Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Airbus vs Boeing

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airbus vs Boeing

Old 3rd May 2008, 04:58
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 60
Posts: 201
I will say that I have put non pilots in both, and most younger kids can fly the heck out the A320. Must be all that computer joy stick time.
Mnttech....I agree with you completely on this one! I was able to get some time in a 744 and 320 class D sim around 1997. At that time, I had a PPL/IR and about 8 hours multi time in a duchess...TT was about 160 hours. I did the 320 first and had NO problem flying it. APU/engine start, taxi, take off, flew 3 ILS approaches (one autoland), land full stop, taxi back and shut down.
On the 744....well, I got it into the air and that was about it! I was porpoising all the way through the approach and cratered on every attempt.

Was great fun though! No way I will ever be able to do it again after 9/11.
PA-28-180 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 17:08
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Dani, I don't think they saved hundreds on kilos....each AB is heavier than the B in it's class (320 -737)
For ex ,the 318 has an EW of 40 T ,and the 700 has about 39T (the 300 has 33T ) .And the 318 should be compared with the 600, which smaller than the 700.
alexban is offline  
Old 4th May 2008, 06:49
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rekyavik
Posts: 10
Hello Templar,
I detect a case of the Devilís advocate in you. As a fellow Devilís advocate, perhaps I may respond!
From Boeing to Airbus 330/340, I find various good points and bad points. I need time to think of good points for the AIRBUS family.
1. Great VLS indication, and far better than B767 (absolutely ignorant about B777). I love it in relation to bank, config, speedbrakes, and G loading ( I try & avoid aerobatics if pax on board).
2. Surprisingly good low altitude performance! But crap as you get into the higher altitudes. However this is justified by Airbusís so-called [OPTIMISED] philosophy (French left-bank academics at work!)
3. Nicely integrated FMGS, but no doubt on par with B777 and inferior to Gulfstream/Falcon.
4. I do not think Airlines (e.g. Air France, Lufthansa, China Eastern, Emirates, Qatar etc. would give a flying f**k if you had a tray or not! So that is not part of the equation. In fact, the tray tends to spill my champagne into my Lobster coz Airbus did not have the expertise to design it to be level!!
5. What is interesting is whether there is any feedback from the Control Columns / Thrust Levers. The opinion is divided in this respect based on the accident record.
6. Does point 5 have any effect on pilots when under extreme stress as a result of Upset/ Extreme change/low experience on type?
7. Massive tiller on Boeing designed for wimps with limp wrists transitioning from Airbus. Very good foresight on Boeingís part!
8. Regarding the Airbus tiller, I normally play with my balls my every hour, so I have no problem handling the tiller.
9. Regarding the excessive airflow, my Training Capt suggested I was a stupid f**k for not being able to turn it off. Perhaps your trainer was more subtle and gentler than mine!
10. Excellent sunshades taken from Citroen - absolutely superior - no question!
11. Regarding the seat recline, I must admit that the Airbus seats are PURRRFECT for studying the overhead panel thru oneís eyelids - tho my FO insisted that it was PURRRFECT for him too.
12. My company has insisted on removing the chair armrest due to consistent complaints from the flight crew that they were too comfortable.
13. My company also insists on us knowing the flap speed limits - absolutely untenable - we are fighting this point in the Labour Courts.
14. My company does not have a problem with MCP distance since we do not have a policy of discriminating on the basis of oneís armsí length. We have been actively recruiting in the southern hemisphere.
15.I find it bizarre that on a 4-eng aeroplane (A340), a 2-eng failure can result in a dual Hydraulic loss, resulting in a manual gear extension and loss of Nose-wheel steering with a landing commit point whenever the gear is extended! I would have thought that with a 2 eng failure, Airbus would have designed the systems to support the pilotsí workload rather than loading them up.
16. I would suggest ignore EICAS coz Airbus systems fail with regular monotony, so sit on the edge of your seat all the time waiting till you discover the fault on ECAM.
My initial humble opinion. Standing by for the inevitable arrows in my back!!
HA56
Hardass56 is offline  
Old 5th May 2008, 13:58
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
You're all wrong and getting far too technical about it! I work on, (notice the work on, not fly!) the 737, A319 and the 777. Ignoring the 777, the basic differences between the 73 and the 319 are obvious. The 73 comes complete with fluffy dice, a pine tree air freshener and go faster stripes, whereas the Airbus has a tartan rug and a box of tissues on the back parcel shelf and a round tin of travel sweets in the flight deck! The Airbus is the Rover 416 while the 737 is a Mark II Ford Fiesta XR2i! See, it's easy when you don't get technical!

