737,747,777 which is the easiest to fly?

[Chock 17,769]

With all of those airliners, you can simply go to the mode control panel for the autopilot, hit level change, key in an altitude to stop it at that desired altitude, pop in a heading, engage the autopilot and you're in business, so they're all about as easy as one another to operate automatically in that sense, moreover, pretty much every Boeing FMC is similar in functionality, so there is little to choose on which is easiest for VNAV and LNAV flying either, providing you've keyed in the necessary data. But, I'd say the 737 is the easiest in terms of getting to grips with, since it has a much simpler cockpit with less stuff going on, it being the first airliner having been designed to be flown by two, rather than three crew, and having been designed to be flown from very basic airports too. The less 'star wars' a cockpit is, the easier it will be to figure out.

[vc10man 732]

As usual, Alan, spot-on. Could not have been stated better. Must be all that training teaching you do.

[vadriver 247]

as the pf or pnf ?

.... help from mce etc can change your perspective of what is "plausible" to fly in a "simulator". as  does a lot of help from hardware & fsuipc.

[Chris97 1]

I think the 747 is easier to hand fly compared to the 777...

For example: If you are going to land by hand with the 777-300ER (follow ILS glidescope)... I can't exactly describe why but for me it's easier to follow the ILS glidescope with the 747-400 compared to the 777-300ER...

Do you know the Asiana Flight 214 crash at SFO?  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)

I had similar situations with the 777-300ER as flight Asiana 214.  The aircraft is really hard to hand fly.  But I never had a situation like this with the 747-400... For me it's much easier to land the 747 by hand.

For example: If you need to increase the altitude (because your altitude is too low) just a few seconds before landing the 777 can crash... This doesn't happen with the 747-400...

[aentwis 61]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

It's pretty clear if you read the title ☺

Unfortunately not. Three totally different aircraft with different concepts, each with its own challenges. The poster equates ease of control with the degree of automation. The easiest is going to be the one you know the best, completely regardless of any automation, as Ian so wisely put it. But I still don't understand what the point of the question is in the context here. Is the original poster looking for an aircraft to purchase that requires the least input from his/her point of view? Otherwise there is little to offer as a useful answer.

A

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Chris97 said:

I think the 747 is easier to hand fly compared to the 777...

For example: If you are going to land by hand with the 777-300ER (follow ILS glidescope)... I can't exactly describe why but for me it's easier to follow the ILS glidescope with the 747-400 compared to the 777-300ER...

Do you know the Asiana Flight 214 crash at SFO?  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)

I had similar situations with the 777-300ER as flight Asiana 214.  The aircraft is really hard to hand fly.  But I never had a situation like this with the 747-400... For me it's much easier to land the 747 by hand.

For example: If you need to increase the altitude (because your altitude is too low) just a few seconds before landing the 777 can crash... This doesn't happen with the 747-400...

 

I agree that the 777 is harder to fly.  However, when you do it daily for a little while, it becomes easy to fly any FBW aircraft.  I'll explain what I mean:

I recently went into Qantas' B747-400 and A380 sims and it was an incredible experience, there are, however, a few major differences between flying direct control (non-FBW) and FBW aircraft.  One of the first differences (coming from a guy who spends 90% of his sim time in non-FBW aircraft) about flying FBW aircraft is that every control input and movement is dampened and artificially replicated in the flight controls in a uniquely un-human manner that I find (again, remembering that I am not used to FBW aircraft) horrible and unpleasant to fly due to my input on the sidestick not being directly proportional to deflection of control surfaces.  That is entirely due to my lack of experience flying FBW aircraft and the "over correcting for my over correcting" tendencies that all non-FBW pilots exhibit.  (Essentially, when we move our yokes, we are constantly making small adjustments to keep the aircraft in a lateral and horizontal position that we want to keep.). In the 747, I was stuck in a never ending cycle of manipulating the (surprisingly heavy) yoke and trim.  But I found this to be really fun and enjoyable, I had a lot to do. However, when I took the A380 for a spin, the instructor that was continuously telling me to relax and stop trying to correct for non-existent errors of the plane drifting from the desired position that is shown in a non-FBW aircraft.  This actually can become incredibly dangerous and is called pilot induced oscillation, and can lead to you getting the aircraft into a situation that you never intended to get into.  It was very hard to remove these tendencies that I had become so used to while flying non-FBW aircraft.  However, once you get used to it, it becomes very easy to fly and is quite nice but I found that it became boring quickly and I could not shake off that feeling of there being a wall between me and the aircraft but if I continued using FBW, I'm sure that would go away.  I know this will anger a lot of Airbus fans but flying an Airbus really gave me a feeling of being in a video game where  I do not have full control.  That applies to the 777 (and 787) to a large extent as well though.  

However, I am much more accustomed to non-FBW aircraft and I continue to make corrections for my corrections and continuously trimming to get the bird to just stay where it is for a few short seconds before I need to make another adjustment.  I personally prefer this hectic and never ending cycle of trimming and correcting myself and hope to make that into a career for myself in a very short amount of time.

[vc10man 732]

Zach, another rivetting post, with so much insight. Great read.

