DJI Blog
Airbus vs Boeing: Choosing the Right Cockpit Hardware for Your Sim
Airbus vs Boeing: Choosing the Right Cockpit Hardware for Your Sim
The eternal debate in aviation extends to flight simulation. Should you build an Airbus or Boeing cockpit? Here's everything you need to know to make the right choice for your setup.
Introduction
Every flight simmer eventually faces the question: Airbus or Boeing?
It's not just about which aircraft looks cooler or which airline you prefer. When investing in dedicated cockpit hardware, you're choosing an ecosystem—a philosophy of flight, a set of procedures, and a community of fellow enthusiasts.
This guide breaks down the fundamental differences between Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 cockpit hardware, helps you understand which platform matches your flying style, and provides practical advice for building your ideal home cockpit.
The Philosophy Divide
Before comparing specific hardware, it's essential to understand the fundamental design philosophies that shape these cockpits.
Boeing: Pilot Authority
Boeing's design philosophy puts the pilot firmly in command:
- Direct control — Inputs translate directly to control surfaces
- Override capability — Pilots can always override automation
- Traditional feel — Control column (yoke) with conventional feedback
- Manual reversion — Systems designed for graceful degradation
The 737 cockpit reflects decades of evolution from the original 737-100. Controls feel mechanical and direct. When you move the yoke, you're physically connected to the flight control system.
Airbus: Fly-by-Wire Automation
Airbus embraced computerized flight control from the A320's inception:
- Flight envelope protection — Computer prevents dangerous maneuvers
- Sidestick control — Small, precise input device
- Automation-centric — Designed around autopilot usage
- Law-based control — Normal, Alternate, and Direct control laws
The A320 cockpit represents a clean-sheet design optimized for efficiency. Inputs are requests that the flight computer interprets within safe parameters.
What This Means for Hardware
These philosophies directly impact hardware design:
| Aspect | Boeing 737 | Airbus A320 |
|---|---|---|
| Primary input | Yoke (control column) | Sidestick |
| Autopilot panel | MCP (Mode Control Panel) | FCU (Flight Control Unit) |
| FMS interface | CDU (Control Display Unit) | MCDU (Multipurpose CDU) |
| Thrust control | Traditional throttle quadrant | Detented thrust levers |
| Trim | Manual trim wheel | Electric trim switches |
Hardware Comparison: Panel by Panel
Autopilot Panel: MCP vs FCU
The autopilot panel is where you'll spend most of your hands-on time. Let's compare.
Boeing 737 MCP (Mode Control Panel)
The MCP is a horizontal panel typically mounted on the glareshield:
- Speed control — IAS/Mach knob with digital display
- Heading control — HDG SEL knob with bug sync
- Altitude control — Large altitude selector
- Vertical speed — Thumb wheel for V/S changes
- Mode buttons — LNAV, VNAV, HDG SEL, ALT HLD, APP, etc.
- Autopilot engage — CMD A, CMD B, CWS buttons
Key characteristics:
- Larger physical footprint
- More tactile button feedback
- Separate V/S wheel feels intuitive
- Clear mode annunciations
CS 737X MCP Features:
- 1:1 scale replica of 737NG panel
- 17 custom molds for authentic switch feel
- Backlit engravings matching real aircraft
- Plug-and-play USB with PMDG/Zibo support
Airbus A320 FCU (Flight Control Unit)
The FCU is a more compact, integrated panel:
- Speed control — SPD/MACH knob with push for managed
- Heading control — HDG/TRK knob with push for managed
- Altitude control — ALT knob with push for managed
- Vertical speed — V/S or FPA selector
- Mode buttons — LOC, AP1, AP2, A/THR, APPR, EXPED
Key characteristics:
- Compact design
- Push-pull knob logic (selected vs managed)
- Integrated display windows
- Metric altitude option
CS 320N FCU Features:
- Authentic knob feel with push-pull action
- Engineering plastic shell matching real aircraft
- Separate L/R modules for custom configurations
- Native Fenix A320 support
Winner by Category
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Intuitive layout | Boeing MCP | Larger, more separated controls |
| Compact setups | Airbus FCU | Smaller footprint |
| Learning curve | Boeing MCP | More conventional logic |
| Automation management | Airbus FCU | Push for managed is elegant |
FMS Interface: CDU vs MCDU
The flight management interface is crucial for route programming and performance management.
Boeing 737 CDU
The CDU is your window into the FMC:
- 6x24 character display — Green CRT-style screen
- Line select keys — 6L and 6R buttons for menu navigation
- Full alphanumeric keyboard — QWERTY-ish layout
- Function keys — INIT REF, RTE, DEP ARR, etc.
