C Series Info
11-17-2019, 10:02 PM
#3851
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,738
I agree on paper, having a common type 100-350 seats sounds brilliant.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
11-18-2019, 01:19 AM
#3852
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
11-18-2019, 02:46 AM
#3853
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I agree on paper, having a common type 100-350 seats sounds brilliant.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
Yet, don't know how you standardize two cockpits designed inherently different, with flight control laws and logic, electrical/hydraulic/pneumatic system components and logic, all different. Rockwell Collins vs Thales avionics displays & FMGCs, Auto-thrust vs throttle. And outside of the cockpit, the MX side has no commonality. You'd have to rip the entire brains and central nervous system out of the 220 and replace it with 1990s tech to accomplish what you seek. If SWA couldn't get the 737 classic the same type as the MAX, this will never happen.
I guess it's still a wait and see what Boeing does, and of course Boeing could ignore the 100-149 seat market given it's small share. Then Airbus doesnt have do anything either and the 220 is the redheaded stepchild... with hopefully a share of the inheritance.
As to the technology, it may be software that started in the 80s, or really with the Concorde, but it's constantly upgraded and updated from a massive amount of line experience. It's not bad.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 11-18-2019 at 03:06 AM.
11-18-2019, 05:51 AM
#3854
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,738
11-18-2019, 09:35 AM
#3856
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 644
Exactly. Going from the current 220 layout to the 320/330 or even 350 cockpit would be a regression and I don’t see at all how it would help the “longevity” of the airframe as the other poster mentioned. It’s literally newer than anything else out there...
11-18-2019, 10:06 AM
#3857
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
A220 is completely different to actual Airbii. The philosophy of the FCP, FMS, control laws, systems etc are not even of the same root language. I highly doubt you will ever see a commonality between that machine and the Airbii.
As far as technological advancement, the screens are light years ahead of the 320/330 and arguably the 350.
The box is more capable in theory. In practice, there is so much turned off in the FMS that it is actually well behind the Airbus and Boeing glass.
Let’s take VNAV. On the advanced side, the 220 is more advanced than brand A or B in that you can go vertically direct to places and you have a lot of info at your disposal.
However, we are restricted to geometric only descents. It draws a 3 degree line and that’s what you fly. It doesn’t take into account winds when calculating TOD so you may be at idle thrust, half throttle, or speedbrake extended. Also, it doesn’t take into account deceleration segments. In an A/B product, if you put in a crossing restriction at ABC VOR of 250/12000 feet, it will build a level or shallow descent segment right before the fix to bleed off the energy. The 220 doesn’t do that. It just moves the speed bug back to 250 and closes the thrust levers. It’s up to you to use speedbrake or to get below the path or whatever else to make that 250kt restriction.
Now......that should be fixed in the future but who knows.
I’m also not trying to trash the 220. It’s my jet and I really like it. I’m just trying to illustrate that it isn’t an Airbus and trying to make it one will be more expensive than starting over!!
Ciao
As far as technological advancement, the screens are light years ahead of the 320/330 and arguably the 350.
The box is more capable in theory. In practice, there is so much turned off in the FMS that it is actually well behind the Airbus and Boeing glass.
Let’s take VNAV. On the advanced side, the 220 is more advanced than brand A or B in that you can go vertically direct to places and you have a lot of info at your disposal.
However, we are restricted to geometric only descents. It draws a 3 degree line and that’s what you fly. It doesn’t take into account winds when calculating TOD so you may be at idle thrust, half throttle, or speedbrake extended. Also, it doesn’t take into account deceleration segments. In an A/B product, if you put in a crossing restriction at ABC VOR of 250/12000 feet, it will build a level or shallow descent segment right before the fix to bleed off the energy. The 220 doesn’t do that. It just moves the speed bug back to 250 and closes the thrust levers. It’s up to you to use speedbrake or to get below the path or whatever else to make that 250kt restriction.
Now......that should be fixed in the future but who knows.
I’m also not trying to trash the 220. It’s my jet and I really like it. I’m just trying to illustrate that it isn’t an Airbus and trying to make it one will be more expensive than starting over!!
Ciao
11-18-2019, 12:18 PM
#3858
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,249
A220 is completely different to actual Airbii. The philosophy of the FCP, FMS, control laws, systems etc are not even of the same root language. I highly doubt you will ever see a commonality between that machine and the Airbii.
As far as technological advancement, the screens are light years ahead of the 320/330 and arguably the 350.
The box is more capable in theory. In practice, there is so much turned off in the FMS that it is actually well behind the Airbus and Boeing glass.
Let’s take VNAV. On the advanced side, the 220 is more advanced than brand A or B in that you can go vertically direct to places and you have a lot of info at your disposal.
However, we are restricted to geometric only descents. It draws a 3 degree line and that’s what you fly. It doesn’t take into account winds when calculating TOD so you may be at idle thrust, half throttle, or speedbrake extended. Also, it doesn’t take into account deceleration segments. In an A/B product, if you put in a crossing restriction at ABC VOR of 250/12000 feet, it will build a level or shallow descent segment right before the fix to bleed off the energy. The 220 doesn’t do that. It just moves the speed bug back to 250 and closes the thrust levers. It’s up to you to use speedbrake or to get below the path or whatever else to make that 250kt restriction.
Now......that should be fixed in the future but who knows.
I’m also not trying to trash the 220. It’s my jet and I really like it. I’m just trying to illustrate that it isn’t an Airbus and trying to make it one will be more expensive than starting over!!
Ciao
As far as technological advancement, the screens are light years ahead of the 320/330 and arguably the 350.
The box is more capable in theory. In practice, there is so much turned off in the FMS that it is actually well behind the Airbus and Boeing glass.
Let’s take VNAV. On the advanced side, the 220 is more advanced than brand A or B in that you can go vertically direct to places and you have a lot of info at your disposal.
However, we are restricted to geometric only descents. It draws a 3 degree line and that’s what you fly. It doesn’t take into account winds when calculating TOD so you may be at idle thrust, half throttle, or speedbrake extended. Also, it doesn’t take into account deceleration segments. In an A/B product, if you put in a crossing restriction at ABC VOR of 250/12000 feet, it will build a level or shallow descent segment right before the fix to bleed off the energy. The 220 doesn’t do that. It just moves the speed bug back to 250 and closes the thrust levers. It’s up to you to use speedbrake or to get below the path or whatever else to make that 250kt restriction.
Now......that should be fixed in the future but who knows.
I’m also not trying to trash the 220. It’s my jet and I really like it. I’m just trying to illustrate that it isn’t an Airbus and trying to make it one will be more expensive than starting over!!
Ciao
11-18-2019, 02:34 PM
#3859
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,074
But different philosophies. EMB you knew on the path you'd hit your altitude to the foot everytime, but speed control was a pilots job to get ahead of. AB will prioritize the speed at a restriction and sometimes ignores the altitude, which I find to be the reverse of priorities between the two. With EMB, an idle VNAV descent the whole way down was a nebulous concept. Airbus is smart enough to calculate a flight idle VNAV decent, yet not smart enough to promote using it with a discretionary descent. Without ALT CSTR or an aural alert at TOD, most guys just start down immediately with pilot discretion, so the efficiencies Thales programmed are moot.
Last edited by saturn; 11-18-2019 at 02:53 PM.
11-18-2019, 02:45 PM
#3860
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 100
It's also nice to see at a glance where you will be at each point along your descent with a vertical profile and what the descent profile looks like vs a bottom altitude level off arrow and no idea how and where the angle changes.
VSD on the 220 rocks
VSD on the 220 rocks
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
