I'm not sure if this should be a question posed for the technical forum, but I was just thinking, since airlines are beginning to get rid of the 757 and most are being replaced with either the 737 or A320 family of aircraft, which aircraft is better for hot/high/short field runways, in particular ASE, and why?

I looked on Wikipedia, I know not the best source, hence why I'm coming to you guys, but according to wikipedia the B737 has an engine thrust anywhere from 20,000 - 27,000 lbs depending on the model and the A320 family is rated between 24,000 - 33,000 lbs, with that info only it would seem that the Airbus family is more suited, however the 33,000 lbs is for the A321 family, the 319 and 320 are similarly rated as the 737.

Thanks guys

As I recall, neither a 737 or an 320 family aircraft would be allowed at ASE due to local weight and wingspan restrictions.

Yes, the 737s have lower thrust engines, but in general, they're lighter. IOW, they don't need the higher thrust.

I didn't fly any Airbus aircraft, but the 737-700 is a very good performing aircraft; I suspect the A319 is, too.

For practical use the 737-7 and A319neo will have the best short field performance. The A318 is probably the most capable but CASM is so high it is not really practical.

In the US, Delta configured their 737-700s for exceptional short field capability. They were purchased to be able to fly to airports like SNA, EYW and TGU.

Both Doug Parker and his predecessor at AA, Tom Horton, said that the A319 was planned as the 757 replacement for the airports serving U.S. ski resorts, as well as the high-altitude airports in Latin America. The A319's ability to climb out from airports, at high altitude, with shorter runways, is considered near that of the 757.

FlyHossD wrote:

As I recall, neither a 737 or an 320 family aircraft would be allowed at ASE due to local weight and wingspan restrictions.

Yes, the 737s have lower thrust engines, but in general, they're lighter. IOW, they don't need the higher thrust.

I didn't fly any Airbus aircraft, but the 737-700 is a very good performing aircraft; I suspect the A319 is, too.

FlyHossD, my fault, you are absolutely correct, I meant EGE, not ASE

What are AA and DL's 757's configured for over their A320/19's?

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

What are AA and DL's 757's configured for over their A320/19's?

DL has a few 757 configs, but their domestic 757s are generally being configured to or being reconfigured to 199 seats (with a few exceptions).
DL A319: 132
DL A320: 157 (not sure if they have all been reconfigured to 157 yet but if not, they will be)
DL A321: 192

AA's domestic 757s are generally at 184 seats.
AA 319: 128
AA 320: 150
AA 321: 181-187 (excludes transcon 321T)


(Note: I've left out the 757 international configs and the AA 757 PHX-Hawaii config although these planes can do some other missions when there is slack)

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

Yeah, other than the 739, Boeing products tend to be slightly better, though both are good.

Thanks for the quick responses guys, I keep forgetting that a lot of these smaller aircraft 737-800/900 and A320/321 hold almost, if not more in some cases than the 757's. I hate to see the 757's go, that's my favorite narrow body. So was the 757 engine performance over kill and not really needed?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

I would have thought the 320 would be better than the 737-800, the 800 is always getting hit with weight restrictons, though that maybe due to length of segment over weight and altitude

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

I would have thought the 320 would be better than the 737-800, the 800 is always getting hit with weight restrictons, though that maybe due to length of segment over weight and altitude

Huh? Weight restrictions where? All aircraft have to take restrictions in certain cases, but the 738 has longer transcon range and better takeoff performance than the A320.

Basically, if the 738 is taking a hit, you can bet the 320 is.

I know the Airbus A320neo can be fitted with “SHARP” (SHort AiRfield Package) to improve both take-off performance and landing. It makes them able to take-off and land at Rio de Janeiro’s Santos Dumont airport which only has a 1,300m (4,265ft) runway.

JetBuddy wrote:

I know the Airbus A320neo can be fitted with “SHARP” (SHort AiRfield Package) to improve both take-off performance and landing. It makes them able to take-off and land at Rio de Janeiro’s Santos Dumont airport which only has a 1,300m (4,265ft) runway.

