Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: REVIEW of _FMC User's Guide_ X-Submission-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:50:15 CST References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@royko.Chicago.COM Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212180750.AA15197@cactus.org> Sender: kls@royko.Chicago.COM Date: 20 Dec 92 16:08:03 CST In article you write: >> The book is oriented around the Smiths Industries FMS, in use on the 737, >> but the author explicitly addresses differences and similarities with the >> Honeywell lineage, which is in use on more types of airplanes. > >The phrase "more types" more correctly should be "all other types" since >the FMS on all commercial transport airplanes except the 737 are Honeywell's. Good point! >However, saying that there is a lineage is a bit strong. Being a >modern customer driven company 8^), we build the FMS that the airframer >wants. That is why on over half the flights where I fly the A320 jump >seat, the pilots ask me why the A320 FMS is not as good as the Boeing >versions. And the answer is -- "That is the way Airbus wanted it." The author notes that there are two major "baselines": one Boeing, the other "European," which he lumps the MD-11, Fokker, and Airbus aircraft into. He explicitly notes that he's describing the Boeing baseline. --- Robert Dorsett rdd@cactus.org ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd