View Full Version : Performance wise which is best B737,B757 or A320,A321
Captain Chaos 747
4th Sep 2002, 15:16
Just curious as to which aircraft has the best performance in terms of climb performance, cruise speed out of the B737,757 and the A320,321 and which one would you prefer to be in if it came to a engine failure in the climb out.
I don't want it to turn into a Boeing is better than Airbus or vice versa.
Cheers.
Rabbit
4th Sep 2002, 16:12
Yes I aggree, the 757 is at the top of the pile in that category but at a price. If you refer to performance only, yes it does, but when you balance it with economics, no it dosen't. They are all very fine aircraft but lets compare apples with apples. The 737,s compare with A320/319. Until recently the A320 was ahead by quite a margin, however the "New Generation" versions of the 737's have pretty much closed the gap in all respects except cabin size. The 757 compared to the A321 is interesting. The 757 is very expensive and has a huge power advantage, it carries a good payload over a considerable distance. Until recently, the A321 could carry close to the same payload but over a much lesser range but later models have rectified this deficiency. The big advantage for the A321 was the much lower fuel burn. Using information gleened from ATW, of the aircraft mentioned it suggests from their performance and efficiency rating, that the A321 is the best overall(but I still like the 757).
PS. The most efficient of all aircraft according to this rating was the A330-300. But that was a few years ago and I would suggest that the A340-600 or B777-300 would now take that position.
Have a nice day
Not only fuel-burn comes in to play mind you Rabbit when you're calculating how economic an aircraft is.
Reliability etc counts as well!
Dan-Air London
4th Sep 2002, 16:47
Boeing 757 Dream Machine [
tailscrape
4th Sep 2002, 17:39
Comparing a 757 and a 321.
Well if you were heavy and had to climb on one engine, I would rather know I had two grossly over powered Rollers under the wings. Especially if one had blown out.
I may be wrong , but someone said that A321's came factory equipped with two remington hairdryers.
Also, assuming you are heavy and suffer an engine failure, it is fairly likely you will have just got airborne.
Therefore you will need to land (in a controlled manner) ASAP.
A 757 has lots of brakes. An A321 has less. This could be another PERFORMANCE poser!
Better to end up on the runway with the brakes on fire rather than in a field with your brakes setting fire to Farmer Giles's Corn crop because you over ran the runway.......
TS
Spearing Britney
4th Sep 2002, 19:11
No arguing the 757 goes like stink but I would rather have the Airbus beta target and its more capable autopilot when the donk cuts. Less of a swing from the more feeble engine too:p
Well now Spearing Britney I guess you don't consider thrust cut-back an option if you somehow would be unable to control the swing?? What about the autopilot? What is it you feel you need on top of what you can't do in a 757? Calculate an offset dme arc to an obscure airport in nowhere with an angle that the scarebus can't fly anyway?
tailscrape you couldn't be more right. I'm from now on qouting you in my signature! :) :)
tailscrape
4th Sep 2002, 20:16
Knold,
Infamy at last. THANKYOU!
Spearing Britney
4th Sep 2002, 22:41
Knold, why would I want to? - with the bus you can get back in where you came out of at max weight with full bells and whistles autoland performance available ;)
To the best of my knowledge the 75 cant. I was only jesting about the swing too! No, seriously I'd love a 757 on my ticket, I think its a great machine but then so is the bus and its the latter that is maligned by many for no good reason...
Fresca
5th Sep 2002, 00:26
S.B
So can the 757.
It can return to an airport single engine and autoland, if required (at leat the newer ones :D :D )
Spearing Britney you're most welcome to present your experience in your profile :)
I think you will find that the 757 is the most unresticted (no, I don't sell 'em even though that would be a treat) in all aspects. Considering such basic facts as the rolls and the double boggy wheels, it will take a really ignorant person to suggest that anything else than the 757 is the way to go - financially and operationlly.
Brenoch
5th Sep 2002, 04:02
What's with the autoland..
Didn't they teach you in school how to land the damn thing??
Spearing Britney
5th Sep 2002, 13:06
Sorry, had been misinformed (that will teach me to listen to pub pilots:() but...
Knold " it will take a really ignorant person to suggest that anything else than the 757 is the way to go - financially and operationlly." Thats simply not true, A321 pence per seat per mile costs are way down on 757's. Yes the 757 is more capable (my info on its autoland ability was duff obviously and I stand corrected;I had also been told it couldnt land at MTOW,which I take it is also incorrect?) performance wise but all the accountants (and some pilots) choose the 321... As for my experience, its plenty on the bus, minimal on the 737 and zero on the 757 (since you asked)
Brenoch, I am perfectly happy with landing the thing but in some situations (pilot incapacitation, restricted vis etc etc) its not the ideal solution. As I said, I was labouring under the false notion that the 757 lost catII/III capability with an engine out.
