164 replies to this topic

[dolbinau]

This thread..GUH.

Quote

easier to fly and you can learn how to use the FMC and everything else by just one look at the manual, while airbus is wayyy more different!

Because:

You've flown both Airbus and Boeing aircraft? Also, 'different' is not synonymous with being harder. You're used to the one you've learnt (or apparently learnt) first.

Quote

Airbus is something prehistoric from the dinosaur age (at least thats what it looks like to me)

It's funny the mass contradictions, some people claiming they are so 'computerised' others outdated? ? The A320 for example was somewhat revolutionary (Taken from wikipedia):

*The first fully digital fly-by-wire flight control system in a civil airliner.

*Fully glass cockpit rather than the hybrid versions found in aircraft such as the A310, Boeing 757 and Boeing 767

* The first narrowbody airliner with a significant amount of the structure made from composites.

Quote

And learning the Boeing systems takes much less time than learning the airbus system which is just one big computer that does everything for you.. and frankly it's boring.

So the Airbus Systems which you claim does everything for you is both more complicated and more boring? ?!!

Quote

Airbuses feel flimsy for some absurd reason!

So you've felt them ? .

---

Honestly, I'd like some people to start giving examples of how Airbus cockpits are so 'automated' and how FBW is a 'bad' thing (Which will be a feature of all boeing airliners to come)

Edited by dolbinau, 21 September 2007 - 05:21 PM.

[Cell]

They do make me laugh these B vs AB threads

I Personally I like ALL aircraft and can appreciate them for what they are, aircraft. OK you can go do the political route and the demographic route of the argument but, we should just rejoice that we live in an age where several hundred tons of metal can fly half way round the world, with several hundred people on board. This alone we should respect the designers of ANY company.

Come on guys, REJOICE

[jetblast787]

Lateral-G, on Sep 21 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

If it ain't BOEING....I ain't going.

-G-

I don't mind flying on them, but piloting a airbus is a big no-no

SK-1323, on Sep 21 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

No doubt in my mind there: Boeing all the way

Because the Boeing models is actually beautiful to look at while the airbus models looks like they were designed and developed by a caveman from the relevant era. Boeing also have much more powerful engines than any airbus (which generally is severly underpowered) and the Boeing cockpits looks so much more nicer and warmer. Airbus is something prehistoric from the dinosaur age (at least thats what it looks like to me)

And learning the Boeing systems takes much less time than learning the airbus system which is just one big computer that does everything for you.. and frankly it's boring.

+1x 1.5x10234

aviatordom, on Sep 21 2007, 09:30 PM, said:

Boeing all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Airbuses feel flimsy for some absurd reason!

Airbus cockpits seem far too complicated and have a very poor layout. And they are full of Fly-By-Wire and other computers that do all the flying for you. Its far too automated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boeing has no nonsense and is more pilot-freindly.

I still like Airbuses though.

And i think the A380 is pretty much buggered up. The 787 will be the real success. Look at the amount of problems the A380 had. If you don't rush the 787 and think things through properly then you are on the road to success.

+1 too!

I love boey cause of the more hands on approach to flying, while airbus about the computer stuff you said above!

Edited by Iranair747, 21 September 2007 - 05:53 PM.

[dolbinau]

Quote

I love boey cause of the more hands on approach to flying, while airbus about the computer stuff you said above!

So please in detail explain why you can't fly an Airbus aircraft 'hands on' compared to say a 777? .

Edited by dolbinau, 21 September 2007 - 06:02 PM.

[Flying_Pie]

plainly and simply: neither is truely better

I like boeing more because 1. I like the models more and I prefer the systems over airbus, 2. I love american engineering

but to say airbus sucks is just stupid, I like airbus, they're an awesome manufacturer...I just prefer boeing


have to love some of your reasons for/against boeing/airbus though....the stupidity these threads cause is unbearable

[SK-1323]

dolbinau, on Sep 21 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

Quote

Airbus is something prehistoric from the dinosaur age (at least thats what it looks like to me)

It's funny the mass contradictions, some people claiming they are so 'computerised' others outdated? ? The A320 for example was somewhat revolutionary (Taken from wikipedia):

*The first fully digital fly-by-wire flight control system in a civil airliner.

*Fully glass cockpit rather than the hybrid versions found in aircraft such as the A310, Boeing 757 and Boeing 767

* The first narrowbody airliner with a significant amount of the structure made from composites.

Quote

And learning the Boeing systems takes much less time than learning the airbus system which is just one big computer that does everything for you.. and frankly it's boring.

So the Airbus Systems which you claim does everything for you is both more complicated and more boring? ?!!

---

Honestly, I'd like some people to start giving examples of how Airbus cockpits are so 'automated' and how FBW is a 'bad' thing (Which will be a feature of all boeing airliners to come)

When did i ever say the airbus systems were prehistoric? I said the aircraft MODELS LOOKS prehistoric to ME and thats Y OPINION! that's my perception when i see an airbus.. it looks horrible in my opinion, it's simply the most ugliest aircraft i can see.

