Airbus or Boeing?

[Schadenfroh]

i have relatives that work as engineers at boeing designing the crap (not that its crap, sorta a pronoun for a general term), so boeing

 

[pecel]

Can't wait for the jumbo one

I think the noise level on airbus < Boeing

 

[earthman]

Cessna.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm not interested in dying at the moment. Boeing, definitely.

 

[paruhd0x]

My brother works for Boeing as I said before, so me and my bro say Boeing.

 

[Nebor]

What am I, a doctor?

 

[BRObedoza]

Airbus because I liked Airbus Reconstruction by Portishead

 

[loup garou]

Airbus, definitely.

 

[rudder]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

airbus

 

[FlyingShawn]

As a pilot (private for now, but studying to be a professional pilot when I graduate college), I've gotta say Boeing all the way. Both Boeing's newest planes and Airbus's are fly-by-wire, but they have a completely different philosophy on how they do it. They need the fly-by-wire because the new planes are not very stable (being unstable can increase speed and efficiency if done properly), so computers have to do the actual flying. When a pilot moves a control, he is making a request for the computer to move the airplane in that manner. The difference between the companies is this: When a Boeing pilot makes a control input and the computer disagrees about the safety of following that command; the pilot has the final authority. In Airbus, it's the opposite. I know of at least one Airbus crash because the plane's computer was confused about what was going on and refused to obey the pilot's orders.

Of the aviation community that I have encountered (between my fellow students and my professors), I have yet to meet someone who doesn't prefer Boeing's philosophy of trusting the pilot. Some analysts would counter that overall, there are less crashes of Airbus planes, but I don't know if the statistics they are looking at include Boeing's older (non fly-by-wire) aircraft (I think they do); which should be left out of the discussion for that reason.

FlyingShawn

 

[Koing]

Airbus seems to be more comfortable for the passengers from my pilot crazy friend.

BUT from reading the few posts here Boeing seems to be more 'safe'.

I vote Airbus for passengers.

Koing

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: FlyingShawn
As a pilot (private for now, but studying to be a professional pilot when I graduate college), I've gotta say Boeing all the way. Both Boeing's newest planes and Airbus's are fly-by-wire, but they have a completely different philosophy on how they do it. They need the fly-by-wire because the new planes are not very stable (being unstable can increase speed and efficiency if done properly), so computers have to do the actual flying. When a pilot moves a control, he is making a request for the computer to move the airplane in that manner. The difference between the companies is this: When a Boeing pilot makes a control input and the computer disagrees about the safety of following that command; the pilot has the final authority. In Airbus, it's the opposite. I know of at least one Airbus crash because the plane's computer was confused about what was going on and refused to obey the pilot's orders.

Of the aviation community that I have encountered (between my fellow students and my professors), I have yet to meet someone who doesn't prefer Boeing's philosophy of trusting the pilot. Some analysts would counter that overall, there are less crashes of Airbus planes, but I don't know if the statistics they are looking at include Boeing's older (non fly-by-wire) aircraft (I think they do); which should be left out of the discussion for that reason.

FlyingShawn

Didn't that Airbus crash over Queens because the pilot was giving rudder inputs to it that resulted in the tail breaking off due to stress. Shouldn't their fly by wire system have prevented that? Seems to me like the computer should know how much stress the plane can take and prevent the pilot from doing anything that would break the plane in mid air.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Aquaman

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Aquaman

Originally posted by: pyonir
Which ever one gets me to my destination safely. I couldn't care less.

Fly air china........... pilots are ex-military mig pilots :Q

Cheers,
Aquaman

I would have absolutely no reason to fly Air China.

Ok........ how about Aeroflot

Cheers,
Aquaman

i have flown tu-154s on numerous occasions and il-86 a couple of times. tu-154 rattles like crazy on takeoffs, always makes me worried about the plane breaking apart.. besides, when the air breaks come out with such huge thud giving me goosebumps every time i flown on it. il-86 gave me some acute ear pain while landing (never had this with any other aircraft)

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: FlyingShawn
As a pilot (private for now, but studying to be a professional pilot when I graduate college), I've gotta say Boeing all the way. Both Boeing's newest planes and Airbus's are fly-by-wire, but they have a completely different philosophy on how they do it. They need the fly-by-wire because the new planes are not very stable (being unstable can increase speed and efficiency if done properly), so computers have to do the actual flying. When a pilot moves a control, he is making a request for the computer to move the airplane in that manner. The difference between the companies is this: When a Boeing pilot makes a control input and the computer disagrees about the safety of following that command; the pilot has the final authority. In Airbus, it's the opposite. I know of at least one Airbus crash because the plane's computer was confused about what was going on and refused to obey the pilot's orders.

Of the aviation community that I have encountered (between my fellow students and my professors), I have yet to meet someone who doesn't prefer Boeing's philosophy of trusting the pilot. Some analysts would counter that overall, there are less crashes of Airbus planes, but I don't know if the statistics they are looking at include Boeing's older (non fly-by-wire) aircraft (I think they do); which should be left out of the discussion for that reason.

FlyingShawn

Didn't that Airbus crash over Queens because the pilot was giving rudder inputs to it that resulted in the tail breaking off due to stress. Shouldn't their fly by wire system have prevented that? Seems to me like the computer should know how much stress the plane can take and prevent the pilot from doing anything that would break the plane in mid air.

AND would this not indicate that the FBW was trusting the input from the Pilot, rather than ignoring it, even tho it was dumb?

Airbus.

 

[Turkish]

This is a U.S. based forum so no wonder Boeing is winning

 

[cyclistca]

Having flown in both I'll take an Airbus any day over a Boeing.

 

[Passions]

Boeing because Airbus gets unfair subsidizes. And they are just snotty europeans, who have no love or appreciation for hard-working Americans who play by the rules.

Boeing takes great risk and spurns imagination, a culture of flying and love for the skies, every plane carrying a rich history of Bill Boeing with it. While Airbus gets pampered by lousy countries, and mass produces soul-less flying heaps of metal.

GO BOEING!

 

[K1052]

Boeing.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Passions
Boeing because Airbus gets unfair subsidizes. And they are just snotty europeans, who have no love or appreciation for hard-working Americans who play by the rules.

Boeing takes great risk and spurns imagination, a culture of flying and love for the skies, every plane carrying a rich history of Bill Boeing with it. While Airbus gets pampered by lousy countries, and mass produces soul-less flying heaps of metal.

GO BOEING!

ah heck, you just broke ANOTHER of my sarcasm meters.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
gotts support boeing since thier a US company

Same here...although I did fly on a couple Airbus planes to Ireland...they weren't that bad...but I'll stick with Boeing for now.

 

[FlyingShawn]

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about the Queens crash to comment on it. One crash that one of my professors mentioned was the one summarized in the link below (the second link is for a video of the crash):
Crash information (from AirDisaster.com)
Video of the crash
One aspect of the crash that the description above does not mention is the role of the Airbus flight computer (which controls the fly-by-wire). One of the reasons that the aircraft was not able to pull above the obstacles in time was that the flight computer was mistaken about exactly what the plane was doing (I can't remember if it was a programming bug or faulty sensor data). Because the computer was mistaken (I think the computer thought the plane was stalling when it wasn't, but I can't remember the exact details). The point is that the computer refused to follow the control inputs of the pilot, who did know what the plane was doing and could potentially have pulled up enough to clear the trees in time.

There are advantages in having the flight computer of an aircraft impose limits on what the aircraft does in flight. But the question comes down to who gets the final judgment? Does the computer have ultimate authority or can the pilot choose to override it if he deems it necessary? The two companies have each taken different sides on this question, and I'm with Boeing that the pilot should have override authority.

FlyingShawn

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: earthman
Cessna.

:Q

 

[TechnoKid]

boeing 777 is awesome. I flown in one twice. TVs behind every seat in economy.

 

[ManSnake]

Boeing can go to hell.