:hmm:

Actually ferrydude has a point and I'd have to agree with him I'm sorry. The original question (average English/typing not-with-standing) was L337 went up the wrong tree straight off the bat (sorry mate := ) and everyone else followed his lead presuming it was a question about cruise speeds (sorry guys :} ). Only LEM was heading in the right direction :ok:

And whoever it was who thought 73's cruise so slow - on a cost index around 30 we're doing .74-.75 between FL330-FL350 in a -300.

Ciao. ;)

Well Mr Smarty-Pants Cross Check, just because you READ the question correctly doesn't mean that we can't go off on our own and play our own game. :8

To THERE. :*

Really, I don't know "Read the actual question, instead of making it up"??? Whatever next? They'll be expecting pilots to know which button to press and pax which destination they are going to! Never going to happen .... mumble ... grumble ;)

Ah those were the days ...
 

:\

RTFQ .... how I remember hearing those hallowed words while being boxed around the ears by my flight instructor ... :ouch:

Feel free to discuss cruise speeds though if you like, I won't stop you. I just thought I'd jump in before things got any more acrimonious. :ok:

Tschuss.

eeer, The word approach speed was not used, and indeed the word cruise speed also.

It seems to me we could have gone either way in trying to answer this question.

However the A320 on average has a higher approach speed than the B737-200/300.

:p

L33T

Can we all please chill out a little, guys?

I have no patience here with people who, instead of answering people's questions, merely take potshots at others.

Not pointing any fingers, but I will if offences are repeated.

B747 has superior flutter suppression - aeroelastics are the reason for higher speeds capability The A340 has a MACH buffet problem - don';t know about the A340-500/600 though ..AIRBUS is a quick study - I got to assume they have fixed there aerodynamic problems - does anyone know how many Plastrons were used on A340 's ??

Plastron shrouds on the A340 underwing are there solely to cover fuel pump wiring from the main and standby fuel pumps. This means no wiring from the fuel pumps goes into the tanks. There are two shrouds on each wing, inboard of the inner engines.
The speed of the A340 was chosen from surveys with the airlines when the original airframe proposals were put forward. The theory being that the Mach .82 versus Mach .86 (approximately 20kts faster, or around 20 mins for a ten hour flight), on long sectors did not warrant the extra fuel consumption, The -500/-600 cruise slightly faster at Mach .83, so I guess Airbus changed their minds!
A330 cruise is also around the Mach .80-Mach .82 which is commensurate or slightly faster than a 767. The 777 is a much faster machine than the 340/330, as is the 747.
All down to a compromise between fuel burn and load versus range.

Myself being a B737-700/-800 jokey I have to inform all A320 pilots about the following;

B737NGs (-600, -700, -800, -900) fly much faster than the 'older' 737s: the 737NG cruise at a typical machnumber of .79M!

greetz, :ok:

Anyone know what the MD80/MD90 series do typically?

The "high speed run" at base in the Trident was done at .96. At the time the "normal" cruise was .89, before fuel prices reduced it somewhat!