Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
GalaxyFlyer wrote:No, but the B707 was all mechanical controls except for rudder hydraulic boost, so it was a handful because of the forces required. The C-5 was an absolute baby carriage, lighter than the bizjets I flew. I’ve flown one, two, three and four engine jets.
convair880mfan wrote:A former TWA 707 captain told me that the 707 could be a hand full because of all those engines. He said it was like a truck compared to the Convair 880 and the Boeing 727. He had no experience with twins though. Is that your experience too as someone who has flown four engine aircraft?
seven47 wrote:I currently fly the 757-200F and the 767-300F, and I previously flew the 747-100F, -200F, and -400F. In my opinion, the 747 "Classics" were the best handling airliners that I've flown to date. Their mass and inertia make them very stable throughout the flight regime, and they were the easiest jets I've ever landed. I was a 747 Instructor/ Evaluator for 8 years, and I used to tell my new students that you really have to work hard to make a bad landing in the 747!
Another added bonus is the fact that an engine failure in a 4 engine jet is a much less complex exercise than in a twin, both from a handling standpoint and a contingency standpoint, due to the additional operating engine giving you thrust and helping with directional control. The 757/767, for instance, are more challenging to fly with an engine out than the 747, and you have far fewer options for where you can go with a single powerplant.
seven47 wrote:I've always found it interesting that Airbus pilots are allowed to fly so many different variations of aircraft.
Starlionblue wrote:seven47 wrote:I've always found it interesting that Airbus pilots are allowed to fly so many different variations of aircraft.
By design, Airbus aircraft are very similar in cockpit and procedures. From the example above, the A330 and A340 are pretty much the same aircraft type. The A350 is a bit different but certainly close enough for a common rating.
Just as one example, the A330 and A350 cockpits look somewhat different, but the same interface philosophy is used on both.
Starlionblue wrote:By design, Airbus aircraft are very similar in cockpit and procedures. From the example above, the A330 and A340 are pretty much the same aircraft type. The A350 is a bit different but certainly close enough for a common rating.
(...)
hitower3 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:By design, Airbus aircraft are very similar in cockpit and procedures. From the example above, the A330 and A340 are pretty much the same aircraft type. The A350 is a bit different but certainly close enough for a common rating.
(...)
Dear Starlionblue,
I would think that the 340 requires a bit more attention in crosswind landings, in order to avoid a (outer) engine strike?
Kind regards,
Hendric
T54A wrote:I flew A330-200, A330-300, A340-300, A340-600 and A350-900 all as a common fleet. There is no difficulty difference between them. The A340-600 did handle like a much bigger aircraft, which it was at 368t MTOW, and had to be operated accordingly. But it wasn’t more difficult.
zeke wrote:T54A wrote:I flew A330-200, A330-300, A340-300, A340-600 and A350-900 all as a common fleet. There is no difficulty difference between them. The A340-600 did handle like a much bigger aircraft, which it was at 368t MTOW, and had to be operated accordingly. But it wasn’t more difficult.
Echo those sentiments, I found the A340 easier to handle than the 747 particularly with non normals like two engine out approaches.
zeke wrote:T54A wrote:I flew A330-200, A330-300, A340-300, A340-600 and A350-900 all as a common fleet. There is no difficulty difference between them. The A340-600 did handle like a much bigger aircraft, which it was at 368t MTOW, and had to be operated accordingly. But it wasn’t more difficult.
Echo those sentiments, I found the A340 easier to handle than the 747 particularly with non normals like two engine out approaches.
T54A wrote:IMHO understanding the FBW is the biggest trick to flying the Airbus in these situations. Once you understand what the control laws are going to do and when, then it’s relatively easy. If you are going fight the computers, you’re in for hard time
Starlionblue wrote:T54A wrote:IMHO understanding the FBW is the biggest trick to flying the Airbus in these situations. Once you understand what the control laws are going to do and when, then it’s relatively easy. If you are going fight the computers, you’re in for hard time
Well put! "Know your aircraft," is key in all aircraft, with "mode awareness" being a big part of flying Airbus. One corollary is that if the automation is not doing what you intend, you should take action immediately. This is stated very clearly at the start of the FCTM. Never let the airplane fly you.
Not understanding the automation has gotten Airbus crews in trouble, in some cases with fatal results. I cannot think of one such case where a proper understanding of the automation would not have kept the crew out of trouble.
xwb777 wrote:I once heard from an ex-A330 Captain that the A380 is much easier to control and smoother to operate than the A330/A340.
bigb wrote:The 747 only becomes a handful with a double engine failure on one side. Otherwise, she is a great bird to fly. However I’ve heard the 777 is also another good handling machine as well.