Aviation MegaThread!!!!

[Klay]

Originally Posted by chazbird

Like campaign finance reform? Reform the civil military symbiotic labyrinth of Babylon?

It may actually happen...there have been rumblings. The J-35 project is just as bad.

[chazbird]

Guess one should be an optimist and not a cynic (like me).
If they cut development procurement down by a half just about everyone would benefit, and imagine this; presumably the system/device would still be viable for the mission/conflict/context. F22, J35, what did they take, 15-20 years, or more? Imagine developing a Spitfire in 1936 and it being ready in 1956, up against a F104, for instance. Or we'd develop something new right now and when its ready in 25 years there's no jet fuel? Nah, that can't happen!

[muskeg]

P-51?

[VictorBravoMikeIndia]

All the later Boeing products are " fly by wire".... the 777, 787, and the new version of the 747. So if you want to avoid a computerised aircraft then you had better add these to your NO-Fly list.

IMHO the use of technology has vastly increased the safety of commercial aircraft in the last 20 years......... of course , lots of people point to the rare events which cause loss of life, such as the AF 330 but what the man in the street fails to realise is the many hundreds / thousands of incidents where the aircraft has not allowed the Humans to F##K Up. Technology such as envelope protection, TCAS, EGPWS , Windsheer protection and the vastly greater accuracy of modern navigation and voice / data communication have all contributed . How many CFIT ( Controlled Flight into Terrain ) accidents happen nowadays ?

We all remember the accidents , but take a look at flightradar24 and marvel at the sheer numbers of commercial air traffic that are airborne at any one moment..... think about that for one minute , Times that for every hour and then for every day and just work out the percentages of the fatal accidents.

No axe to grind about the Tanker decision........only to point out the 767 is by todays standards an Old Design ..... ( dates back to the 1970s )

[chazbird]

I think the 767 entered service in 1984, 27 years ago. So, if it lasts 50+ years as a tanker (like the KC-135 has) that would put it on par with the DC-3 for longevity of service life, + 1 year. Not bad.

[VictorBravoMikeIndia]

Yes....first flew in the eighties......... designed in the late seventies

[Klay]

Final authority remains with the pilot with the Boeing fly-by-wire systems, however. The pilot can override the computer. The Airbus systems don't allow this.

[Daniii]

Originally Posted by Klay

Final authority remains with the pilot with the Boeing fly-by-wire systems, however. The pilot can override the computer. The Airbus systems don't allow this.

ding ding. That is the huge difference.

[scottcolbath]

1951 Cessna Bird Dog I shot today out at the local airport.



S.C.

[VictorBravoMikeIndia]

Final authority remains with the pilot with the Boeing fly-by-wire systems, however. The pilot can override the computer. The Airbus systems don't allow this.

Not sure what you mean by this.....
for instance in the B777 the computers are always in the loop......these are either in Primary, Secondary, and Direct law...there are no physical connections between the control surfaces and the control column



In Direct Law both Fly By Wire systems ( Airbus and Boeing )are much the same....... i.e. Controls will move in direct relationship to control column input with nothing added or taken away by the computers so the Pilot has to be very careful he doesn't overstress the airframe by excessive inputs.

[PaleRider]

very nice picture, cool little plane

Originally Posted by scottcolbath

1951 Cessna Bird Dog



S.C.

[chazbird]

The Airbus system is full protection, via computers. Roll/bank, pitch, airspeed are always engaged. No rolling the aircraft, no loops, no exceeding airspeeds or under speeding. If the system fails (3 levels of redundancy) or is disabled, theoretically you could do what you pleased with the aircraft excepting in these instances the controls are severely limited, and difficult to use, just what you don't want when exploring the envelopes of the aircraft. Boeing, on the other hand, while fly-by wire (no direct connection between controls) allow one, I believe, to roll or loop the aircraft, if so desired, which of course would lead to your loss of a job/career. Someone could argue this point but the 707 and DC-8 and most jet airliners since then (including Airbus the Boeing & 777) never really had pure direct linkages anyway, it was linked via hydraulic boost. Having all the hydraulics go out is just as bad as having the computers fail on the Airbus.

[XR650L_Dave]

Originally Posted by VictorBravoMikeIndia

Not sure what you mean by this.....
for instance in the B777 the computers are always in the loop......these are either in Primary, Secondary, and Direct law...there are no physical connections between the control surfaces and the control column



In Direct Law both Fly By Wire systems ( Airbus and Boeing )are much the same....... i.e. Controls will move in direct relationship to control column input with nothing added or taken away by the computers so the Pilot has to be very careful he doesn't overstress the airframe by excessive inputs.

Not the case with airbus. Airbus is more like having clippy pop up and say 'Were you trying to...' and not being able to click 'no'.

Dave

[chazbird]

That's the point of control law; to not over stress (or stall) the aircraft. if it is operating correctly you basically can't. There have been a few, very few, instances where the logic has been fooled (typically during low approaches or landing) and "things have happened".

[No False Enthusiasm]

This event made a lasting impression on the flying public...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E