Is there any difference in the "feel" when flying different variants of fbw planes?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2025
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Is there any difference in the "feel" when flying different variants of fbw planes?
I saw an old thread where a 737 pilot who flew both the -700 and the -800 compared the flight handling characteristics of the two. Ofc, it was as ppl would generally expect, the -700 felt a bit more nimble, whereas the -800 felt a bit more "sluggish".
This made me wonder, is this also the case for more modern fbw airliners?
If we compare 2 fbw aircraft from the same family, for example the A318 compared to the A321, or maybe the 787-8 compared to the -10. In theory, in a fbw aircraft, the flight computers use a mix of pitch rate and G-command from the side stick deflection depending on the speeds (at least that's the case for airbus, I am not sure abt the Boeing's fbw), so except for the engine thrust, shouldn't the controls should feel exactly the same regardless of the size of the aircraft?
Ofc, there are some exceptions to this. For example in the A330, the designers purposely made the controls a bit sluggish so that pilots who transitioned from the older hydraulic wide bodies would better adapt to the (then newer) a330 platform, tho I do believe that was removed in the neo variant and never repeated again.
This made me wonder, is this also the case for more modern fbw airliners?
If we compare 2 fbw aircraft from the same family, for example the A318 compared to the A321, or maybe the 787-8 compared to the -10. In theory, in a fbw aircraft, the flight computers use a mix of pitch rate and G-command from the side stick deflection depending on the speeds (at least that's the case for airbus, I am not sure abt the Boeing's fbw), so except for the engine thrust, shouldn't the controls should feel exactly the same regardless of the size of the aircraft?
Ofc, there are some exceptions to this. For example in the A330, the designers purposely made the controls a bit sluggish so that pilots who transitioned from the older hydraulic wide bodies would better adapt to the (then newer) a330 platform, tho I do believe that was removed in the neo variant and never repeated again.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 214
Likes: 65
From: Canada
I saw an old thread where a 737 pilot who flew both the -700 and the -800 compared the flight handling characteristics of the two. Ofc, it was as ppl would generally expect, the -700 felt a bit more nimble, whereas the -800 felt a bit more "sluggish".
This made me wonder, is this also the case for more modern fbw airliners?
If we compare 2 fbw aircraft from the same family, for example the A318 compared to the A321, or maybe the 787-8 compared to the -10. In theory, in a fbw aircraft, the flight computers use a mix of pitch rate and G-command from the side stick deflection depending on the speeds (at least that's the case for airbus, I am not sure abt the Boeing's fbw), so except for the engine thrust, shouldn't the controls should feel exactly the same regardless of the size of the aircraft?
Ofc, there are some exceptions to this. For example in the A330, the designers purposely made the controls a bit sluggish so that pilots who transitioned from the older hydraulic wide bodies would better adapt to the (then newer) a330 platform, tho I do believe that was removed in the neo variant and never repeated again.
This made me wonder, is this also the case for more modern fbw airliners?
If we compare 2 fbw aircraft from the same family, for example the A318 compared to the A321, or maybe the 787-8 compared to the -10. In theory, in a fbw aircraft, the flight computers use a mix of pitch rate and G-command from the side stick deflection depending on the speeds (at least that's the case for airbus, I am not sure abt the Boeing's fbw), so except for the engine thrust, shouldn't the controls should feel exactly the same regardless of the size of the aircraft?
Ofc, there are some exceptions to this. For example in the A330, the designers purposely made the controls a bit sluggish so that pilots who transitioned from the older hydraulic wide bodies would better adapt to the (then newer) a330 platform, tho I do believe that was removed in the neo variant and never repeated again.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
From a subjective perspective:
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2025
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Milky Way Galaxy
From a subjective perspective:
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
Interesting, is that due to the rotation law in the NEO?. Also, why does the A321 require additional line training? Is it due to the tail strike clearance?
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 491
From: Europe
On the ground there is a direct relationship between side-stick input and elevator deflection.
One the CEO this direct relationship blends into the usual Flight Mode (pitch rate demand) a few seconds after becoming airborne.
The NEO is different. The NEO introduces a Rotation Mode from 70kts during the takeoff roll, which is a pitch rate demand. So the whole rotation is pitch rate in stead of direct control. It aims to homogenize rotation across different weights and CG whilst also reducing the chance of a tails trike. Rotation Mode subsequently blends into Flight Mode about ten seconds after liftoff. I’m sure real Airbus aficionados can offer a more technically correct explanation.
In practice, you just notice that the CEO rotates differently compared to the NEO. I was skeptical at first, but looking back it is indeed more homogenous, none of these nose heavy departures you sometimes encounter on other aircraft.
One the CEO this direct relationship blends into the usual Flight Mode (pitch rate demand) a few seconds after becoming airborne.
The NEO is different. The NEO introduces a Rotation Mode from 70kts during the takeoff roll, which is a pitch rate demand. So the whole rotation is pitch rate in stead of direct control. It aims to homogenize rotation across different weights and CG whilst also reducing the chance of a tails trike. Rotation Mode subsequently blends into Flight Mode about ten seconds after liftoff. I’m sure real Airbus aficionados can offer a more technically correct explanation.
In practice, you just notice that the CEO rotates differently compared to the NEO. I was skeptical at first, but looking back it is indeed more homogenous, none of these nose heavy departures you sometimes encounter on other aircraft.
Joined: Oct 2023
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 76
Likes: 61
From: UK
Operator specific, but yes. There are bad flare habits (late, snatched flare) that can manifest themselves in flying the A320, which if tried on the A321 would certainly give a hard landing.
Joined: Oct 2023
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 76
Likes: 61
From: UK
From a subjective perspective:
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
A319: light and nimble, like a Ford Fiesta
A320: more like a Lincoln Continental, sluggish, but in a nice way.
A321: we need additional line training to fly those!
Very noticeable as well is the difference in rotation logic on the 320CEO and NEO. Pilots new to the NEO always rotate much faster the first time they take off in a NEO. There is also a marked difference in handling when the flaps are in transit from 1 to 2.
