
B1BLancer6225@reddit
Probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing airliners ever made.
UnderstandingNo5667@reddit
Agreed, she’s an absolute beaut.
I think the A350 is up there with its cockpit shape and steep winglets.
snamuh@reddit
Best yeah the a350 is nice looking
Aerogaia@reddit
For me one of the most beautiful airplanes due to the proportionality of its shapes and design. If I'm not wrong, it is the longest narrow-body aircraft, with just over 54 m in its 757-300 version.
Dry-Use2959@reddit
I think the DC-8 was even longer with 57m in the -63 variant
Aerogaia@reddit
Yes, that's right! He was until the mid-80s, which were his last years of service. Then there was the 757.
nighthawke75@reddit
Rule of thumb for airliner propulsion is 200% thrust more than necessary to stay aloft. This was apparent with the test bed, loaded with recording gear and sensors. Later on, it will be loaded with water ballast tanks to simulate passenger and cargo loading scenarios.
If you want to see a breath-taking launch, Google A380 Paris Airshow display.
m149@reddit
That's some pretty cool early 80s Vangelis style synth music.
Ouestlabibliotheque@reddit
A better time at Boeing…
No-Turnip2494@reddit
Back when the company was run by engineers, not MBAs.
NxPat@reddit
It’s still a new aircraft in my mind…
d_maeddy@reddit
What in the standard phraseology 🤌🏽🤌🏽
nckbrr@reddit
Cameras rolling and they still couldn’t be bothered to do proper RT?
BugHuntHudson@reddit
It was a very short take off! 😄
CrazedAviator@reddit
Easily the most beautiful thing Boeing has ever made
Things a rocket too, got to experience a lightly-loaded takeoff from ORL and it just went UP
onil34@reddit
why does it sound like ronald reagan is flying this airplane