Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FBW? WHY?  
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1658 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12075 times:

We HAD to replace hydraulically boosted cables and pushrods with FBW computer controlled systems? Please tell me why.

What was so damned wrong with something that had worked for 80 years, from Bleriot to the 747, that we had to take the aviator out of the loop and impose LAW on his/her every move?

Yes, there were hydraulic failures but, barring serious flak damage, any two 15 year old girls out of the mall have the strength to wrestle that pig to the runway.

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17165 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12071 times:

First of all, you are talking about two different things. Computer controlled flight and FBW are not the same thing. I will repeat what I said in another thread today:

- Fly by wire. A means by which control surfaces are signaled with electrical impulses as opposed to wires and pulleys.
- Computer controlled flight. A means by which a computer controls the flight path. This is completely independent from fly by wire. Nothing stops a computer from controlling an aircraft with cables and pulley. In fact it happens every day in aircraft like the 747-400, where the autopilot controls the surfaces.
- "Computer interpreted flight" . A means by which computers not only control the surfaces during automated flight, but also interpret pilot commands. In this case, for example, a roll command is not sent directly to the surfaces, but stick side deflection is interpreted as a "desire" by the pilot to roll, and the surfaces are deflected in order to roll the plane in compliance with pilot desire. Surface deflection is not necessarily in proportion to stick deflection.
- Envelope protection. A further development on "computer interpreted flight" by which the computers not only interpret commands but protect the aircraft from commands that may damage it or create an unsafe condition like a stall.


As for hydraulic failures, you're talking yet another different thing. Most surfaces are still hydraulically actuated, even if they are electronically signaled.



As for the reasons for FBW:
- Cost effectiveness. Ask a maintenance guy how much work it is to align all those cables.
- Robustness. All those cable (metal) runs are much more prone to damage than electronic signaling wires.
- Flexibility. If the design changes, even slightly, you may have to redesign the entire system from yoke to ailerons. But with FBW, this does not entail redesigning the cable runs.


As for the reasons for computer interpreted flight:
- Allows more efficient flight, for example by flying closer to the "edge of the envelope".
- Allows envelope protection.

[Edited 2009-06-03 01:59:14]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14137 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12069 times:

Don't forget the weight issue: All the bellcranks, pulleys, rods and cables can add up to a ton on a big aircraft.

Jan


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17165 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12051 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
Don't forget the weight issue: All the bellcranks, pulleys, rods and cables can add up to a ton on a big aircraft.

Totally forgot about that!


I think in 50 years the question will be formulated "FBW, why would you want anything else?"  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12038 times:



Quoting ThirtyEcho (Thread starter):
We HAD to replace hydraulically boosted cables and pushrods with FBW computer controlled systems? Please tell me why.

Well, let's take your logic(?) one step further. Why did we do away with just good old fashioned control surfaces? After all, who needs hydraulically powered flight controls, it' just another thing to go wrong! We could use the same logic to look at the evolution of glass cockpits..after all what was wrong with the old steam gauge presentation!

I would argue it's the evolution of systems that has driven FBW. But the current generation of FBW aircraft isn't really FBW. There are still hydraulic actuators that move the flight controls. Only the cables and the associated plumbing have been removed. But, the upside is the increased flight envelope protection that is obtained, the increased reliability, the weight savings, the list goes on and on.

Personally, I can't wait until there is a true FBW system that used electric actuators to move the flight controls. Now there will be some substantial weight savings and increased reliability.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12035 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
I think in 50 years the question will be formulated "FBW, why would you want anything else?"

To avoid electro-magnetic interference from the system; if you are a sub hunter with sensitive detection and tracking sensors, that's a critical consideration. For information the following link to data on the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft, the first production fly-by-light aircraft in the world. Interesting to see it has indigenous Japanese turbofan engines too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17165 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12022 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 5):
To avoid electro-magnetic interference from the system; if you are a sub hunter with sensitive detection and tracking sensors, that's a critical consideration.

Well yes. In THAT case.  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11963 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Personally, I can't wait until there is a true FBW system that used electric actuators to move the flight controls. Now there will be some substantial weight savings and increased reliability.

Why is it not done until now? Electric motors e.g. control elevation and direction of 35mm Oerlikon cannons. This task is very demanding in terms of forces, speed and accuracy. I can not imagine that control surfaces require more of these. Maybe the weight of motors is an issue. Also redundancy could be tricky.