And yes, i am used to being able to operate the aircraft and knowing what the aircraft is doing at any time and being able to decide what's going to be done. I don't like computers that does everything automatically, It's a false security feeling, at least for me.

Also i have nothing against FBW in general, just the airbus systems being too automated.

Please take your time to read my posts thoroughly before quoting me

As a side note i am Norwegian, not American and yes, i don't like airbus as you may have noticed.

Edited by SK-1323, 21 September 2007 - 06:18 PM.

[dolbinau]

I must have misinterpreted you then , but seriously, can you give examples of how the computers 'do everything' automatically? I just don't get it, computers are the way of the future in both Boeing/Airbus aircraft.

I don't see how you can 'bypass' the use of computers in either Airbus or Boeing aircraft, unless you want to go back in time .

[SK-1323]

Salem., on Sep 21 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

SK-1323, on Sep 21 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

No doubt in my mind there: Boeing all the way

Because the Boeing models is actually beautiful to look at while the airbus models looks like they were designed and developed by a caveman from the relevant era. Boeing also have much more powerful engines than any airbus (which generally is severly underpowered) and the Boeing cockpits looks so much more nicer and warmer. Airbus is something prehistoric from the dinosaur age (at least thats what it looks like to me)

And learning the Boeing systems takes much less time than learning the airbus system which is just one big computer that does everything for you.. and frankly it's boring.

Can you give examples of the "caveman modeled" airbus airplanes? and you are saying that Boeing aircrafts have much more powerful engines than any airbus, based on what? BS.
Airbus cockpits are something prehistoric from the dinosaur age? sure you do know alot about aircraft systems.

I really think all of the airbus models looks like they were drawn in hieroglyphs in the stone age, especially the A-318 to the A-321, but all the other models are ugly too, yes MY opinion, you probably have another opinion on that.

I say that the Boeing aircraft have more powerful engines than a competing airbus, which is very true. Look at the A340-200 and 300 model. It uses the same engine as a 737 NG, only they have a slightly higher thrust rating and there are 4 of them. Even the pilots on those aircraft is saying it is severly underpowered. You call that BS? by all means.. whatever floats your boat, but i'd rather fly on a B777 any day

And about the aircraft prehistoric thing. I Said they LOOK prehistoric to me, not that they actually IS prehistoric and has absolutely nothing to do with the systems.

Dolbinau: sure computers is the future, but i don'¨t like the idea that a computer does ABSOLUTELY everything while the crew sits there looking and wondering what's going on at the very second.

As a horror example, let me point you to this video:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

Sure the problems have been fixed now, but how do we know this won't happen again? a computer CAN fail you know. This would NEVER happen in any Boeing aircraft.

Edited by SK-1323, 21 September 2007 - 06:37 PM.

[Jebus]

Oh yay, another airbus versus boeing topic.
jesus.

[SK-1323]

Evolt, on Sep 21 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

Oh yay, another airbus versus boeing topic.
jesus.

What's wrong in discussing airbus and boeing? If you don't want to participate you don't have to post you know.. it's better to ignore the topic then

But i agree that this is the wrong forum for the little debate we're having here.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

A computer can fail, but can 4 at the same time? The probability is very unlikely.

[SK-1323]

just take a look at the video i posted in my earlier post and you'll see it. It is possible, but of course unlikely as you say

[dolbinau]

Quote

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=bzD4tIvPHwE

Sure the problems have been fixed now, but how do we know this won't happen again? a computer CAN fail you know. This would NEVER happen in any Boeing aircraft

It wasn't 'fully computer automated' at all though, and the pilots were apparently sentenced to manslaughter which would imply they had a significant contribution to the crash.

Quote

. Failure of the Captain to maintain sufficient altitude and airspeed for recovery after a low approach to a runway with obstacles near the departure end.

http://www.airdisast...line=Air France


In any case computer malfunctions which cause fatal accidents (have any happened besides 'apparently' this one?) could be synonymous with mechanical failures IMO in which case its not like both aircraft haven't gone down as the result of this..

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

Just another note, before I leave this thread (don't want to get into another A vs. B thing here).

Airbus isn't fully automated. The pilot still flys it manually like a Boeing, except he moves the sidestick to the position he wants and centers it, the FBW then reads the input and makes the appropriate changes. The only time a pilot is not in control is when he does something that is dangerous. For example, stalling. If the aircraft is about the stall, and the pilot is still pulling back, the FBW will take over and correct the situation by itself and then give control back to the pilot. The flying is still like a Boeing, it's still hands-on. The pilot knows what's going on at all times, and is also in control at all times in normal flight. Also, for those of you bashing FBW, Boeing has re-defined the FBW laws on the 787, they're going to be more like the Airbus ones as opposed to the ones on 777s. Just a little FYI there.

So, really, the FBW protects the people onboard.