[zmak 331]

38 minutes ago, aentwis said:

Unfortunately not. Three totally different aircraft with different concepts, each with its own challenges. The poster equates ease of control with the degree of automation. The easiest is going to be the one you know the best, completely regardless of any automation, as Ian so wisely put it. But I still don't understand what the point of the question is in the context here. Is the original poster looking for an aircraft to purchase that requires the least input from his/her point of view? Otherwise there is little to offer as a useful answer.

A

Since it's a question then we can only assume he doesn't know the answer in which case at the very least it's not going to be the NGX. 

[BobFS88 633]

9 hours ago, captain420 said:

Out of these 3, which one would you say is the easiest to fly (more automated), mostly handled by the computer and less interaction and hand flying?

captain420

I will speak from my experience from a PMDG prospective since I am not a real world pilot either. I have flow many of the NGX using FSX. Now that I have move to Xplane, I flowed the IXEG 737 quite often as well as being on an actual 737 when traveling.

What I find is that 737 are far more interesting to fly due to the smallness of the aircraft that gives you a sense for flight motion just like on the real thing. I like to the way it react to turbulent s more so than the larger aircraft, not that the larger one's don't, it just the sensation is more in the 737's. (you can include the airbus A318 and A319 but that is outside the scope of this topic)

I also think like some one else said that the automation is a tool for the pilot and not a replacement. For me it really gets you closer to the experience for flying the aircraft when you go thru the motion of setting up, following the procedure and using different types of approached for landing.  

Also I find that flying a 737 gives me more of a challenges due it being able to fly to smaller airports and runways under certain adverse weather condition both take off and landing.

The larger aircraft can be a challenge as well however, due to their size, it seem the movements is slower,and less spontaneous of motion, vibration than the smaller jets. I have larger jets was well but I usually take off and land from larger airports. Although you can fly them and challenge yourself by going to smaller runways but it gets away from your main topic that it would not be easy.

But for long flights the larger jets like the 777 would I would prefer. 

cheers

Bob

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, Boeing777300 said:

flying an Airbus really gave me a feeling of being in a video game

That is actually a very deliberate deliberate design choice made by EADS; they know that most new pilots coming through are from the video game generation, so it makes sense to go that way in terms of operation and haptics, in that young men and women used to computers are comfotable with the idea of 'point and click', so point and go that way makes sense in terms of flying. This is in much the same way as how the FMC's CDU was deliberately designed to look a lot like a pocket calculator, so it would be familiar to people when it first started showing up, since pocket calculators had also started to show up and that similar look helped to convey the importance of what the CDU does.

Naturally that is anathema to us old farts who are 'stick and rudder' types, but it is nevertheless the way things are going. Of course as we've seen, when things go wrong and the fancy systems pack up, the need to be able to go all stick and rudder arises, which is why, fortunately, airlines are now finally realising those skills should be maintained in addition to being able to press the buttons.

[Paul_Smith 92]

If you struggle to take off, navigate or land a Cessna, then you will find all three equally difficult to fly. If you are handy at programming then (taken to an extreme) the 747 is the hardest to fly long haul because you have to manually turn off the fuel pumps when the centre tanks empty and you have to press more buttons to start the engines, though you can start all three with the engines started. Otherwise, all three are identical. Configure, program, engage thrust, engage AP, change to cruise mode, change to descent mode, configure for landing, engage auto-land, clean up, exit.

Gets a bit boring after a while. Personally, I think I would rather go get another beer.   

[anden145 2,273]

Indeed 777. Most automated.

[kevinh 409]

4 hours ago, Chris97 said:

I think the 747 is easier to hand fly compared to the 777...

For example: If you are going to land by hand with the 777-300ER (follow ILS glidescope)... I can't exactly describe why but for me it's easier to follow the ILS glidescope with the 747-400 compared to the 777-300ER...

Do you know the Asiana Flight 214 crash at SFO?  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214)

I had similar situations with the 777-300ER as flight Asiana 214.  The aircraft is really hard to hand fly.  But I never had a situation like this with the 747-400... For me it's much easier to land the 747 by hand.

For example: If you need to increase the altitude (because your altitude is too low) just a few seconds before landing the 777 can crash... This doesn't happen with the 747-400...

I can't agree that the 777 is hard to hand fly. It can be if you overthink it. Forget it is FBW and it is as easy as any other large airliner. Think about it, if it was that hard it wouldn't get certified. Being hard to fly would make it less safe.

Any aircraft can kill you if you don't understand the mode it's actually in. The 747 is no exception. Handflying with the FD engaged but not following its commands is particularly dangerous.

[downscc 1,327]

I enjoy all the aircraft, each one brings a different set of qualities, but for pure fun my favorite is the B737-600 in BBJ livery.  In my world, the BBJ fills up with only 12 people and not much cargo so it becomes a rocket.  Lots of hand flying into places that are fun and challenging.  I don't feel compelled in any way to follow an airline schedule but feel free to go where i want.  Hop the Hawaiian Islands, spend time in St Maarten, visit Monterrey CA (the Orbx KMRY scenery is stunning). But in the end, this topic strictly opinions and opinions are like bellybuttons. Everyone has one.

[AirCanada235 103]

4 hours ago, Chock said:

  6 hours ago, Boeing777300 said:

flying an Airbus really gave me a feeling of being in a video game

This is why it is referred to as the Nintendo jet!