whats the difference between airbus/boeing?

[purple haze]

hi all,

this may sound like a silly Q, but whats the main difference between the two types of planes and which would you prefer to fly and why?

[purple haze]

ps. i know there are many a/c foe ech company but what is the main diff, ie different manufac. for engines etc.

[Lu Zuckerman]

The main difference between Boeing and Airbus is that Airbus aircraft have hair under their wing roots.

------------------
The Cat

[Captain Cessna]

Er one has a control column, the other a table for the Captain to eat his lunch on? :)

[18Wheeler]

The difference?
Easy - Boeings are made for pilot's to fly, Airbuses are made for pilot's to operate computers to come to a consensus to consider a vector to place the plane in.
:)

[Juliet November]

Purple Haze,

Don't you just love these guys too ? Was once told by an instructor that the only silly questions, are the ones you do not dare to ask.

Anyway, both a-busses and lazy-b's share more or less similar engine's. There are of course differences from the, for instance, RR Trent mounted on an A330 vs. the one on a B777. But all of the big 3 engine builders (GE / PW / RR) supplies both manufacturers.

However, the design philosophys of Boeing & Airbus are quite different, views on who's the better are abundant on this forum. All Airbuses except the 300 & 310 are fly-by-wire controlled, and the control column has been replaced by a joystick.

All Boeings except the 777 are all controlled by mechanical links.

Fact of the matter is that both manufactureres has succeded in producing a family of aircraft, which generally deliveres their payloads safely and economically from point a to point b, at more or less the same speed.

[purple haze]

thank u JN for the only decent answer

i thought i was asking for it when i posted this q but what the hell if u dont ask ull never know!!!

[SchmiteGoBust]

Boeing tend to be more reliable than Airbus whereas Airbus tend to be built better.
Airbus are also generally more technically advanced than Boeing.

[alosaurus]

PH From a pilots point of view I have to reluctantly agree with 18wheeler-Boeings integration of the pilot is far superior to Airbus.In the early 1980s the technical director of Airbus declared it was AIs intention to remove pilots from the front end-good PR move.The A320 was supposed to be a step in this direction with its pilot button pusher/monitoring concept.I think AI have now accepted that,in our lifetime,pax will not climb aboard an a/c without at least one pilot in the cockpit.Unfortunately no significant design philosophy changes were made to the A330/340 when they were introduced.
On the other side of the coin,as SGB said, Airbus aircraft are far better built-go and have close look at a 747 then an A340.
Two reasons for this 1 airbus design specifications far higher 2 Airbus partners have engineering apprenticeships between 3 & 5 years .Boeing have a USA hire/fire approach with a lot more unskilled/semiskilled people(checkout the thread on FAA audit failures)
Airbus a/c are far more efficient than an equivalent Boeing - compare an A320 wing aerodynamically with any 737 ; no contest.

[This message has been edited by alosaurus (edited 28 November 2000).]

[AiryFairy]

On the subject of yoke versus side-stick, I found that I became used to the handling of the the side stick in short order.
There is no real logic in having a large intrusive object between your legs - if you catch my meaning. Once you have the arm rest positioned ok the side stick is perfectly comfortable and instinctive. BUT

There is a problem, albeit soluble, and especially for people who have alot of hours who are converting, in that there are these things called 'control laws'. These are the problem and the solution would be much easier if Airbus took alot more trouble in explaining them;instead of sort of insinuating that anyone who is a little puzzled at first is some kind of blinkered stick-in-the-mud.

I have no problem with side sticks having got used to them. I do wonder though why Airbus went to all the bother of developing 'Normal' and 'Alternate' law when 'Direct' law was perhaps all that was necessary.

I do think that people who say things like 'Airbus Always' or 'Not Boeing - Not Going' are a little puerile.

As I said on another post, consider the following:-

Pilot - Computer - Aeroplane

Computer - Pilot - Aeroplane

Which is the safer? It makes for a good discussion at least.

[chuck yeager]

If its not a Boeing, I'm not going.

Bon voyage to you guys!

[Tor]

Better get used to staying at home CY!

[criticalmass]

Philosophically, Boeing have had a long time to learn from "tombstone technology", Airbus are relative newcomers, but they'll learn from their mistakes just as well as Boeing have.

