Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Airbus or Boeing
- Thread starter MVSW
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
typhoonpilot
Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,381
This is a question that can really only be answered by someone who has flown both types, which wouldn't be me.
From a philosophical standpoint I tend to prefer Boeing. Boeing have always respected in their designs the end user, in this case the pilot. In their view it is the pilot who should decide whether the aircraft is required to be operated outside the envelope rather than have that decision already made for them by a computer. Boeing builds soft protections; aural, visual, and tactile to warn a pilot he is about to exceed the flight envelope but they do not stop him from exceeding the envelope if he so wishes. Boeing have also kept the pilot " in the loop " by providing control feedback in the form of feel in the yoke in response to control movement and movement of the thrust levers in response to power changes.
The Airbus pilots will, of course, defend their steed. I like to tell the story of a particular windy day in Pittsburgh a few years back. We had to delay in Dayton due to guss exceeding 80 knots. When the winds died down a bit we made our way over to PIT. On the approach the wind was almost straight down the runway in excess of 40 knots with gusts to 56. It was a little bumpy but not too bad. We landed and on the taxi-in watched two Airbii doing go-arounds. " Odd, I though to myself ", on arriving at the terminal I noticed that there were no Airbus to be seen, only us Boeings and McDonnell Douglas products.
TP
From a philosophical standpoint I tend to prefer Boeing. Boeing have always respected in their designs the end user, in this case the pilot. In their view it is the pilot who should decide whether the aircraft is required to be operated outside the envelope rather than have that decision already made for them by a computer. Boeing builds soft protections; aural, visual, and tactile to warn a pilot he is about to exceed the flight envelope but they do not stop him from exceeding the envelope if he so wishes. Boeing have also kept the pilot " in the loop " by providing control feedback in the form of feel in the yoke in response to control movement and movement of the thrust levers in response to power changes.
The Airbus pilots will, of course, defend their steed. I like to tell the story of a particular windy day in Pittsburgh a few years back. We had to delay in Dayton due to guss exceeding 80 knots. When the winds died down a bit we made our way over to PIT. On the approach the wind was almost straight down the runway in excess of 40 knots with gusts to 56. It was a little bumpy but not too bad. We landed and on the taxi-in watched two Airbii doing go-arounds. " Odd, I though to myself ", on arriving at the terminal I noticed that there were no Airbus to be seen, only us Boeings and McDonnell Douglas products.
TP
HAL
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 733
There was a thread about a 17 year old A320 being parted out, and in that I had a post describing the differences between the types:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=56248&page=1&pp=15
What I said was:
As an America West Airbus pilot, and also having flown Boeing & Douglas planes, I think I can reliably speak up on this.
The oldest of AWA's Airbus planes are going away; they're being replaced as new ones arrive. The planes all have IAE engines, but the old ones are -A1 powered. The newer ones are all -A5 powered and have much better performance, especially on hot days in Phoenix. As much as I appreciate the high technology in the Airbus (and find it enjoyable to fly) I think that they have chronic maintenance problems sooner than Boeing or Douglas planes have. You can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook. New, they're both clean. Old, they're both cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them. I think it's a shame, but it seems to me that the Airbus does have some problems lasting as long as other planes. Do they still fly? Yes. Do they do so reliably? Yes, for the most part. Are they cheaper to buy than Boeings? (a-ha!). Yes.
This absolutely isn't designed to be a Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Douglas thread. I've flown them all, and enjoyed them all. The Douglas was stone simple, overbuilt, and will probably last until I'm well into retirement. The Airbus is a great example of high technology - an engineers plane, built as inexpensively as possible (good for the airlines). The Boeing is somewhere in-between; well engineered with the pilots first in mind, but sturdy enough to take a lot of abuse. They're all good. They're all different.
Hope this helps.
HAL
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=56248&page=1&pp=15
What I said was:
As an America West Airbus pilot, and also having flown Boeing & Douglas planes, I think I can reliably speak up on this.
The oldest of AWA's Airbus planes are going away; they're being replaced as new ones arrive. The planes all have IAE engines, but the old ones are -A1 powered. The newer ones are all -A5 powered and have much better performance, especially on hot days in Phoenix. As much as I appreciate the high technology in the Airbus (and find it enjoyable to fly) I think that they have chronic maintenance problems sooner than Boeing or Douglas planes have. You can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook. New, they're both clean. Old, they're both cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them. I think it's a shame, but it seems to me that the Airbus does have some problems lasting as long as other planes. Do they still fly? Yes. Do they do so reliably? Yes, for the most part. Are they cheaper to buy than Boeings? (a-ha!). Yes.
This absolutely isn't designed to be a Boeing vs. Airbus vs. Douglas thread. I've flown them all, and enjoyed them all. The Douglas was stone simple, overbuilt, and will probably last until I'm well into retirement. The Airbus is a great example of high technology - an engineers plane, built as inexpensively as possible (good for the airlines). The Boeing is somewhere in-between; well engineered with the pilots first in mind, but sturdy enough to take a lot of abuse. They're all good. They're all different.
Hope this helps.
HAL
"....but the old ones are -A1 powered. The newer ones are -A5 powered and have much better performance, especially on hot days in Phoenix...."
Of course it is true that the '-A5 powered' newer Airbuses have much better performance...why? because they are on A319s which of course are lighter than the A320; the -A1 engines are on A320s (newer A320s have -A3 engines).
"....you can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook....cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them."
I asked a Northwest pilot about the panel on their aircraft, and he said the only obvious way to tell if you were flying an older A320 was "it has the old seats" (which are manual, not electric). Otherwise, the panels still all look the same. NWA has its original A320s from 1989, and they are all still flying. As to MEL stickers, that is a function of the maintenance department, if they fix the problem, there will be no MEL sticker...
"....Boeing...providing feedback...movement of the thrust levers in response to power changes."
The Northwest pilot flew both the 757 and A320 and said yes, it is nice to have the thrust levers move with power changes, but once you get used to checking the N1 gauges on the A320, it is no big deal. He also said, however, the biggest benefit to having autothrust is during single engine situations. The Airbus remains completely useful, but in the Boeing, you need to disconnect the autothrust and manually control it....basically giving you extra work during an emergency.
Of course it is true that the '-A5 powered' newer Airbuses have much better performance...why? because they are on A319s which of course are lighter than the A320; the -A1 engines are on A320s (newer A320s have -A3 engines).
"....you can easily tell the age of the plane just by looking at the panel and the maintenance logbook....cracked with patches and MEL stickers on them."
I asked a Northwest pilot about the panel on their aircraft, and he said the only obvious way to tell if you were flying an older A320 was "it has the old seats" (which are manual, not electric). Otherwise, the panels still all look the same. NWA has its original A320s from 1989, and they are all still flying. As to MEL stickers, that is a function of the maintenance department, if they fix the problem, there will be no MEL sticker...
"....Boeing...providing feedback...movement of the thrust levers in response to power changes."
The Northwest pilot flew both the 757 and A320 and said yes, it is nice to have the thrust levers move with power changes, but once you get used to checking the N1 gauges on the A320, it is no big deal. He also said, however, the biggest benefit to having autothrust is during single engine situations. The Airbus remains completely useful, but in the Boeing, you need to disconnect the autothrust and manually control it....basically giving you extra work during an emergency.
typhoonpilot
Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,381
Not true with the 777. The Autothrottle keeps working fine during single-engine operation. Further, the movement of the thrust levers isn't just " nice ", it is critical to situational awareness. I would bet a lot of money that had the A-320 that crashed doing the low pass had thrust levers that moved the crash would not have happened. The crew would have been aware that the thrust was not responding in a more timely manner and would have reacted those precious few seconds sooner.
TP
TWA Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,666
I think there's some confusion about engines. Our A319's and non-old A320's both have IAE A5 engine variants. Northwest flies the CFM engine so I don't know about those. The A319 is the better performer as you wrote.PulluP said:
Oh, and landing a Bus in gusty/crosswinds is indeed an unecessary chore.
boeingdriver213
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Posts
- 208
I've flown both and prefer the Bus. Contrary to popular belief you can hand fly it around like any other plane. Many dislike the many flight protections it provides thinking it makes them feel like less of a pilot or it not being a pilots airplane. Truth is if you operate it in it's normal flight envelope these protections don't come into play.
As far as the cockpit is concerned, it is the best ergonomically designed cockpit I've ever been in. It's roomy and comfortable. 8 hours in the seat of the bus feels the same as doing only 4 or 5 in the 73. 8 hours in the 73 and I'm worn out. Not in the Bus. I also love the tray table and having my bags right behind me in the cockpit. Had to throw my bags in the overhead on the 73.
You may have also heard about the computers on the Bus doing many uncommanded things. I haven't seen that. I've never seen it do anything I haven't told it to do intentionally or unintentionally. If it's doing something you don't want it to do it's usually because you told it to.
Like I said I prefer the Bus but the 73 is a very good plane also. The best one is the one you can get a good secure job in. I'd fly a C-172 if it paid very well and was secure. Anyway, hope that helps.
D-Bo
As far as the cockpit is concerned, it is the best ergonomically designed cockpit I've ever been in. It's roomy and comfortable. 8 hours in the seat of the bus feels the same as doing only 4 or 5 in the 73. 8 hours in the 73 and I'm worn out. Not in the Bus. I also love the tray table and having my bags right behind me in the cockpit. Had to throw my bags in the overhead on the 73.
You may have also heard about the computers on the Bus doing many uncommanded things. I haven't seen that. I've never seen it do anything I haven't told it to do intentionally or unintentionally. If it's doing something you don't want it to do it's usually because you told it to.
