BF2S Forums Which large cabin airliner is better?

ghettoperson wrote:

Boeing. Airbus are French. 'Nuff said.




Oh and they had the rather ridiculous idea of making the A380 all over Europe, to keep everyone happy. Rather stupid if you ask me, as it seems like just about the least efficient way possible to build an aircraft. Boeing have the right idea, build about 12 of the fuckers right next to each other in the same plant.

amen

usmarine2007 wrote:

A380 is starting to remind me of the Spruce Goose.

i was just about to post "the a380 is a failure of howard hughes proportions" when i scrolled back and saw that. Who the hell thinks "let's build a passenger plane requiring upwards of half an hour to seat (much more if the airport only has one or two ramps available) and so big that only military bases have long enough runwars for it".

that and their past reputation for, as i mentioned in another thread, the engines landing long before the rest of the plane does, among other issues

and as you mentioned, there's the ergonomics issue, granted some of the boeing are a little cramped, but they still manage to pull off the comfort, great considering they're using airframes older than most of us.

how it looks doesn't really matter to the passengers, they're only going to see it on the concourse, but airbus seems to be going out of their way to make a brand "identity", and as a result have come up with some of the worst design school failures i've ever seen

reliablity=boeing
ergonomics=boeing
aesthetics=boeing

the only thing i'm unsure of would be cost, though i imagine as abundant boeing is on all the continents maintenance costs would be quite low and when it comes to long term economics upkeep often trumps saving a few dollars on the initial purchase

behold, i awaken the dead

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=37693

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-06 09:29:43)

surgeon_bond wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Boeing. Airbus are French. 'Nuff said.

Airbus is actually English, parts manufactured in england/germany/italy/france but assembled in france.

SRSLY? Hmm... didn't know that. Well, something stupid like 12%* of the French economy depends on them, so if they go down, maybe they'll take the French with them. Nice country though, France. Just a shame about it's inhabitants.

*No idea if this is true, but it sounded like 12%, and it was a huge number.

I've been flying alot and I have to say that even though Boeing will always be the classic, Airbus is just the new deal. They're much smoother and quiter, more comfortable and more modern. That is my humble opinion.

kr@cker wrote:

reliablity=boeing
ergonomics=boeing
aesthetics=boeing

Where the hell did you get this bullshit from? Boeing has better reliability? During the 7 years the Airbus A340 has been in service, only one plane crashed, with 0 casualties. Compare that to the 747 with 50 or so crashes. 737s go down every week, yet only 5 A319s and A320s have crashed during their lifetime.

Ergonomics... Since you're an american, my guess is that you've never been in an Airbus. Airbus are so much more comfortable, quiter and better looking. Sorry dude

I dont know what aesthetics means

PBAsydney wrote:

What the hell have you Americans got against the French? I have been there and...wtf, now that I think about it most of them were dickheads....

hahahahhh

usmarine2007 wrote:

The biggest issue I see, is what you personally believe.  And that issue is computers.  Airbus DOES NOT allow pilots to override the fly-by-wire system.  So, for example, to avoid another aircraft, the computer will make the decision and steer the plane.  And, this works, it has been demonstrated.

Boeing on the other hand, has this capability, but also allows pilots to override the computer.

So, what makes you feel more safe?

Computers do not have that self preservation instinct and it might be a cousin of HAL9000.  "Sorry, I'm shutting down the engines. Goodbye."

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

The biggest issue I see, is what you personally believe.  And that issue is computers.  Airbus DOES NOT allow pilots to override the fly-by-wire system.  So, for example, to avoid another aircraft, the computer will make the decision and steer the plane.  And, this works, it has been demonstrated.

Boeing on the other hand, has this capability, but also allows pilots to override the computer.

So, what makes you feel more safe?

Do you even know what fly-by-wire is? An airplane without fly-by-wire moves rudders, ailerons and elevators by using hydraulics, aka fluids moving around in big tubes. Airplanes with Fly-by-wire use digital computers instead of hydraulics. No computer decides where to steer without the pilot telling it to do so. I don't know what you mean with "override the fly-by-wire system". Fly-by-wire isn't some sort of autopilot doing it all, it's just another way of controlling the rudder, ailerons and elevators as stated above. Of course, these computers may fail, but hydraulics are more likely to fail, and causes the majority of aircraft accidents.

Huh?  Yes, I know what fly-by-wire is.  Overriding fly-by-wire means overriding the computers that control flight surfaces.  For example, an Airbus will only let you bank so far no matter how hard you push the stick to the right or left.  I think it is 67 degrees.  You cannot override that.  Same goes for pitch.  Boeing does not restrict that. Plus, if you lost two computers for a flight control, that bank or pitch becomes even less.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-06 10:12:18)

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Do you even know what fly-by-wire is? An airplane without fly-by-wire moves rudders, ailerons and elevators by using hydraulics, aka fluids moving around in big tubes. Airplanes with Fly-by-wire use digital computers instead of hydraulics. No computer decides where to steer without the pilot telling it to do so. I don't know what you mean with "override the fly-by-wire system". Fly-by-wire isn't some sort of autopilot doing it all, it's just another way of controlling the rudder, ailerons and elevators as stated above. Of course, these computers may fail, but hydraulics are more likely to fail, and causes the majority of aircraft accidents.

Huh?  Yes, I know what fly-by-wire is.  Overriding fly-by-wire means overriding the computers that control flight surfaces.  For example, an Airbus will only let you bank so far no matter how hard you push the stick to the right or left.  I think it is 67 degrees.  You cannot override that.  Same goes for pitch.  Boeing does not restrict that. Plus, if you lost two computers for a flight control, that bank or pitch becomes even less.

It is true that Airbus planes cannot override and that most airbus models cannot bank more than 70 degrees, however, the computer will never "steer the plane" like you wrote in your other post. Also, there is one primary computer maintaining all fly-by-wire controls, and if this computer fails there's a second, and a third, and a fourth. It think the A380 has nine back-up computers, incase the first should fail.

Well, true, I typed that wrong.  What I mean is, it does things without the pilot deciding first.  For example, if you are on approach for landing and pull up to avoid something, the plane will automatically go to max thrust and retract the speed brakes if out, but it also restricts how hard you can pull up.  This is a good thing, it is just that some people do not like computers making the decision.

If you lose two computers for a flight control on the A319, the parameters shorten.

The auto-steer thing with the TCAS is still in testing stage.  My bad.

Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-06 10:32:58)

Well, as long as the pilots can handle it, and know the consequences of their actions

kr@cker wrote:

Take another look, airbus has been making jets since the early 70's, and with boeing outnumbering airbus in passenger jets on a scale of what 5:1 last i heard.

simple math 5x5=25

kr@cker wrote:

and yes, the pilot should be able to take total control of the jet

Have you read anything in this thread?

Well, ok, you're not good with math, but i'll try to describe it for you.. Five times as many boeing times five crashed airbuses equals what the amount of crashed boeings would be if your statement was correct. Unfortunatly, around a 100 or so boeings have crashed so.. Yeah you see it.

Computers > Humans

usmarine2007 wrote:

A380 is starting to remind me of the Spruce Goose.

yep, me too: only built one, which flew, but no more were built (yes, Airbus hasn't produced any more A380's than their first so far)
I voted for Boeing just because they have a better system currently.  Airbus decided to work to every whim of the airlines, and thus their A380 is long overdue and over budget.  Sad to see such an interesting plane have such an horrible start... nonetheless, check out this article:  Popular Mechanics - Jumbo Trouble