Fact of the matter is, when you strap your rear end to the airplane, it doesn't matter whether it's been built by Boeing, Airbus or your local kit-builder, you stop worrying about who built it and start hoping it gets where you are going intact. If you fly either of the big two your chances are pretty good!

[Jim lovell]

When comparing the larger 2 aircraft there is a fair bit of difference( A340 VS 747 AND A330 VS 767). The first one is cruise speed. The 747 is a good deal quicker- 0.3 M? in the cruise than the A340 as is the 767 over the 330. Then there is capacity, which in the case of the 747-400 is a fair bit more than the A340-300. In terms of avionics the A340 cockpit is more advanced and ergonomic than is the 747's. All in all both are fine aircraft.

[Bahamas244]

A question here. I have noticed that the airbus types have a steering tiller on the F/O's side. Does the F/O steer the aircraft on his sector, and respond to checklist challenges? Or does the commander maintain the status quo, and dictate the flow over the forward battlefield.

Thanks all.

[The Nr Fairy]

I thought it was the brand of glue. See this thread :

AIRFIX OR REVELL??? (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/011234.html)


------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"

[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 29 November 2000).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

It is my understanding that the winglets on some Airbus aircraft were in fact designed by Boeing under a NASA contract.

The design was given to Airbus free but any US Airframe manufacturer that wants to use the design has to pay NASA for the rights. It seems that Airbus operators are saving fuel at the expense of the US taxpayers.

------------------
The Cat

[52049er]

Bahamas - in my Co the SOP is that the FO does so all the 'steering', checklist responses etc in the same way as the skipper on his sectors. The only difference Chocks to Chocks (on a normal sector) is that the Capt makes the welcome on board PA (and gets to chose which dinner he/she wants :) )

£0.02 - Most people I fly with who have experience of both types say that whilst Boeings can be more fun/rewarding to fly, Airbus flight decks are a nicer working environment

[Captain Cessna]

Here's an intresting bit on the history of the companies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_125000/125726.stm

[Bahamas244]

Thanks alot 52049er, I do appreciate your response here. That's how it was done on the BAC1-11 many moons ago!

[faq]

And the answer is..

operating costs!

[purple haze]

can anyone tell me whats fly by wire?

cheers

[VTOL]

FBW is where the movement command for a control surface is an electronic signal rather than a mechanical linkage (control rod). This signal is usually generated by a computer which in turn signals an actuator which moves the servo valve on a hydraulic actuator which moves the control surface. There are several advantages to this, the main one being the weight saving of dispensing with long bits of metal running through the plane.

FBW a/c also tend to have advanced stability and control laws on them which shape the pilot's (or autopilot's) inputs to give a desirable control response. This means that the pilot's perception of how the a/c flies may be very different to how it would fly with conventional controls. Indeed, many modern a/c (especially fighters) are unstable without the control laws running.

Hope this helps,
VTOL

[Ignition Override]

I will admit that I'm biased.

On a different note, Boeing civilian aircraft production is not subsidized by US taxpayers (since the KC-135/707 in the 50's), while Airbus airliners are subsidized by very many European taxpayers, which has allegedly allowed Airbus to sell many planes at or below cost (in order to compete around the globe), which is called "dumping". The production costs were kept very confidential for very good reasons. This was in "Aviation Week and ST". I've flown Boeing and Douglas (along with Lockheed, Embraer and Shorts) products but not Airbus, at least not yet.

Incidentally, some of our maintenance (engineers) call the A-320 a "throw away airplane", their words, because of so many lightweight composite parts. They claim that replacement parts for the A-320/319 are much more expensive than for McDonald Douglas or Boeing planes.

[SID the STAR]

well,you could have a black label,or,the more cheaper,younger,red label airbus......

[Smoketoomuch]

Ignition:
I was wondering when this thread would get round to subsidies. Boeing received large amounts of US govt/taxpayers money to study/research a large military transport. It never got the contract but put the research to good use and built the 747. Airbus may receive grants, or more accurately 'repayable loans' but Boeing often export their aircraft through a third country, conveniently US laws permit them massive tax-benefits if they do this, and has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Org. I think a more fundamental truth is that all countries try to help their indigenous businesses, and complain that all other countries cheat.