- Execute key — Confirms route changes
Usage pattern:
- Type data with keyboard
- Select line to input
- Execute to confirm
CS 737X CDU (v2) Features:
- Full metal CNC-machined shell
- Silicone buttons matching real aircraft
- High-resolution display
- Single USB cable for power and data
Airbus A320 MCDU
The MCDU (Multipurpose Control and Display Unit) serves a similar function:
- Larger display — More information visible
- Line select keys — Similar navigation concept
- Alphanumeric keyboard — Different layout than Boeing
- Page keys — DIR, PROG, PERF, INIT, etc.
- Airport/Waypoint keys — Dedicated navigation buttons
Usage pattern:
- Select page
- Enter data or select line
- Insert confirms (no separate execute)
CS 320A MCDU Features:
- 1:1 replica dimensions
- Authentic button feel and travel
- Integrated display
- Plug-and-play Fenix support
Winner by Category
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Data entry speed | Tie | Both efficient once learned |
| Display clarity | Airbus MCDU | Larger, more modern display |
| Button feel | Boeing CDU | More tactile feedback |
| Learning curve | Boeing CDU | More intuitive execute flow |
Throttle Quadrant Comparison
The throttle quadrant reveals the starkest philosophical differences.
Boeing 737 Throttle
Traditional, fully manual design:
- Moving thrust levers — Autothrottle moves the levers physically
- Speed brake lever — Manual deployment with detents
- Trim wheel — Large, tactile manual trim
- Flap lever — Mechanical detents for each position
- Reverse thrust — Interlock mechanism for safety
CS 737X TQ Features:
- 4 brushless motors + 5 stepper motors
- Motorized autothrottle synchronization
- Authentic detent positions
- Full reverse thrust simulation
- Optional fire warning panel base
Airbus A320 Throttle
Designed for automation:
- Detented thrust levers — TOGA, FLX/MCT, CLB, IDLE, REV positions
- Non-moving autothrust — Levers stay in CLB detent during autothrust
- Speed brake — Simpler design
- Flap lever — Different detent positions than Boeing
- Engine masters — Unique start/stop design
Key Difference:
In a Boeing, when autothrottle adjusts power, you watch the thrust levers move. In an Airbus, the levers typically stay in CLB detent while the system manages thrust—you see the effect on the engine displays, not the physical levers.
Winner by Category
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Visual feedback | Boeing | Moving levers show autothrottle action |
| Simplicity | Airbus | Fewer moving parts |
| Tactile feel | Boeing | More mechanical feedback |
| Automation trust | Airbus | Design encourages automation use |
Software Ecosystem Comparison
Your hardware choice is heavily influenced by available aircraft add-ons.
Boeing 737 Software Options
MSFS 2024:
- PMDG 737-700/800/900 — Industry-leading accuracy, full hardware support
- iFly 737 MAX — Good alternative, growing hardware integration
X-Plane 12:
- Zibo 737-800 — Free, incredibly detailed, excellent hardware support
- IXEG 737-300 — Paid option with classic 737 experience
Hardware Integration Rating: ★★★★★
The 737 ecosystem has mature, well-documented hardware support. PMDG and Zibo both offer dedicated configuration options for external panels.
Airbus A320 Software Options
MSFS 2024:
- Fenix A320 — Excellent systems depth, native hardware support
- iniBuilds A320neo — Good quality, basic hardware support
- FlyByWire A32NX — Free, open-source, growing hardware integration
X-Plane 12:
- ToLiss A321 — High quality, good hardware support
- Flight Factor A320 — Established option
Hardware Integration Rating: ★★★★☆
The A320 ecosystem is excellent but slightly less mature for hardware integration. Fenix leads with native support; others require configuration.
Verdict
Both platforms offer world-class simulation options. Boeing has a slight edge in hardware integration maturity, but Airbus is catching up rapidly.
Which Platform Matches Your Flying Style?
Choose Boeing 737 If You...
Prefer hands-on flying:
- You enjoy manually flying approaches
- You like feeling connected to the aircraft
- You prefer visual feedback from moving controls
Value traditional procedures:
- You appreciate aviation heritage
- You want to learn "classic" airline operations
- You're interested in older cockpit design
Want maximum hardware feedback:
- Moving autothrottle matters to you
- You prefer larger, more tactile controls
- Physical trim wheel operation appeals to you
Fly these routes:
- US domestic operations
- Southwest, United, American style flying
- Short to medium haul sectors
Choose Airbus A320 If You...
