Which plane is easier to fly, less hands-on and more automated? Basically does most of the flying for you?

Both of them can pretty much fly themselves from gear up to autoland. Both FBW. Setting up the automation and programming the MCDU/FMS is almost the same. I cant choose 😄

1. The A330 requires you to push a knob to initiate descent after putting your target altitude at the MCP. The Boeing initiates it automatically after putting your altitude and reaching your ToD. Both of them calculates it though.

2. The Boeing A/T will physically idle the throttle levers automatically, while the A330 requires you to pull it to idle. But both still requires you to apply reversers.

3. A330 has the MCDU where you will enter your arrival info (weather info, MDA/DH) The Boeing requires you to put it using the respective knobs.

So basically just little tidbits like that that separates them. But they both can do the flying for you, for the most part.

EDIT:

Looking at it from an Add-on plane perspective though, I guess you are choosing between the Aerosoft A330 and the QW787. Therein lies the difference. Both of them have their share of VNAV Calculations problem. The Aerosoft A330 has inconsistent VNAV calculations in my experience, sometimes missing and busting altitude or speed restrictions. The QW 787 also has some, but not as frequent as the aerosoft in my experience. I would certainly be on guard for both of them when during descent so you are not hot and high on arrival.

So I guess it still depends on the developer of the plane. The PMDG 747 for example, Even if it is a much older airplane than the 2,  I would trust to take me from gear up to autoland safely with minimal supervision. I trust the VNAV Calculations and it will capture the ILS perfectly with no drama. Same goes with the FSLabs A320/19/21, that will fly the flight profile perfectly.

Edited June 4, 20206 yr by snapshot21

Yes, I am looking between those 2 specific planes. I love modern planes with all the new tech in them. So was deciding between the 2. Seems like the QW787 has the edge here from what you say.

Just now, captain420 said:

Yes, I am looking between those 2 specific planes. I love modern planes with all the new tech in them. So was deciding between the 2. Seems like the QW787 has the edge here from what you say.

Yeah between the 2, in terms of automation and tech, I would get the QW787. If you want to atleast handfly it, the 787 has a HUD which makes landings so easy and almost effortless due to the Flight Path Vector.

The 787 is the more 'hands on' of the two. Not so much because of the automated capabilities or even the avionics - both can do fully automatic flight - more because of the haptic ethos of the cockpit control's design. Like most every Boeing airliner, the 787 has a traditional interlinked pair of yokes which visually convey the control deflections better than the small - not visually interlinked - sidestick controllers in a modern Airbus. Also, the thrust lever positions reflect the power setting in most Boeings, whereas this is not the case in most Airbus airliners, which have detent positions for various flight conditions (not that this is particularly well reflected in your flight sim unless you have force-feedback motorised controllers).

Beyond this, the 787 also has an HGS which makes hand flying an approach a little bit easier to accomplish. You can operate both the A330 and the B787 completely automatically, but the 787 is better for giving you the choice to take over manually with the most useful control feedback. Ironically however, if you are talking about which one has the most fancy built-in gizmos on the flight deck, the 787, being a more modern product, is the one which has a lot more of that going on.

The 787 has some unusual aspects to its operations too; it has more electrically powered systems than most other airliners. Traditionally, most airliners use bleed air from the engines to power many of the systems, but on the 787, a lot of that is electrical, including engine start-up, APU start up, cabin pressurisation, hydraulic pumps, wing ice protection and more. This means the 787 often requires more than one ground power connection (sometimes as many as three), so you frequently see them with FEP and a GPU connected (we used to keep a GPU on the stand 31 all the time at Manchester, specifically for Etihad 787s).

The 787 is also fairly unique among modern airliners in having a bulk loading cargo door which is located on the port side, and it is quite far back on the fuselage too, which makes the conveyor have to go to a really steep angle (it's pretty steep on the 330 too), so if you are into all that GSX stuff, this makes for an interesting visual difference.

Operationally, the unusual power system also means a 787 can start both engines simultaneously whilst on the pushback, so if you are looking for something a bit unusual, which is cutting edge, but which can also be flown traditionally, the 787 is your bird.

Edited June 4, 20206 yr by Chock

When it comes to flights beyond 6000nm, like Amsterdam -> Buenos Aires the A333 might end up sailing without fuel left somewhere over Uruguay 🙂
(Never before heard about the SUDU airport, but after 13 1/2 hours that was my destiny...)

Unfortunately Aerosoft will not release an A332. So depending on your ideas of where you would like to go: Look at the max. range.

In the last 10-15 years I had the 747, 707, 767, 737 and 777 and would never ever go back to fly any Boeing aircraft, since I admire the Airbus concept. But thats only my own opinion...
Can't compare with the 787. Never bought it.

Ralf

One other thing to consider if you want even more automation is the co-pilot.
The Aerosoft A330 includes one, whereas you can purchase FS2CREW for the QW787

Even though it has some flaws, I find the Aerosoft A330 to be the vastly superior product. 
 

I’ve owned the 787 for about a year now and rarely fly it. 

Dont forget the "jump ahead" feature of the QW787, something I would love to have in every big tubeliner addon for long hauls...

I couldn't get use to the jet buzz at cruise altitude with the a330, it is known the system depth is not study level but this sound made me feel most that I am flying a casual aircraft. Implementing this feature shouldn't have required any leap of depth in the systems yet they cut on this as well.

1 hour ago, him225 said:

...it is known the system depth is not ...

Objection: Hearsay!
What exactly do you think, from you personal experience (!!!), is missing in the Aerosoft A333?
I'm flying all Aerosoft busses for many months and I simply don't miss anything. Starting the Bus cold and dark, using the fuel calculator, loading SimBrief FMS FlightPlans based on Navigraph Data I had hours of hours of perfect flights on several IVAO Tours.
Modifying the approach type in flight with different than expected runway... The FMS is perfectly working.
Please don't say you need ANY useless Switch rotating, even if it has no effect on your flight...

Sound: Not sure if we are talking about the same Aircraft. I never before had any other airliner with this superb engine spool up sound. Adjusting sound in flight due to wind changes... Everything without purchasing additional sound packages...simply included...
And: You are located in the cockpit, not in Row 20, near the engines :-)

Ralf

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

Dont forget the "jump ahead" feature of the QW787, something I would love to have in every big tubeliner addon for long hauls...

I agree, I love this feature and should be standard in planes like Boeing and Airbus. Comes in handy especially when doing medium to long haul flights. 

I've never really tested the jump ahead feature extensively in the QW787, but does it work reasonably well when you jump/skip ahead like that? I'm afraid it might throw the plane off course or make the plane instable when using fast forward type of time features like this. I'm afraid it will mess up my flight.

Well, last time I used the jump ahead feature on the 787, my engines were out after the jump. 
 

Usually it’s just some minor over speed and altitude loss craziness after the jump that calms down after a while. 

That sounds a bit risky then, especially when in a long haul flight. That could cost you a lot of time then if your plane goes out of wack during the final phase.

Did someone mention a problem with 787engines....😁... Imagine my shock