The 757 is overbuilt and overweight. The slight weight savings from lighter materials are a drop in the ocean with regard to how outmatched the 757 is. For the same mission, the 757s wing is 50% bigger than the A321s. That means 50% more weight to drag around. The fuselage of the 757 is 6% longer, but it doesn't carry any more passengers. With a small cargo compartment, it lacks the cargo capacity. It has an OEW that is over 16% greater than the A321N. The 757 is so overweight that it has to use much bigger engines.
Nonsense. That same argument would mean the 787-10 is much better economically than the A350-1000. Both aircraft have the same cabin size/area but the Airbus weighs significantly more with a bigger wing and more powerful engines.
Thats 2000 nm more range, do you have anything to back that up, or are you just pulling random numbers out of your hat?
Nearing 6000nm but probably around 5500nm.
Half of the increass would be from new engines. Pretty standard.
A quarter of the gain would come from increased fuel. If the empty weight is reduced by even 5% would allow for more than an hour of extra fuel before hitting the existing maximum takeoff weight.
The remaining quarter would come from aerodynamic improvements such as winglets, flap joins, wing root interface, new nose etc.
Second, 1000 nm more range over the A321 means a significantly heavier airframe too, putting it (yet again) at an economic disadvantage.Third, there is no indication that the airlines are asking for that much range. They are quite content with what the A321LR is offering.
Again the A350-1000 vs 787-10. Is the heavier frame at a disadvantage? They both have equal orders. We havent had a narrowbody with 5500+nm range available for sale to determine if airlines want that much range.
Lol, thats highly optimistic. Again, weight savings from CFRP are minor. There is no way you would achieve double the payload of an A321LR.
Not optimistic at all. Payload usually drops off like a cliff once you near maximum range. Aircraft at max payload cant fly anywhere near their wikipedia listed range. They can also fly further than the wikipedia range if you reduce payload.
Take this slightly outdated payload range chart for example.
At 4000nm the A321LR can carry 18T. At 4500nm only 10T. A carbon neo of the 757-200 would add 1000nm quite comfortably. That would shift the payload range curve to the right by 1000nm. So it would be lifting 25T at 4500nm while the A321LR would struggle to lift 10T.
A real life example of this is the A350-900 can lift only 20% more payload than the 787-9 at 7500nm. But the A350-900 can lift double the payload of the 787-9 at 8500nm. Singapore airlines can fly to Los Angeles with the A359 but the 787-9 just canceled this route due to the reduced payload. This pushes the fuel burn per kg theough the roof.
In the case of the 787-10 vs A350-1000 the Airbus can lift THREE times the payload at 7500nm. So even if the 787-10 burns less fuel because it is lighter it still burns more fuel per kg.
The Boeing NMA will be a widebody.