B757 vs A321
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 782
Likes: 21
From: netherlands
757 re-engined with GTF - 15% reduction in fuel burn (at least), be a great aircraft. On the other hand, Airbus could do the same with the A321 .
I think a new center section, wing box wing (CRFP), engines and engines on a stretched A320 ould produce a very potent 757/A310/767-200 replacement..
It could become a sub series with trans continental / trans atlantic capability combined with the wider A320 cabin & cargo container capability. Maybe up to 280 seats..
I think a new center section, wing box wing (CRFP), engines and engines on a stretched A320 ould produce a very potent 757/A310/767-200 replacement..
It could become a sub series with trans continental / trans atlantic capability combined with the wider A320 cabin & cargo container capability. Maybe up to 280 seats..
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
keesje- I like seeing your designs, but I can tell you that wing is far too small, and the sweepback is not nearly enough. Tailplane also too small. But the idea is good. A stretched A321 with a new large wing (like the 757), or just a root section added, and far more powerful engines- a sort of mini-787. As the 757s are getting so old, it would be a market killer! Unfortunately, the only replacement for a 757 is....a 757. Because of it's power and large wing, it is a strong performer on long range routes that the 321 just can't handle.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
In our outfit, A321 v 757, 757 uses ~20% extra fuel for same payload / route, and might save a minute or 2 on timing (up to, say 2:30 legs).
Go further afield, and the 757 starts becoming effective, and the A321 limiting.
Of course the 757 is more fun to fly etc, but the bean counters, Swampy, and the SLF who pay the fares are not really too interested in that
NoD
Go further afield, and the 757 starts becoming effective, and the A321 limiting.
Of course the 757 is more fun to fly etc, but the bean counters, Swampy, and the SLF who pay the fares are not really too interested in that
NoD
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
I have been flying the 75 / 67 for the last 11 years and totally agree everything positive already said about the 75 except.. someone mentioned 'well ventilated'
More like, bloody draughty, way too much air blowing around the cockpit (also increasing the noise level substantially)
While I'm on negative characteristics must mention the poor ride in turbulence and the 'dead spot' in pitch during rotation and landing.
Make no mistake, I think it's a great ship, but could have been a little better, more like the...76 !
76 is a lovely machine, my only criticism is that forward trailing landing gear.
More like, bloody draughty, way too much air blowing around the cockpit (also increasing the noise level substantially)
While I'm on negative characteristics must mention the poor ride in turbulence and the 'dead spot' in pitch during rotation and landing.
Make no mistake, I think it's a great ship, but could have been a little better, more like the...76 !
76 is a lovely machine, my only criticism is that forward trailing landing gear.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 782
Likes: 21
From: netherlands
that wing is far too small, and the sweepback is not nearly enough. Tailplane also too small.
Rainboe, yhnx for yr comments, you could be right. For reference is I showed to following design with a different cockpit section I feel most people would say it has a unrealistic small wing. I would feel so too..
its 5 meters longer then the proposed A325..
Rainboe, yhnx for yr comments, you could be right. For reference is I showed to following design with a different cockpit section I feel most people would say it has a unrealistic small wing. I would feel so too..
its 5 meters longer then the proposed A325..
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 5
From: Chabanais, France
SIA liked the 757 very much as a performer but dumped it in favour of the A310 because the 757 was only a single aisle machine and the A310 was not only dual aisle but could take containers. Doubt if an A321 could do Bahrain to EGWW non-stop with a full load?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz
Last edited by Rainboe; 14th September 2008 at 18:53.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: Manchester, England
763 Jock - Very true! Only problem I've had whilst doing the same is taking off at MTOW out of MCO or SFB, planned for the uk, then not getting the winds and being over weight for Goose or Gander to put more gas on. Bugger! Hands tied for a while! That said, yep I love the 75 still...
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Estonia
I also think that 38 m wingspan is unduly restrictive.
Consider the existing big narrowbodies:
Airbus 321: wingspan 34,1 m, area 123 sq. m, MTOW up to 93 t.
Boeing 737-900: wingspan 34,3 m, area 125 sq. m, MTOW up to 79 t.
Boeing 757-300: wingspan 38 m, area 185 sq. m, MTOW up to 122 t.
Tupolev Tu-154M: wingspan 37,6 m, area 202 sq. m, MTOW up to 100 t.
Tupolev Tu-204-220: wingspan 41,8 m, area 182 sq. m, MTOW up to 111 t.
Boeing 707-120B: wingspan 39,9 m, area 226 sq. m, MTOW up to 117 t.
