Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does The B 744 Have The Fly By Wire Technology?  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Does anyone know whether or not the B 747-400 have the FLY BY WIRE TECHNOLOGY? If not, the B 747-400ER and the proposed B 747 Advanced?

Awaiting your reply. Thanks

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

As far as I know the answer is No to the 744 and 744ER. Not sure what the Advanced is - is that the renamed 747-500/600 and then 747-X or whatever the A380 competitor was called?

Might be wrong though.

Regards

Ikarus



User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

The current 747 variants do not have FBW technology, though the -400 series makes extensive use of some fairly modern avionics systems. The 747-500X and -600X were supposed to use FBW if my memory serves me, but both of them were canceled.


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

The current 747 development plan is for the 747EX, or 747Adv, as it seems to also be known. This is a slight stretch on the current 744 and will carry just over 400 pax in a 3 class configuration. It will have FBW technology and engines being developed for the 7E7. Cathay are looking at these but they won't be available till 2008 or later, and indeed hasn't even been formally launched yet.

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

Hope CX will order some.

What about the B 747-400? You sure it doesn't???

Actually WHAT does FBW mean? can anyone explain that to me?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8133 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

No direct links between pilot input and control surface actuation - all control inputs are fed through a computer and control surfaces are electrically signaled.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Traditionally, the pilot controls are directly connected to all control surfaces, by hydraulics. FBW replaces this direct (and heavy) link with wires that merely transmit the information, not the mechanical movement, to actuators and motors at the relevant surfaces. The advantage is, the computer can be put in-the-loop. That means the computer can prevent the pilot from doing undesirable things (such as stalling, or pulling up in a stall). It also means, the computer can make the plane react to pilot inputs differently than it would if there was a direct link.

For example, if you use full deflection of some surface at high speed flight, the plane might react very violently, even tear off the surface in question, or produce structural damage. With a computer there, the deflection of the pilot control could be proportional to the rate of change of the flight path, as opposed to being proportional to the deflection. So moving the stick XX degrees to the left might produce the same result at any speed, whereas doing the same thing with a direct link would produce different results (less violent at low speeds, much more violent at high speeds). This is all theoretical - I do not know what exactly the computer does, it might well try and simulate the real thing very closely. Or it might not. One aim, apparently, is to make all planes feel the same to the pilot, so that an A320 is as sluggish as an A340 in its response, or vice versa, the 340 as lively as the 320. This reduces pilot type rating conversion times, along with similar cockpit layouts.

So, FBW allows the designer to let the plane response differently to pilot inputs than it would with direct links and hydraulics. It also allows the computer to have direct control and the final word (overruling pilot inputs) in controlling the plane.

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineRick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

"It also allows the computer to have direct control and the final word (overruling pilot inputs) in controlling the plane."

Strictly speaking that is a function of Flight Envelope Protection, rather than Fly By Wire itself.

It only protects the aircraft from entering a very dangerous flight condition, such as a stall. The protection system therefore very rarely activates, if ever, and so the final control of the aircraft does remain with the pilot in all normal operations.



I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

But without FBW, the flight Envelope Protection could not take control, right? The way I understood it is that FBW is an enabler - FBW could be a 100% replacement for hydraulics if designers wanted that, but they wanted more...

and so the final control of the aircraft does remain with the pilot in all normal operations.

True, but I always figured that the reason for keeping a human in the loop at all aren't the normal operations anyway, so having a computer that has the final word in exceptional situations is, in my personal opinion, a mistake. There've been 2 known incidents where the computer was wrong, so far. Admittedly, there've been many more incidents where humans were wrong - but as aeronautical engineer, I'd rather have 10 pilot errors than one error designed into the plane, which is why I can be rather critical towards the current applications of computer control.

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

And to add to your question even the B744ERs don't have the FBW technology.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Ikarus, which crashes were caused by failure of the computers? I'm not saying I don't believe you; I'm just curious because don't recall having read about one in which a computer failure was the definitive cause.

The only possible case coming to mind is that airshow A320, and from what I understand of it, it sounded like the pilot had flown the plane too low and too slow.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

The Lufthansa crash in Warsaw - the computer did not permit thrust reversers to be used because it thought the plane had not landed yet. The plane aquaplaned down the runway with minimal breaking action, and ended up in a hill at the end of the runway.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mariusz Siecinski



An Iberia hard landing (not a crash) caused because the pilot gave the command to go around in bad weather conditions but the computer refused and smashed the plane hard onto the tarmac.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Rodriguez - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



Both accidents were analyzed and both times Airbus modified the software in the A320s as a result.

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

Plenty of aircraft, FBW or not, will not allow a number of things (reverse thrust, spoilers, braking) unless they are convinced the aircraft is on the ground. If wheel spin up is one of the parameters, aquaplaning can throw a spanner in the works.

IMO there should always be a way for the pilot to tell the aircraft that "yes, we HAVE landed and you better give me thrust reverse right now". Air-ground logic input sensors do fail. If there's not, it's not an FBW problem but a design problem. If there was a means of forcing the aircraft into ground condition, it was activated, the command reached the FBW computers and was ignored, THEN I'll blame it on FBW.

I'd like to read more about the latter accident before concluding anything. Got a link?

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

If you speak German and are willing to register and cough up 0.40 Euros for an article...:

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,142775,00.html


Otherwise.... not sure where to find more info...

On another note - I did not state it was the FBW computer/software in particular that caused the LH accident, but a computer. I think the problem was that the wheel sensors registered a load, but not enough for the computer to accept the condition as landing. As consequence, the threshold was lowered. (Was it from 12 tons per main gear to 6 tons? Oh, dunno, I forgot the numbers...)

[Edited 2003-09-15 18:57:31]

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

FBW could be a 100% replacement for hydraulics if designers wanted that, but they wanted more...

Not really, hydraulic systems are still needed to actually move the control surfaces.


User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

Well, I meant a one-to-one replacement of the control feel for the pilot... a 100% replacement in terms of the feedback the pilot receives from the controls.

Maybe I should phrase things more carefully.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Does The B 744 Have The Fly By Wire Technology?
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...
Fly-By-Wire Technology Information Needed. posted Sun Feb 8 2004 04:12:44 by Airlinelover
Fly By Wire... The Engine Too? posted Mon Mar 29 2004 03:47:29 by A380900
Is The Airbus 300B4-605R Fly By Wire? posted Sat Jan 12 2002 21:13:14 by Cmsgop
Airbus Fly By Wire And Viruses posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:56:21 by Airfoilsguy
Concorde's Fly-by-wire posted Wed Jun 21 2006 14:22:34 by Keta
Fly By Wire Actuator Replacement posted Mon Jun 12 2006 09:53:30 by Jafa39
Is Fly By Wire Safer Than Hydraulic Systems? posted Sat May 20 2006 17:29:55 by A320ajm
Boeing Fly-by-wire System posted Fri Nov 25 2005 17:09:31 by KrisYYZ
Fly-by-wire. Also On A300? posted Mon Sep 26 2005 16:06:31 by PipoA380
MD-11 Fly-By-Wire posted Sat Dec 11 2004 05:20:21 by Haraelm

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format