OK, ladies… gents…
We have had a few great implementations of A320 by now, and… lo and behold, we now have a high fidelity Boeing 777. This begs a question. What are the operational differences between those. There are obviously two different implementations of FBW. This post isn’t mean to be which one is BETTER/WORSE… It comes down to operations. I especially seek opinions of those who have actually flown the respective aircraft. What are the differences in takeoff, climb, descent, and landing ops between the two? I am just your humble single-engine prop PPL and I need to know what is the way for me to fly these big birds.
the question exceeds me, and by a wide margin
but just to get things started, when talking about automation
is there something as: too much automation?
its unbelievable how the airbus fbw systems just… take care of everything
when i fly the pmdg 737 i find it to be a little more hands on, so to speak
i think its a good thing that the pilot doesnt forget he’s flying an airliner full of people
i go with the boeing philosophy
I see this very easy,
most things are same from basic principle but to my personal experience is only one typical system of functionality different - Airbus Managed/Manual set of flight systems/controls handling. My very basic opinion.
I think that this question is not so simple to answer without to spend some long time with examples of differences. Take A310, look at FMC and that Managed/Manual operation procedures. You can then be more familiar between them, as I expect you know Boeing. If I could say, you ask for FBW I know but with FBW there are still some things that aren’t implemented. Inibuilds A310 is only typical Airbus old type example only to compare with FBW A320. Inibuilds A320 V2? Really I did few tests and started use FBW A320, just my selection.
Or if I was wrong with your post understanding (you ask only FBW system capable aircraft here as Boeing 777 and all other Airbus types) then sry, disregard my post.
If the 777 FBW implementation is similar to the 787, the biggest difference I notice between Boeing and Airbus is trim. I generally forget about trim in the Airbus, but if you neglect using it in a Boeing you feel like the plane is fighting you (because it is). Takeoff in a Boeing really needs you to be on the trim switch right away.
1 Like
It’s a difficult conversation, it comes down to philosophy. Airbus tries to take human error out of the equation as much as possible. Boeing is now on the middle line with FBW, but still likes pilots to have control. Which is better? I don’t know. I don’t fly them, I think I am in the Boeing camp. I want to have control. What I do fly is a Cessna 182 and there is no feeling other than taking off and climbing to cruise by hand. The entire world opens up to you! Yes, at cruise, I will engage AP, but I certainly have to actually fly the ■■■■ plane until. (Yes, shoutout to Big Radials, you guys always had the right idea)
exactly, you have to fly the darn thing! otherwise its just a flying computer and its a short road that leads to forgetting what makes an airplane stay in the air
I forget who it was, perhaps Pettar (Mentour), but speed trim is a THING. You have to trim a FBW aircraft once you switch off AP.
As far as I can tell, Boeings FBW aircraft are speed stable. So that means if you trim to a certain speed it tends to return to it. The Airbus in contrast is flight path stable.
I try to phrase it simple: Boeing favors to change pitch when you let go while the Airbus favors to change speed.
Speaking a bit technically: the underlying control law is very similar. Airbus is based on a C* law which blends pitch rate and load factor. Pitch rate being more prominent on lower speeds while load factor on higher speeds. The Boeing has the same control law (obviously with other gains and tunings) but with an additional term that adds the return to the trim speed. Therefore it’s called C*U.
In case of roll I’m not fully sure. For the Airbus I can say for sure that it’s a roll rate demand but it keeps the bank angle when you release the stick. For Boeing aircraft I’m unsure if it’s also a roll rate demand or not. Could be also just a direct relation to aileron deflection that is gain scheduled for airspeed.
I hope that helps a bit.
4 Likes
i will add this, in my opinion, airbus’ fbw logic will resist every one of your attempts to fly it into the ground, which will eventually, inevitably, convince someone, somewhere, that this plane CAN’T be flown into the ground no matter what i do… that end result is suboptimal… a pilot needs to stay sharp, and complacency is a thing
1 Like
That is simply not true. Nothing in the Airbus FBW will prevent doing so. Even more nowhere it is anywhere like that stated it will.
i dont mean literally, think more like get yourself into trouble
On the Boeing you’ll be missing a few bits like bolts, cracked windscreens and doors, just check before you fly. 
bolts? Pah!!!
who needs that?
bolts are for the weak!
1 Like
