For the 763ER the official still air, sea level, passenger only range is 5990 NM.
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 767-300ER Technical Characteristics

A real world reduction of ~25%. For a rewinged A321/A322 a "brochure" range of ~5000- 5300NM would be required to make it an effective medium range platform..

From e.g. London such an A322 could efficiently cover Europe, the US East coast, northern Africa, the Middle East and some more if you start pushing it.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5000NM...b:disc7%2b%25i
4000NM & 5000NM ranges

From ATL (big 757/767 base) it would cover the US unrestricted, Hawaii, Western Europe, the Caribbean and Brazil.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5000NM...b:disc7%2b%25i
4000NM & 5000NM ranges, ETOPS180

A suitable engine could be the Pratt & Whitney developed new GTF engine, able to handle up to 40,000 lbs, a 20% bump over the current max power availabe for the A321. That should be sufficient for a bigger medium range A322's MTOW.

http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_...12-720x461.jpg

GTF able to power twin-aisle narrowbody: Pratt & Whitney

twin-aisle narrowbody
 

That's just a 737 with an extra aisle instead of a seat. Poor economic model.

keesje - flying westbound from Europe in the winter the real world range is probably 20-25% less. Or U.S. to Asia, Asia to Europe, etc.

Other regions, with lighter winds, the real world range would be 90%+ of advertised range and could reach 100%. Slight variance in unusually high winds would result in load restrictions, or tech stops, to service the city pair.

misd-agin
 

"That's just a 737 with an extra aisle instead of a seat. Poor economic model."

Indeed. I'm just amusing myself because the rest of the thread has become silly. I know this is Tech Log, but if Airbus ever considered an A322, it was rejected on economic not technical grounds.

Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery).

If it looks like an A321 and flies like an A321 the airlines will expect it to be priced like an A321. Ok, maybe 10% more, maximum.

Just think of the development cost and the marginal increased sales revenue for the A320 Family programme.

I'll say one thing for keesje, he's very persistent.

keenje,

the ellipsoid fuselage you showed in post #36 is not the 787...that is for future use, potentially a blended wing design..

this is the 787...

http://theaviationspecialist.com/787f_csection.jpg

One of Boeings' strengths is that they provide what the customer asks for. If the customers were asking for a direct 757 replacement, and were willing to pay for it, Boeing would build it.

The 757 is my favorite airliner to fly, and I believe the most capable and flexible. But airlines are not asking for another one. For most of its career, and the missions it flew, it carried around a lot of unused capability (weight and cost). Most 757 flights are far short of its' max range, and mostly off of long runways. The US market in the 80's and 90's was probably its highest, best, use. And that is what it did.

It is my favorite airliner, and I just slammed it. It is not being replaced currently, because it does not fit what the market wants.

I don't love it any less.

Probe - High thrust:weight. High altitude and short runway performance. Both mixed with intercontinental range. Good looking. What's not too like? :ok:

A winner in pilots eyes, long in the tooth by bean counters.

Toffeez, Airbus and Boeing do it all the time. A340-500/600, A330F, MRTT, 77ER/NG/i, A310, 764 etc. As shown earlier it could be a regular subseries, A321XR, A322XR. It would mean additional sales on top of A320 series sales.

FlightpathOBN, I never thought/ said that is a 787. First time I see an 787F cross section though. Biggest hurdle IMO would be carving a big cargo door and strenghtening the surround all composite structure. Adding structure probably isn't as easy as metals..

USMCProbe, lets not narrow this to a 757 replacement. As I showed earlier there a big replacement market, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300, A300, A310, Tu154 and demographics show billions of people live within 4000NM of each other.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8225/8...24f75b62ba.jpg
photo by icarus

Still we could ask the hypothetical question; if the 757 was >10% lighter, used 25% less fuel, had 100% cockpit commonality with >7000 other aircraft in service and on order, was 3 times quieter, got a widely used containerized cargo system, wider cabin, and the earth was guaranteed covered with existing assembly lines, MRO, crew, training infrastructure for the next 25 years, would it be a feasible 757?

;)

I remember specifying the NEO, rewinged stretchedE195, MAX and Ecoliner many years ago and everyone balked. Its just logical evolutionairy upgrades.

I said: "Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery)."

keesje, you know exactly what I mean: Airbus is not going to make those mistakes again. MRTT is different: the customers have deep pockets and are prepared to pay a fortune for new toys to play with, unlike the airlines.

