You can take any aircraft and "dumb it down" weight and range-wise. My legacy airline in the US had 8 777's and 8 767-300's configured with lots of seats for Hawaii flying (4.5-8 hours). Very low MTOW and the engines were derated. The bean-counters said it saved maintenance money. Our 757's originally had a MTOW of only 210,000 pounds for the same reason - they didn't plan on flying them very far. They did later increase the MTOW - twice, when they wanted to fly them farther.

There is no single replacement for a 757. It was a great plane. Gobs of power, big wing, low take off and landing speeds, decent range. 321's and 737-900ER's only fly about 75% as far, and you need a lot of runway, preferably at sea level. BUT. That covers probably 90% of the flights a 757 normally operates.

''I think for thr A321 V1 is about 135 and VR about 145 kts.''

Think again. Add about 25 to those figures for something more realistic and typical operating weights. The A321 is at about the limit of the type's design parameters. One of my colleagues did the design work on the 321 flaps and it was a nightmare to get more lift out of a wing that's already too small for the aircraft. Any increase in mass over the 321 will need a major redesign and a new wing - and possibly a lot of recertification.

I think both companies realized that their NB offerings can't be stretched further. And their WB offering can't be shrunk any further and be efficient in its role.

The only thing I will say is this: Single Aisle 787.

If the 787 is the replacement for the 767, and the 757 was basically a 767 with a narrower fuselage, why can't Boeing just do the same and create a 797 that is a variant of the 787, same wings, cockpit etc.

I think Boeing is busy trying to keep their dual isle 787's from turning into Roman Candles right now. I think a single isle option is a low priority. LOL

I am more a fan of Boeing, but I do have to hand it to Airbus for getting what it does out of a 321. They have really bumped the gross weight up over the years, and put in much more powerful versions of the engines. I heard the original 321's were dogs, but I never flew them. I did fly brand new 321's, 93T MTOW, IAE 2534 engines. 34k lbs of thrust. They were rockets. They also had rocket-like V speeds, but at least they accelerated to those speeds quickly.

I start ground school for 737NG in a couple of weeks. Boeing has gotten more out of them than anyone would have ever guessed as well. We also fly the 737-900ER which has surprisingly good range. But due to the ground clearance the fan size is limited, and they only have a max of 28k per engine. I have heard they are complete dogs. Ground hugging, runway eating, dogs. But brutally efficient, long range, dogs.

My favorite airliner to fly is still a 757.

Certainly a twin aisle shorter fuselage version of A330 revolving around a neo version of A310 might make more sense for customer comfort and freight capabilities as well as minimise risk hazards associated with a stretched fusealage. A360SR? or A310 Neo?

Vc10Tail
 

Airbus considered an A330 version shorter than the -200 but rejected it on economic grounds.

A 220-seat single-aisle is so much more efficient than a 220-seat widebody that there's really no contest.

As long as you don't mess with the single-aisle by adding new wings, centre wing box, main landing gear and engines etc. And more cost.

I think the 787-8 is the smallest widebody we'll see from now on.

A 737-900ER needs significantly more runway then a A321 with the same payload under the same conditions. It has to to with installed engine power/ acceleration, the more fuel the 737 needs to carry (sfc) and the restricted maximum rotation angle at lift-off for the 737-900ER. The long tail, short MLG limits this more then at the A321.

I found videos (that prove nothing) of the two types taking off from the same runway with the same destination, from the same airline under similar conditions.

737-900ER
SKY Airlines Boeing 737-900ER (!) takeoff at kjevik - YouTube

A321
Sky Airlines. A321. Takeoff. Kjevik - YouTube

Take your stopwatch, look at the required runway and rotation angles. Proves nothing but gives an impression.

Dan, all I can find is:
http://knology.net/~stirmac/POHfiles...0320%20POH.pdf
Cant find it for the 737-900ER

Yes, that's what I included in the concept. A long bigger wing/MLG for higher MTOW, more fuel and lower wing loading. IMO the A320 wingbox could be beefed up for 10% higher loads. It done before.

It is not quite that simple. Early 321's were very power limited. Over time they came up with higher thrust versions. Many airlines (mine included) only pay for what they need. I.E. if they don't need the full thrust, or the highest MTOW,

You can now purchase 321's with much more powerful engines, IF YOU WANT AND NEED it.

Most take offs with commercial aircraft also take off with a reduced thrust setting. The lowest permitted actually.

You really can't watch two aircraft take off from the same runway and infer anything. Too many variables.

Both 321's and 900er's are ground loving machines. Lousy for hot and high. 737's are currently absolutely limited by engine thrust. They use CFM only, and the highest thrust is 28k pounds of thrust on the 737 version of the CFM engine. 28.4 I believe.

900er's have better range. I know what Airbus's website claims about the 321's range. ER's go farther, with more payload.

Half truth ;)

900ER's have bigger fuel tanks then A321s. Put a 737-900ERs max payload into an A321 and it brings it 2 hours further away.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...d/f3a7d034.png

The NEO will enlarge the payload-range gab.

Another complicated answer, and one that I can't answer yet for a 900er. I have flown 321's, highest gross weight version that I know of. Taking off full of PAX, no revenue cargo, right at max gross, we flew 4:45. That was with ICAO fuel requirements. Using FAA fuel requirements, with a very close alternate, maybe 5:30. Less passengers, more fuel, obviously it will fly farther. My company now has a bunch of 900er's. They fly them full, I believe significantly farther.

