Don't forget that long before the A320, Concorde had fly-by-wire flight controls. Not implemented by programmable digital computers, but using analog "computers". And it had flight envelope protection. The controls had feed-back, and were physically connected like on Boeing. A marvel of engineering, designed in the 60s :-)
@ZK-APA3 күн бұрын
Thats not surprising, considering aerospatiale (manufacturer of concorde) eventually merged to form airbus.
@Echo_Lima3 күн бұрын
When I started watching your videos, I could only dream of becoming a pilot. Now I am doing the a320 rating and I am very happy that you are still here and still I get a lot of important info. Thanks man for all the videos until now. Keep going. Safe flights.
@flywithcaptainjoe3 күн бұрын
Great to hear!
@taniaivanirdeoliveira56203 күн бұрын
Waw, joe com seus sorrisos e inspiração nos faz acreditar e realizar sonhos de verdade. Amo seus vídeos explicativos desejo felicidades a você joe🫡✈️🙏🏻🫰
@EdOeuna3 күн бұрын
For an aircraft design that is over 30 years old, the Boeing engineers got the 777 FBW system absolutely perfect. You are still in control of the aircraft (Boeing philosophy) but the aircraft will try and “fight back” against your attempts to do anything beyond the flight envelope. It is also a dream to fly and feels as light as a feather at all weights and configurations.
@EmilioGameair3 күн бұрын
Remember when joe was an Airbus pilot?
@craig70833 күн бұрын
When you have flown both types, you will understand.
@EmilioGameair3 күн бұрын
@craig7083 wth
@EmilioGameair3 күн бұрын
@craig7083 i literally just said " remember when joe was an airbus pilot" referencing to the time when he was flying for AirBerlin
@Hans_R._Wahl3 күн бұрын
Yes, with Air Berlin. Now many years ago.
@lp3ligr0l3 күн бұрын
Yes air Berlin I'm an OG subscriber
@Andyb23793 күн бұрын
Having worked as an aircraft refueller. I can tell you that the airbus fuel system is years ahead of Boeing. It’s superior how it balances & distributes the fuel between the wings and the centre tanks.
@danielaramburo76483 күн бұрын
Boeing has a philosophy “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”.
@nobodyinteresting99673 күн бұрын
You mean the Philosophie of don't spend money....on nothing
@itsme-vw5yo7 сағат бұрын
@@danielaramburo7648 just like the apple company. I mean what's up with the companies of the United States settling for less?
@elcastorgrande3 күн бұрын
Raja is great! Keep her on board.
@cockerhamsands21 сағат бұрын
Preferably with no clothes on.
@JimmyHendrixJR3 күн бұрын
Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) 1964. First to use fly by wire.
@klssn343 күн бұрын
Exactly
@MrMartinae063 күн бұрын
You beat me to it... Awesome piece of technology!
3 күн бұрын
Also known as the Flying Bedstead, or the contraption that almost killed Neil Armstrong.
@MikeDCWeld3 күн бұрын
I was thinking the Space Shuttle. Close, but a bit later on.
@stargazer2504Күн бұрын
I knew it was an early space flight vehicle, I was thinking Mercury or Gemini.
@rkspotter3 күн бұрын
So nice to see Raja :) And thank you guys for showing so many technical aspects!
@rajainthesky3 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@ZK-APA3 күн бұрын
Basically the difference between flying a boeing vs flying an airbus as a pilot is like if you're driving a sports car vs driving a grand tourer. A sports car will giver better performance, better handling and more driving enjoyment to a driver but a grand tourer will give better comfort and control when driving long distances in public roads at whatever speed limits there are. There is no wrong answer in terms of which is better or worse. It basically depends on personal preference and the situation.
@ilovetotri232 күн бұрын
Great video! Thank you so much for posting it!
@tomkam873 күн бұрын
the first "fly by wire" technology is radio-controlled boat in the late 1890s
@fuzailkhan97013 күн бұрын
First non commercial vehicle is Apollo 9 Lunar Module which has a Fly By Wire control system or Lunar Landing Research/Training Vehicle on which astronauts were trained.
@Hans_R._Wahl3 күн бұрын
Thank you very much!🙂👍 Very educating.🙂
@ericho48433 күн бұрын
The first non-commercial vehicle to use fly-by-wire technology was the Apollo Lunar Module, developed by NASA in the 1960s
@connork53393 күн бұрын
I knew a guy back in the 90's who was an A and P mechanic at the UAL base at San Francisco Int. I asked him once which aircraft were easer to do maintenance and parts replacement on. Boeing or Airbus. Without hesitation he said Airbus.
