2 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Although i like the Airbus type more than Boeings i'd say the 737 is easier to learn. The Airbus behaviour has quite a lot to it.

Yup, I'd agree with this.

The A320CEO is a way more complex aeroplane than the 737NG, both in the stuff you have to know to operate it normally, and the stuff you have to know for non-normal procedures. The 737 was literally the first jet airliner which was designed and certified to be operated by two crew members, and this was long before there was the kind of computer systems automation available which the A320 takes advantage of. This fact alone highlights how much simpler the normal operation of a Boeing 737 is, as there was a lot of pilot union opposition to this change in crewing levels.

The very first Boeing 737-100 which was constructed - which was acquired by NASA - was the development aircraft used as a platform to test and develop the first FMC/CDU too. Fun fact: that's why CDUs look like a pocket calculators; they wanted to make an interface which looked similar to the then-new pocket calculators which were starting to become available, so that pilots would be reasonably familiar with the CDU's appearance. Since this sort of thing is now fairly familiar to people, the CDU and the MCP in the A320 was developed when such things were less of a culture shock to pilots and so it makes more assumptions on familiarity with such things, whereas the ones in the 737 typically are a bit more intuitive as a result of their design origins.

All of this makes the 737 not only the easier of the two to learn, but also probably the ideal jet airliner to learn on. Beyond this, the design origins of the 737 and the brief they were going for, was essentially to make a really basic and simple jet airliner which could be operated with minimal ground handling equipment. This is why it is low down to the ground, so you can actually get in the holds without steps or belts if you have to, and you can reach and work on the engines fairly easily. It also has manually operated cargo doors too, unlike the hydraulic ones on the A320, and unlike the A320, which needs to have steps brought to it, the 737 has built-in airstairs, again so it could be operated at remote airports with minimal equipment. It's also why it has a very prominent dorsal fillet on the tailfin rather than a big tall one; this is to make it small enough to fit in relatively low height-clearance hangars of the type which were common when the 737 classic series was being introduced, but has continued on later variants as a design feature.

In non-normal operations, whilst the 737 does have some manual reversion for the controls, the A320 has a complex FBW system with five different control modes depending on what it reverts to, and this affects what it will and will not do in various flight phases. There is very little of that stuff on a 737. Beyond this, the ethos behind how a 737 as opposed to an A320 are operated, is completely different too. Whilst on the face of it this can potentially make the A320 easier to operate, in practice without having studied and understood why the A320 does what it does, this can make it harder to 'get' initially. This is why when pilots were first converting to the A320, there were a lot of crashes and incidents, and it was a common theme on CVR recordings to hear pilots saying things like 'why is it doing that?' because the FBW modes and what they could and could not do were something of a mystery to pilots used to having more 'hands-on' control. This is where all of that 'scarebus' and 'if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going' stuff originated from, and ironically, in making the 737 MAX more computerised, it is where Boeing have ended up going through the same hard-won experience which Airbus did years before when it comes to adding more FBW systems to an airliner, which is relevant to the MAX of course, but not the NG.

There is perhaps no better example of what this means in practical terms, than to look at the well-known crash of an Air France A320 at Habsheim airport (AF296Q). This occurred when the A320 was literally a brand-new type (1988). The pilots were doing an airshow fly-by and were too low and too slow. They were attempting to show how cool it was that you could literally do this and the plane would not let you pull up into a stall condition, but realised they were about to hit some trees at the end of the runway they were flying along. So they tried to pull up, but that very feature of the A320's protection systems meant they could not do it until they had more speed on. Too late, they throttled up, but with not enough speed on, the A320 dutifully followed its programming and refused to pull up, striking the trees. The catalyst of this mistake, was in failing to understand that these features are very cool and very safety-driven, but if you don't understand them, they can, and will, bite you.

The essence of all this is that to operate an A320, you typically provide its systems with information, and then those systems make the decisions about how it flies with its automatic functionality, whereas with a 737NG, it's the other way around: The instruments give the pilots information, and then they make the decisions about how to fly it based on that and if they want to, they will engage some automatic systems to assist them. Because of this, you have to tell the A320 all the right stuff via the CDU and MCP, so it can fly correctly, whereas the 737 gives you info from its instrumentation, and then with that info, you fly it using your piloting knowledge. So the 737 is more of a 'pilot's aeroplane' than an A320 is. You can sum this up by saying: 'you fly a 737, whereas you operate an A320' although there is nothing really stopping to you from flying an A320 manually so long as you understand how that process is occurring via an FBW input system as opposed to via a bunch of pushrods, cables and pulleys. Neither way is intrinsically better, but depending on your knowledge and preferences, you might prefer, and be more comfortable, with one way over the other, but there is certainly less to know on a 737 than there is on an A320 to get the things up around and back down if you are a decent enough stick and rudder pilot.

