Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

757-200 vs A321 vs 737-900ER runway lenght

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

757-200 vs A321 vs 737-900ER runway lenght

Old 27th Feb 2013, 09:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
757-200 vs A321 vs 737-900ER runway length

Lot of discussion on 757 replacements for Hawaii and Caribbean flights.

This time US Airways is complaining they can't replace the 757 everywhere,
which seems a bit of an open door really.
US Airways’ 757 problem | Leeham News and Comment


source: US Airways - Boeing 757-200 - N936UW - Star Alliance - Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM) - St. Maarten - October 2, 2010 1 227 RT CRP | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Everybody says the 757 has unmatched runway performance, but I haven't seen numbers, so I thought I'll ask it here.

We don't know MAX & NEO, Sharklet performance yet, so lets stick to the aircraft in service.

Assuming :
- a payload of 200 passengers (100kg/pass: 20t),
- enough fuel to fly 2700NM, incl 10% reserves
- given atmospheric conditions e.g 30 degrees Celsius,
- the usual safety restrictions,
- all aircraft with the highest power ratings available

how much runway (feet, meters) does the 757-200, Airbus A321 and Boeing737-900ER need?

Does anybody have the graphs/tables? Thnx

Last edited by keesje; 1st Mar 2013 at 11:10. Reason: length iso lenght :|
keesje is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 09:35
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,025
What given environmental conditions? Which engines?
VinRouge is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 09:53
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
What given environmental conditions? Which engines?
VinRouge, the same representative humidity and temperatures (e.g. 30C for Southern US).

Engines most powerful I found:

737-900ER
28,4k lbs CFM56-7BE

A321
33k lbs CFM-56-5B3s or V-2533-A5s

757:
43,5k lbs RB211-535E4-Bs
keesje is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 10:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 58
Posts: 705
B75W from LHR 09L @ 30 degrees C, 108t TOWT, full thrust reqTOD 2441m,
Req ASD 2529m. RR engines. OEW 62t, pax + bags 20t, fuel 26t.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 11:18
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Oceancrosser thanks.

Found the 737-900ER here.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ps/737sec3.pdf, page 98

OEW 737-900ER :98,495 lbs (?)

+ payload 20 *2,2 =44k lbs

=142.5k lbs. In this graph I cant see the 737-900ER go further then 2500NM.

Am I missing something?
keesje is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 11:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 58
Posts: 705
I can't realistically see a 739ER operating a 2500nm leg with 200 pax. And I have been working the 757 replacement case for the last two years.

If you put 200 people into the B739ER you are right up against the MZFW, and leave probably about 1000 kgs of bags behind.
Then you can add about 18.400 kgs of fuel which might take you at best about 2500nm assuming 3000 kg fuel remaining on landing.

Last edited by oceancrosser; 27th Feb 2013 at 12:04. Reason: B739 further info
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 13:55
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
On the A321 2700NM with 20t payload seems possible with some margin. Lets assume including reserves it ends up at MTOW

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...21-Jun2012.pdf, 3-2-1, page 3.

A321-200 - OEW ~ 106k lbs MTOW 206k lbs.
Payload 44k lbs, so for fuel available ~56k lbs?

Runway length seems also around 2500 m in that case, according to
3-3-1 Page 2

.. although I feel I may have made a little too much assumptions here

Runway length of the 737-900ER at MTOW 174k lbs (which doesn't seem to meet the 2700NM / 200 pax benchmark) seems.. I can't really say for the different temperature, the graph goes very steep there.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/air...ps/737sec3.pdf page 160

----

What is a little confusing is that Boeing is telling the world the 737-900ER with 204 passengers still flies further then a A321-200 with 184 passengers.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737...nge_Charts.pdf

what's the trick?

Last edited by keesje; 27th Feb 2013 at 14:41.
keesje is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 14:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Age: 26
Posts: 98
Why not just build another 757 with composites and more fuel efficient engines?



Job done!
callum is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 15:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,088
797? 2023-2025?
misd-agin is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 15:15
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 625
Because they only sold just over 1000 of them the first time round. It was hardly a success.
Jonty is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2013, 15:26
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
Because they only sold just over 1000 of them the first time round. It was hardly a success.
Well, air traffic more then tripled during the last 20 yrs and the A300/A310/767 are also getting old. An entirely different situation.

It seems the >200 seat segment wasn't lost on Boeings agenda after the NSA cancellation / MAX launch.
Boeing confirms long-haul 757 replacement study
keesje is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 01:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 217
The only replacement for the B-757 is a B-757.
The Range is online now  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 08:21
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
It seems Airbus has the easier opportunity at this moment. It's higher on the ground, has a wider cabin & can carry containers. My favorite solution to fill the A321-787-8 payload range gab that is becoming more urgent with the retirement of all 757s, 767, A300 and A310s.



Discussed at: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/50682...rbus-a322.html

Last edited by keesje; 1st Mar 2013 at 11:07.
keesje is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 10:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
OH NO, KEESJE

Do you never give up?
toffeez is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 11:55
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N24 E56
Posts: 1
Airbus with 4 wheel boggy like Air India had will improve runway performance
inducedrag is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 17:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
A bogie like Air India had will improve runway performance

That is 100% ignorant bullsh!t.

People post here when they have no idea what they're talking about.
.

Last edited by toffeez; 1st Mar 2013 at 20:13.
toffeez is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 18:45
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Not again. How many times do you have to be told that there is no market for the aircraft you're talking about, and that photoshopped pictures of stolen images doesn't count as engineering?
violator is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 20:18
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 730
toffeez, of course we know that MLG was specified for other reasons. But is there any reason to be so harsh?

Violater, pls proceed to attack Boeing for saying there's a market. Anyway I haven't seen any convincing facts from you to convince me there is a kind of natural lacune in the markets needs for 200-270 seats 3000-5000 NM. Anyway 3000+ 757s, 767s, A300/310s and Tu154s sold and old.

Last edited by keesje; 1st Mar 2013 at 20:20.
keesje is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2013, 20:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
You do realise that those comments were made in April of last year don't you?

McNerney didn't seem to think that they needed a new model either, he seemed quite happy to cover the 757 market with the 737 from below and the 787 from above. Airbus seem to have the same sort of idea, so exactly where is this 3000 frame market?

Please, give it a rest.
alemaobaiano is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.