Why external 3D models of 350 are so artificial looking? They don't have marks typical for real airplane. Cockpit views don't have enough details either. I don't see real airplane behind these pictures. Also "cross-section of 220 inches from armrest to armrest, the jetliner’s cabin provides the widest seats in its category, being five inches larger than its nearest competitor" sounds fishy to me because 777 has wider fuselage.
Nice aircraft. I saw the word composite so I suppose the is the answer to the 787 Dreamliner. I really would not know the difference as I do not fly enough. I was shocked when, years ago, I saw a 727-200 power back! I was an airline cater for 40 years and stood in awe as an Eastern plane powered back. Sure was glad I had head sets on!
The body off the 350 is both aluminum and composite. In order to aviod the need to reinvent the wheel, as Boeing did with the 787, the 350 utilizes composite panels inside aluminum framing. The big hang up with Boeing was the "world aircraft" idea with zillions of manufacturers many let the company down by not having the expertise, capacity, to produce their pieces. However the 350 won't be able to meet the 787 weight advantages and with so many metal on composite connections the maintainence advantages that the 787potentially has won't be as pronounced. The 350 should be much faster in getting to market
I'm not a fan of fly by wire. I realize most of the flying is done by the auto-pilot. But when the stuff hits the fan I like the idea that the pilots can man handle the controls if needed. Yes, I've flown the trip seven. Nice plane but; so is the 767 which I prefer.
It's true that both are FBW aircraft. However, I think the issue at hand which toolguy105 is referring to is the differing philosophies for the flight control systems. In simpliest terms, a Boeing A/C will do anything you ask of it and provide warnings when what you ask of the A/C is beyond certain limits (e.g. airspeed, bank angle, pitch, etc.)
Airbus has flight control logic that essentially makes the flight control computer the pilot and the human pilot is making requests of the computer to fly the airplane. If the computer deems a request to be outside of its parameters, it won't do the maneuver.
There is great debate on which is better, and it's not my intent to have that debate here. I realize that the way I've explained it is greatly simplified, but it's generally accurate. Please don't bombard me with Direct Law/Alternate Law posts.
As a pilot myself, I prefer the Boeing's "let me do what I want with warnings" approach.
FBW is an electrical flight control system as opposed to a mechanical system. A mechanical system uses a series of levers, pushrods and/or cables to directly connect the control column to the flight controls. Typically, a mechanical system is augmented by hydraulic actuators. Smaller aircraft (most single and twin 4-6 place A/C) rely only on the pilot's inputs without additional help.
A FBW system uses electric motors and servos to move the flight controls. The flight controls are connected to sensors that detect movement then send that information to the computer. The computer sends a signal to the appropriate control surface servo/motor to move that surface.
Whoops! What I wrote was poorly worded. I should have said:
A FBW system uses electric motors and servos to move the control surfaces. The flight controls (i.e. control yoke/rudder pedals/throttles et. al.) are connected to sensors that detect the pilots input and sends that information to the flight control computer. The computer then sends a signal to the appropriate control surface servo/motor to move that surface.
I'm retired now, don't travel as much as I use too. I will if I have the opportunity fly on a 787 for the experience. Given a choice of planes it will always be Boeing first and stick and rudder controlled. If I have to chose between fly by wire flights it will still be Boeing.
It's a Ford Chevy thing. There are people out there who wouldn't park a Ford or Chevy in their driveway on a bet. I'm a guy who prefers Boeing. I have flown on Airbus planes. There nice planes and seem to have more leg room or maybe it is the way they design their seats. I'm a Boeing guy, I worked on Boeing's in the Air Force. They are reliable and easy to maintain. I cannot say the same for the other planes in the Air Force inventory I worked on. I know mechanics who have worked on Airbus planes. Some love them but most hate them.
