Krisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1588 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8562 times:
Has Boeing adopted fly-by-wire flight control principal yet? Or is fly-by wire patented by Airbus? Are the B744,777 and 764's still fly-by-cable? I know the f-b-w flight controls offer significant weight reduction on an aircraft and therefore make it more cost effective, which is a direction Boeing is heading towards. So will the ultra modern and efficient B787 be fly-by-wire?
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8402 times:
FBW is not an invention of Airbus - it has been used by miliary aircraft for a long time, on both European and US aircraft.
Airbus was the first to implement FBW on a commercial airliner, on the A320. They will again introduce a new inovation on the A380 which Boeing will not use in their 7E7 -- electric driven flight controls for the "third" system (back-up). These actuators are called EHA's - electro-hydrostatic actuators - they are a technology that has been tested over 15 years in the US military and isthe primary flight control on the F-35. It is a very new, but not fully mature technology.
As for Cedarjet's comment about Boeing deriding Airbus, that certainly goes both ways.
Nyc777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5567 posts, RR: 49 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8203 times:
Yes it will be, another Airbus innovation like the widebody twin derided by Boeing, then adopted wholesale.
Thanks Cedar for just taking 4 replys to turn this into a B vs. A pissing contest.
I believe the original question was will the B787 be FBW (I believe it will be) and not who first introduced FBW into airplanes, commercial airplanes etc. You could help by answering the question that was posed.
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2902 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8130 times:
LOL, B2707SST--great minds think alike.
I would agree with FriendlySkies that, going forward, we will likely not see any new commercial jets designed without FBW. And it's not just Airbus and Boeing--note that the most recent new airliner family to enter service, the EMBRAER 170 series, also has FBW.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8033 times:
Yes, the Concorde did have FBW - I forgot about that. The L-1011 did not have 100% FBW on all its primary flight controls - I think it was only the rudder. As mentioned before, FBW has been around a long time, and Airbus was the first to implement the technology fully it on "conventional" aircraft.
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2902 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7942 times:
"Envelope protection" means the fly-by-wire system will prevent the aircraft from exceeding certain limits. For example, if an A320 pilot were feeling a bit frisky and decided to do a barrel roll, no matter how much control input he/she put in, the flight control system would not allow it to happen.
Boeing's philosophy has differed from Airbus's in terms of how much envelope protection is appropriate. Boeing has tended to shy away from this sort of limitation, except perhaps in the case of takeoff tailstrike protection, which I believe is included on the 777 (or at least the -300...I could be wrong though). The theory is that in an emergency--say, to avoid a collision--the pilot should be able to do whatever is necessary, even if it risks damaging the airframe. On the other hand, the thinking behind Airbus's envelope protection is that such situations are so rare that it's better to have the added safety that envelope protection provides in most (if not all) scenarios.
Please don't use this to start an A v. B war here--there is no "right" answer to this debate, it's just a matter of different design philosophies.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4072 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7786 times:
What is fly by Wire? Please explain
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is a flight control system in which the hydralic parts (flaps, rudder, ailerons, etc) are controlled by wirelessly-transmitted signals from a central computer. Each moving part has a receiver, and input from the pilots is translated in the computer and sent to the part. This is why bluetooth technology is currently not allowed on aircraft, as it may interfere with the signals. Again, this is my understanding, someone can probably do a better job and correct anything I have misstated.
25 Flyabunch: The envelope protection philosophies are very thought provoking. I can see both Airbus' and Boeing's point of view. Interesting that the regulatory ag
26 Lnglive1011yyz: TO throw a wrench into this, willl the 747Adv have FBW too? I know it's been discussed in another thread, but I can't pick through the arguing to find
27 Boeing Nut: Well I'll be damned. You learn something new everyday. I had no idea whatsoever that the L-1011 was FBW. It would be costy, but I think Boeing should
28 HAWK21M: Def FBW,But with Control column.not the Side Stick regds MEL
29 Gigneil: All commercial aircraft from the 777 out will be FBW...it would be absolutley stupid not to. The 787 will be, as will the 737X. The 737NG came after t
30 Cpt Underpants: Friendly Skies: The Fly By Wire systems are not wireless. There are computers which process the flight control inputs from the pilot sidestick. These
31 FriendlySkies: Well, I got the signal part right anyway...aren't they working on a wireless one?
32 Airgeek12: "The Fly By Wire systems are not wireless. There are computers which process the flight control inputs from the pilot sidestick. These computers decid
33 FriendlySkies: The 737NG came after the 777, but is not FBW. The 737NG is a derivative...it would have been far too expensive to upgrade the control system to FBW wi
34 Jet-lagged: Well, I got the signal part right anyway...aren't they working on a wireless one? Probably, but there must be two wiring sytems currently. One for po
35 Acidradio: Well, I got the signal part right anyway...aren't they working on a wireless one? Just what we need - a pax with an 802.11 card hacking into the airc
36 N328KF: Wireless does not have to mean 802.11a/b/g. It doesn't even have to be a frequency that is addressable by the consumer.
37 WF2BNN: My God... No it will be flown by heavy and old wires from the ex Pan am 747's And good old analog modems for internet service, with AMPS analog cellul
38 Allpress: it has to have ive seen plans and they will do it for safety i rekon that Boeing will go to side stick soon
39 Geo772: I would imagine that the 787 would use an updated version of the 777 FBW system coupled with a more robust version of the airplane information managem
40 Cpt Underpants: Don't get me wrong, I do love flying the Airbus. Still, in my opinion, the back driven controls in the Boeing FBW system are superior. I've always bee
41 Delta-flyer: One thing about "upgrading" an existing type to FBW .... the problem is not simply implementing new actuators and computers - it also requires a diffe
42 Cpt Underpants: Delta-Flyer: Unfortunately, it doesn't. As I said, in this area the Boeing setup is superior.