Most jets have extra fuel capacity. You can light load them and fly them farther. Airbus's website is usually quite optimistic for their aircraft. Ask the operator's who bought A340-200's how they worked out for long flights.

I prefer flying a 320 series to a 737, but the NG 737's are a bit more capable.

USMCProbe, I guess the question would be is "full" for A321 the same "full" as for the 737-900ER. Are we talking about the same payload/ number of passengers. The A321 has a longer cabin and bigger cargo bay to start with.. The 737-900ER has a bigger fuel tank that carries it further when there are very low payloads (17k t).

I think a weakness in the A320 series is the big diffrence between the A320 and A321. It seems they skipped a sub type. Both the 737-800 and 737-900 fall inbetween the A320 and A321 capacity wise. Big Airbus customers Ryanair, Easyjet and JetBlue asked for a 200 seater. To no effect so far.. Maybe if the Embraers NG/ CSeries burry the A318/A319 they'll move ;)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...lusConcept.jpg

Big Airbus customers Ryanair ...
 

Really keesje? Your spotters goggles are letting you down.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...g/00013729.jpg
;)

Ryanair of course isn't an Airbus customer but they asked Airbus (Boeing, Comac) for a 200 seater.

Ryanair: 199-seat aircraft would hit capacity 'sweet spot'

Maybe O'Leary isn't entirely loyal to Boeing..
Ryanair offers scathing verdict on 737 Max

Then again he waits until Boeing needs him to lower prices..
Ryanair closing in on major Boeing order: sources - Yahoo! News

Getting back to what will replace the 757. When the neo's and Max's come out, both aircraft will have better range than now. The 757 will have been almost completely replaced.

Air Asia received an airbus with sharklets installed in December, so I stand corrected on them being available.

Can sharklets be retrofitted to older aircraft? Are the wings strong enough for the extra span?

Airbus close to launching A320 sharklet retrofit

"Airbus expects to be able to launch a retrofit programme for sharklet wing-tips on the A320 by around March-April, having determined the technical requirements for the modification."

"The airframer has transferred to a new wing standard for the A320, which includes reinforcement to accommodate optional sharklets. But Airbus has been evaluating demand for a possible sharklet retrofit for the previous wing standard, although this would require more extensive reworking of the type's wing-tip."

"The change would take around three weeks and customers would probably schedule the retrofit to coincide with a C-check to minimise downtime."
.

I think the A330 and 767 fuselages could provide a bases for a shorter range aircraft.
Both were even born like that (767-200, A300). For the A330 to become efficient, Airbus would have to get rid of the massive A330/A340 center wing box to create an efficient platform.
A much lighter/ composite and similar optimized wing could make a difference.
The rest of the aircraft could remain A330. But it would be ICAO gate cat D capable like the 737, 767 and A300/A310, and unlike A330 and 787.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...0-700Light.jpg

The OEW / installed power / payload-range / fuel consumption would all be down significantly.
It would however be a major investment compared to rewinging the A320 series. But if you don't you end up with a 787-3; Short ranged, but still as heavy and expensive as a long haul 787-8.

Toffeez Re: 787-8 remaining the smallest widebody we'll see from now on, I think Boeing was studying a NSA design until the MAX, and probably still, that could be considered a WB, a 2-3-2.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...atent_1000.jpg

Shorter boarding times etc were mentioned. How much those minutes really bring in cash wise, remains a question for me..
For the A320 series Airbus advertises the option to go for 17 inch narrow seats like the 737 to make the aisle wider/faster.

No, the 757 ceased to be produced because the commercial/marketing departments of major airlines, SIA for one, back in about 1985, didn't like single aisle and the baggage loading system of the B757. Twin aisle considered essential for a good cabin service on short sectors with a full load, containerised baggage required for quick transit pax transfer, with bags and also for a quick turn round.

Regarding the range of the B767-300ER, have frequently flown Manila-Bahrain with a full load, into a constant headwind, plenty of fuel to spare.

In Europe most A320 operators use containerized baggage. This would be an enhancement for a A322 over the 757.
I think in the US most airlines don't use them because the 737 and 757 don't have them either, and it saves weight..

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../6/0267676.jpg

Also the cabin would be wider and significantly more quiet then a 757.
Not unimportant for flight up to 8 hours.

US carriers all "throw em in". Actually throw the bags on a conveyor, and somebody in the baggage compartment throws em in. I haven't seen anybody do it different in the US.

Airbus seats are wider than most Boeings. I think the 777 they are the same as Airbus. The problem is the Airbus operators have never been able to monetize that extra seat width. Very few coach passengers take time to look what type of aircraft it is. They click on the lowest price. In effect, they have been giving away extra seat width, at the expense of - extra expense. Extra weight, extra drag. Coach passengers also don't pay extra for a quieter cabin. I personally like big seats and a quiet cabin, but if the passengers are paying for it?

I am one of the few that will pay extra. I will pay extra to fly on Jetblue. AB seats, an extra inch of seat pitch, and Live TV. I would pay extra.

Example I used was an example of an actual flight, Europe to U.S., against the polar jet stream. Looked at yesterday's data and it would have been able to take a full load, at max gross takeoff weight, and complete the flight. One flight was restricted by approx. 40 passengers while another flight was able to complete the segment at MTOW w/full load.

So 4,600 nm with a full load, against the winter polar jet stream, is getting close to the operational effective range.

Manila - Bahrain, with the sub-tropical jet, on average has lower headwinds.