Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.


and Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:44:58 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"R. David Steele" wrote in message
.. .

|
|Perhaps never. The days of turning off the autopilot and flying the
|airplane yourself are long gone. The software is always there.
|

In other words it is an UAV with pilot on board?

As are most civilian transports. Software driven electric control
systems
are the future, UAV, or fighter.

On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.


While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
...
As regards to civilian transports,

One of the arguements that real pilots make for the Boeing product
being superior to the Airbus is that you are using automation to
enhance your skills, to perform menial, redundant (repetitive) tasks,
while still maintaining actual control, if desired.

The Airbus concept is that the pilot is more of a "systems manager",
and monitors the computers and automation that are actually flying the
aircraft.

No, both manufacturers produce airliners where the pilot is a systems
operator.

When United dumped Boeing for the A-320, Boeing had to grow up.


While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
computers).

The 777 fakes the pilot into thinking it is a conventional airplane, which
it is not.

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

Missing code/flight control vioaltions can be fatal.

On 2/24/04 6:11 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:
SNIP

The 777 fakes the pilot into thinking it is a conventional airplane, which
it is not.

I don't know anything about the 777 other than it has some features that
make V1 cuts easy (that most airline pilots don't get to use in the
simulator very often).


I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

Missing code/flight control vioaltions can be fatal.


Sounds like you just made my point for me. A couple of malfunctioning gyros
could be bad for you.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:



While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody


The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire

Keith

On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/24/04 4:08 PM, in article , "Tarver
Engineering" wrote:



While pilots are systems operators in most airliners these days, Airbus
products have some automation that removes the pilot further from the loop
(e.g. no greater than 60 degrees angle of bank allowed by the flight
control
computers).

I, for one, would be uncomfortable flying that trash... so are many of the
folks I know that fly/flew the A320 and A300.

--Woody


The trouble with that little tale is that the A-300 doesnt have fly by wire

Keith



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).

It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly out
of ignorance.

--Woody

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).


So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.


It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
out
of ignorance.


Indeed

Keith

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 2/25/04 3:32 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:



Nope, and admittedly I'm telling tales out of school because I haven't
flown
one nor studied up on it, but it does have some funky engine failure
throttle automation (which I don't understand).


So you are criticising a system without knowing anything about it.
Autothrottles are scarcely a rarity and the installation on the A-300
can be turned off so the crew has full authority, just as on Boeing
aircraft.


I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

As I said before, my opinions are based on ready room chat with a few pilots
I know who fly the Airbus. The knowledge I have is on a macro level (i.e.
not from a standpoint of having been formally schooled on it), but it's
certainly enough to allow me to form a rational and reasonable opinion.

I've also taken the honest road and admitted my short-comings on the issue.

It's Airbus' approach to automation that I object to... perhaps slightly
out
of ignorance.


Indeed

So add some intellectual meat to the discussion. If you have time in an
Airbus or knowledge to the contrary and you'd like to lend an opposing view,
feel free. All things being equal, I like Boeing's approach to the issue
better.

--Woody

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

--Woody


The autothrottle was not the issue on the Airbus "tree harvesting"
accident at Mulhouse. High-bypass engines take a finite amount of time
to spool up, autothrottle or not. If you get too low, too slow, then
decide to goose the throttle too late, you won't get the thrust you need
in time, regardless of the throttle mapping.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:56:47 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 2/25/04 7:23 AM, in article , "Keith
Willshaw" wrote:
I've got time in lots of jets with autothrottles, so spare me the preaching
to the choir. I bring up the autothrottle issue on the Airbus because of
their famous mishap with a jet that turned out to be the "world's most
expensive chainsaw" a few years back. That same throttle automation was
responsible for a Russian Airbus doing a wingover about 10 years ago too.

IIRC the first incident you mentioned occured during an airshow where
the autothrottle had been disengaged so the pilot could get closer to
teh edge of the envelope (too close as it turned out).

To me, the no-greater-than-60-degrees-AOB feature on the A320 is disturbing.
The pre-supposition by the folks at Airbus seems to be that the pilot needs
to be kept in a box because he's incapable of staying there on his own.

Err, I'm not sure of your point here. If the pilots are good enough to
avoid 60 degree AOB (Angle of Bank I assume), then what does it matter
if the computer would stop them going faster? And if they aren't that
competent, then the computer should damn well stop them playing silly
buggers. This is the same issue IMO as the G limits built into the FBW
software on most modern aircraft. Some pilots I've spoken to
(specifically F-16 drivers) object to a computer telling them they
can't pull that much g *if they have to* in a life or death situation.
Other point out that if they did exceed the limits they'd likely pull
of the wings, blow a few blood vessels, or flame out - possibly all 3,
and if the computer stops them doing that, that's fine by them.

AS for the current approaches by Boeing and Airbus, I was under teh
impression that with the latest Boeing products (777 and 737NG) they
are virtually indistinguishable to Airbus in their treatmetn of pilots
as system managers, simply becasue the computers do a better job of
keeping on time and min fuel consumption, and money's what the game's
about.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster