American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4158 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3885 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
In the world of civil aviation, I think Airbus was the first to introduce it with the A320 back in 1987. The A320 was the first civil aircraft to be equiped with FBW systems, followed by the A330 and A340. Boeing intruduced it much more recently on the 777.
Pandora From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3890 times:
I was approached the same question by an Ansett Australia 767 engineer. I answered "it's A320" and he said wrong!!
He said that the Boeing 767-200 is actually the first FBW airliner, well, not all controls, but only the spoilers are controlled by FBW. So i guess the honor of "the first FBW airliner" goes to Boeing!
Jlb From Denmark, joined Nov 1999, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
I'm not shure, but I think the Concorde has fly by wire. If that's right then it might be the first civil airliner with FBW. Concorde was build by two of the later partners in Airbus. Boeing definitely wasn't first. Their first FBW was the 777. They were even beaten in this race (which was not much of a race anyway) by the Russians (IL96 and TU204)
DLMD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3879 times:
Airbus did not, as you suspected, invent fly-by-wire. However, neither was it a Boeing invention (or McDonnell Douglas for that matter...)
As far as I am aware, the first civilian application of a system resembling fly-by-wire is on the BAe / Aerospatiale Concorde. However, it was not a computer controlled Fly-By-Wire system - it was called 'Analog Fly-By-Wire' and basically dynamos on the control column created power / signals and sent it to motors down a wire to motors controlling the elevons etc. - there is no hydraulic control between the yoke and the elevons etc.
This is partly because once the aircraft passes Mach 1, the effects of the control surfaces is reversed (for reasons that I have never understood...) Hydraulics would not do to the control surfaces as they couldn't take this into account.
So the answer is that it was the Concorde that first used FBY for a civilian application.
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2419 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3873 times:
To answer the original question, FBW was invented by NASA in the early 60's and first used it on the Lunar Lander in 1969. The last time we discussed this, a Canadian? in the Forum disputed this and said it was first used in Canada in the late 50's. My information comes from a Discovery special on the Moon landing.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11686 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3869 times:
Are you saying that beyond mach 1, elevators going down makes the nose go up, etc.? Wow! You learn something everyday. I took an acoustics class recently and I know things get all muffed up when v>c, but I wouldn't have expected that.
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Panman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3861 times:
To answer your question DLX what I think DKMD-11 is referring to is the venturi effect. This basically states with subsonic airflow, air in a converging duct has a gain in velocity and temperature and a drop in pressure (the upper surface of a wing is viewed as the lower portion of a converging duct).
In supersonic airflow though the reverse happens i.e. the velocity and temperature drop and the pressure increases. Thus controls would be working back to front. I can go into more detail if required but just wanted to keep it more simple than some of my more recent posts.
DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3855 times:
The L-1011 was built with 2 types of flight decks, an analog which is the one it was built with and a digital FBW one. The FBW seemed to expensive at the time and was later dropped due to the fact that Lockheed was already behind on the project.
Spaceman Spiff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3853 times:
The first FBW system can be debated forever here. Needless to say that FBW was pretty old technology by the time both Airbus and Boeing began using it! The next big step will be who is first to use "Fly by Light" in an airliner. Fiber Optic FBW systems are a lot better than what we have today and will last much longer without the wiring problems that our current older aircraft are having.
Panman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3838 times:
Supersonic aircraft have a different shaped wing to the conventional wing. I'm not sure about Concorde but a lot of military aircraft have a wedg shaped wing because this gives best lift capabilities and minimal airflow seperation at supersonic speeds. I am not sure but i believe the leading edge of concorde can be changed to give it the best airflow characteristics for supersonic flight.
Besides that it's all a case of aircraft trim and fuel management that keeps the aircraft in the air.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Concorde, designed by BAe/Aerospatiale was the first FBW airliner. As described above by DLMD-11, it was an anaolg FBW not digital.
So, This is definately NOT an Airbus v Boeing debate, and yes I'm fed up of people saying Boeing make junk, Airbus are great or vice versa. Can't we agree both companies are different, and both produce excellent families of airliners, which appeal to different people/airlines?
Das Flugzeug From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (15 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3814 times:
It seems previous posts imply that supersonic (Concorde) flight necessitates FBW because the control surfaces are reversed and a hydraulic system cannot account for that. My question is, if this is true, how did supersonic jets of the 50's and 60's (F-105 starfighter, F-4, etc) get by flying with full hydraulic systems?
Ravi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (15 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
Is the world so hard-up for a debate that FBW has become the end-all and be-all of technological leaps?
Aft-loaded airfoil designs, personal televisions, glass cockpits and improved engine efficiencies have all had a much larger impact on the commercial aviation industry. The use of FBW is important, but not the MOST important. I've often read posts by people who think that just because the A320 has FBW that it is more technologically advanced than the B737NG. This just isn't the case. And, besides, of 20 airlines that voted for the B737NG to have FBW or not, incredibly 20 said they DIDN'T want FBW.
If anyone wants to debate technology levels then I'm quite prepared to do so.
Aca320 From Canada, joined Aug 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (15 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3812 times:
agreed that there are alot of technical advances that have allowed us to develop the aerospace business what is today everything from high bypass engines which facilited the widebody to the growth of electronic control systems such as fbw and there are things like blended wing designs which have no seperate flight controls the wing is constructed from an elastic type material which allows the entire wing to change shape this coupled with fbw is where we are headed make no mistake there will more electronics not less. As for who was first its simple the f16 f18 f15 f14 were the development beds for fbw as we now know it the same goes for propulsion systems navigation gps inertial nav etc thats where the bucks are and the risk takers that validate this systems end of story.