Edited by Flightsimulatorpilot, 21 September 2007 - 07:06 PM.

[SK-1323]

After reading about this on Wikipedia, the captain attempted to increase power, but the engines didn't respond, there was also an altimiter problem on the aircraft. A little quote from wikipedia here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captain Asseline asserted the altimeter read 100 feet (30 m) despite video evidence that the plane was as low as 30 feet (10 m). He also reported that the engines didn't respond to his throttle input as he attempted to increase power. The month prior to the accident, Airbus posted two Operational Engineering Bulletins indicating anomalous behavior noted in the A320 aircraft. These bulletins were received by Air France but not sent out to pilots until after the accident:

OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude

This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.



OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check

This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.

These malfunctions could have caused both the lack of power when the throttle was increased, and the inability of the crew to recognize the sharp sink rate as the plane passed 100 feet into the trees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can read more here if you want: http://en.wikipedia....ance_Flight_296

[dolbinau]

So could not both be attributed to mechanical malfunctions? I'm sure there are some problems associated with Boeing aircraft that don't affect Airbus' either.

Maybe

Quote

Malfunction of power control units (PCUs) due to thermal shock

Experienced:

http://en.wikipedia....ines_Flight_585

http://en.wikipedia....SAir_Flight_427

http://en.wikipedia....s_and_incidents

It's slightly drifting off topic though, You originally claimed the computers in an Airbus cockpit "Do everything automatically", They do reduce pilot workload (as the same in modern Boeing cockpits) but you can still fly the aircraft 'normally'.

Quote

I say that the Boeing aircraft have more powerful engines than a competing airbus, which is very true. Look at the A340-200 and 300 model. It uses the same engine as a 737 NG, only they have a slightly higher thrust rating and there are 4 of them. Even the pilots on those aircraft is saying it is severly underpowered.

The 777 is indeed more powerful, I'm not sure how to calculate Thrust/Weight ratios correctly

but 184000/656,000 lb = 0.28 (777-200ER)

1248,000/609,600 = 0.2 (A340-300)

Does the difference make the A340 severely underpowered though? I'm not sure.

[SK-1323]

Well, maybe not severly, but certainly underpowered in my opinion Pilots on A342/343 aircraft have been known to have stated that the respective aircraft is underpowered.

[Flightsimulatorpilot]

The A340-200/300s are underpowered, and they climb very slowly. But, all other models are not, don't know where you got that from.

Quote

I'm sure there are some problems associated with Boeing aircraft that don't affect Airbus' either.

Like, for example, loose parts that could cause a fire (on delivered models, not prototypes).

Quote

And i think the A380 is pretty much buggered up. The 787 will be the real success. Look at the amount of problems the A380 had. If you don't rush the 787 and think things through properly then you are on the road to success.

Too bad the 787 is facing problems and possible delays...

Edited by Flightsimulatorpilot, 21 September 2007 - 07:39 PM.

[Manny]

aviatordom, on Sep 21 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

Boeing all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And i think the A380 is pretty much buggered up. The 787 will be the real success. Look at the amount of problems the A380 had. If you don't rush the 787 and think things through properly then you are on the road to success.

first of all the a380 is not meant to be compared with the 787, its with the 747-8. The 787 will be competing with the a350. Anyways i like the 744 of boeing so much. But the a320 is a beauty and for that guy who said airbus planes cant land well, u need a brain transplant. I don't get it some of u blame that airbus FBW is boring and too automated but look at boeing, they are gonna implement this on their new airliners and its a modern era things are changing. And for that guy who said that he doesnt like airbus at all what happens if u buy a flight and its on an airbus would u miss your flight just because is an airbus? come on get real. I prefer from time to time automated planes but boeing is good too.

Edited by Mr. Perfect., 21 September 2007 - 07:44 PM.

[SK-1323]

Flightsimulatorpilot, on Sep 21 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

The A340-200/300s are underpowered, and they climb very slowly. But, all other models are not, don't know where you got that from.

Quote

I'm sure there are some problems associated with Boeing aircraft that don't affect Airbus' either.

Like, for example, loose parts that could cause a fire (on delivered models, not prototypes).

I find that very strange that it happened only with the 737 in okinawa and not on any other 737 NG's at all they never found the same problems on other NG's so i don't know how you can say that the NG's have "loose parts that could cause a fire" because of one isolated incident is beyond me

Like we discussed earlier. The Boeing aircraft is usually more powerful than their Airbus counterparts, please show prove me wrong if you don't agree

Also the rest of the models are my personal opinion that tmost models of the airbus is underpowered, but the A342/343 is the prime example, also one of the minor reasons why i don't like airbus. They sacrifice power for economics and safety.

EDIT: ok, correction: they did find several other aircraft with the same problem, but that have been taken care of now and new maintenance procedures have been made, surely it was a serious problem.

Edited by SK-1323, 21 September 2007 - 07:51 PM.