757 series or A320 series

[PowerRanger]

Which one is better? In response to the AA thread I wondered what the pilots of this great board opinion was on a direct comparison between both aircraft.

Not only as far as jumpseat comfort,passenger comfort but also,but more importantly which is a better plane to fly from a pilots perspective.

I vote for the 757. It besides the 727 is my favorite plane.

 

[GOTAFLY]

you cant even compare the two. but if you did 757 has my vote.

 

[BigMotorToter]

757 hands down.

 

[PowerRanger]

you cant even compare the two. but if you did 757 has my vote.

Expound on that thought please for a PPL rated pilot working on his IFR with no jet time.

I thought the A320 was comparable to the 757 vs. the 737!

Edit: Well until they stretched the 737 for the 800-900(ER) version!

 

[ultrarunner]

...Boeing Builds Simplicity...

If given a choice, I'd pass on flying the "electric jet" and I haven't flown either. But I have flown a large airliner by another US company, and I can tell you that simple is good when things go bad.

 

[QuasarZ]

757, i love that thing

 

[bigboy]

A320 Vs. 757

My Ideal airplane will be a B-757 with an A-320 cockpit.

 

[Hpilot]

757

A lot of guys here at AWA will side with either the B-737 or the A-320. When the 757 is mentioned though it's no comparison. Haven't met a pilot here yet that has flown the B-757 and doesn't think it's the best.

 

[PowerRanger]

I hear the 757 is over powered and the A320 is drastically under powered! Any truth to this?

 

[ultrarunner]

Well, an A320 can weigh up to 170K and has between 44,000 and 54,000 lbs of thrust.

A 757-200 maxes out at 255,000 lbs and has between 73,200 and 87,000 lbs of thrust.

Each airplane has a bunch of engine and weight variations...

A 75-200 with the big motors has a thrust to wt. ratio of 2.93

An Airbus 320 with the big motors has a thrust to wt. ratio of 3.14

Hmmm


Of course thrust to wt. is only part of the equation. Some variations may have lighter airframe wts with higher thurst engines. Airframe aerodynamics is the other, as I have flown smaller jets with lower T to W ratios of similar sized small jets, and the lower powered bird with the better airframe design won out in several areas.

ymmv...

 

[PowerRanger]

Well, an A320 can weigh up to 170K and has between 44,000 and 54,000 lbs of thrust.

A 757-200 maxes out at 255,000 lbs and has between 73,200 and 87,000 lbs of thrust.

Each airplane has a bunch of engine and weight variations...

A 75-200 with the big motors has a thrust to wt. ratio of 2.93

An Airbus 320 with the big motors has a thrust to wt. ratio of 3.14

Hmmm


Of course thrust to wt. is only part of the equation. Some variations may have lighter airframe wts with higher thurst engines. Airframe aerodynamics is the other, as I have flown smaller jets with lower T to W ratios of similar sized small jets, and the lower powered bird with the better airframe design won out in several areas.

ymmv...

Well that's interesting to read. Everything that I have read was that the P&W and RR engines on the 757 were about 36-45,000 lbs. of thrust.

Definately not arguing with you,just never heard the thrust was so high on the 757 engines!

 

[ultrarunner]

Yes, 36,000 lbs to 43,000 lbs of thrust PER MOTOR. On the -200 there are two pratt variants and two rolls variants.

The two pratts are 36.6 and 40.1
The two Rolls are 40.2 and 43.5

Those thrust ratings are PER MOTOR. And, as you know, the 75 has two motors.

You should be up to speed now in checking my calculations.

 

[PowerRanger]

Yes, 36,000 lbs to 43,000 lbs of thrust PER MOTOR. On the -200 there are two pratt variants and two rolls variants.

The two pratts are 36.6 and 40.1
The two Rolls are 40.2 and 43.5

Those thrust ratings are PER MOTOR. And, as you know, the 75 has two motors.

You should be up to speed now in checking my calculations.

Gotcha!

 

[ultrarunner]

Engine manufactures also developed two engines for the Airbus A320:

The CFM56 and the IAE V2500.

The thrust ratings on those engines varied between 22,000 lbs and 27,000 lbs of thrust per engine.

The airlines demand and incredible amount of flexibility...and for the money they spend on airframes and engines, they can dictate quite a bit.

For example, an airline may need to operate a lighter airframe out of certain airports to avoid costly fees that are associated with higher weight airframes. By utilizing a lighter weight airframe with a higher thrust engine, may enable the airline to fly X number of bodies X miles which that airport market may demand, without exposing the airline to the added fees of operating a heavier airframe.

That's just one example of many.

Hope this helps you a bit.

 

[Benhuntn]

One big factor is the wing sweep. The 757 is 25 degrees and the A320 is 35 degrees. The A320 will cruise faster, the 757 will cruise more economically. It also improves the climb perfromance with the less swept wing.