I don't know what model I was on. It has two seats on one side of the aisle, and one on the other side. But yes, it was an Embraer. I've flown them from Bloomington to Atlanta and Bloomington to Chicago several times. American Eagle has replaced all of their turboprops with little Embraer jets.

Interesting responses guys, thanks !

I must say, part of me is a little surprised at the "onesidedness" of the responses so far... I'm not questioning anyone's qualifications, but to read this, you'd think Airbus makes complete crap that leaves no room to pilot input. If that were 100% true you'd have heard of a lot more issues or accidents, wouldn't you ? Still waiting for an airbus expert to rise to their defense, but this -is- a US based board ;-)

Very interesting though, thanks for the replies, I learned a few things !

Greg,

A lot of it has to do with personalities. Americans tend to be pretty headstrong people while Europeans are not so much that way.

Right now I am flying a private jet based out of London because the owner was tired of European crews. He contracted with an agency I do some work with and said "I want Canadian or American crews, period" flying my jet. I asked him why and he said that the North Americans tend to figure a way around any problems while Europeans were not as adaptable.

Airbus builds an airplane where the computers control everything and you just monitor the plane. In many cases its very difficult to over-ride the computer. This is why the Airbus flew into the forest during the Paris Air show years ago. The pilot could not get the engines to respond because the automated flight systems were telling the engines to stay at idle.

Boeing makes a plane where the pilot flies the plane and uses computer systems to ease the task. Big difference.

As a passenger and computer programmer...

I've always been under the impression that most pilots in the U.S. are ex-military. I'd trust their instincts any day over a computer program. I highly doubt the computers have been configured to account for every possible failure/combination of failures.

You have not seen us drinking Tequila and barking at the moon after the flight have you? :)

give me an old 20-series lear to fly any day. :) no, they don't carry many, but those or whatever they do carry, they carry like a tough bat out hell.

i recall something that used to be said a lot back in my cargo-flying days - 'friends don't let friends fly by wire...' :D

My 2 cents
 

My experience is 25 years of Rockwell and McDonnel Douglas built military aircraft. I have spent some time helping Douglas Commercial repair some aircraft. Interesting input and accurate explainations of some systems here. One thing I didnt hear was how good Heritage Douglas Commercial aircraft are. ( Part of Boeing).

IMHO: Airbus overall builds good aircraft. Boeing builds good aircraft. McDonnel Douglas built superb airframes and better aircraft with all the avionics upgrades I.e. glass cockpit, MFD's, TCAS. etc. I could show most Pelicanites the difference in structural design. We all know that nothing is manufactured to the exact specification/dimensions everytime. We call this Variability in the industry. Variability exists in everthing alive and inanimate. The methodology taken in correcting these anomalies is supported in many different ways. In aviation we have Material Review Board Engineers (MRB) disposition any type of discrepancy. Most are to be resolved by a Standard Repair Manual.

These diciplines have a huge effect on airframe longevity and performance. For an example:

Existing material gaps between fuselage frames, loft skins longeron and end fittings appear frequently. These can be repaired by using a liquid shimming compound (epoxy) and extruded into the faying surface to produce a shim to fransfer load and stress propagation.


A robust airframe would have a machined shim or a laminated shim installed where these anomalies occur adding many more hours as a serviceable airframe. Douglas design standards always utilized the better process even when it cost 3 times as much. Douglas used clad aluminum and anodized all aluminum extrusions to control corrosion. Installed precoated fasteners to control galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials and always installed the highest and most efficient quanity of fasteners including Close tolerance Hi-Loks and Lockbolts. Steel and titanium (Expensive!).

DFM, not as "Design for manufacturing" but "Design for maintainability" is a big issue with commercial aircraft. (Porsche has no concept of this). Careful attention to DFM has always been part of Douglas and Boeing's design philosophy. PDM (Periodic Depot Maintenace) A&P's (Airframe and Powerplant) mechs will report on accessibility issues and generally dont complain much about Douglas or Boeing aircraft.

I have heard many thing about Airbus. Some great , just OK, some very bad reports.

I wonder if someone in the FAA hasnt questioned their nose gear issues. The notorious nose gear steering problem where the slaves jamb it 90 degrees to one side. The NTSB and FAA have a history of this like 737 rudder issues with no AD or a time compliant TCTO repair that I am aware of???

Again, I have never flown on an Airbus aircraft (I avoid them like Joeaksa) and I would humbly say generally I have a working knowledge of aircraft with a focus on airframe design and avionic upgrades. I would advocate any Boeing aircraft in there product line if Douglas were not in the equation over airbus without an argument.