I'll get my coat.....

JSL

Last edited by jetset lady; 5th May 2008 at 15:03.
jetset lady is offline  
Old 6th May 2008, 03:02
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Dani

You can get a rumbling, feedbacking joystick at Sears or Carrefour around the corner for just 5$ and maybe 20 gramms more. - And if you don't need feedback: Good for you. I still do because even with all the gimmicks installed, I still fly primarerly with my extended spine and this needs feedback!! Call me old and I couldn't give a damn .....
GMDS is offline  
Old 6th May 2008, 07:28
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,305
Posted by Alexban:
Dani, I don't think they saved hundreds on kilos....each AB is heavier than the B in it's class (320 -737)
I didn't say that A is lighter than B, I say that you save weight with FBW and/or sidestick.
The overall weight differences might stem from other sources like fuselage/wing design, hull size and interiour quality - all of which an A seems to be slightly more robust/comfortable.

Posted by GMDS

You can get a rumbling, feedbacking joystick at Sears or Carrefour around the corner for just 5$ and maybe 20 gramms more.
You can also get a nice soft TV chair with remote command and drink holder at Sears or Carrefour - comes to about the same level of comfort as some plane seats Still I'm not sure if that would be the right set of furniture. You would be the first ppruner to complain about "it's too soft, to old, the fabric too warm, the imprint patterns too ugly"...

Dani

Last edited by Dani; 7th May 2008 at 07:11.
Dani is offline  
Old 6th May 2008, 13:28
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: No one's home...
Posts: 416
AvWeek has been publishing letters from every guy who has been within 1 mile of an airport as a response to the A330 winning the tanker bid. One wrote the Airbus can't "take a hit". ??? I flew -135s for a while and we never boasted about it being able to absorb hits. ???

And just as pilots seem to be quite parochial about their airplanes, no doubt mechanics are the same. Some think Boeing makes great airplanes and some think that McDoug makes great airplanes. Neither will agree the other company makes great airplanes.

according to speed news http://tinyurl.com/6s3otm 364 Boeings in storage with some from the 60s.

"" http://tinyurl.com/5ztgcw 78 Airbi in storage some of which are more than 20+ yrs old.


Funny thing is there are a few DC-3s and the youngest is over 60.. hardly a 'throwaway'
wileydog3 is offline  
Old 6th May 2008, 13:46
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 1,611
The overall weight differences might stem from other sources like fuselage/wing design, hull size and interiour quality - all of which an A seems to be slightly more robust/comfortable.
Surely you jest: Boeing builds a stronger/tougher plane than Airbus. Take a look at any old airliner from the pair and the Boeing will typically be in better condition.
18-Wheeler is offline  
Old 6th May 2008, 15:33
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 131
If an Airbus, any Airbus, is 'more comfortable' than a Boeing in terms of turbulence encounters, then my definition of comfortable has been wrong for a long time.
SortieIII is offline  
Old 7th May 2008, 07:09
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,305
Posted by18-Wheeler:
Take a look at any old airliner from the pair and the Boeing will typically be in better condition.
You mean when I look at a brand new 737NG and it looks already like an old airliner

Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).

Dani
Dani is offline  
Old 7th May 2008, 14:09
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).
Let's wait and see what happens, if one day 35 year old A320s will be operated in - let's say - Indonesia or Africa.... Should be rather interesting
Burger Thing is offline  
Old 7th May 2008, 18:18
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,305
They wont, because AI doesn't give aircraft to dubious operators. And they say "stop!" after 50 000 hrs (100k and 150k can soon be purchased, but only with checks).
Dani is offline  
Old 7th May 2008, 18:40
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Wileydog3 quotes a genius -
One wrote the Airbus can't "take a hit". ???
There's a DHL crew who would like to have a word with him...
barit1 is offline  
Old 8th May 2008, 02:31
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 1,611
Or do you get your opinion from the fact that there are still these old 727 and 737 classic all around the world, falling apart and crashing all the time (ok ok, I know, it's because of maintenance).
No, from the fact that the cockpit interiors in the Airbus's fall apart far quicker than the Boeing's. Also from talking to ground engineers that have worked on both - So far all have said that where B might use a nicely made forged bracket to hold something in place, A would use a bit of bend sheet.
Sure it's lighter, but it's not going to last as long. And as we found out further up the thread a 320 isn't lighter than a 737 anyway, so where is the extra weight?
18-Wheeler is offline  
Old 8th May 2008, 03:00
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
It's in the:

Fold-away table
Clamp that blocks opposite sidestick movement
Clamp that blocks autothrottle lever movement
Artificial pitch/roll demand signal generator and actuator
Converter of FD/FPV logical signal to silly bird display
Retrofit of instinctive V/S-thumbwheel to confusing turnknob
"Too soft and comfy seat" (see silly comment above)
My zillions of logbook entries, because "I am the first ppruner to complain" (same same -> above)

GMDS
GMDS is offline  
Old 12th May 2008, 05:37
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Age: 48
Posts: 65
This is all way too complicated.

It is this simple:

The problem with an Airbus is that it is an Airbus (cheap, flimsy, disposable airplane).

The problem with a Douglas is that it is a Douglas.

A Boeing airplane (any Boeing) is superior to all others because... it is a Boeing.

It is that simple.
TWApilot is offline  
Old 12th May 2008, 05:58
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
TWA Pilot:- 100% agree with you.

CX spent 25% of our maintenace budget on 4 A340-600's !! incredible piece of un-reliable plastic junk,

And to those mis-guided fools that think you actually fly an Airbus....................nope, you have a computer keeping it at a constant G ( for the manoeuver being attempted ) therefore any wing drops, nose drops etc are basically corrected BY THE COMPUTER, not you. Some don't get the concept and greatly overcontrol the side stick and thus make it look bad. Set it, leave it alone.

So you are ALWAYS in a mode Boeing call control wheel steering, ie Flying the machine through the computer.

Except for below 100' ( or is it 50' ) when you get direct law.

So enough of "I hand fly the Airbus" No you don't the computer does.

I've flown the Airbus Sim a lot ( 320 330 and 340 ) and I can say that anyone could fly a bus after being told the basics of how to massage the side stick.

On a Boeing you still need to actually FLY the Aircraft, just like a C 150.
GE90115BL2 is offline  
Old 12th May 2008, 06:11
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 169
In a big bus or a big Boeing, I know where I'd rather be, and it's got a side stick. That said if its 30 kts across and I'm at the end of a 12 hour day... ah sod it, I'll keep with the bus, not hurt me yet!
Tight Slot is offline  
Old 12th May 2008, 09:54
  #79 (permalink)  

Sun worshipper
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
GExxxxxxxxx

Quote : "I've flown the Airbus Sim a lot ( 320 330 and 340 ) and I can say that anyone could fly a bus after being told the basics of how to massage the side stick. "
That is about the best compliment you could make for the safety of the Airbus.
On the same vein, I haven't heard of anybody complaining about the DC-10 or the MD-11 handling through the CWS...Another case for the goose and the gander, perhaps ?
Another way to look at things - and a lot more accurate than your post - is that the 777 FBW is what you get from a 'Bus with degraded modes. Think about dumbing down a perfectly sensible syatem !
Lemurian is offline  
Old 12th May 2008, 12:55
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 1,611
GE90115BL2, I used to think much along your lines as well, but with a new job I was required to start an A330 type rating and through the course of it I was converted (no pun intended)
As I wrote earlier, both types do the same job quite well - But they do it differently. This doesn't mean that one is inherently better or worse than the other, just different.
If you like hand-flying and a relatively simple aeroplane, you should like a Boeing.
If you like managing the machine and operating some very clever gadgets, then you should like an Airbus.
18-Wheeler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.