Boeing vs. the inevitable?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

And for that, I am truly grateful folks... :)

[MarkRey 16]

:) it's all my doing you know - the skillfully humble use of language to put the Boeingites off guard and then whammo! - hit'em with the old Airbusian logic - NOT!Ditto sir ditto - this is just what I hoped for, a healthy chat about the subject:-beerchug - most informative.regards,Mark

[Mats_J 2]

Ditto Glenn!This is probably the most interesting and rewarding discussion I've had here in a long time! And I've learned a lot along the way. Hopefully it will continue this way.Cheers to us! :-beerchugPS. Tom! What about an AVSIM reward for most interesting/ground-breaking thread of the year? :+

[Mats_J 2]

Bob.You are very right. I had some initial thoughts about the possibility of external forces on the aircraft. But left the thoughts out in my previous post.Now some speculations and personal thoughts. I will try to get some more information about this on the net. (There's a wealth of information out there!) I wonder if the FBW shouldn't be able to handle any bending of the envelope whether pilot induced or otherwise. See my first reply on this thread. If the pilot in that scenario had released the stick, the FCS would have corrected the attitudes. I think this is the essence of FBW protection. The FCS doesn't know what induced the disturbance just that the craft is beginning to gain an attitude that will eventually lead to uncontrolled flight. I guess this is hard to implement with soft limits though. I'll see if I can find some facts about this...

[Guest glnflwrs]

>:) it's all my doing you know - the skillfully humble use of>language to put the Boeingites off guard and then whammo! ->hit'em with the old Airbusian logic - NOT!>>Boeingites? BOEINGITES? Off Guard?!! Hmphh.. HMPHH!Just kiddin'. :>)Glenn"If God would have wanted man to fly He would have given him more money"

[Guest glnflwrs]

Me too, Tom. Ain't it great when a plan comes together? Hehehe...Glenn"If God would have wanted man to fly He would have given him more money"

[MarkRey 16]

>Boeingites? BOEINGITES? Off Guard?!! Hmphh.. HMPHH!>>Just kiddin'. :>)>Glenn>>"If God would have wanted man to fly He would have given him>more money"now there's gratitude for ya:) - i gave this long and careful thought: Boengian?...nah!, Boengie?....uh...sounds too much like Ferengie, that'd get the flamethrowers lit for sure:) - so what's left...regards,Mark

[michal 44]

>This quote reminds me of the famous quote of someone at IBM in>the early years of the computers stating: "I think there is a>world market for maybe five computers." ;-)May remind you but analogy is elusive. First of all correction - FBW does not mean there are no hydraulics - common misconception. Second I still claim that we will not see FBW in airplanes costing $10 mln or less for a very long time. Certifications of FBW systems is so expensive that someone who wants to compete in the budget- sensitive aircraft arena will have to look to more traditional solutions. In next generations people will still be flying kites, hang gliders and pilots will be earning their wings in relatively inexpensive and technologically "pure" single engine airplnes. Probably with much better engines and with all-glass cockpits that will make comprehension of flying parameters a breeze. And frankly if someone offered today a C172 with FBW I wonder how many would be willing to pay for it even if the cost was fairly moderate - I would rather have a pressurized aircraft with air conditioning for the same amount of $$. Affordable pressurization and climate control - that would really change the quality of my flying, not FBW.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest glnflwrs]

>I would rather have a pressurized aircraft>with air conditioning for the same amount of $$. Affordable>pressurization and climate control - that would really change>the quality of my flying, not FBW.>>I'd sure go for that, also Michael. Even just the air cond would be a large step forward. Right now it's CO110 style climate control, canopy open at 110 mph. A fella was asking for people to answer a survey re: GenAv aircraft to help in a college course. Quite harmless, I took the survey and to his question of what one thing would I like to have in my small, SEL plane I said, cabin pressurization and A/C.Glenn"If God would have wanted man to fly He would have given him more money"

[Mats_J 2]

Michael>First of all correction - FBW does not mean there are no hydraulics - >common misconceptionI never said ther was no hydraulics in a plane equiped with FBW. I said that there will be less hydraulics in a FBW plane than in a plane with conventional control systems.The A380 will have a PBW power-by-wire though and thus no hydraulics but that's the only one I know of.Can't argue with your facts. But it will not diminish what I was trying to say. As technology will get more accessible/cheaper the bigger the chance we will see it implemented in a general way. As ABS, as PCs, as cell phones, the list can be made endless. Cheers,

[Guest Martin]

Hej Mats!>The A380 will have a PBW power-by-wire though and thus no>hydraulics but that's the only one I know of.Do you mean that the A380 will have no hydraulics at all? Will e.g. the landing gear be electrically operated? :-hmmmDo you have a link to some information on this PBW system?Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Mats_J 2]

Martin et al,It seems I was a bit quick in my conclusions there... :-)The A380 will have redundant 5000 psi hydraulic systems (that in itself is a first on commercial airliners) and back-up PBW systems.The 5000psi systems use smaller actuators and components. And will lower the oh so important EOW. More information here:http://www.fpweb.com/archive/aerospace1202.htmlAnd here's an interesting article on PBW and the A380:http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_m...le=1001a380.htmAnd something more general:http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fly-by-wireCheers, and sorry for the confusion,

[michal 44]

>I'd sure go for that, also Michael. Even just the air cond>would be a large step forward. Last time I checked Cirrus wants over $40,000 for its optional AC in SR-22. Isn't it ridiculus? Anti-icing - 'only' $60,000. And pressurization - this is going to add couple hundred thousand dollars (it it were available).Michael J.

[Guest Martin]

I'm not surprised the A380 will have some hydraulics after all! ;-)The stuff about the Vulcan was interesting too.Martin767 fetishistIt's a lot like life and that's what's appealing

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

...Not all cars have ABS, either, though.It's very simple, both systems have their flaws and benefits and neither is better. It is simply two different human-aircraft interfaces.Let's look at the Boeing FBW system:Boeing views FBW solely as a means of augmenting the stability of an aircraft and doing what the pilot tells it to do. Thus, you could very well fly a 777 into the ground, but it would be steady as a rock and it would do precisely as you commanded all the way down.Airbus views FBW as a way to attempt to eliminate pilot error by removing the pilot from the decision making process to a varying degree (depending on what logic the FBW computers are in). The idea being, if the pilot's decisions are evaluated by the computer, if he makes an error, the computer can catch it before it destroys the aircraft. This works under the normal flight regime, but, this comes with an added risk: even the best computers cannot completely prevent an aircraft from exceeding the normal flight regime, and this has had disastrous results in the past where the computer attempted to apply a 'normal' decision-making process to an abnormal flight regime, doing precisely what it was designed to do at precisely the wrong time.Neither system is better and both have their own risks and benefits.Personally, I'll take cables, servo tabs, and steam gauges. :)