Will Fly-By-Wire actually be simulated on the 777?

Being PMDG, I'm assuming they would not have suggested they were going to make a Triple Seven if they thought they could not simulate one fairly accurately, so I also assume that they will be simulating its airframe protection FBW stuff.

 

Al

They don't need to simulate FBW, every aircraft in FSX already has it... Through your USB Port.

They don't need to simulate FBW, every aircraft in FSX already has it... Through your USB Port.

 

what? I'm still using ropes which pull at my computer :LMAO:

Hehe true, but I think we are all used to some simmers calling the protections FBW

 

 

what? I'm still using ropes which pull at my computer :LMAO:

 

Patent it! Quickly! Before somebody steals your idea! ;-)

- i love this kind of thread!!!

 

PMDG have already stated that the FBW will not be implemented due to an FSX limitation. Also the flight dynamics will be the ones that come with FSX default 737.

Isn't he just asking wether an actual FWB engine would be implented? The already digital control inputs going through a FWB engine in the 777?

 

Obviously, the awnser stated in the Announcement video of PMDG. Was YES.

 

The plane will get FWB, Along with FEP (Flight Envelope Protection.)

 

I'm an airbus geek but honestly, I dont know how the stuff is called in the new boeings. I know the 737NG has CWS (Control weel steering) For e.g. which isn't FWB though.

My guess why all these FBW questions always pop up is simply that Fly-by-wire both sounds and looks cool. I think I'm going start calling my 737 switches BBW (Button-by-wire) B) B) B)

Boeing's FBW is much better than Airbuses, here's why, you have more control!

It's not better,it's a different approach,althogh the main advantage of the Boeing approach is to have

tactile comunication via the yoke,which does not exist in the Airbus sidestick.

Boeing's FBW is much better than Airbuses, here's why, you have more control!

 

Let's not start this here ;) if you have an understanding of Airbus FBW then you will know that even in normal law you can get the machine into pitch and bank angles way beyond what is considered normal for passenger transports.

 

Personally if I was in a potential CFIT situation or avoidance maneuver due to a TCAS RA I would wan't to be in an A3xx. Now if it's some new low hour guy in the RHS and the aircraft's laws go into a degraded mode while the Captain is out of the flightdeck taking a whizz then I definitely want to be on a 777.

 

Boeing definitely have the 'KISS' philosophy

If you doubt the Airbus philosophy in regard to fly by wire, then take a look at the TV documentary where Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson [an experienced 757 pilot] took the controls of an A320.

 

He whacked the stick over to the left and left it here, the bank angles were insane, prompting Bruce to yell out, "good grief". The test pilot then pulled the stick full back and kept it there, the bus went into alpha floor, full power and max pitch and a colossal climb rate. Bruce responded with, "oh my god, I've got to get me one of these."

 

The point, is that the bus will give you the freedom to shoot for bank angles and pitch right at the edge of the envelope without loss of control. Try to be that aggressive in a Boeing, and you may find yourself stalling and in a smoking hole. Therefore in a Boeing, you will always be maneuvering within a safety margin. The fly by wire will give you the max the aircraft is capable of. Beyond the max equates to disaster

Being PMDG, I'm assuming they would not have suggested they were going to make a Triple Seven if they thought they could not simulate one fairly accurately, so I also assume that they will be simulating its airframe protection FBW stuff.

 

Al

 

I agree. I reckon if it didn't impact on FPS, the guys at PMDG would simulate a working toilet. That's how thorough these fella's are!

The point, is that the bus will give you the freedom to shoot for bank angles and pitch right at the edge of the envelope without loss of control. Try to be that aggressive in a Boeing, and you may find yourself stalling and in a smoking hole. Therefore in a Boeing, you will always be maneuvering within a safety margin. The fly by wire will give you the max the aircraft is capable of. Beyond the max equates to disaster

 

Don't take this too far, but tell me any professional driver who uses stability/traction control. Granted, that's a completely different job, and a lot fewer people are injured if they screw up because of the lack of protection, but the overarching theme prevails: when it needs to get done and the automagic is preventing it, or even delaying it, bad things could happen.

 

99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time a pilot would not be in a situation where the protection would interfere with a pilot action where it could mean life or death, but I refuse to let myself be subject to a computer's "logic."

 

Computers are powerful, but they're very dumb. They're only good as the contingencies we prepare them for. The difference between computer and human is that the human can improvise (insert Tron reference here). When things hit the fan, sometimes the only way is to think outside the box, which the automagic simply cannot do.

 

I'd argue that you're incorrect that the Airbus logic will put you on the edges on the envelope. There's going to be a built in margin (there is in the design of the aircraft, too, in terms of g-limits and so on). I agree, the Airbus protections (incorrectly called "FBW" all over the place - evidenced by the thread title) are really cool and convenient. My problem, however, is with its application. What happens when I need to do what the "logic" would, by default, disallow? What happens if something mechanical got messed up, but the logic wouldn't allow me to fly in a way that permitted me to live? As I'm sure you're skeptical, remember ASA261. The crew, at one point, attempted to fly the aircraft upside down because of an uncontrolled pitch down command, resulting from a mechanical malfunction (something the logic cannot predict). Sure, it's the 0.00000000000000000000000000001% scenario, but I'm sure if you asked those passengers if they'd like protection from the stupid, obvious stuff (pilot-induced stalls, etc), with the potential side effect that the crew couldn't do what they needed to do at a moment's notice, or the ability for the crew to do what was necessary to try to save them, they'd argue for the latter.

 

In the end, it obviously didn't work out either way. Some things are unrecoverable. I'd just prefer them to be unrecoverable in a mechanical way, than unrecoverable because a computer said "no."