Regarding the thread-question: Though FBW can mean a lot and in the pure sence only means one aspect I assume the OP means the Airbus flight control. Key feature is IMO the safety aspect. You can easily list a number of recent accidents that would not have happened if a proper FBW flight envelope protection would have been in place (TK AMS, Colgan Air, Spanair ...). Maybe even the Airbus flight envelope protection could be enhanced in the light of these accidents (e.g. against erroneous high lift device configurations = flaps retraction).


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11959 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 7):
Also redundancy could be tricky.

You just answered your own question.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 7):
assume the OP means the Airbus flight control. Key feature is IMO the safety aspect.

Care to elaborate? All the accidents you cite are not FBW aircraft. Are you saying there is a safety implication to the Airbus vs. Boeing FBW?


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11921 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 7):
assume the OP means the Airbus flight control. Key feature is IMO the safety aspect.

Care to elaborate? All the accidents you cite are not FBW aircraft. Are you saying there is a safety implication to the Airbus vs. Boeing FBW?

No, I don't even know the Boeing FBW so well. I explicitely said a "proper FBW" because I am not even sure whether the current Airbus implementation would save all three accidents.
- The Airbus throttle probably had applied full power in case of the AMS 738 after stick shaker.
- I don't know whether Airbus prevents taking off with wrong configuration (Spanair).
- I don't know whether Airbus prevents setting wrong configuration (Colgan). However the optimum recovery from stall is something which the Airbus system delivers. The captains wrong input probably would have been corrected by the flight envelope protection. On the Airbus the pilot just pulls the stick and the "computers" do the best possible recovery from the low energy situation.

Still I would never claim that Boeing's approach is not save, because it is save. What I meant is that a FBW system could be designed (probably more advanced than today systems) that would have prevented all those three accidents.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11905 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
No, I don't even know the Boeing FBW so well. I explicitely said a "proper FBW" because I am not even sure whether the current Airbus implementation would save all three accidents.

First of all, both are "proper FBW" systems. Secondly, you are comparing accidents that were in conventional flight control aircraft with FBW systems. The FBW system is an integrated system that also includes the throttles. So, in the case of the TK accident it's pretty difficult to answer.

Also, I think your description of the Colgan accident is incorrect. First of all, the accident report hasn't been released, so I don't know where you are coming up with the "wrong configuration". I can assure you if you are in an Airbus, and select Flaps 0 while at Vref, you the system can't prevent that and it can't get you out of the stall that you would be in very quickly.

Finally, no FBW system prevents departing with the improper configuration. I think short of having the thrust levers locked at the idle position, you are going to have a tough time with that one. That's why there is a takeoff configuration warning system.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11893 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Well, let's take your logic(?) one step further. Why did we do away with just good old fashioned control surfaces?

Dope and fabric...!!??

Nothing sucks worse then changing, then rigging flight control cables.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11860 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
The FBW system is an integrated system that also includes the throttles. So, in the case of the TK accident it's pretty difficult to answer

FBW does not have to be an integrated system. It is entirely possible to have FBW engine controls and cable/pushrod flight controls or cable/pushrod engine controls and FBW flight controls.

Fly by wire simply means that the input to the servo is accomplished by means of an electrical input in lieu of mechanical input. Once the signal gets to the servo everything is the same.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11848 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
FBW does not have to be an integrated system. It is entirely possible to have FBW engine controls and cable/pushrod flight controls or cable/pushrod engine controls and FBW flight controls.

Fly by wire simply means that the input to the servo is accomplished by means of an electrical input in lieu of mechanical input. Once the signal gets to the servo everything is the same.

You really should go back and re-read my post since you are completely off base with respect to what I wrote.

FBW as it has evolved today, in not just the flight controls. It's also the autothrottles. You can't have AOA Crit protection without control of the thrust.

What I wrote had nothing to do with what you referenced!


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11667 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
You really should go back and re-read my post since you are completely off base with respect to what I wrote.

FBW as it has evolved today, in not just the flight controls. It's also the autothrottles. You can't have AOA Crit protection without control of the thrust.

What I wrote had nothing to do with what you referenced!

I am sorry I was responding to what you wrote below.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
The FBW system is an integrated system that also includes the throttles.

FBW is not a integrated system but a method of operating the flight controls it covered in Chapter 27 of the MM. Autothrottles are found in Chapter 22 of the MM, part of autoflight. While they work together they are separate systems.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11661 times:



Quoting EMBQA (Reply 11):
Nothing sucks worse then changing, then rigging flight control cables.

No? What about working inside fuel tanks?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9798 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11607 times:

It is a big argument, especially since the two most popular commercial aircraft are completely opposite. The A320 is FBW, while the 737 is cable driven.

The 737 is thoroughly evolved and perfected design that is very reliable with experts in place refining systems so that they have one of the best cable driven control systems. The A320 was a pioneer and has proven a reliable and safe aircraft.

FBW offers things that cable driven systems can't. It is more reliable since backup systems can be created with adequate separation and redundancy over cables. A steel cable is only reliable to a degree and electrical control when done properly can be more reliable. But you get to the point of what is safe enough, and as of now, both can be. FBW is lighter, can be more reliable, and is a lot less expensive to install. It's where we are going and in my mind, it is a good thing. If I had my way, we'd have more of the 737 go to FBW.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11547 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
First of all, both are "proper FBW" systems.

Ok I didn't want to put down the existing systems. I wanted to express a "FBW that optimizes safety possibly even beyond what we have today".

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
Secondly, you are comparing accidents that were in conventional flight control aircraft with FBW systems.

Yes, only such incidents are candidates to study potential safety improvements by FBW.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
The FBW system is an integrated system that also includes the throttles. So, in the case of the TK accident it's pretty difficult to answer.

That is my understanding too. Some confusion in this thread was about the definition of a FBW system.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
So, in the case of the TK accident it's pretty difficult to answer.

After stick shaker the Airbus throttle would never reclaim idle thrust I assume. Setting and maintaining full power is an automatic feature of the Airbus implementation in this case (I know that you know that even much better than I, please correct me if I am wrong).

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
Also, I think your description of the Colgan accident is incorrect.

That is possible. My analysis based on the understanding that the FO in the middle of a stall retracted the flaps and the captain pulled the yoke instead of pushing it first.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
That's why there is a takeoff configuration warning system.

That is indead a sufficent solution.
If the runway is long enough and the airplane is able to get airborne the FBW would help to climb out at the best possible climb rate. Dealing with a plane close or at stall should be easier. There is another recent incident (EK in Melbourne) where an aircraft with FBW was saved in similar conditions (here the flaps were ok but the weigth was entered false). In theory the pilot really only had to pull the stick fully all the time and the computer would have made sure that the best possible climb out was performed. I wonder whether it was really the case (full backward deflection of the stick) in MEL.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
I think short of having the thrust levers locked at the idle position, you are going to have a tough time with that one.

IMO all parameters to do this completely automatic are known to the aircraft (selected runway -> length, conditions -> Vr, weight). A flight computer theoretically has all the information to determine whether the take off with the current configuration works. A complete automatic setting of high lift devices (or at least proposing with a simple acknowledge by the crew) would therefore be possible in theory.
I don't think however that current systems go that far.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 11483 times:



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 17):
After stick shaker the Airbus throttle would never reclaim idle thrust I assume. Setting and maintaining full power is an automatic feature of the Airbus implementation in this case (I know that you know that even much better than I, please correct me if I am wrong).

Correct, but it works the same way in a Boeing FBW.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 17):
That is possible. My analysis based on the understanding that the FO in the middle of a stall retracted the flaps and the captain pulled the yoke instead of pushing it first.

Yes, but we don't know if that caused a secondary stall or just what effect that had on the aerodynamics. That is more of a CRM issue than anything else.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 17):
That is indead a sufficent solution.
If the runway is long enough and the airplane is able to get airborne the FBW would help to climb out at the best possible climb rate. Dealing with a plane close or at stall should be easier. There is another recent incident (EK in Melbourne) where an aircraft with FBW was saved in similar conditions (here the flaps were ok but the weigth was entered false). In theory the pilot really only had to pull the stick fully all the time and the computer would have made sure that the best possible climb out was performed. I wonder whether it was really the case (full backward deflection of the stick) in MEL

My guess would be it was full deflection to unstick at such a low speed. Boeing would work the same way. In fact, even on the 400 you have the same ability, just you have to do it manually. You just pull to the max energy line (moustache)

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 17):
IMO all parameters to do this completely automatic are known to the aircraft (selected runway -> length, conditions -> Vr, weight). A flight computer theoretically has all the information to determine whether the take off with the current configuration works. A complete automatic setting of high lift devices (or at least proposing with a simple acknowledge by the crew) would therefore be possible in theory.
I don't think however that current systems go that far.

No they aren't. The error in MEL was caused by a 100 ton gross weight error. The FMC only knows what is input, so if there is an error in the gross weight the resultant FMC calculations will be in error.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11457 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 18):
FMC calculations will be in error.

Possibly even the envelope protection would not work properly. Would be even more amazing if the "pull-the-stick-fully"-trick still worked. Calculate the envelope protection based on real four-dimensional movement should be a lot more tricky than to rely on assumptions about "known" figures like weight, lift, drag, thrust. It would mean that the control system is able to derive the actual flight characteristic from the flown flight profile. This would be the perfect full control loop. It would even cope with such weird things (that have happened in reality) as impaired structure, separated engines, actual thrust vs. commanded thrust mismatches and other seldom issues.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6534 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11312 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
I think in 50 years the question will be formulated "FBW, why would you want anything else?"

50 years? Ask the designers today, they have said that already for a long time.

The last large non-FBW plane: Boeing 767, designed late 70'es, first metal cut 1979, rolled out and first flight 1981, certificated and service entry 1982. For more than 30 years no all new, large airliner has been designed without FBW.

Large western non-FBW passenger transport planes still in production: Boeing 737, and very little more.

Plus Boeing 767 being produced at a trickle, mostly freighters, and the rest mostly due to 787 delays. And 20 Boeing 748i on order for LH. Period.

FBW is not some new and fancy alternative way to control large airliners. For decades it has been THE way - the only way - to design controls of new large airliners. It is almost as old as the transistor replacing the radio tube. The cancelled Canadian CF-105 Arrow fighter was designed with FBW, while Britain also in the 50'es tested it on an Avro Vulcan. The first really oparational man carrying crafts using FBW were the Apollo Moon Lander and the Concorde.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17165 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11290 times:



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 20):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
I think in 50 years the question will be formulated "FBW, why would you want anything else?"

50 years? Ask the designers today, they have said that already for a long time.

Well yes. But to be clear, I meant ANY aircraft, not just airliners.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHappylandings From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11254 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
I can assure you if you are in an Airbus, and select Flaps 0 while at Vref, you the system can't prevent that and it can't get you out of the stall that you would be in very quickly.

The A330/340 inhibit slats retraction when under a certain speed and/or angle of attack. Therefore you would at least not enter a full stall, because you most probably are still below max. AOA of CONF1, I think. I'd have to check. If you happen to be close to or above max. AOA anyway, if you're in normal law, that smart airplane reduces pitch to maintain an AOA close to max. and also adds full power.

So, at least in theory, setting the flaps lever to Zero at Vref in normal law would in my opinion render you climbing with slats out, TO/GA thrust and at high AOA. If you kept the stick pulled to max. deflection, you would be climbing not only with high AOA but with max. AOA, but you WOULDN'T stall.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11236 times:



Quoting Happylandings (Reply 22):
The A330/340 inhibit slats retraction when under a certain speed and/or angle of attack. Therefore you would at least not enter a full stall, because you most probably are still below max. AOA of CONF1, I think. I'd have to check. If you happen to be close to or above max. AOA anyway, if you're in normal law, that smart airplane reduces pitch to maintain an AOA close to max. and also adds full power

The 320 is the same, however there are situations where it won't work. In addition, if you are in an engine out situation, I can assure you there is not enough thrust available.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 11177 times:

I wrote this yesterday or so:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 17):
IMO all parameters to do this completely automatic are known to the aircraft (selected runway -> length, conditions -> Vr, weight). A flight computer theoretically has all the information to determine whether the take off with the current configuration works. A complete automatic setting of high lift devices (or at least proposing with a simple acknowledge by the crew) would therefore be possible in theory.
I don't think however that current systems go that far.

And within a day this is in the media:

Although Airbus will not say whether it is planning to develop a take-off performance monitoring system based on the ROW/ROP's capabilities, Jacob says that the system could be adapted for such a purpose. Take-off performance monitoring remains a holy grail that many have attempted to develop commercially without success, so if Airbus can provide a working system, it is likely to be universally welcomed.

from here: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-linked-pilot-systems-secrets.html


25 Zeke : When control engineers talk about "laws" they are referring to mathematical way of representing the control process. You can do this for any control
26 PGNCS : When was the last time you flew a 737 in manual reversion?
27 Prebennorholm : That's one important reason. Envelope protection is another (whether it is hard limits as Airbus, or soft limits at Boeing). But a third reason, whic
28 Zeke : Can be incorporated mechanically, which is basically what the old fashioned stick shaker was. Flaperons have been around for some time, mainly on lig
29 Jetlagged : Boeing 767, Airbus A300, Airbus A310. All have drooped ailerons. None are FBW. I've not noticed this flying A300 simulators and I rarely bother to to
30 Jetlagged : Your perception of what FBW is a bit skewed. FBW does not work in the way you appear to think. The pilot is still firmly in the loop in a FBW aircraf
31 Starlionblue : It might have one of 'em newfangled yee-haw dampers fitted. And you gots 'em on plenny o' planes aside from 'em suspeecious Frenchy types.
32 Mandala499 : Slap on single engine and a jammed rudder trim on top... my leg was numb after that ride... lucky it was a sim.
33 474218 : The L-1011-500 has active outboard ailerons that react to wing loading and the L-1011-500 uses cables and push rods.
34 SEPilot : Unfortunately, the lightest and most compact linear actuators available are still hydraulic. Electric linear actuators are not only heavier and bulki
35 474218 : Hydraulically boosted control systems like those found in the 737 differs from the fully powered controls systems like those found in the 767 or the
36 Tdscanuck : Yes. Rigging flight controls is a long, tedious, and somewhat continuous process, since the rigging position sets the baseline for the closed-loop fe
37 474218 : I have never worked on a FBW system, but they have to be a closed loop system too. So how is feed back from the surface to the servos accomplished, m
38 Starlionblue : My guess is electrically. Also on Airbi there is no real feedback to the stick AFAIK. It just "hardens" but not in relation to surface deflection. I
39 Tdscanuck : They are. Electrically. There's no way to mechanically close the loop because the input to the system is electrical. Boosted or pure-hydraulic system
40 Faro : No shielding is 100% effective: with a direct lightning strike, there must be a diminutive transient spike that wriggles itself into the control loop
41 474218 : The connection between the servo and the actuator is hydraulic, not electrical. When the servo tells the actuator to move the control surface a speci
42 Tdscanuck : I suspect not...if the systems is designed well, the size of the transient spike that gets through the shielding should be a great deal smaller than
43 77West : Kind of like saying why use 2 engines instead of 4. Money. Consumers want cheaper flights, fuel costs a lot, so we reduce empty weights and decrease f
44 Mandala499 : What the Airbus FBW does on feedback???? The flow... Sidestick or Autopilot computer sends input to Flight Control Computers. These FCCs intepret the
45 Zeke : I think you will find at some stage in the loop they will use optical isolation. And lightning strikes should normally stay on the outside of the air
46 Faro : Very interesting, I've never heard of this before. Like a back-to-back electrical to optical to electrical transducer? I don't quite see how this wou
47 Zeke : With the use of an opto-isolator, the circuit signals would be electrically isolated from each other, which I would imagine would be very useful in h
48 NoWorries : Opto-isolators are quite common -- essentially they eliminate any signal bleed through across systems. Think of it as an LED on one side and a phto-d
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FBW? WHY?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
TCAS - Why Only Vertical Directions? posted Fri May 29 2009 04:08:55 by Superhub
Why Rear Windows Of Airbus Aircraft Slope Upward posted Sun May 24 2009 17:53:44 by Flaps30
"Captain Only" Rated Airports? Which And Why? posted Wed May 13 2009 05:59:45 by EcuadorianMD11
Adam Air Accident-why Didnt The Pilots... posted Sun May 10 2009 05:34:18 by Ajaaron
Parts Of The Wing Going Supersonic. Why? How? posted Wed May 6 2009 08:17:39 by Mastropiero
Why No Thrust Reverse? posted Wed Apr 22 2009 05:34:02 by SkyHigh777
Why Is An A/c Engine Only Efficient At High Alt? posted Mon Apr 20 2009 07:40:27 by Klemmi85
Zero-G Experience, Why A 727? posted Sun Apr 19 2009 19:54:59 by Warreng24
Why 'eyebrows' On Aircraft? posted Thu Apr 16 2009 19:59:33 by Jetplaner
Why The Nose Of A321 Like This? posted Thu Apr 16 2009 19:54:36 by Vietsky

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format