We all know that the term 'study level' is about as nebulous as you can possibly get, and if anything, it's more of a marketing tool than anything else, but where a real attempt at in-depth simulation of the 737 and the A320 are concerned (as is the case with PMDG and Fenix), there is a lot more going on 'under the hood', and so if you genuinely do like studying things, I can recommend the following books: Airbus A320: Systems Description, by Facundo Conforti, and The Boeing 737 Technical Guide, by Chris Brady. That these books are relevant to these simulated aeroplanes, in that the systems they simulate are genuinely interlinked to one another in terms of cause and effect, is what makes them 'study level' products.

 

Edited May 27, 20224 yr by Chock

What gives me most grief hand-flying an Airbus is the auto-throttle cutting in and going to 100% and ruining things just as I'm getting all the ducks back in a row...

13 hours ago, pstrub said:

Still I think both the CJ4 and the FBW A320 can be great for testing the water to see whether or not you enjoy flying certain types of passenger jets, and whether or not you feel comfortable about the Airbus philosophy of jet flying.

That's true. The CJ4 is a good training tool for the CRJ.

I am surprised no one has told you this. You Invest to learn the 737 and you have 737, 777 and the 747 all study level aircrafts in one go with slight variations.

The Fenix A320 

Then the Leonardo MadDog M82

Then If you have time (This is much Harder to fly. You have to manage the power ) the CRJ700

As to your second Q. The Sids and Stars. The the ATC Default doesn't help you with any of these flight plans. 

The default ATC uses the flight path of the Default flight plan and all these 4  uses the its own flight plan. I generally match the default flight plan as close to these 4 aircraft flight plan as much as possible.

 

Edited May 27, 20224 yr by Manny

12 hours ago, keithb77 said:

What gives me most grief hand-flying an Airbus is the auto-throttle cutting in and going to 100% and ruining things just as I'm getting all the ducks back in a row...

You are supposed to disconnect the auto throttle as well when you hand fly. 

23 hours ago, Farlis said:

You are supposed to disconnect the auto throttle as well when you hand fly. 

It reconnects itself if you exceed certain parameters eg bank angle, low speed, angle of descent...

56 minutes ago, keithb77 said:

It reconnects itself if you exceed certain parameters eg bank angle, low speed, angle of descent...

That's the point, it's a foolproof system, it was designed to intervene and correct pilot errors.

Anyways, both aircraft are fun to learn and should be on everyone's shopping list.

15 hours ago, airlinejets said:

designed to intervene and correct pilot errors

But I'm a glider pilot and my ideas of acceptable bank angle and descent rates don't match with Airbus' (or passengers) ... so the simulation accuracy detracts from it's enjoyability for me, others will prefer it that way which is fine 🙂

7 hours ago, keithb77 said:

But I'm a glider pilot and my ideas of acceptable bank angle and descent rates don't match with Airbus' (or passengers) ... so the simulation accuracy detracts from it's enjoyability for me, others will prefer it that way which is fine 🙂

The default A320 is probably a better plane if you want something that looks like an Airbus but doesn’t have all the protections/depth. I’m not certain cause I never tried it, but perhaps the default A320 will let you bank and descend in the way that you like?

Quote

perhaps the default A320 will let you bank and descend in the way that you like?

The JustFlight 146 is (I think) the best airliner to hand-fly, I'm very happy with it 🙂 The 320NEO is way too NEW for me...for Airbuses I fly the iniBuilds 300 in X****e

We've gone a bit off-topic, I was just trying to suggest that of the two original candidates in the OP the Airbus would be the less satisfying to hand-fly, apologies...

On 5/24/2022 at 10:29 PM, briansommers said:

Is there anything like the above for Boeing 737-700?

https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-fsx-fslabs-a320/ same link as above - just select the B737.

Regards,

Ray

Fenix A320 is spot on amazing - I actually got it off the ground and following a flight plan perfectly with a keyboard lol

Which I dont recommend had to trim like crazy to get it off the ground - I was waiting for my new yoke at the time

deleted

On 5/24/2022 at 10:29 PM, briansommers said:

Is there anything like the above for Boeing 737-700?

Chuck’s Guides – FSX PMDG 737 NG | Mudspike

Regards,

Ray

On 5/27/2022 at 11:21 PM, Farlis said:

You are supposed to disconnect the auto throttle as well when you hand fly. 

In a 737 yes, not in an A320.

Typically the autothrottle is kept in until the Retard call at 20 feet.