The 738 has already been doing it for quite some time ☺️

FriscoHeavy wrote:

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

I would have thought the 320 would be better than the 737-800, the 800 is always getting hit with weight restrictons, though that maybe due to length of segment over weight and altitude

Huh? Weight restrictions where? All aircraft have to take restrictions in certain cases, but the 738 has longer transcon range and better takeoff performance than the A320.

Basically, if the 738 is taking a hit, you can bet the 320 is.

Sorry, my experience with the 738 is on the DEN-ANC, A320 doesn't do that route, so I just portray negative thoughts to the 738.

You seem to know a lot more on the issue than me, hence why I came to A.Net to ask in the first place, but how do the A320 and 737-800's takeoff performance compare?

"but the 738 has longer transcon range"

Because it has large fuel tanks, not much to do with take-off performance.

I haven't looked at the operating manuals (lazy saturday evening) but the 737NG has a bigger wing, which should help.

The Airbus can do better angles (higher landing gear). When operating at the edges FBW / envelope protection tends to give more margin.

Pete is looking into it https://www.airliners.net/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=10646601, it might take some time.

I have heard pilots say both the A319 and 737-700 are the "hot-rods" of each respective family. That is they both climb well and have good short field performance. As to which is better.....Honestly I don't know.

I fly A320s - I'm not too sure about field performance I would reckon it's roughly the same as the 738. However, for climb performance, especially at higher levels, the 737 wins easily. The last 2000ft of climb to cruise level in an A320 can take 20 or 30nm because they are very limited - it's common to see them level off for several seconds (in climb/open climb autopilot mode) before continuing to climb slowly at high levels. The IAE 320s are slightly better in this respect compared to the CFM but they have other disadvantages...

Flow2706 wrote:

I fly A320s - I'm not too sure about field performance I would reckon it's roughly the same as the 738. However, for climb performance, especially at higher levels, the 737 wins easily. The last 2000ft of climb to cruise level in an A320 can take 20 or 30nm because they are very limited - it's common to see them level off for several seconds (in climb/open climb autopilot mode) before continuing to climb slowly at high levels. The IAE 320s are slightly better in this respect compared to the CFM but they have other disadvantages...

Thanks for that explanation Flow2706

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

Regarding take off run at MTOW:

737-700 needs longer than A319, 737-800 needs longer than A320.

Flow2706 wrote:

I fly A320s - I'm not too sure about field performance I would reckon it's roughly the same as the 738. However, for climb performance, especially at higher levels, the 737 wins easily. The last 2000ft of climb to cruise level in an A320 can take 20 or 30nm because they are very limited - it's common to see them level off for several seconds (in climb/open climb autopilot mode) before continuing to climb slowly at high levels. The IAE 320s are slightly better in this respect compared to the CFM but they have other disadvantages...

I'm curious. What disadvantages?

There are more high altitude airports being served by A319s than anything else these days http://www.caac.gov.cn/ZTZL/RDZT/XJSYY/ ... 294102.pdf

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Quick answer:

-737-700 trumps 319
-737-800 trumps 320
-321 trumps 737-900/900ER

Quick answer:

You're wrong.

There is always some confusion about takeoff, climb and cruise altitude performance on these forums which is understandable.

In terms of field performance, which means getting off the runway, all variants of the A320 family will do a better job over the Boeing counterparts. The A320 really comes into its own with hot/high/short field. With the airports and conditions I'm familiar with, on a 40C day, an A320 will lift 4-5t over the 737-800. Even with the 737's lower weight, that's potentially 30-40 additional pax on an A320 for longer routes.

Climb performance for the two families is negligible. The initial A320 variants with the first generation engines pre '97-'98 were asthmatic and their climb performance really suffered in the heat but they're few and far between these days. I heard some interesting stories about the old IAE A1 engines struggling on holiday charters in the Mediterranean during the summer.

Initial cruise altitude, or the optimum cruise level with sharklet airbus aircraft now standard is going to be slightly less than the Boeing equivalent, usually in the region of 1000-2000ft.