Embrace automation:
- You trust flight envelope protection
- You appreciate efficient automation management
- You prefer "managed" modes for cruise
Like modern cockpit design:
- Clean, integrated panel layout appeals to you
- You appreciate sidestick ergonomics
- You want the "modern airline" experience
Value compact setups:
- Space is limited in your sim room
- You prefer minimalist design
- You want fewer physical controls to manage
Fly these routes:
- European operations
- easyJet, Lufthansa, Air France style
- Mixed short/medium haul network
Can You Have Both?
A common question: can you build a dual-type cockpit?
The Honest Answer
Technically possible, but not ideal.
Here's why:
- Different panel positions — MCP and FCU mount differently
- Conflicting muscle memory — Procedures differ significantly
- Cost doubles — Two complete panel sets needed
- Switching overhead — Reconfiguration between types takes time
Practical Alternatives
Option 1: Software switching with generic panels
Use generic flight sim hardware and switch between aircraft in software. Loses authenticity but gains flexibility.
Option 2: Dedicated primary, virtual secondary
Build complete hardware for your primary type, use virtual cockpit for occasional flights in the other type.
Option 3: Modular cockpit frame
Build a frame that accepts swappable panel modules. Higher cost and complexity, but achievable.
Our Recommendation
Pick one type and master it.
The depth of simulation available in modern add-ons rewards specialization. You'll develop better procedures, faster muscle memory, and deeper system knowledge by focusing on one platform.
Most professional pilots fly one type for years. Your sim should reflect that commitment.
Cost Comparison
Boeing 737 Complete Setup
| Component | Price |
|---|---|
| CS 737X MCP | $999 |
| CS 737X EFIS (pair) | $918 |
| CS 737X CDU (v2) | $799 |
| CS 737X TQ | $999 |
| Desktop Stand | $299 |
| Total | $4,014 |
Airbus A320 Complete Setup
| Component | Price |
|---|---|
| CS 320N FCU-C | $899 |
| CS 320A MCDU | $799 |
| Desktop Stand | $299 |
| Total | $1,997 |
Analysis
The A320 setup costs roughly half the 737 setup. This reflects:
- Fewer panels needed (FCU integrates more functions)
- Simpler throttle requirements (non-motorized acceptable)
- Compact design requiring less material
However, for equivalent capability, both platforms deliver excellent value.
Making Your Decision
Decision Framework
Answer these questions:
1. Which aircraft do you fly most in the sim?
- Go with what you already enjoy
2. Which software ecosystem appeals more?
- PMDG/Zibo = Boeing
- Fenix/ToLiss = Airbus
3. How much space do you have?
- Limited = A320 FCU
- Dedicated = Either works
4. What's your budget?
- Under $2,000 = A320 gives more complete setup
- $4,000+ = Boeing full experience possible
5. Do you prefer automation or manual control?
- Manual = Boeing
- Automated = Airbus
Still Can't Decide?
Start with what your favorite YouTuber/streamer flies.
Seriously. Having a community to follow, tutorials to watch, and setups to reference makes your journey easier. The best platform is the one you'll actually use.
Conclusion
There's no wrong choice between Airbus and Boeing—only the choice that's wrong for you.
Boeing 737 hardware rewards pilots who love tactile feedback, moving controls, and traditional cockpit design. The ecosystem is mature, the community is huge, and the hardware options are extensive.
Airbus A320 hardware suits pilots who appreciate automation, compact design, and modern cockpit philosophy. The growing ecosystem offers excellent simulation depth at a lower entry cost.
Both platforms deliver an authentic, immersive experience that transforms flight simulation from a game into genuine procedure training.
Ready to choose your path?
- Explore our Boeing 737 Series
- Discover our Airbus A320 Series
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can I use 737 hardware with an Airbus add-on?
A: Physically yes, but it defeats the purpose. The button labels, knob functions, and operating logic won't match. We recommend matching hardware to aircraft type.
Q: Which has better resale value?
A: Both hold value well. Boeing hardware has a slightly larger secondhand market due to the larger install base.
Q: I'm a real pilot—which should I choose?
A: Match your type rating. If you fly A320 at work, build an A320 sim for procedure practice. The muscle memory transfer is the main benefit.
Q: Will switching between types confuse me?
A: Initially, yes. Different callouts, different flows, different automation logic. Most simmers specialize in one type to build proficiency.
Q: Which is better for learning to fly IRL?
A: Neither directly translates to real flight training. For general aviation, neither is relevant. For airline aspirations, either teaches valuable automation management concepts.
Last updated: December 2024
Related articles: