Re: Boeing 757 Performance Specs?

From:         rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date:         29 Jun 94 09:31:55 
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1994.1147@ohare.chicago.com>,
Terrell D. Drinkard <drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> wrote another fine
article on the 757:
>BTW, get used to Mach .80 as a cruise speed.  That is getting to be a very
>common, almost a standard, cruise speed target for twins.  The heavier
>three and four engine airplanes can cruise faster, but they were all
>designed some time ago - with one notable exception (the A340) which
>cruises at about Mach .82 as compared to the 747's cruise Mach of .855.
>
>Climb and descent rates are operational constraints usually.  Climb can be
>limited by load and ambient conditions (heavy, high, and  hot are badness).
>Descent is limited by flight idle thrust on the engines at one end and
>maximum design speed on the other.  I hesitate to give a typical descent
>Mach number; we use a standard one, but I don't remember what it is
>offhand.  

I've flown the 757 and the 747-400 recently.  The thing I always notice
about the 757 is the way it climbs---it's like a rocket.  I think we've
gone over this already: as I remember, the 757 has oodles of power
and a big wing (for its size).  The 747-400, on the other hand, barely
manages to climb at all, when fully loaded.

I was wondering how the 757 climb rates compare to the A321.  The thing
that has struck me about the A321, in all the pictures of it, is how
wimpy the wings look in comparison to the 757.  The 757 simply looks like
a stronger, more robust aircraft.  Is this reflected in the performance
statistics?  If I had to guess, I'd say a further stretch would be
difficult with the same A320 wing?

RNA