We need to compare payload for hot/high.
Has anyone seen the A320NEO curves? Airbus has bragged how changing the FBW logic has improved all short field performance. Soon there will be the A320NEO (specific to that length) short field kit. I believe that will shift the performance significantly in favor of the A320.

I agree with Chaostheory in that the early engines had climb issues. Early CFM-56 as certainly the IAE V2500A1 needed better climb margin.

But if short field is needed, the C-series is a contender. I'd like to see for 500nm and 1000nm payload curves by altitude. But also new curves for the NEO.


Short field mod kit (no news for a few years, I assume this is going forward):
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... od-a320neo

Since the MAX AFAIK hasn't yet entered commercial service, I haven't seen anything on changes to takeoff performance.

Lightsaber

Aside from generic (ISA) takeoff length, what physical/aero/engine factors would generally make a plane suffer more or less - versus ISA case - on a short field?

For example: two planes have same ISA takeoff role. 1 has higher wingloading but more thrust; 2 has lower wingloading and less thrust. Any effect on relative shortfield performance?

Would a shortfield have differential impacts depending on whether takeoff distance is V1 or V2 limited?

I could also see the answer depend on fuel efficiency. If plane 1 this is 20% lighter to fly half the distance while plane 2 is 10% lighter, then plane 1 is more capable of doing the shortfield mission. But that's maybe not a good thing about plane 1, all things considered.

I've heard the 737 / 738 are usually better than A319 / A320 because of double slotted flaps and winglets on the Boeing jets. Of course the Sharklets becoming popular negative some of the advantage but the Boeing does have a geometrical flap advantage.

xjetflyer2001 wrote:

I'm not sure if this should be a question posed for the technical forum, but I was just thinking, since airlines are beginning to get rid of the 757 and most are being replaced with either the 737 or A320 family of aircraft, which aircraft is better for hot/high/short field runways, in particular ASE, and why?

I looked on Wikipedia, I know not the best source, hence why I'm coming to you guys, but according to wikipedia the B737 has an engine thrust anywhere from 20,000 - 27,000 lbs depending on the model and the A320 family is rated between 24,000 - 33,000 lbs, with that info only it would seem that the Airbus family is more suited, however the 33,000 lbs is for the A321 family, the 319 and 320 are similarly rated as the 737.

Thanks guys

Wikipedia is indeed not the best source. A better source is the Manufacturers airport compatibility guides (ACAP's)

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/737.pdf

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _May17.pdf

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _May17.pdf

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _May17.pdf

These are not perfect, but are almost certainly better sources than the "mine is bigger than yours" brigade replies you have tended to receive up-thread.

As you asked about hot/high short field performance, I've extracted the figures for a 4000ft altitude runway at ISA + 15 deg C, just as an example.
I'll pull out the figures for a 5 000ft long runway and a 7 000ft long runway.

5 000ft runway

737-700 (24k lb engines) 54t TOW (take-off weight)
737-700ER (27k lb engines) 58t TOW
A319 (engines not specified) 64t TOW

737-800 (27k lb engines) 56t TOW
A320 (engines not specified) 62t TOW

737-900ER (27k LB engines) 55t TOW
A321 (engines not specified) 68t TOW

7 000ft runway

737-700 (24k lb engines) 62t TOW
737-700ER (27k lb engines) 68t TOW
A319 (engines not specified) 71t TOW

737-800 (27k lb engines) 67t TW
A320 (engines not specified) 73t TOW

737-900ER (27k LB engines) 66t TOW
A321 (engines not specified) 78t TOW

All of these figures are without winglets (737) or sharklets (A32X)
I suspect nearly all 737NG come with winglets, so their performance will be better than I have stated.
Obviously there are a lot of A32X out there without sharklets, which begs the question of whether the anecdotes you have heard up-thread are considering a like-for-like basis

Aviation Partners give a range of improved TOW on the Boeing 737-800 from 1 600lb to 4 400lb (essentially 1t to 2t)

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/winglets_itp.php

Airbus say that adding the sharklets adds about 3t to the TOW for a given condition. The following link from CAAC refers (p. 16)

http://www.caac.gov.cn/ZTZL/RDZT/XJSYY/ ... 898525.pdf

The picture is further complicated by the existence of "short-field performance kits" from both manufacturers.
It would appear quite possible that a 737-700ER with 27k lb engines, winglets, and a short-field performance kit would out-perform a bog-standard A319 without sharklets or short-field performance kit.