Bob

Re: My 2 cents
 

STM0685-01 primer!!! Sorry, I was McDonnell Douglas prior to the merger and this was the internal spec number for the primer that was used for wet installation of fasteners... :)

You go with the 707 company, Boeing. Seat room depends on the airline, not the airplane, since the airline companies configure the seats in the plane to their tastes. United, for example, has the smallest economy seats in the 747. The knee room can vary with the airlines--check google for this kind of info.

Airbus has an advantage in that it is government subsidized. But Boeing has much more experience in large jets, starting with the B47, B52 and 707. The 747 is still the fastest commercial jet, at least as of a couple of years ago. They'll go close to 700 mph in a tailwind. In Asia, that's all you see are 747s.

IROC,

AKA FR Prime.....The last ten years we have been using Hiloks and Lockbolts with a precoated deposition. (Proprietary) No Wet sealant and FR prime required. You have to admit they are a better airframe....Capische?

"...open the pod-bay doors, HAL..."
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1918/hal1wk8.gif

Good Morning Sand-Man!

These are called Mission Computers (MC) or Mission Data Processors (MDP) with the AIU interface which would be HAL. This stuff is real but I have yet to hold a conversation with one or even pull its breakers because it tried to get smart. But in reality the technology for HAL is here now.

The MC for a Mars mission would have to be very similar to HAL. It would have to control all vital life supporting systems. Astronauts would need to slow down there vitals and sleep for most of the mission to control consumables. Interesting.

How does this aircraft compare? Would you get on one for a flight?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182449504.jpg

legion I think you rode on an ERJ-135/140/145, they are all the same tube with different lengths for different passenger loads.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182450903.jpg


The 190 looks like this...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1182451033.jpg

It has 2 on 1 side in first class but 2 and 2 in steerage.

Regarding the Boeing/Airbus debate I can say the jumpseat on the A320 is a lot nicer than the Boeings. The cockpit is more quiet than the 737 family. However I like the Boeing philosophy of systems better. It's just strange that the thrust levers in the Airbus don't even move in flight, the autothrottles just set the thrust as required/selected.

Tu-154. Yes.

For those who think the DC-9 is loud, you should hear this! Have been on one, though unfortunately not in the air. I think it's built in the Kharkov Tank Factory. Very basic - sometimes a bit too basic. 5 crew members when I was invited aboard: Captain, First Officer, Flight Engineer, Radio Operator, and a Political Officer. The guy with the AK-47 in front of the aircraft was not looking 'friendly-like' at me until the Flight Engineer said something rather firm to him.

Cockpit had a HUGE ndb in the center of the instrument panel. Radio operator had a morse key. A/C in the cockpit was a set of those rubber-blade fans like you saw in the old Greyhound buses. Felt like I was in a time warp, but the crew was incredibly hospitable and I still have the bottle of vodka they gave me.

Yep, no problem going up in a Tupolev. Besides, the Russian pilots are superb.

Good example of one of the main systems philosophy problems. To know what is going on with the engines you have to find and look at the correct visual display. Everything is visual and too many things we use as part of our information resource (like yoke movement, throttle motion, etc.) are removed.

Except for that one Russian pilot who gave the controls to his young son who proceeded to crash the plane. :eek:

I would call attention to the fact that nobody has made a comment about the country of origin (naturally enough, because Boeing is an international design team) The feedback you are getting is from engineering, manufacturing, air traffic controllers, and pilots. You might get different opinions from politicians or marketing/finance people, and maybe some software people, but what you are reading is quite representative of my experience with the opinions of operations-side people.

If you had to divide the world into two camps over this issue you would basically have the business/marketing/finance/technocrat side and the operations/pilot/engineer side. It is true that you will occasionally find a pilot who likes the Airbus philosophy, but I have yet to meet one of those who did not come directly from a fly-by-wire aircraft where his/her butt was attached to a parachute and ejection seat. Trouble is, the guys who make the purchase decisions are not the guys who fly the airplanes; if ops made the decisions I suspect you would see a very different situation than what we have now.

No, I don't think Airbus makes crap. The A-300 and A-310 were very good airplanes. My problem is with the flight control philosophy of the newer ones. Maybe I can put it this way: In the 727 we could lose all 3 engines, all hydraulics, all electrics, all pneumatics and still safely fly the airplane to landing. In a fly-by-wire Airbus if you lose all computers you may - or may not - be able to avoid activating your life insurance. Which do you prefer?

True, but as you know, you find dumb*****s everywhere in every field. One dumb***** pilot does not make all Russian pilots bad.

Let me tell you about the guy who.........

She's a hell of a pilot. Don't know if you've seen Mary race, but she's incredible. Come up to the Reno Air Races some time - great stuff!