@michelpassone8804Күн бұрын
Thanks for this interesting video. I have very modest experience as a private pilot. Personally, I have always found that the "whell" gives more the impression of better control of the machine than the stick.
@lsa16413 күн бұрын
Modern Airbus FBW should be compared with modern Boeing FBW system. Not with 50yo classic construction.
@Cosmozorb3 күн бұрын
THAT'S what I call a CaptainJoe video.
@Hans_R._Wahl3 күн бұрын
🙂👍
@emilePadja3 күн бұрын
Great video, very educating. great job. Keep it up.
@philipkudrna56433 күн бұрын
Seems Airbus should introduce feedback on the sidestick or at least self-moving throttle controls. I often hear that the lack of situational awareness in an Airbus is a disadvantage, with pilots not realizing that the plane is suddenly in direct law and they lost all protection that they usually rely upon and are suddenly overwhelmed with having to really fly the plane…
@mikkorenvall428Күн бұрын
Agree.. Have read and heard the same. There should be a big and clear change in something to clearify when automation is off... a beacon, or change in colour of artificial horizon or something bigger than a one little text on the dash.
@itsme-vw5yo7 сағат бұрын
I hear they are developing that connected side sticks
@henrimichelpierreplana43323 күн бұрын
Thanks for this video. I read somewhere that the laws of the fbw between boeing and airbus are different. And that airbus planes have a waiver from the faa to operate in the us.
@APaviationgame8143 күн бұрын
I WANT TO BE AN EMIRATES PILOT. JOE YOU ARE MY MOTIVATION.
@ivandivan18813 күн бұрын
The Apollo Lunar Landing Research Vehicle was the first that used fly-by-wire with no mechanical or hydraulic backup
@michaelb17163 күн бұрын
Thank you Joe and Raja! Would an Airbus side stick with the feedback of a Boeing yoke be the ideal hybrid?
@jarekferenc1149Күн бұрын
An ideal hybrid would be the yoke on the CPT side, and the side sick on the FO side :-)
@gnomegemini26423 күн бұрын
As far as I know the V2 was controlled electrically. But not "nontrolled". I think the wonderfull looking Avro Vulcan was the first full FBW aircraft but also the latest versions of the B-17 had FBW but only for HDG+ALT hold.
@alexandruolaru82663 күн бұрын
Very interesting video👌👌👌
@RRC7863 күн бұрын
Please make video on these topics-Different anntennas in airplane and all major avionics instruments in cockpit
@rolfts57623 күн бұрын
On the quiz-part: ..is it the F-16 fighter? //btw, Thanks for interesting video Raja and Joe
@AtharvaKarthik-jw8ed3 күн бұрын
That is what I thought
@Ramsi-Berlin3 күн бұрын
I think the luna Apollo 9 Vehikel was first ❕🤔
@Ramsi-Berlin3 күн бұрын
Or the AVRO Vulcan 1952 ❔❕🤷🏻♂️
@shamimkhan5874Күн бұрын
Thanks for an informative video 👍
@FatimaDuarte-e5h3 күн бұрын
impressive knowledge
@riaan78363 күн бұрын
nice one love it
@blackmamba34273 күн бұрын
Awesome video ❤
@LightMike663 күн бұрын
I believe the F-117 Nighthawk was the first full fly-by-wire plane. Its non-commercial :)=. Otherwise nice video👍
@GVTSounds3 күн бұрын
Can't have been. Concorde was the First fly by wire Passenger jet, and that was built in the 60s, F117 wasn't built until the 80s.
@ConstantlyDamaged3 күн бұрын
@@GVTSounds Concorde was a commercial aircraft.
@RaysDad3 күн бұрын
Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330, crashed largely because both pilots were making sidestick inputs at the same time.
@shi012 күн бұрын
The sidesticks weren't even mentioned as a contributing factor in the accident report...
@RaysDad2 күн бұрын
@@shi01 Yes, Airbus is good at suppressing negative information. The fact remains that one pilot panicked during stall and was pulling back his sidestick while the other pilot was appropriately pushing his stick forward to lower the nose. Neither pilot knew what the other was doing, and that can't happen in a Boeing airplane.