Dream on ....
.

toffeez, I do not understand what you mean. Airbus has 7 A320 family production lines on 3 locations, while a fourth (Mobile) is being added. 4 subtypes are build now (ecl. ACJs) and they'll swith to NEO's in a few yrs. What do you mean by stand alone product? They would probably add a second line next to an A320 line at one of the locations, like they did in 2011 in Hamburg.

E.g Mobile or Tjianjin would be a good opportunity's and I foresee a market of about 1000-2000 in the next 15 yrs and little competition. News broke this week Airbus is finally moving ahead with bigger, longer ranged Beluga's based on the A330-200.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...419-135990.jpg

keesje
 

You are very good at pretending not to understand.

What would be technically and commercially ideal today would be to assemble A319, A320 and A321 on the same line. Politics messes that up sometimes.

This is a family. A lot of contracts give the customer the right to change the 319/320/321 mix a given number of months ahead of delivery. This is relatively easy (and can be done fairly late in the leadtime) if it's just juggling slots on the line.

Now what if an A322 customer decides to take A321s instead? Where's he going to get his A321s from if that line is fully booked? Or he wants to change 10 ordered A320s to 10 A322s if that line is full? The customers would have to decide a lot earlier to make a swap.

This will be my last post here because it's getting tedious.

I promise you if you were given 20 mins to present your case to the Airbus commercial team, you'd be invited to leave after 10. Your propostions are based too much on what is possible and not enough on why it should be done. No I don't work for Airbus.

Listen to Airbus ( video) in the next 20 years the overall trend is larger more fuel efficient aircraft.

Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer

Sitting on your hands never proved the right strategy.

Contractual issues around switching types are on a totally different level.

Airbus looked at stretches for the last 15 yrs. Its a question of demand, resources, competition and overall strategy to determine the right tactics and timing.

keesje, I'm not sure what your objective is. You present these ideas and when told they're daft you keep on arguing until everyone else quits. What's the point? None of your ideas have any serious engineering behind them, you just have a few pictures with flies on them.

You say yourself that this 'aircraft' covers the market of the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154. What do these aircraft have in common? All except the 757-200 were hampered by range and their success was only ensured what longer-range versions appeared. The A310 was compromised completely because of its small wing, trying to go after the non-existant market you're talking about.

Remember that Boeing went for this market with the 787-3. It was a failure. An A321NEO/A330-200 or 737-900ER/787-8 combination works just fine.

But I imagine you're still going to argue and come up with another picture of a photoshopped picture stolen from the Airbus website.

New engines and sharklets are logical for the a320 series as fuel is more expensive.

Many people argue that boeing is making a mistake with the MAX, as the design of the aircraft is outdated. It has been rewinged and re-engined so many times.
But they were forced to do this in order to come up with a fast solution that keeps them in competition with airbus.

The embrear ERJ was too small, not able to carry enough passengers.

What you are proposing is not realistic! There is no demand for a 757-like aircraft type at the moment. It can be very challenging to fill all those seats in todays economic environment. Airlines need high load factors.

The trend for Turboprops, RJ's, twin aisles, VLA's has been they get bigger, offering more capacity and lower seat mile costs. And the narrowbodies, they are just fine, nothing to see here, move on. ?!

IMO the writing is on the wall, unless you look the other way. Well, its still on the wall but ..

Boeing to consider a proper 757 replacement - Ghetto IFE

Boeing, Airbus Can't Replace the 757 - TheStreet

Icelandair’s model has withstood the test of time but 757 replacement dilemma poses a challenge | CAPA - Centre for Aviation

Airbus Studies 236-Seat A321

Sofar I found the posts arguing there will be no aircraft needed between 220 and 300 seat short medium haul unconvincing. The 757 production stopped 10 yrs ago and .. well that's basicly it.

Apparently Boeing isn't so sure and Airbus is increasing A321 capacity. Why?

What a surprise. You never give up your half-baked simplistic ideas despite people telling you they're nonsense.

The reason the 757 has been used on long thin or dense medium haul routes in the last decade is because its either paid off, or dirt cheap to acquire.

Now please cut the crap violater.

You're free to have your opinion. I've provided more then enough back-up for mine? Something you and a few others apparently don't need, apart from the old mantra the 757 went out for a reason 10 yrs ago.

I won't repeat the marketforecasts of both Airbus and Boeing and airline executives since you're obviously fixated nothing can't change.

Udvar-Hazy carrys more weight than Keesje but even he's commented on the lack of a/c designed for the 5,000-6,000 nm markets.

A plane designed to fly 8,000 nm that's flying 3,000-6,000 nm sectors is inefficient.

The question is where is the tradeoff between the two models? The market place seems to have chosen the larger a/c.

