B757 vs A321
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe: Your diagram shows a different configuration! I do not believe yours would be able to achieve a good cruise altitude- that is not an accurate scale 757 wing! I think that diagram is a proposal for a B757-400 wrongly labelled.If you measure up the diagrams, you will find the proportion of wingspan/length is different for allegedly the same aeroplane. Where did you get your diagram?
I got it from 757.org.uk | doors and door configurations it seems correct to me.
chornedsnorkack: 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?
I depents on how important e.g. Cargo & First / Business class are. A wide body offers better cargo potential and flexibility in configuring competitive premium cabins.
If that is less important (e.g. leisure market, opening up new routes, thin routes etc.) a narrow body offers superior OEW, drag, single aisle crew efficiency and most of all: fuel efficiency. Wingletted 757s made an impressive revival during the last few years on the Atlantic..
I got it from 757.org.uk | doors and door configurations it seems correct to me.
chornedsnorkack: 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?
I depents on how important e.g. Cargo & First / Business class are. A wide body offers better cargo potential and flexibility in configuring competitive premium cabins.
If that is less important (e.g. leisure market, opening up new routes, thin routes etc.) a narrow body offers superior OEW, drag, single aisle crew efficiency and most of all: fuel efficiency. Wingletted 757s made an impressive revival during the last few years on the Atlantic..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wide body offers better cargo potential and flexibility in configuring competitive premium cabins.
If that is less important (e.g. leisure market, opening up new routes, thin routes etc.) a narrow body offers superior OEW, drag, single aisle crew efficiency and most of all: fuel efficiency. Wingletted 757s made an impressive revival during the last few years on the Atlantic..
If that is less important (e.g. leisure market, opening up new routes, thin routes etc.) a narrow body offers superior OEW, drag, single aisle crew efficiency and most of all: fuel efficiency. Wingletted 757s made an impressive revival during the last few years on the Atlantic..
Arenīt the Chinese also planning a plane with over 150 seats AND over 100 t MTOW?
B757 vs A321, not quite a case of apple vs. oranges but oranges vs. tangerines, certainly. B757 has more power, can carry more payload and goes further than A321, but it comes with a price - higher fuel flow. When 757s superior performance are not needed, A321 wins the day by beancounter's jury decision.
Yes I can, thank you for asking. But I sideslip it as A320 is to be sideslipped, not in the way that works in Boeing/Douglas/Tu-134 - i.e. don't hold stick against rudder but release it to neutral when your bank is where you want it.
can you sideslip an Airbus in cross wind
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing studying real 757 replacement
not in the way that works in Boeing/Douglas/Tu-134
Did you know Boeing is asking around if anybody wants a true 200-260 seat replacement for short / medium haul ?
Boeing 737/757 RS Pitches Larger Light Twin — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
probably the gab between 737-900 / A321 and the twin aisles a330/350/787 can't be rationalized away from real market demand.
Bulks of 757, A300/ A310/ 767-200s ,Tu 154s flying around for which a big twin replacement just ain't realistic.
Good news is Pratt seems to dimension their new geared fan engine upwards to 40.000 lbs, which should be sufficient for such an aircraft, e.g. a Airbus A325..
Picture : A346 GTF flight test crew via Flightblogger
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They stopped making the 757/767 range far too early! The extra capabilities it has regarding payload and range over the 321 would have ensured a steady longhaul market over the years. The only replacement for a 757 remains......a 757- it is a mainstay of our operation, yet there is absolutely nothing to replace it with. Boeing do seem to have made some extraordinary decisions in recent years (Sonic Cruiser, 747-800, unrealistic schedule for the 787......)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never flew the 757/767, but...
Never flew the 757/767, but I have many friends who have flown both the 757 and the 321. Without exception, the 757 is preferred.
My old company had the CFMs on the mini-bus....the 321 was underpowered....at 93T (205,000 lb) max takeoff weight....it was a pig.
Many times during summer months, at high gross weights (near 205K lb), the 321 struggled to FL300....of course, after some fuel burn, we could climb a bit. (This was ISA +10 to ISA +15 temps aloft....)
The FBW is great, once you get used to it. And, as far as cockpit comfort and passenger comfort, it's hard to beat a Bus. (My opinion.)
Fly safe,
PantLoad
My old company had the CFMs on the mini-bus....the 321 was underpowered....at 93T (205,000 lb) max takeoff weight....it was a pig.
Many times during summer months, at high gross weights (near 205K lb), the 321 struggled to FL300....of course, after some fuel burn, we could climb a bit. (This was ISA +10 to ISA +15 temps aloft....)
The FBW is great, once you get used to it. And, as far as cockpit comfort and passenger comfort, it's hard to beat a Bus. (My opinion.)
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dreamland...
In my humble opinion, the 321 is easiest to land....the 319 is the hardest. The 320 is in the middle.
But, as far as handling in general, the 319 is great...like driving a nimble BMW.
All things equal, I prefer the Boeing. But, the Bus has some nice things about it. First, it's more comfortable, both for pilots and passengers.
I've flown in the back of the 757, 767, 777, 330, 340, 321, etc. From a passenger standpoint, Airbus is the clear winner in terms of passenger comfort.
Second, I got to love the FBW. But, I confess, it took this old guy some time to get used to it. Don't know about the handling of the B-777 FBW.....maybe Boeing's FBW is better....don't know.
Third, the FMS on the Bus is tremendous. Flew old Boeing 'boxes'....junk, compared to the Bus technology.
The 321 is a poor comparision to the 757....but, the initial acquisition cost and the operating cost are much less on the 321. My old company operated both....the 757 is quite versatile.
I've watched AA land in St. Thomas...1/3 the way down the runway...and still stop and turn off well before the end. Can't do that on the Bus.
Those who fly the 757 say it's a great short-field airplane.
Airbus is like this....the 340 is a poor comparison to the B-747....the 330, a poor comparison to the B-777. And, the 321, a poor comparison to the B-757. But, they're cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate. But, on the Bus, the FMS and FBW are great, the comfort is great....
My opinion....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
But, as far as handling in general, the 319 is great...like driving a nimble BMW.
All things equal, I prefer the Boeing. But, the Bus has some nice things about it. First, it's more comfortable, both for pilots and passengers.
I've flown in the back of the 757, 767, 777, 330, 340, 321, etc. From a passenger standpoint, Airbus is the clear winner in terms of passenger comfort.
Second, I got to love the FBW. But, I confess, it took this old guy some time to get used to it. Don't know about the handling of the B-777 FBW.....maybe Boeing's FBW is better....don't know.
Third, the FMS on the Bus is tremendous. Flew old Boeing 'boxes'....junk, compared to the Bus technology.
The 321 is a poor comparision to the 757....but, the initial acquisition cost and the operating cost are much less on the 321. My old company operated both....the 757 is quite versatile.
I've watched AA land in St. Thomas...1/3 the way down the runway...and still stop and turn off well before the end. Can't do that on the Bus.
Those who fly the 757 say it's a great short-field airplane.
Airbus is like this....the 340 is a poor comparison to the B-747....the 330, a poor comparison to the B-777. And, the 321, a poor comparison to the B-757. But, they're cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate. But, on the Bus, the FMS and FBW are great, the comfort is great....
My opinion....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems Airbus is putting energy into the US 757 replacement market.
Winglets and new engines should further increase payload-range, not like the 757 but better for transcon.
I did a little sketch on a possible A321 NEO
Winglets and new engines should further increase payload-range, not like the 757 but better for transcon.
I did a little sketch on a possible A321 NEO
The 321s problem isn't lack of power, it's lack of lift. All the 320 series use the same wing (span - the flaps are different on the 321) and it makes the 321 struggle at altitude. The 321 wasn't designed as a competitor to the 757, it was intended to be a higher density 320. It just fitted into the Market slot occupied by the 757.
And pilots tend to forget that the real reason why aircraft fly is not the laws of aerodynamics, but the laws of economics which is why the 321 is still in production and the 757 isn't.
And pilots tend to forget that the real reason why aircraft fly is not the laws of aerodynamics, but the laws of economics which is why the 321 is still in production and the 757 isn't.
Only flown both from the seats with no controls, so I'm no expert. 757 for me. It's beautiful and gets up like its powered by Viagra. - Admittedly climbing out of Bristol makes most aircraft seem that way.
757's only problem is being caught between 2 roles, But with the opening (in the Uk) of regional airports for transatlantic flights, the old girl finds its place at last!
757's only problem is being caught between 2 roles, But with the opening (in the Uk) of regional airports for transatlantic flights, the old girl finds its place at last!