Fresca, thanks for the civil and informative reply.:)
52049er
5th Sep 2002, 15:05
Best thing about these threads is that u could tell the type flown by pilots even if you removed the a/c names - lets just say one half seems to feel they need to make a big noise, whilst the others just connais (excuse schoolboy french :) )
As to which I'd prefer to lose an engine on - well lets just admit Im no chuck yeager and in an horrendously stressed flightdeck I just might put a bootful of the wrong rudder in (yeah yeah I know, "id never do that" etc etc - well I might). One type would react by going inverted, the other would mildly track round the horizon, wings level, in a bemused kind of way. Equally, I might overrotate, and one type would automatically put on TOGA and stop me stalling, whilst the other would shake and shout. Oh, and one has a table too :)
Just my £0.02. Id happily fly anything me, but do get amused by people feeling threatened (and a bit bored by constant 'Oh, and have I told you about the E4 blah blah blah :) )
TDK mk2
6th Sep 2002, 09:13
Knold:
That'll be why orders for the 757 have dried up eh?!
Rabbit
6th Sep 2002, 09:56
Just to throw in another 2 cents worth: Just check out which ones of the above a are selling. Airbus is selling good numbers of A319, A320 and A321. Boeing is selling good numbers of the 737 in various marks. But Boeing is not selling many if any 757's in recent times. Now I like the 757 but it seems the airlines are making their decisions based on their reguirements whatever they might be.
Of the jet aircraft available today the main selling types are (in no particular order): B737, B777 and all Airbus types.
Have a nice day
tailscrape
6th Sep 2002, 15:50
I fly the 757. It has HAD it's day in all honesty.
It is a dream machine, very reliable etc etc
However it is 20 years old now, and is on it's last legs in terms of technology.
Despite what I said earlier, I still think the 757 outperforms most though.........and will for a long time. It all comes down to power available!
As for rudders,trays,autolands and braking. Well, let's just hope the only time they come into play is in the sim!
All the best you Airbus European types!!
Well TDK mk2 I think it has to do more with beancounters making the decitions based upon a leaflet the got in the latest Flight...
Brenoch
7th Sep 2002, 00:21
Come on, I think PpRuNe is just a wee bit overcrowded with A vs B debates..
However, my signature stays the same.. ;) :D ;)
Spearing Britney
7th Sep 2002, 15:03
:p just cos you didntlike the way it was going...:p
Jennie Blond
7th Sep 2002, 19:16
Slightly off topic, but from a Cabin Crew point of view, the 757 is far nicer to work on than ANY of the Airbus family. Things in the right place, and so on.
However, opportunities to fly the 757 are getting less and less, but A321 more and more.
5milesbaby
8th Sep 2002, 09:56
From an ATC side of things I'd say the newest B737's. The 757's maybe quick in the cruise but the 737-700/800 aren't far off the pace, and the 73's seem to expedite at ANY level fantastically and instantly. As for the 757-300, A320, and A321, i don't think they will ever know 'expedite' once above FL250, they hardly even know 'climb'. I don't know what the max. cruise levels are for each, but invaribly the B737's request higher than any of the rest on all days, but also understand this is economy from time to time.
gatbusdriver
8th Sep 2002, 16:50
From my username, you can no doubt work out which type I currently fly. I personally think that although the airbus is a little underpowered compared to the boeing, it is a lovely machine to fly.
But on the other hand, I can't wait to have the opportunity to get a boeing on my licence.
What I can't stand is this point of view you get from some people IF IT AIN'T BOEING I AIN'T GOING or vice versa. It seems a little narrow minded. As they both have their selling points.
The Boeings are my choice performance wise. The 320 & 321 types are dogs performance wise in the takeoff and climb sector. They are also slow to descend due to the very high idle thrust required to provide a reasonable spool up time in flight The 319 does have adequate performance.
You do wonder if a bit more fuel capacity on the 757 would rejuvenate the aircraft. With a max RTOW of 115.6 tonnes another 6 to 8 tonnes of extra fuel would make it a lovely "long and thin" aircraft, ideal for 180 pax. from the UK to the Caribbean. Boeing seem to have given up on the type.