Boeing 707-320B: wingspan 44,4 m, area 283 sq. m, MTOW up to 151 t.
Douglas DC-8-73: wingspan 45,2 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 162 t.
Vickers VC-10: wingspan 44,6 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 152 t.
Ilyushin Il-62MK: wingspan 43,2 m, wing area 280 sq. m, MTOW up to 167 t.
For comparison, some small widebodies:
Lockheed Tristar-1: wingspan 47,3 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW up to 195 t.
Airbus A300B2-200: wingspan 44,8 m, wing area 260 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A300B4-200 MTOW up to 165 t.
Airbus A310-200: wingspan 43,9 m, wing area 219 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A310-300 MTOW up to 165 t.
Boeing 767-200: wingspan 47,6 m, wing area 283 sq. m, MTOW 136 to 143 t; 767-200ER MTOW up to 176 t.
Ilyushin Il-86: wingspan 48,1 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW 208 t.
So, summing up: what do you think would be the most efficient way to design an airplane with 120...150 t MTOW and 200...250 seats? A short widebody, like A300/A310/B767 non-ER, or a long narrowbody like 757-300/DC-8-61/63?
Consider the existing big narrowbodies:
Airbus 321: wingspan 34,1 m, area 123 sq. m, MTOW up to 93 t.
Boeing 737-900: wingspan 34,3 m, area 125 sq. m, MTOW up to 79 t.
Boeing 757-300: wingspan 38 m, area 185 sq. m, MTOW up to 122 t.
Tupolev Tu-154M: wingspan 37,6 m, area 202 sq. m, MTOW up to 100 t.
Tupolev Tu-204-220: wingspan 41,8 m, area 182 sq. m, MTOW up to 111 t.
Boeing 707-120B: wingspan 39,9 m, area 226 sq. m, MTOW up to 117 t.
Boeing 707-320B: wingspan 44,4 m, area 283 sq. m, MTOW up to 151 t.
Douglas DC-8-73: wingspan 45,2 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 162 t.
Vickers VC-10: wingspan 44,6 m, area 272 sq. m, MTOW up to 152 t.
Ilyushin Il-62MK: wingspan 43,2 m, wing area 280 sq. m, MTOW up to 167 t.
For comparison, some small widebodies:
Lockheed Tristar-1: wingspan 47,3 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW up to 195 t.
Airbus A300B2-200: wingspan 44,8 m, wing area 260 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A300B4-200 MTOW up to 165 t.
Airbus A310-200: wingspan 43,9 m, wing area 219 sq. m, MTOW 142 t; A310-300 MTOW up to 165 t.
Boeing 767-200: wingspan 47,6 m, wing area 283 sq. m, MTOW 136 to 143 t; 767-200ER MTOW up to 176 t.
Ilyushin Il-86: wingspan 48,1 m, wing area 320 sq. m, MTOW 208 t.
So, summing up: what do you think would be the most efficient way to design an airplane with 120...150 t MTOW and 200...250 seats? A short widebody, like A300/A310/B767 non-ER, or a long narrowbody like 757-300/DC-8-61/63?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Greetings,
Nice drawings, however if airbus wants to change the Avionics, i.e., Displays, screens, plus fitting of an EFB class 3, they will have to redesign the Nose
FANTOM
I flew Both Boeing and Airbus, Boeing is Practical Pilot oriented, Airbus is unnecesseraly sophisticated Engineers oriented
Airbus for quality people
I doubt it, if it was the case then why all those Flight protections 
BTW can you sideslip an Airbus in cross wind No so you are left with one method only Decrab
Boeing for Common Pilots I doubt it, Boeing for practical people YES BTW can you sideslip a B767 YES ,and if you want you can still use Decrab 
I leaving the A330 fleet after three years and moving to the B777, I tell you what, I am counting the minutes
Nice drawings, however if airbus wants to change the Avionics, i.e., Displays, screens, plus fitting of an EFB class 3, they will have to redesign the Nose
FANTOM
I flew Both Boeing and Airbus, Boeing is Practical Pilot oriented, Airbus is unnecesseraly sophisticated Engineers oriented
Airbus for quality people
I doubt it, if it was the case then why all those Flight protections BTW can you sideslip an Airbus in cross wind No so you are left with one method only Decrab Boeing for Common Pilots
I doubt it, Boeing for practical people YES BTW can you sideslip a B767 YES ,and if you want you can still use Decrab I leaving the A330 fleet after three years and moving to the B777, I tell you what, I am counting the minutes