Like I said I prefer the Bus but the 73 is a very good plane also. The best one is the one you can get a good secure job in. I'd fly a C-172 if it paid very well and was secure. Anyway, hope that helps.
D-Bo
Saabslime
Dysfunctional family
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 509
Chronic Jetlag
I'm great at sleep'n in
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Posts
- 202
I've flown the Bus, Boeing and douglas and I prefer Douglas, Boeing then the Bus. There is simply not enough tactile feed back in the Bus to keep pilots in the loop; plus it just feels too "Mickey Mouse" like a Barbie Jet. The gear handle looks and feels like a lolly pop sticking out of the panel, the reverse thrust levers feel like two small plastic tabs you pull to pop open a can of soda. The whole plane just feels counter intuitive, built by engineers without much input from pilots. There's not even an over head reading light. Let's not mention the forward lav just aft of the cockpit. Anyone who's flown the Bus knows about the ventilation design of the lav; you're reminded each time after someone pinches a loaf...pew, you smell it in the cockpit. The brakes overheat 90% of the time after the roll out. Everytime we put on the brake fans I feel like I'm turning on a pair of blow dryers to cool Barbie's wheels. The best design feature on the Bus in my personal opinion are the foot rests that drop down half way.
I'm curious as to how I would feel if I flew the Bus first before Boeing or Douglas.
I'm curious as to how I would feel if I flew the Bus first before Boeing or Douglas.
MVSW said:
Having flown 320, 737 and MD80
My opinions are.....
Quality of construction.............Boeing
Simplicity............................Boeing
Hand Flying .........................Douglas (Big a/c feel and easy to be smooth)
Comfort..............................Airbus
Cockpit...............................Airbus
Automation..........................Airbus
Easiest to Land......................Boeing (By far)
Most Quiet...........................Douglas (By far)
Coolest lookin.......................Boeing (By far)
Bottom Line: out of the three a/c i have flown....for a short hop i would take a 737 all day long! for any other type of flying it would have to be the airbus due to the comfortable and ergonomically efficient flight deck. a transcon flight in a bus is a non event.
olympus593
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Posts
- 568
Chronic Jetlag said:
The brakes on the 73 would to......if it could tell you what your brake temp is. Instead of it having the ability to show you the brake temp the 73 has those brake cooling tables in the flight manual. I'd bet those brake temps on the 73 are over 300 C more than you think.
D-Bo
Bus s*cks, automation, comfort wise (compared to 757) and all those little operational quirks. Just because it hasn't done anything uncommanded to you just means it hasn't done it yet. Pull and reset cb's is a daily operation. Had a brake temp guage in the 80 and I think I saw it over 300 deg. once. Again an every day occurence on the bus. Latest buffoonery: R and L aileron faults on liftoff resulting in flight controls reverting to alternate law. 10 MD80's or 737's could fly the schedule it takes 15 busses to fly.
Chronic Jetlag
I'm great at sleep'n in
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Posts
- 202
yaks said:
That's forked up. Never heard of that one happening. I know I may have sounded like a Bus salesman in this thread but in that situation you can look at it like this. In alternate law you still had more protections than you did in the 80 or the 73. Again, the protections shouldn't come into play as long as the airplane is operated in it's flight envelope but even with the failure you got you were still fine in alternate law.
I admit I haven't been on the Bus long enough to get a lot of the computer glitches you have seen. Maybe my opinion will change a year from now.
D-Bo
typhoonpilot
Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,381
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
Pugh said:
No doubt. I never said I didn't like the 73. I flew it for a few years and loved it. I just think that the Bus has advantages over the 73. Just pointing those out. The 73 has some advantages over the Bus but there are more than enough people willing to tell that side of it. Just offering some balance. My last reply was
referring to the performance numbers of the NG 737s v the Airbus.
D-Bo
capt. megadeth
Metal Momma!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 2,898
Old School 737 said:
Not quite. Your analogy isn't apples to apples. The 321 is just a stretched 320. The 737NG is more than just a larger 737-300. It was designed from scratch with a new wing having it's mission to be to outperform the 320 family before the first piece was ever assembled. All Airbus did was add a plug to a 320 for the 321. It's just like the 737-400 was a poorer performer than the -300. The 737NG was designed to be a competitor to the 320 family. The 321 wasn't designed from scratch wit a purpose of beeing a better performer than the 757. Sure they intended to steal orders away from Boeing but it wasn't conceived from scratch with it's mission being to out do the 757. If they wanted to build an aircraft from scratch to out do the 757 I'm sure they could.
By the way the 757 was my favorite airplane until the 777 was built. I'm a Boeing fan but Busses aren't trash.
D-Bo
Old School 737
NG's now and it is A OK!!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Posts
- 986
Midnight Flyer
Stay Thirsty My Friends
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Posts
- 1,104
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
