I have always been facinated with the A340 because of its resemblance to the 707 & DC-8, especially the 200 and 300 versions of the A340. However, I have never really been impressed with the look Airbus cockpit because of its lack of dials and switches - especially being that I am a big fan of the RFP 747-200But, I have to admit that the following picture brings out the best in what Airbus has to offer -- Awesome! -- and has motivated me to reconsider the A340 to my list of potential FS2004 long haulers. However, such a program for FS2004 would have to closely render the posted pic in detail (lots of apparent switches, lights, and that sort of thing).http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=8187...&sok=&photo_nr=I'd like to hear some comments on what you guys think of the pic, the potential of the A340 for FS2004, and what you guys think of the A340 operational procedures when compared to the Boeing (most everyone's favorite). The idea of pushing a button for auto takeoff and another for landing does not appeal to me and that might be a deterrent if that is how (or close to it) the typical Airbus is flown.Thanks in advance.RH

Well, I don't think you'll find they just 'press a button for auto take-off', or for landing for that matter. This idea that Airbuses are automated robots and Boeings demand 'real' flying is nonsense. Airbus have a different design philosophy but the current aircraft from both manufacturers are not that far removed. The 777 is just as much a push-button plane as an A340. Your RFB 747-200 is of course from another age, so hardly comparable. But you're right, it's a good photo. And I've always liked the A340. Many evenings I catch a view of the Virgin flight coming into Heathrow as I wend my way along the M4 in 'go home mode'. Marvellous sight..RegardsIan

Another thing I like aout the Airbuses is that they offer more four engined aircraft. The common 757, 767, 777 look is just that, common! Is the A340 also like the 777 in that it does not require back pressure when turning? That is, when you make turns in the 777, back pressure is not required because the computer makes the compensation for you, which is the main reason I the 777 does not appeal to me.RH

the colours look a bit strange in that picture, other pictures of the A340 look something like this:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/113225.jpg

First things first: I prefer Boeing over Airbus in terms of cockpit philosophy, avionics and pure handling. However, this opinion is purely based on Flightsim experience and this does not mean that I don't like to hear the sound of the four CFM engines mounted on my A340 while thundering down the runway...What you have to understand is the different concept: Airbus wants to eliminate the pilot as the weakest link in a series of actions that could lead to an accident by taking away responsibility and computerizing important tasks, while Boeing thinks that a human brain is still superior to a computer when it comes to situational awareness and quick decisions.Philosophy might be different but the actual flying procedures are very similar in my opinion: Whether you're sitting in an A330 or a B767 doesn't matter if you just press the autopilot switch shortly after takeoff and don't release until the CAT3-Autoland is complete.What I want to stress is this: Both Airbus and recent Boeing aircraft are capable of doing this, and ultimately it's up to you as the pilot (or up to the airline in real life) if and to what extend you want to use autoflight systems.The problem with Airbuses in MSFS is that some of their techincal systems just can't be simulated properly. Best example: Fly-by-wire and it's associaed ELAC computers. There are some threads here on AVSIM about this issue.Conclusion: Flying the Airbus 340 is a different and certainly interesting experience. Whether you will like all the fancy computer screens as a RFP 747 fan, I don't know. Just try and decide for yourself ;-)Regards,Holger SeilzBAW0715

Interesting info. Looking at the Airbus cockpit even reminds you that they are not too pilot friendly. Perhaps Boeing knows that airlines tend to order planes that pilots like to fly (I don't know if there is such a link), so Boeing keeps them pilot friendly. Perhaps by FS2006, they will be able to automate fly-by-wire and related systems. I'd like to learn it.RH

>>>>> The 777 is just as much a push-button plane as an A340Definitely not.I spent a lot of time reading through original AOMs of different (even vintage) aircraft, and it is interesting how one can see the evolution of aircraft systems and avionics.For big airliners, the top is currently the Airbus family starting with the 320 series and up.The difference between the systems of an A320 and the 777 is indeed incredible.When reading through such manuals, I'm impressed every time that engineers were able to create such a thorughly automated plane as the Airbus is.This is especially apparent when studying schematic drawings showing the relationship between different flight phases, which systems are triggered by which other systems to change their state, what protection mechanisms each of them has and how less workload is left for the pilot.It's not the degree of avionics that beefs up such airplanes (I guess there are some nice other devices around, such as the latest Primus Epic series, or the gadgets in the latest business jets), it's the degree of completeness of the automation implemented affecting all systems in common.And there's where the Airbus family clearly separates from the rest.I don't say that other planes are "bad" ore less complicated, it's just that currently, the Airbus is currently the last member in the chain of airbus system evolution.BTW, Aviograsf has an A340 to offer (which some day will eventually be good enough to be flown with satisfaction)...Andreas

Perhaps Boeing knows that airlines tend to order planes that pilots like to fly (I don't know if there is such a link), so Boeing keeps them pilot friendly. >RH I hate to drop your theory here but "By orders, Airbus has outsold Boeing every year since 2001". Scott Carson, the new head of commercial aircraft sales at Boeing certainly believes they can turn that around this year and it will be interesting to watch.I have yet to hear an Airbus pilot suggest their aircraft are not pilot friendly, if anything it would appear to be quite the opposite.CheersDave B

Most Airbus pilots are quite happy with their offices, that's true (Just because they don't know the good ol' steam gauge cockpits ;-)). However, they are certainly not happy with their engines. Why? Well, let's say the A340-200 and -300 series are not exactly overpowered. When ATC asks them to expedite climb to 1500 feet per minute after takeoff, the most likely answer they will get is "Unable". Sad but true.There's that old joke:"How does an Airbus 340 climb? It doesn't climb at all. It uses the curvature of the earth to gain altitude!"OK that was one for us Boeing guys... sorry, couldn't resist! :-hahCheersHolger.

AndreasInteresting stuff. My point about pushing buttons was that you can operate an Airbus and 777 in a similar fashion - press AP (or CMD) as you're climbing out, and cancel it after landing. During the flight both crews need not touch the sidesticks (or yokes) at all. All commands are made using buttons and switches. Behind the scenes of course there's a lot of difference in the systems.I too await the definitive FS Airbus, but I fear it will be a long wait.RegardsIan

Most modern aircraft can do fully automated flights, some even autolands with rollout.So, not touching the controls is not what makes the big difference, nor is it the different hardware used.Boeings and most other aircraft are derived from older, proven models. Even the 777 is a mixture between a 747 and more modern systems e.g. by implementing parts of the Honeywell Primus avionics series.The Airbus A320 and upwards series are developed from scratch, systems are tightly adopted to modern airliner procedures.In no other airliner you find this reduced amount of switches and knobs. Everything is laid out to reduce the workload on the pilots. That leads to the implementation of a complex fly-by-wire system with integrated, flight phase dependent protection mechanisms which incorporate control surfaces and engines alike, thus surpassing the fly-by-wire of any other aircraft by far (maybe some military jets are an exception, I don't know).For instance, you don't need to take care of your speed during an approach on autopilot like on other aircraft: just set the flaps accordingly, and the plane automatically reduces speed. It even retracts flaps automatically after takeoff.My impression is that many things not directly related to airliner operations were left aside during the development of the A32x. Airbuses are meant to be computer controlled, that's why in a total loss of systems, you have only the rudder pedals available to steer, that's all!Read through the manuals, and you see what I mean.Andreas

It's post like these that remind me that I probably need to keep the Airbuses off of my scope. Although the A340 looks very cool, I still would like to feel that I am in control of the aircraft and playing second fiddle to some darn computer.I remember back in the Summer of 02, I was flying on a NWA A320 out of Detroit Wayne Co. International. As we took off, another NWA A320 took off as well on a parallel runway. I remember watching this airplane (while off in the distance) seeming to stay in the same spot was we did while climbing. That was proof enough for me that a similar computer was in control of both aircraft. Thanks for the info!RH

Hi Andreas,And the manual pitch trim of course....I think the Airbus FMGS systems are similar to Boeings. Surely LNAV/VNAV is the same as Managed Mode. LVL CH etc are the same as Selected modes. I totally agree that the extras that you have described make it more sophisticated but in principle it is the same.The real difference between Airbus and Boeing is in the sidestick and flight envelope protections. For a definitive opinion the following wing is a good reference:http://www.wingfiles.com/files/authorityai...tprotection.pdfFor those wishing to more thoroughly understand the Airbus there is an excellent book called Fly the Wing, Third Edition by Jim Webb and Billy Walker ISBN0813808455. It come with a CD ROM which includes a A320 FCOM and the 600+ page manuals for the A320, 330,and 340 Honeywell Pegasus FMGS.All we need now is an Airbus to go with them.

Correct me if I am wrong.I think both modern Boeing and Airbus are highly automated. But I just don't like airbuses as much when flying it does not even involve controling throttle. The only movement there is to be made on an airbus throttle is in between gates with everything else left to auto throttle the whole time. I've heard pilots landing an airliner with nothing but throttle with a complete control surface failure and I've heard that SWA pilots don't use auto-throttle whatsoever even in their NGs.How do you suppose an airbus can survive with major system failures given that so much control is taken away from the pilots by design. Or should we count on that airbuses just don't mal-function?Jason Zhang

first A32X was delivered 17 years ago, with 2,300+ of the range currently in service - not exactly old for an airframe but long enough to prove at least that it's not statistically any more dangerous than non-airbus designs.and that's not counting A330/40s also in service based on the same philosophy.regards,MarkXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256