Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:42 From: "Martin Chiew" <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You >are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much >later aircraft. The 737-200 was current in the 1960's and 70's, the >-300's entered service about 1980. I think the 727 was out of >production well before the first A320 flew. > > If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you >will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has >longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel >efficient. The -600 to -900 range covers wider range of capacities >than the A319-A321. Sorry to say, but in terms of speed, the 737NG being faster than the A320 is a load of Rubbish. The A320 cruises at M0.8 as opposed to the 737NG which cruises at M0.785. More closer to the A320's league is the 737-300 which in Australia cruises at 0.74 as opposed to the A320's M0.8. On a typical run to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying about 144 passengers can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400. It cruises higher, is much more comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes less fuel, while carrying 10 or more passengers + cargo. Even for the A320 to be still comparable with the 737NG and probably be more efficient is quite an achievement, for an aircraft which is ~9 years older.