This thread was interesting, then a bit long winded. Now I realize that the airline manufacturers make these decisions based on their prospect of what the market wants and what it will want in the future. Your idea, no matter how great you think it is, is completely useless.

.. exactly !

For 757 replacement, try H52QR MAX or H53QR MAX
 

I've been through the foregoing discussion. Interesting ! There are some 1030 class 757 aircraft up there doing their job for the airlines day-in day-out and many of you confirm it's a fine aircraft. Why do you want to replace those excellent workhorses, if there are other possible avenues ? ... such as eg cabin refurbish + engine change, to MAX (GTF PurePower or LEAP-X ? pending which may come up with an incremental power setting of 3,500 - 4,000 lbf beyond what is presently planned for A321) ? :

http://media.wix.com/ugd/4f7666_6da4...%2Bniche-1.pdf

Interesting concept. I agree with the writers the A321 looks set to take over the US based 757 fleet/ transcon. AA/US has 300 A321s on order/ in service. Jetblue, DL ordered fleets that will soon enter service. UA no doubt will follow, for their Houston routes southwards. 737-900ERs don't do them.

Problem for upgrading the 757s would be their OEW but even more I guess their age/ hours / cycles and old systems. I have the impression the US operators are really wearing out their 757s lacking a real replacement..

Just a short comment to the videos you posted, a bit off topic... You are right they prove nothing (dis-proving nothing either, I have no opinion on 739 vs. A321).

But, for your knowledge and to take away any assumptions (/impressions), the rotation technique used in the 737 video is plain wrong... (probably they PIC/PF was afraid of tail strike).

He lifts the nose wheel off, and makes a long huge pause before continuing the rotation (which through-out is too slow). It provides for a magnificent tail clearance, but invalidates takeoff calculations and prolongs the ground roll. A B739 rotated correctly has a tail clearance of 11 inch (33 cm) with flaps 1 and 19 inch (49 cm) with flaps 5!!

http://s14.postimg.org/4vqll08gx/Scr...t_22_18_38.png

Very probably, aren't we all afraid of that?

Once the nosewheel is off the ground, the takeoff calculations are history, and you are in to real life. In this particular case he still had two engines, so the little picture you posted of Rotation Rates v Screen Height starts to look rather irrelevant.

Tell that to the mountain ahead of you...

Quoting keesje : "Problem for upgrading the 757s would be their OEW but even more their age/hours/cycles and old systems. I have the impression the US operators are really wearing out their 757s ..."/unquote

Boeing engineers keep the original 757 construction blueprints in a drawer somewhere @ Renton (WA) ... they could bring them out again, blow off the dust and give the 757 a new chance with the MAX ... a better strategy than giving the 757 niche away for Airbus to pick up with A321 undisturbed (except for compromised applications of 787 where this makes sense) ? And maybe here's some meat on a bone for IAM, if the 777X is moved out of WA ?

BTW, how do I post a proper "quote" of other postings here on PPRuNe ?

Frequent flyer, I guess producing the 757 would be an issue because only the drawings are left. Aircraft these days aren't build the same way they did 30 yrs ago, margins, modularity, automation etc. dramatically changed. I guess many drawings are on film iso hard disk.. And the production lines/ supply chains evaporated.. Recreating a 1979 production line seems unrealistic. Billions of investments, many years..

Years ago I sketched a more radical 737 upgrade, $4 billion, EIS 2014

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

The new merged AA has a staggering 300(!) A321 on order/ in service. Plus 260 NEO options. The first new AA A321 can enter transcon service any day now.

I wonder too if Boeing will let Airbus walk away with the 200+ seat segment. They did not convince the industry the -9 will be up to par. Airlines have smart performance engineers too..

Hopefully Boeing didn't convince themselves (their management) the -9 will do just fine..

The Boeing 200+ seater response in a nutshell
 

Boeing strategists believe they can impress upon the market the idea that one day a "Fattie" [2+3+2] might be incepted ... but any observer can see it's a mere sand-in-the-eyes Paper Tiger, for the simple reason that above a twin Y-class seat there's not sufficient space to install a proper hatrack. Therefore a "Fattie" (if any) is necessarily a [1+4+1], which btw is already in the pipeline : the staggered C919 ! Realistically, though, both A and B can produce cheap [1+3+1] sine die : H2XQR Series, H3XQR Series and/or H5XQR Series (which is the topic here) ... The [3+3] config extended beyond 37 rows is an airport ground turn-around nuisance and an in-flight service non-performer. I personally don't believe in A321 @ 236 seats, neither do I believe in A322 [3+3] ... the classical 757 suffered (as would your own 737 rewinged concept project) from the same disease ...