@shi01Күн бұрын
@@RaysDad Just, that this isn't true. There were dual input events, yes. But the inputs the pilot in command did, wouldn't have resolved the situation even if Bonin, the guy who pulled on the stick, would had let his stick go to neutral. Also, there's always the priority button. Push it, you have exclusive control. The issue in the case of AF447 weren't the side sticks. It was the immediate break down of CRM. Why didn't they consult the checklist for unreliable airspeed? Why were they the only crew that manage to crash because of this specific problem. It was known that the pitot tubes on the A330 at the time had this specific weakness and similar incidents happend before, multiple times. Nobody else manage to crash the aircraft because of it. In fact these crews reported that it wasn't a big deal. Also you're dead wrong if you think something similar can't happen with the Boeing setup. Just look up the AF011 incident in 2022. 777 with Dual input situation without the other pilot noticing it. And in the a Boeing, you don't even get a warning if this happens, and it happens more often than people would think.
@luissimmons6543 күн бұрын
next question why is it that when you are landing you push and pull the yoke and twisting it inn and out then right and left in a constant movement
@tomstravels5203 күн бұрын
Bigger deflections of the control surfaces are needed at low speed due to less air flowing over the surfaces. In Airbus the computer compensates for this so you only have to make small corrections
@MikeDCWeld3 күн бұрын
They have to make adjustments to maintain their glideslope ant the centerline, especially if they're dealing with crosswinds.
@EdOeuna3 күн бұрын
Looking at pilots landing a 737, there seems to be a lot of this. I believe it is down to the lack of FBW, instead being old fashioned cables and pulleys. These mean the flight controls are a lot more sensitive. Try that in a 777 and you’ll snap the wings off.
@akvinodin3 күн бұрын
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow is the 1st non commercial FBW
@Brightsystem3 күн бұрын
The first non-commercial vehicle to use fly by wire technology was the Avro CF-105 Arrow
@lufthansaplanespotting2 күн бұрын
joe, get her more on your videos im just saying
@mikelpacker2 күн бұрын
I think the lunar rover was the first fly-by-wire non-commercial vehicle? 🚗 🚀
@0rphee013 күн бұрын
The first? The concorde! Or non commercial is the F16!
@FTStratLP2 күн бұрын
Thank you for this great video! So, does the side stick in the A320 move back into neutral position, when you leave hold of it? And in the conventional 747 it will stay in a certain position according to pitch trim? How is it in the 747-8? For me as only being a flight simmer the lack of real trimming and thus having the controls always centering themselves, if you leave hold of them (except maybe when using a force feedback yoke/stick) is one of the biggest draw backs of flight simming.
@ARandom7772 күн бұрын
Yes the sidestick is spring loaded back into the neutral position. The 747-8 function the same way as a conventional plane in regards to pitch. The FBW is only for the ailerons It's partial FBW, not full FBW, as in for all axis, like the 777 or 787.
@FTStratLP2 күн бұрын
@@ARandom777Thank you! Much appreciated.
@JanetGrech2 күн бұрын
The big problem with flight sims is, of course, the plane doesn't exist, so is not subject to the exterior atmospheric conditions. The flipside, I guess, is that flying real planes is, broadly speaking, approaching sims in approximating situational awareness and overall control, especially with the phenomenal rise in frame rates on up-to-date graphics devices, enabling ever more realistic through-the-window scenery. The full motion simulator being show-cased is the ultimate in the dedicated flight simmers wishbox. Thanks to Joe and Raja.
@FTStratLPКүн бұрын
@@JanetGrech Well said!
@helge0003 күн бұрын
I guess NASA's Digital Fly By Wire F-8 with the fancy 80's font using the modified Apollo Guidance Computer?
@Scarebus_Driver3 күн бұрын
10,000 hours Airbus Boeing FBW 3000..Boeing for me im allowed to be treated as a pilot. Similarly the Boeing failure mentality is LIGHTYEARS better than ECAM and the overly regulated failure management Airbus inflict on crews. From a failure management perspective its not even close..
@ARandom7772 күн бұрын
Honestly it's pretty nice to see a pilot who isn't on the Airbus train for once. Today you won't see much pilots preferring Boeing over Airbus. I assume you're a 787 pilot based on the pic, my favorite of the Boeings. A technological marvel of the 2000s.
@anand-menon3 күн бұрын
Robert Pearson landed his Boeing at Gimli after losing both engines using Fly By Seat Of Pants....
