Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:25 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1292@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Larry Sakurai <email@example.com> wrote: >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 ... > >> 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 ... > >Not only that, even the old 200s cruise faster than the A320s. They were >designed at a time when speed was a bigger issue than it is today. I don't >know how the fuel economy of the 737 NGs stack up to the A320s, but with >their newer wings and powerplants, I would imagine they're pretty >competitive. I would think so. However, I was surprised when I read an IAE (International Aero Engines, maker of the V2500 engines) newsletter that one of the major factors that A320/V2500 was chosen by LanChile, TACA and TAM was because even the new generation B737s have serious take-off weight limitation at high altitudes.