Airbus vs. Boeing

[Arcevia]

Bombardier.

'Nuff said.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Indeed.

Go Tupolev!

They built some good planes...very good planes in fact.

[Democratic Koyro]

Airbus. How can you not like this?

(Image)

The fact its operated by France, for one.

[The Corparation]

Boeing because Phantom Works. Also my uncle works there.

[SquareDisc City]

That would depend. Which one generally makes less cramped planes?

That's the airlines, not the manufacturers.

This, basically. There's frankly very little between Airbus and Boeing as far as everyday travellers are concerned. What matters is the difference between British Airways and Ryanair, or even between Easyjet and Ryanair.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Ever since the late 1990's Airbus and Boeing have pretty much held a duopoly on the aircraft manufacturing industry.

Only when it comes to medium-to-long-range commercial jet airliners in the Western world.

In market segments such as, for instance, short-range and low-capacity commercial airliners such as turboprops and regional jets, they are virtual nonentities: in the West, for instance, those markets are dominated by players like Canadiar, Beechcraft, De Havilland, and Embraer.

And that's to say nothing of general aviation.

[Screensaver]

Airbus. How can you not like this?

(Image)

The problem is that planes that size are usually not too practical.

[Thafoo]

Bombardier.

'Nuff said.

I like their planes, but they aren't at all comfortable to fly in...

[Screensaver]

Ever since the late 1990's Airbus and Boeing have pretty much held a duopoly on the aircraft manufacturing industry.

Only when it comes to medium-to-long-range commercial jet airliners in the Western world.

In market segments such as, for instance, short-range and low-capacity commercial airliners such as turboprops and regional jets, they are virtual nonentities: in the West, for instance, those markets are dominated by players like Canadiar, Beechcraft, De Havilland, and Embraer.

And that's to say nothing of general aviation.

I am talking about large scale airplanes.

[Hippostania]

Boeing.

I don't like the babysitter mentality that the Airbus incorporates into their planes. Airbus's computers don't allow pilots to perform certain maneuvers, and they generally rely way too much on computers. When a computer malfunctions, the plane is fucked as the system doesn't let pilots to perform maneuvers that could save the plane.

Boeing on the other hand doesn't install limiting computer software into their planes like that; the pilots can increase and decrease thrust and maneuver the plane however they like. It's vital that the pilots are actually piloting the plane, not some computers.

[Divair]

Airbus. How can you not like this?

(Image)

The problem is that planes that size are usually not too practical.

The A380 is completely practical. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be 262 orders for it.

[Zavea]

i seem to distinctly recall boeing having this online idea suggestion thing and people only ever used it to propose clever ways to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics, nuclear-armed spaceships and those EVA mechs from neon genesis evangelion.

so that's about the limit of my knowledge concerning boeing

and airbus by extension

[Napkiraly]

Bombardier.

[Ovisterra]

I've flown both on simulators and to be honest, there's not much of a difference. If I had to pick one to actually pilot, I'd choose an Airbus because they more often have sticks rather than yokes, and I have way more hours logged using sticks. If I were a passenger, I wouldn't really care.

[DogDoo 7]

well, from a passenger standpoint the A-320 is 15cm wider than a B737 (and in the US, odds are you're going to be on one of these types). You can really feel the extra cabin width, especially at the window seat and when you have to squeeze past the drink cart to get to the lav.

as a pilot, well AF447 probably wouldn't have happened with a Boeing.

Oh yeah, and 2-4-2 seating (on the A330/340/380 upper deck) is much better than 3-3-3 on the B777 (and some asshole operators are even switching to 3-4-3 on the 777).

[Ovisterra]

as a pilot, well AF447 probably wouldn't have happened with a Boeing.

Possibly yes, but that doesn't mean that the control systems on Airbuses are inherently worse.

[DogDoo 7]

as a pilot, well AF447 probably wouldn't have happened with a Boeing.

Possibly yes, but that doesn't mean that the control systems on Airbuses are inherently worse.

No, they just require a different type of pilot. It's more "manager" or "conductor" than seat-of-the-pants when the shit hits the fan.

[Ovisterra]

Possibly yes, but that doesn't mean that the control systems on Airbuses are inherently worse.

No, they just require a different type of pilot. It's more "manager" or "conductor" than seat-of-the-pants when the shit hits the fan.

How so?

[Risottia]

Go Tupolev!

They built some good planes...very good planes in fact.

Yup, I flew a couple of times on a Tu-134A and had quite a smooth ride.

Although I'd trust Tupolev more for its military sector rather than for its civilian one.

[DogDoo 7]

No, they just require a different type of pilot. It's more "manager" or "conductor" than seat-of-the-pants when the shit hits the fan.

How so?

On A, it's "I want to go to <z>" and the plane gives you an attitude. On B, it's "give me <x> degrees of pitch/roll."

Or in other words, on a Boeing (at least the older models), you are the flight computer, just like in a Cessna. On an Airbus, you provide the computer with inputs (throttle and stick position) and the computer calculates the current state and the desired state and picks an orientation and energy setting to get you there.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Boeing.

I don't like the babysitter mentality that the Airbus incorporates into their planes. Airbus's computers don't allow pilots to perform certain maneuvers, and they generally rely way too much on computers. When a computer malfunctions, the plane is fucked as the system doesn't let pilots to perform maneuvers that could save the plane.

Boeing on the other hand doesn't install limiting computer software into their planes like that; the pilots can increase and decrease thrust and maneuver the plane however they like. It's vital that the pilots are actually piloting the plane, not some computers.

Source?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

They built some good planes...very good planes in fact.

Yup, I flew a couple of times on a Tu-134A and had quite a smooth ride.

Although I'd trust Tupolev more for its military sector rather than for its civilian one.

Well I think its more who is flying and if they're pissed up rather than the planes themselves...

[Hippostania]

Boeing.

I don't like the babysitter mentality that the Airbus incorporates into their planes. Airbus's computers don't allow pilots to perform certain maneuvers, and they generally rely way too much on computers. When a computer malfunctions, the plane is fucked as the system doesn't let pilots to perform maneuvers that could save the plane.

Boeing on the other hand doesn't install limiting computer software into their planes like that; the pilots can increase and decrease thrust and maneuver the plane however they like. It's vital that the pilots are actually piloting the plane, not some computers.

Source?

Here's some info.

You can't override Airbus's flight envelope protection system to enter direct law (where you have full control of the aircraft) unless three the flight computer experiences three malfunctions, both engines flame out or the captain's primary flight computer becomes inoperable. With Boeings, however, it is possible to manually disable the flight envelope protection system. One such case where the lack of FEPS possibly saved hundreds of lives was FedEx flight 705, when pilots managed to avert a hijacking by violently maneuvering the plane around which wouldn't have been possible if the plane had been an Airbus.

[FoxTropica]

Source?

Here's some info.

You can't override Airbus's flight envelope protection system to enter direct law (where you have full control of the aircraft) unless three the flight computer experiences three malfunctions, both engines flame out or the captain's primary flight computer becomes inoperable. With Boeings, however, it is possible to manually disable the flight envelope protection system. One such case where the lack of FEPS possibly saved hundreds of lives was FedEx flight 705, when pilots managed to avert a hijacking by violently maneuvering the plane around which wouldn't have been possible if the plane had been an Airbus.

Could one pull the circuit breakers on all 3 computers to enter manual mode?

Personally, I'm partial to McDonnell Douglas and a variety of other manufacturers, Since I'm generally more of an older jet person. I prefer Boeing to Airbus slightly, but it's mostly down to Looks.

[Hippostania]

Could one pull the circuit breakers on all 3 computers to enter manual mode?

Personally, I'm partial to McDonnell Douglas and a variety of other manufacturers, Since I'm generally more of an older jet person. I prefer Boeing to Airbus slightly, but it's mostly down to Looks.

I'm not sure about that, but having to break your flight computer just to fly the plane manually seems like a very, very bad idea.