@rickypalacios15543 күн бұрын
The general dynamics F-16 was the first the Fly by wire aircraft
@francoistombe3 күн бұрын
F 16 was the first to use a side stick. A limited fly by wire was used in the Lockheed 1011 TriStar. The TriStar was very sophisticated with computer management and was the first airliner to fly from takeoff to landing under autopilot control completely. TriStar came 2 years before A300. Would have been 3 years earlier if RollsRoyce had not had financial problems developing the engines.
@01thomasss2 күн бұрын
Answer: "The Flying Bedstead" of the NASA moon landing project of the late 1960's.
@flywithcaptainjoe2 күн бұрын
Correct!
@tomstravels5203 күн бұрын
The very newest A320NEO’s only have 4x flight control computers instead of 7
@skat0r3 күн бұрын
A321*, there's no A320 with e-rudder yet.
@eltfell3 күн бұрын
Quiz: If you take the question word by word, the Boeing B-17 was the first non-commercial vehicle to use the fly-by-wire technology. That's because its autopilot wasn't mechanically connected to the control surfaces. It was electrically connected to the actuators. That autopilot was simple and could only provide a stable flight straight ahead. But fly-by-wire technology was used. The first vehicle using a fly-by-wire system to control its movements by pilots was the Avro Vulcan 1952, 12 ahead of the moon lander.
@massmike1111 сағат бұрын
In the B-17 the bomb sight could also control the flight controls during the bombing procedure.
@RRC7863 күн бұрын
please make video on audio control panel(ACP) and radio management panel(RMP) in airbus aircraft.
@copinieve91943 күн бұрын
👍👏❤️ excelente video 🫶🏻
@pashabolokhov3 күн бұрын
Is this again the sort of video with a provoking title, but after you watch the whole of it, they'll say: well it's up to you which you like best, every choice is good
@flywithcaptainjoe2 күн бұрын
Thanks for watching the whole video!
@connorcunningham26472 күн бұрын
Is the answer the lunar landing research vehicle?
@bongm60393 күн бұрын
I think the first none commercial aircraft with FBW was the F16 Falcon
@pietrophyothetzaw3 күн бұрын
Can you make a Airbus vs ATR video
@danielaramburo76483 күн бұрын
The 747 is so durable and tough, the US president trust it.
@kwladner3 күн бұрын
Lunar Vehicle is teh right answer?
@APaviationgame8143 күн бұрын
I WANT A SIM LIKE THAT
@-DC-3 күн бұрын
Bus is far more ergonomic and comfortable as a narrow isle Aircraft Cockpit.
@TwitMoe3 күн бұрын
The space shuttle.
@theresacaron423823 сағат бұрын
I disagree, in the Airbus the computer is in control limiting the pilots' inputs. In addition, lack of feedback in the joysticks caused an Air France airbus to crash in the Atlantic as the pilot in charge did not realize the co-pilot was holding full aft stick on his side preventing a stall recovery. In a Yoke aircraft, the other pilot can monitor the inputs by observing the movement on the yokes. So, in my book, the computer-controlled aircraft is operated by less skillful pilots who rely on computers to save their bacon. I use a joystick to play games, not to fly an airplane. You should both join the Airbus sales department as this was the obvious goal of your presentation.
@user-kp1ei7mn3x3 күн бұрын
I'm a (Ret) tank commander, I can drive and shoot a tank. ;)
@req20002 күн бұрын
I still don't see a difference, says the Air traffic controller, they all seem to fly the same to me 🤣
@bartoszskowronski3 күн бұрын
airbus and his "fly by computer" that is my definition. for "fly by wire" flight controls should ALWAYS represent of real position of control surfaces. And if computer decides it's not safe, force movement of yoke/stick is activated, like stick-pusher do, in many modern aircraft. that is a way I see that. and airbus's "fly by computer" proof safety of that system.
@loiswhite5032 күн бұрын
Good video,
@RobertGracie3 күн бұрын
I was gonna say the 1957 Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
@320FL3 күн бұрын
I flew yoke first then transitioned to the side stick. A damn kid can manually fly the airbus no joke..
@kenbrown28083 күн бұрын
considering pilots of both airliners had to learn in small aircraft, they all have to be pilots, before they get handed the certifications. I think a more accurate expression is that Boeing pilots pilot more actively in normal hand flight than airbus pilots.
