ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Shiny things
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 376 votes, 4.98 average. Display Modes
Old 02-24-2011, 10:33 PM   #1546
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,375
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!
chazbird is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 11:34 PM   #1547
muskeg
Gnarly Adventurer
 
muskeg's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Coconino N.F.
Oddometer: 288
P-51?
muskeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 04:17 AM   #1548
VictorBravoMikeIndia
Low Altitude Flyer
 
VictorBravoMikeIndia's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Sarf Ingerland
Oddometer: 141
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 )
VictorBravoMikeIndia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 10:40 AM   #1549
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,375
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.
chazbird is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 12:05 PM   #1550
VictorBravoMikeIndia
Low Altitude Flyer
 
VictorBravoMikeIndia's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Sarf Ingerland
Oddometer: 141
Yes....first flew in the eighties......... designed in the late seventies
VictorBravoMikeIndia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 03:25 PM   #1551
Klay
dreaming adventurer
 
Klay's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: right here on my thermarest
Oddometer: 100,139
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.
Klay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 03:40 PM   #1552
Daniii
geezer
 
Daniii's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Plano Tx
Oddometer: 23,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klay View Post
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.
__________________
"Soccer is a game that was invented by French women to pass the time while their husbands were cooking." - Hank Hill, American
Daniii is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 09:08 PM   #1553
scottcolbath
Beastly Adventurer
 
scottcolbath's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: The north edge of 85050
Oddometer: 6,762
1951 Cessna Bird Dog I shot today out at the local airport.



S.C.
scottcolbath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 09:48 AM   #1554
VictorBravoMikeIndia
Low Altitude Flyer
 
VictorBravoMikeIndia's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Sarf Ingerland
Oddometer: 141
Quote:
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.
VictorBravoMikeIndia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 09:58 AM   #1555
PaleRider
gelande/strasse
 
PaleRider's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: ceteris paribus
Oddometer: 9,980
very nice picture, cool little plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottcolbath View Post
1951 Cessna Bird Dog



S.C.
PaleRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 11:14 AM   #1556
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,375
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.
chazbird is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 11:21 AM   #1557
XR650L_Dave
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Near Cortland NY
Oddometer: 3,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorBravoMikeIndia View Post
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
__________________
---->>Thanks for the rotor, guys!<<----
XR650L_Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 11:32 AM   #1558
chazbird
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Oddometer: 3,375
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".
chazbird is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 04:05 PM   #1559
No False Enthusiasm
a quiet adventurer
 
No False Enthusiasm's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Small Town, Texas
Oddometer: 4,350
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
No False Enthusiasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 06:58 PM   #1560
dfwscotty
Beastly Adventurer
 
dfwscotty's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Denton, TX
Oddometer: 3,236
As the discussion about flight controls was going on a few posts above the pic of hte plane going into the trees was in my head.
__________________
Traffick911

1999 BMW 1100GS
2012 Kawasaki Concours
dfwscotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014