Got a couple thousand + hours in the Navy C-9, which is actually a DC-9-32. .LOVED it. . call me a Luddite <G> . .but I actually got to fly and get Typed in the DC-6/7 too (Navy C-118) and enjoyed the heck out of that too.

When we got our fleet of brand new 727-200F freighters (we got the last ‘27’ built) I was not happy that they came equipped with ‘auto throttles’ <G> . . . the mechs figured out they were too expensive to maintain . .so we disconnected them. . felt better about that. Just an old fashioned guy who liked to feel ‘in charge’ . .<g>

It’s NOT an issue of not understanding computers, I got my first computer in ‘79, when you had to load the OS off a 5” floppy on start-up . and am very computer literate . .I just think the damn engineers are cutting the actual pilots out of the equation and allowing ‘skill’ to atrophy.

 

LOL! I saw that one as well. I agree with your statement though. There are a lot of pilots that I have flown with that don't seem to get that flying is an "art". They know the books inside and out but don't have the ability to think outside of the box. This ability is what separates the good pilots from the great ones. Most planes don't crash because of a single failure that is addressed in a QRH. Most crash because of major/multiple problems or crew problems. Sometimes a great pilot can overcome these major/multiple problems.

But I digress. You really didn't answer my question about what the real difference with flying an Airbus vs. a Boeing is and why you dislike Airbus? Since I now know that you don't have a problem with foreign cars, I also know that your argument against Airbus is not just the patriotic (but ultimately useless argument for this thread) argument that you only buy US products. You seem to dislike the fact that a pilot is not physically "connected" to the elevator or ailerons. Is this true? If so, what do you feel about the fact that the 777, and soon the 787, will also not be connected directly to the controls? Or is it the fact that the Airbus computers "limit" your envelope?

Personally I liked the fact that my envelope was limited. It meant that if I got a GPWS, I could pull back on the stick as hard as I could and the Airplane would give me the max it could, just shy of snapping off the wings. In a Boeing, since I don't have a g-meter on my butt, I would probably tend to be more conservative with pull up because the fear of snapping a wing would be on my mind.

I'm kinda enjoying this thread. I've heard pilots for years say that they hate Airbus. But when pressed they admit that they had never flown one and they could never explain WHY they really didn't like them.

 

The Airbus is wider than the 737. And faster. As a passenger, I like that.

 

I never flew an Airbus, but I agree that its "hard" control limits yield better terrain-avoidance performance than Boeing's "soft" limits. This is based on an award-winning technical paper presented at the SETP symposium a few years ago by my former Edwards colleague Ron Rogers (then chief of ALPA's new aircraft evaluation committee). They tested several scenarios, and Airbus did a little better in all but one. It was noted, however, that pilot reaction time is by far the most important factor. He who hesitates....

 

You seem to think technology sure is evil , like it or not this is the future of aviation. By the way, it is european not french. And its not Airbuses fault that some of the pilots doent pay attention in training. And you dont monitor the computers. They simply present the information for the pilot in a much more organized way than a mess of gauges. Yes Airbus does put a few limitations on their planes, but really how many pilots are going to push the limits of a airliner with people on board.
And even Boeing seems to think fly-by-wire is the way to go.

 

I was reading aviation week and there is a article about airbus vs boeing, Airbus is considering giving airlines money (a rebate) to buy the A340 because it can't compete with the efficiency of the 777-300ER. Here is a qoute from a manager at Airbus "money can be given to airlines to financially offset the performance difference"

are they joking?

Air France CEO (now I would agree anyone from france has about zero credibility but being he is talking about a fellow surrender monkey I figure it is worthwhile) "suggests merely improving reliability of exisiting aircraft would be a better idea"

wow sounds like the A330/340 line is a real winner they even have Air France dogging on it!

 

The reason for the A340's lagging sales are that is has 4 engines. Up until the huge increase in oil prices the A340 was being sold very well. The 500 actualy basicly has the same preformance as the 777. But the 4 engines work out to be less fuel efficient then the 2 for the 777.
Which is why Airbus is developing the A350 which is more advanced then the 777 and A340 and even more fuel efficient. Their engines are 15% more efficient then current engines on the market.

 

that is completely wrong, the A350 is in no way suppose to compete with the 777.

First Airbus said that everyone wants these massive planes and that there is no market for the 787, then Boeing started getting a bunch of orders for it and a lot of interest from airlines and Airbus realized they better try and get something on the drawing board so along comes the A350 which hasn't been a real barn burner so far. The A350 is meant to compete with the 787 as a 767/A300 310 size replacement.

I really have a hard time believing that all these airlines (some with fleets heavily weighted to Airbus) are picking 777 soley for better fuel economy. I know for a fact (and backed by Air France CEO's statement) that the 777 has much better dispatch reliability than the A340, in fact I would say it would be a fair statement to say the 777 has one of the highest if not the highest dispatch reliability of any aircraft. I know it is the most reliable aircraft at American.

 

Packer Backer: Your information on the 777 is incorrect. Yes it is a FBW aircraft, but Boeing engineers kept this:

Mechanical Backup

In the unlikely event of a complete electrical system shut–down, cables from the flight deck to the stabilizer and selected spoilers allow the pilot to fly straight and level until the electrical system is restarted. Spoilers 4 and 11 are mechanically controlled through a cable from the control wheel. The alternate pitch trim levers are linked to the stabilizer trim control modules (STCM) via control cables, and then mechanically to the stabilizer.

In regards to envelope limitation the crux of the argument is highlighted in red.

The flight envelope protection system reduces the possibility of inadvertently
exceeding the airplane's flight envelope. The flight envelope protection system
provides crew awareness of envelope margins through tactile, aural, and visual cues. The protection functions do not reduce pilot control authority.

With regards to the wings snapping off in an aggressive GPWS avoidance manuever, that my be the case with an Airbus ( we've seen the paper game Airbus will play with the A380 to get it certified after failing to make 1.5 ultimate load ), but rest assured a Boeing's wings will not snap off if you go slightly over 3.75Gs. They may be deformed a little, but the airplane will safely make it back to a landing. Remember the CAL 747 that did a one turn spin off of SFO ? Slight bending of the structure, but not much damage beyond that.

I don't hate Airbus, I hate their design philosophy. Boeing design philosophy keeps the pilot in the loop. Here is another example:

Control in the pitch axis is accomplished through a “maneuver
demand” control law modified to include conventional speed stability. With the “maneuver demand” control law, the pilot’s column inputs specify a blend of pitch rate and “g” force that the PFCs accomplish by moving the elevator and stabilizer. The major advantage of using a maneuver demand control law is that conventional pitch handling characteristics, which increase pilot workload, can be minimized.
This makes the airplane easier to fly and provides a smoother ride for passengers.

To minimize the nuisance conventional characteristics, the control law generates an elevator command which duplicates the normal pilot response in a conventional airplane. For thrust changes and turbulence, the PFCs react to the initial airplane pitch changes and automatically counter with elevator commands so the pitch attitude and flight path remain relatively constant. For flap and speedbrake configuration changes, the PFCs use the flap position and speedbrake lever position to determine the elevator command required to minimize the airplane response. The elevator command smoothly changes the airplane pitch attitude so the flight path remains constant. For banked turns the control law uses airplane bank angle to determine the elevator command required to minimize the airplane pitch-down due to the bank angle.

While these conventional handling characteristics are countered by the maneuver demand control law, the conventional characteristic of “speed stability” has been retained. The “speed stability” aspect of the pitch control law modifies the maneuver demand effect by changing the airplane pitch attitude (and therefore flight path) in response to deviations in airspeed from the trimmed airspeed. This feature duplicates conventional airplane speed stability by providing the pilot with column force cues associated with maintaining the original flight path. As on a conventional airplane, trimming is required to reduce the column forces.

Typhoonpilot

 

A340-500s in operation = 21
A340-600s in operation = 56

Boeing 777s in operation = over 500, with firm orders up to 827 total.

Look on your face = Priceless



Typhoonpilot