@DaEarl7773 күн бұрын
AVRO Vulcan was the First Fly by wire plane
@aashay3503 күн бұрын
Ofcourse Airbus... 🙌
@gcampagn3 күн бұрын
Well, I actually have both a Trustmaster Boeing yoke and the Trustmaster Airbus(Scarebus) sidestick for using my MSFS 2020 simulator and I very much prefer flying with the Boeing yoke because it's much more forgiving than with the sidestick if you happen to do a bad abrupt move! I have a disability in my hands which makes me to get tremors so I only use the sidestick for steering when I'm taxiing on the ground. I don't have pedals, yet. I am going to get pedals soon and that will finish my simulator cockpit. I already have the thrust quadrant(the Thrustmaster Airbus(Scarebus) because it's better quality than the Thrustmaster Boing thrust quadrant). My VR headset completes my flying experience beautifully!
@danielaramburo76483 күн бұрын
Airbus tells the pilot what to do, Boeing pilots tell the plane what to do.
@luissimmons6543 күн бұрын
please question what are the most common frequencies used in Atlantic region i mean from north america to the south Argentina and the caribean i have in my book 124.1 133.0 133.4 199.6 124.0thoes are fiew that i have do you the others
@EdOeuna3 күн бұрын
Crossing that Atlantic, the most common frequencies listened to are 123.4 and 121.5.
@carlweisser39913 күн бұрын
After 30,000 hours flying a multitude of Boeings and Airbus, my choice is Boeing. The reason I chose Boeing is situational awareness. The side stick is great but it isn't mirrored on the non flying pilot side. Even if it were, the movements are so slight, it would be difficult to determine what the flying pilot was doing. In a boeing you have the old faithful yoke. It's easy to see wht the flying pilot is doing and if necessary either help on the controls or at the very least see what he/she is doing. The auto throttles don't move in the Bus. Again, no situational awareness. Seeing the throttles move is in my opinion essential. You can't cross control an Airbus. The side stick controls RATE of turn, not ANGLE of bank. So, in a crosswind, you either time kicking out the crab to land straight or land in a crab. In a Boeing you can actually do a forward slip just like you did when you were learning to fly if you are more than 60 years old you will understand. It works in all Boeings except the 747 because of the outboard engine and the 737 with the curb feeler winlets. The only thing I like about the Airbus is the dinner tray.
@rasta77-x7o3 күн бұрын
I am no pilot, but i see Mentour Pilot has the same complaint often about the input not being felt in the other stick and that could have saved some events. However i do appreciate Airbus hard laws or whatever it is called has saved people where the pilots would have caused their demise.
@Inquisite10313 күн бұрын
@@rasta77-x7o triggering any of the airbus normal law protections is very very rare, and if a pilot does do that he or she has some serious explaining to do
@Nemo2507s3 күн бұрын
@@rasta77-x7oUPRT is mandatory on every airplane even airplanes with stall prevention systems like Airbus because someone managed to stall and crashed an A320. Airbus’s prevention mostly only works if you actually know how to deal with it
@tonamg533 күн бұрын
@@Inquisite1031At least the pilot get a chance to explain themselves in an Airbus… Do the same in Boeing and usually the investigators had to dig through the wreckage to find the explanations…
@Scarebus_Driver3 күн бұрын
@@tonamg53 heard of Air France 447?
@Gliderpilot20243 күн бұрын
The description of roll control is wrong. A conventional aircraft does not roll to wings level from a turn when the yoke or stick is let go.
@ZK-APA3 күн бұрын
Roll is not the right word, but yes because of stability it will return back to wings level eventually.
@shi012 күн бұрын
Depends what you call "conventional". Basically all airliner type aircraft are build with a so called "dihedral wing" which means the wings are slightly canted. This causes asymetrical lift when the aircraft is rolled which causes the aircraft to roll slowly back to a neutral position by itself without additional control inputs.
@rash86213 күн бұрын
👍🏾
@David-yy7lb3 күн бұрын
Awesome explanation but i don't understand is if a plane loses all hydraulic systems why doesn't the airplane manufacturer us electric actuators for the main flight controls so the pilots can still control the plane to make an emergency landing....prime example flight 232 when the #2 engine fan disk blew apart and ruptured all the hydraulic lines the plane was uncontrollable and crashed landed in Suiox city Iowa
@ARandom7773 күн бұрын
787, A380 and A350 already do this. The 787 has Electro Mechanical Actuators that will power 2 spoilers per wing and the trimmable horizontal stabilizer if all 3 systems fail. The A380 and A350 has Electro Backup Hydraulic Actuators that will power some spoilers, elevators, horizontal stabilizer and rudder if the 2 hydraulic systems fail. They are the only aircraft after the 737 that can survive all hydraulic systems dead provided one engine is running that is...If all engines are dead with no RAT (and electricity in the 787 because the batteries can power the controls with no hydraulics for a limited time only), only then are you doomed on those 3 as well.
@Inquisite10313 күн бұрын
because the chances of that happing is very very slim, and to put on electrical actuators that can move flight controls that big would be a massive undertaking, i always tell this to people who think they have great ideas, if u can come up with an idea, then the people who design that also came up with it, and if its not implemented its because there are hurdles that u are not smart enough to realize.
@massmike1111 сағат бұрын
You are not smart enough to realize? Really? How many great invention came from one man with an idea in his garage that nobody else thought would work? Since we are talking aircraft, the whole thing false to two bicycle makers and before that some crazy gut with some ash sticks and canvas.
@MartinIbert3 күн бұрын
Raja's native language is German, right?
@rajainthesky3 күн бұрын
Haha yup 😅👍
@selloeliamolekwa5303 күн бұрын
Captain Joe's videos want me to want to abandon my career and take up a pilot training program.
@Katschero3 күн бұрын
I think it was the X15
@Tacticaldave13 күн бұрын
It’s called a scarebus for a reason. Pilots fly the jet.
@kenbrown28083 күн бұрын
most manlifts are drive by wire systems.
@eduardodaquiljr963721 сағат бұрын
Naturally it must be in front of someone,imagine driving a bicycle with steering on your side? All moving vehicles,flying vehicles,all controls are found at the front of operator ,pilot,not on the side.
@halesworth013 күн бұрын
Airbus any day!
@stargazer2504Күн бұрын
Yes.. Airbus is "perfect" as seen in Flight 447, Flight 587, and the Habsheiam air show, among many others. Certainly not saying Boeing is perfect, but neither is Airbus.....
@kevinsnell16223 күн бұрын
If I were a pilot in trouble and in an unusual attitude I think I would feel more confident and comfortable correcting the problem with two hands on a yoke control.
@csjames69Күн бұрын
Too bad the Airbus A330 of Air France that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean didn’t have the dual control warnings. A tragic accident that shouldn’t have happened if that technology was on that aircraft. Perhaps it was but the captain and the first officer were inputting different commands and they were oblivious to this fact.
@manutecservicoautomotivo49293 күн бұрын
Só faltou a legenda em português 😢
@Е.М-ч8р3 күн бұрын
Where is Michele???? Joe she has best colabs with you only! ❤ @Dutchpilot
@ZINDJGABECORDERO3 күн бұрын
I love boeing but I love airbus more haha they are both good really good
@Allan-Lauder3 күн бұрын
I have a 12 year old son who is fascinated by Aeroplanes, we have tried both the 737 and A320 Fixed based sims, not having flown anything before we both thought the A320 was the most natural to fly for a novice. I think it comes down to are you really flying the A320 or just there for the ride, the Boeing needs a lot more pilot input. I didn’t know the 777 was fly by wire, I thought all Boeing were traditional mechanical flight control mechanisms.
@Hans_R._Wahl3 күн бұрын
The 777 and 787 are fly-by-wire, but in a different way as Airbus.
@markusthl3 күн бұрын
Because a novice can tell what is the most "natural" (whatever that's supposed to mean) way an aircraft is supposed to fly....🤦🏼♂️ And also, of course they design aircraft controls based on what is easier for people who have no idea about flying! So, very good point from your side
@Inquisite10313 күн бұрын
u still need to trim the 777 so yeah a novice will still struggle with it
@EdOeuna3 күн бұрын
The 777 feels light as a feather because of its FBW, even at MTOW.
@kylanmullis47533 күн бұрын
W pilots.
@CaptainAli.AAnderson3 күн бұрын
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
@nhlakaniphomdluli1453 күн бұрын
The first vehicle is cybertruck from tesla
@kevinsavla3 күн бұрын
17:29 answer is Avro Canada CF-105
@aerodreams73753 күн бұрын
I bet it was a rocket out of a Apollo mission
@johnmorris78153 күн бұрын
Side stick of course….
@gcampagn3 күн бұрын
One question that could be asked is, if there were an EMP attack, like an enhanced EMP nuclear weapon exploded at a cerrtain distance from an aircraft, which type of aircraft do you think would survive better, the Boeing or the Airbus(Scarebus)?
@tjerkheringa9373 күн бұрын
This like comparing apples to peaches. Why don't you compare the A320 to the 737?