Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:18 From: email@example.com Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1290@ohare.Chicago.COM> "Martin Chiew" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >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. What airline do you fly for again? Thumbing through a US carrier's performance handbook for the A320, I only see the number "0.78" everywhere. Of course, this discussion started with the A321, so perhaps it flies a bit faster. Of course, sometimes airlines get stuck with airplanes unsuitable for the routes being flown (no fault of the airplane manufacturer, of course) so they run them them faster, at a loss. Sounds to me like Ansett Australia could really use some used 727s if speed is such a consideration. Then they'd really leave those 737s in the dust. >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. Oh, yeah, and what awesome changes in technologies over the last 10 years, too. Brand new engine technologies, brand new design technologies. NOT. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off.