Airbus v. Boeing

[busdrvr]

As a current A-320 driver...2500hrs+...there is much people misunderstand about this type. The following is a small glimpse of what any well informed ground school at a major carrier would cover.

1. Like all large type air carrier planes...the A-320 relies on hydraulics to move control surfaces. Total hydraulic failure(A-320 has 3 seperate systems) you are now a lawn dart. Hydraulics is critical...without it...game over.

2. Total electrical failure/loss of all flight computers...control is maintained by a trimable elevator and rudder. Asymetric thrust is also available. Aircraft can be safely landed. Most carriers train for this unlikely event.

3. Control laws can be overriden. Aircraft not in control...pilot can override contol laws. This point is the most often misunderstood by non Airbus people.

4. Autoflight/autothrust/autoguidance can be turned off. The majority of visual approaches are hand flown(like a conventional aircraft) without the use of the autoflight system. It is encouraged at my airline(Cactus) for proficiency to turn off the autothrust conditions permitting. Aircraft flys conventionally.

On a final note...ask most pilots that have flown various types...Boeing, MDs, Lockheeds, that then fly the A-320 family what they prefer. I already know the answer. All are good aircraft if flown within their pilots limits but for unecumbered comfort and ease of use the A-320 is a superior airplane. Just ask.

 

[flx757]

ok..since you asked, I'll answer.

I too, have defended the A320 to the many that have been misinformed (don't believe everything you hear, read, or see on your Flight Sim program). Having flown most of the makes listed by busdrvr, and admitting there are things I like about the Airbus, calling it a "superior airplane" is something of a gross overstatement.

Personally I prefer Boeing, and in particular, the 757. The A320 doesn't even come close.

 

[A Squared]

Tri-holer,

I think it's Saint Pauli Girl that says that....

enigma:

>>>>>I still think that I'd be happier trusting my life to skydrol instead of electrons.

Skydrol? That's new, untested technology, can't be safe. mil-5606 is where it's at.

regards

 

[Tri-holer]

A Squared

With great humility, I agree to your submission. Grolsch is only the beer with the cool bottles. The girl is indeed the one who says that. I am willing to submit to the lash for that one - but only if wielded by the girl herself.

 

[surfnole]

According to Homer Simpson, they are actually "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

Its hard to believe the French gave us the French Revolution, the Guillotine and Napolean Bonaparte.

 

[michael707767]

Having never flown an Airbus, I won't comment on the airplanes themselves. I will say this, Airbus has an advantage in coorporate culture. Airbus as a company seems willing to invest in the future, develop new airplanes, provide good customer service, and basically do whatever it takes to get the customer and keep the customer happy. Boeing has not developed a new airplane since the 777, and despite all the talk of the sonic cruiser and a more efficient 250 seater, I'll believe it when I see it. McDonnell Douglas got into the rut of continually updating an old design. At some point, you can't overcome the fact that you are selling a 40 year old design. I think Boeing is heading down that path, and if they are not careful, it will be the death of Boeing Airliners.

 

[enigma]

3. Control laws can be overriden. Aircraft not in control...pilot can override contol laws. This point is the most often misunderstood by non Airbus people.

Does this mean that the computer takes the pilots "suggestion" as long as the aircraft is in an attitude that the computer recognizes as being within the normal realm of flight? But allows the pilot full authority if the airplane is outside of normal flight conditions?

Would this mean that the aircraft would prevent the pilot from say, overstressing the airplane in an attempt to manuever away from a TCAS RA?, but would allow the pilot to potentially overstress the airplane if it was already inverted and nose down at only a couple of thousand feet AGL? (as in the possibility of turbulence induced upset)

Thanks for you input. My carrier keeps talking about buying some busses, I want to learn as much as possible.

regards,
8N

 

[time builder]

I prefer Boeing, they keep it simple. Airbus has lots of bells and whistles, but its just more to keep up with and maintain.

Let me compare, for instance the fuel systems on the 767 and A300, two planes with similar payload and fuel burn.
The 767 has three tanks: right, left and center. Its easily serviced, and very reliable.
The A300 has six tanks right/left inner/outer, center and trim. The outer tanks are topped every time, and thus are more subject to spilling during refueling, thus they have a safety feature: an overflow tank with an annunciatior that should be, but isn't always checked by the fueler and mx. The trim tank is a good idea for drag reduction, but can slow you down on the ground. How so? When you want to bring your CG forward you have to pump it back into the center tank, not the wings (you can't transfer into the wings during flight on any plane). Now you have to have the mechanic do a transfer into the wings while on the ground, and delay the fueler while this is taking place, this happens on just about every flight. Why not just keep it simple like Boeing?

 

[dseagrav]

Flight Control Laws (PH 12.1.5):

Normal Law: for a given amount of sidestick deflection a given amount of G loading (pitch, elevators) or roll rate (roll, ailerons, spoilers) regardless of airspeed. Pitch is always kept in trim automatically. Flare mode gives slight pitch down after 50’ for flare. Bank past 33° requires constant input or will automatically return to 33°. “Hard” protections. Green equals signs “=”

Normal Law protections:
Roll: Roll porportional to stick deflection, 67° max, AP disconnects @ 45°
Yaw: Auto turn coordination & yaw dampening
Pitch: Load factor porportional to stick deflection, max 30° up / 15° down pitch
Low speed: non-overrideable AOA protection / Alpha prot / Alpha floor / Alpha max, Low Energy warning
High speed: non-overrideable pitch up command prevents overspeed
Load: Clean/Flaps 1 = +2.5G/-1.0G Flaps extended = +2.0G/-0.0G

Abnormal Law: This is entered by the aircraft being in an extreme unusual attitude (about double normal limits). When back to normal attitude aircraft is in Alternate Law except does not go to direct law on landing and no pitch protections. Computer reverts to Abnormal when it sees the aircraft in unusual attitude because computer logic says aircraft should not have been allowed by normal law protections into this attitude in the first place, therefore computer sees something is wrong.

Alternate Law: Flight control will revert to alternate law after multiple failures of redundant systems. Autotrim still available. “Soft” protections. No protection in roll, roll goes to direct. Pitch goes to direct for landing when landing gear extended (no “flare mode”). It is possible to be in Alternate law without speed Stability and/or Yaw Dampening. Aircraft can stall. Amber “X’s”

Alternate Law Protections:
Roll: Direct (None)
Yaw: Yaw Dampening
Pitch: Load Factor porportional to stick deflection, no flare mode, direct for landing
Low speed: Low Speed Stability - Overrideable pitch down, Stall Warning
High speed: Overrideable pitch up
Load: Clean/Flaps 1 = +2.5G/-1.0G Flaps extended = +2.0G/-0.0G

Direct Law: Lowest level of flight control law. Proportional movement between sidestick deflection and flight control deflection. No autotrimming. No protections. Overspeed and Stall warnings available. The default mode on the ground in all cases (think about it, if you are on the ground you cannot have a G load or roll rate). This mode is most like a regular airplane (“DC-9 mode”). Amber “USE MAN PITCH TRIM”

(Isn't that impressive? I can copy-paste from the internet!)

 

[bigboeings]

Flying properties, and computer issues aside. I'm very sure you will NEVER see a 40 yr old Airbus flying. if we ever do it will be an anomaly. They are not made to last.

 

[Metro752]

Hey Everybody,
I'm always defending the Airbus among my CFI friends, they all seem to be Anti-Airbus. Yes, we all have seen the Air France A320, the soft-limits, the weird noises (whatever that means), yada yada yada. I thought I'd take it to a higher audience what do you guys/gals think and why. Airbus or Boeing?

My vote is Airbus

WHY do you like Airbus? Because it's European like the car your daddy bought you?

It's FRENCH, when was the last time you saw a NICE FRENCH car?

 

[TrafficInSight]

Having a huge majority of my flight time in fly by wire airplanes, I have never seen the system do anything other than what was advertised. In fact, not only have I never seen it but the flight control system has never failed in the life of the F-16. It is an outstanding system and it may not have any manual reversion but it is quadrupal redundant. Every once in a while an over eager Lt will put a Viper out of control by assaulting the limiters in both pitch and bank at the same time. I doubt this is a problem in the Airbus because they don't do a lot of BFM. I have also never seen or heard of any problems in the black jet either.

The F-16 had a problem with wire chafing in the early days and there is at least one crash of an F-117 related to a clog in the pitot system confusing the computers. I don't claim to be an expert in either subject, however.

And the YF-22 prototype... but I think that probably doesn't count.

anyway, I don't think it would be in such widespread use if it wasn't pretty damn good.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Having never flown an Airbus, I won't comment on the airplanes themselves. I will say this, Airbus has an advantage in coorporate culture. Airbus as a company seems willing to invest in the future, develop new airplanes, provide good customer service, and basically do whatever it takes to get the customer and keep the customer happy. Boeing has not developed a new airplane since the 777, and despite all the talk of the sonic cruiser and a more efficient 250 seater, I'll believe it when I see it. McDonnell Douglas got into the rut of continually updating an old design. At some point, you can't overcome the fact that you are selling a 40 year old design. I think Boeing is heading down that path, and if they are not careful, it will be the death of Boeing Airliners.

Do what it takes to keep the customer happy? You DID see what Singapore Airlines did with their continued delay of their A380 order? Along with that, Quantas and other airlines followed suit. Overall, Airbus took a 15 billion hit with their delays and promises of that A380.........oops, lets not forget that new A350 which is now going to take at least a few year hit in it's attempt to compete with the 787. And there are partners in Airbus that want out as well.

Perhaps Boeing will go through the same pains in it's promised delivery dates of it's new 787....time will tell. I think that the smaller but much more efficient aircraft is the way to go. So many airports out there can handle these types of aircraft....not so for that A380. Even the A340 is going to become an aircraft of the past.... this day and age, who wants a plane that has 4 engines when you could have a 777 with 2 engines that can fly even further than that A340? So much for any cost savings when yah got two more engines out there that are drinking fuel and need to be maintained as well.

Airbus had better do something quickly to keep it's customers happy. It will cost them one way or another at this point.

 

[wrxpilot]

Do what it takes to keep the customer happy? You DID see what Singapore Airlines did with their continued delay of their A380 order? Along with that, Quantas and other airlines followed suit. Overall, Airbus took a 15 billion hit with their delays and promises of that A380.........oops, lets not forget that new A350 which is now going to take at least a few year hit in it's attempt to compete with the 787. And there are partners in Airbus that want out as well.

Uhh... I think that guy wrote his comment 4 yrs ago (the thread is from '02).

 

[Junkflyer]

Airbus are short term aircraft. Boeing are long-term aircraft. How many 20 year old Airbus planes do you see flying? There are a lot of classic 74's still going and even DC-8's still flying. Airbus's crap out after a few years because they are not designed for the long haul. They are disposable airplanes.