But on a like-for-like basis in answer to your question..
According to the manufacturers data, in all cases, the Airbus has better hot/high/short field performance, with the advantage increasing with size.

Hope this helps.

Rgds

[quote="astuteman"]

Thanks for that explanation, also thank you for the websites I will definitely check those out.

It's very interesting to hear all of the different factors that will affect the performance of the different aircraft. Thanks everyone so far for your inputs

Does the 737-600 offer any significant advantage in this regard compared to the 737-700? Do the lack of winglets help (making it weigh less)?

What does a short field performance kit include?

dragon6172 wrote:

What does a short field performance kit include?

This explains the Airbus version of it:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1366049

kitplane01 wrote:

Flow2706 wrote:

I fly A320s - I'm not too sure about field performance I would reckon it's roughly the same as the 738. However, for climb performance, especially at higher levels, the 737 wins easily. The last 2000ft of climb to cruise level in an A320 can take 20 or 30nm because they are very limited - it's common to see them level off for several seconds (in climb/open climb autopilot mode) before continuing to climb slowly at high levels. The IAE 320s are slightly better in this respect compared to the CFM but they have other disadvantages...

I'm curious. What disadvantages?

The automatic start sequence for IAE includes a long dry crank before fuel flow starts (CFM doesn't have this) - the whole start time for one engine can be around 1,5 minutes, i.e. 3 for both engines, which can be an issue if you are thight on a slot etc. The idle thrust is much higher on IAE than on CFM - during long periods of taxiing, especially in warm temperatures the brakes tend to heat up quiet a bit leading to warm/hot brakes before takeoff (most aircraft have brake fans so it's not too bad but one more thing to deal with). The higher idle thrust also leads to a different behavior in flare before landing - the airplane tends to float more than CFM A320s (this is partly mitigated by the fact that IAE 320s have 5 more degrees of flap deflection, but there is still a noticeable difference). Some people actually prefer the flare behavior of the IAE aircraft because it's easier to make smooth landings - personally I prefer the CFM for landings because they don't float that much...

How does the 737-600 fit into this? As a passenger it feels more sporty at take-off than the others, maybe just because of the landing gear height/fuselage lenght ratio?

lightsaber wrote:

We need to compare payload for hot/high.
Has anyone seen the A320NEO curves? Airbus has bragged how changing the FBW logic has improved all short field performance. Soon there will be the A320NEO (specific to that length) short field kit. I believe that will shift the performance significantly in favor of the A320.

I agree with Chaostheory in that the early engines had climb issues. Early CFM-56 as certainly the IAE V2500A1 needed better climb margin.

But if short field is needed, the C-series is a contender. I'd like to see for 500nm and 1000nm payload curves by altitude. But also new curves for the NEO.


Short field mod kit (no news for a few years, I assume this is going forward):
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... od-a320neo

Since the MAX AFAIK hasn't yet entered commercial service, I haven't seen anything on changes to takeoff performance.

Lightsaber

Bombardier quote 5000ft "base" (60t MTOW) and 6200 ft "max" (67.5T MTOW) for a take-off at MTOW for the CS300
This is at ISA and Sea Level

http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... _EN_V5.pdf

This compares to 7 000ft for a 75.5t MTOW A319 CEO without sharklets.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/fileadmi ... _May17.pdf

Adding sharklets should bring that down to about 6 400ft - 6 500ft

I would assume the NEO is about the same.

CS300 at that weight will carry 130 pax for 3 300nm
A319 NEO will carry 130 pax about 3 750 nm

Rgds

A lot of this has to do with which engines are fitted. If you were to take an A318 with sharklets and put the 35k PW1100G's for the 321LR on it, you'd be looking at a sub-4000ft takeoff roll and the best climb performance of any commercial aircraft... (assuming the aircraft can structurally handle it)