Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th February 2010 at 08:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Twotter!
747-800 has flown, but so has Twotter 400, 22 years after last Twotter was produced:
Which other planes decades out of production should continue production?
By: - 18th February 2010 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It realy is testament to the design that so long after it finished production, the Twotter is still the best in its class and production has been re-started.
Externaly, it looks very much like its older sister.
The only other plane I think may pick up some orders if production were to restart would be the 757. The model has experienced a bit of a renaissance in popularity lately and I'm sure some operators would love new builds. However, I doubt the demand would be enough to justify re-opening production. And besides, I think Boeing would prefer to push 787-300s or 737-900ERs. Neither of which are ideal or exact replacements however. And no, the A321 is not a direct 757 replacement.
By: - 18th February 2010 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And no, the A321 is not a direct 757 replacement.
OBJECTION!
The A321 is so a good replacement for the B757 in all but the transatlantic market due to the slightly greater range of the Boeing. The A321 is capable of doing any intra-European flight as well as flying to the Canaries or North Africa from places in Northern Europe. For the US market, it is coast to coast capable as well as obviously capable of flying to Canada or the Caribbean from pretty much any US city (north-west US to Caribbean might be a struggle fully laden though)! So yes the A321 offers a similar passenger experience and may I just say a MUCH better piloting experience than the B757 and can be used on all but the longest of routes the B757 is capable of!
By: - 18th February 2010 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A321 is designed primarily for short sectors with high volume, if you have this type of market it would be very good. Sub 3 hours, the A321 aces the 757 in efficiency and costs. But if you use it on routes longer than 3 hrs. the altitude capability on a heavy load is poor (310 to 340 the most) so this will have an impact on fuel flow. The A321's wing is too small to compete on long range sectors.
The 757s larger wing gives it a commanding load and range benefit over the A321.
Put simply the 757 can fly further with more passengers and/or cargo than the A321.
The 757 also has the flexibility to be operated on short sectors with a fuel penalty, but can be turned around in 30 minutes and be able to operate a 7+ hour trans atlantic sector. You have to admit, that is versatility the A321 cannot match.
To use the A321 with all it seats full, you will sacrifice far more in range than you will on the 757.
That is why you see 757s cross the atlantic and continental US day in, day out. The A321 does not, cannot.
The A321 might carry a similar about of self loading freight, but lacks the field performance of the 757.
For example, in Gibraltar you can take a full pax load out with a 757. A Pilot friend told me, he could not do that with an A321. He'd have to leave 30% of the seats empty. It has to be said though that the A321 burns less fuel and is obviously still in production. For Airlines who do not need the range and capacity of the 757, the A321 is a fair replacement.
It is often said that the only replacement for a 757 is a 757.
By: - 19th February 2010 at 09:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For a long-range narrowbody, how about DC-8-72?
Although it ended production in 1972... how about Il-62M (last delivery 1994)?
By: - 19th February 2010 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um, both of those are incredibly old and horribly inefficient compared to the 757 and A321.
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 3rd January 2010 at 15:27
Which airplanes are supposed to have maiden flights in 2010, other than Boeing 747-800?