![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Alan
Dicey wrote: Harry Andreas wrote: In article , Alan Dicey wrote: * electrically signalled * no manual connection * pilot flies computer: computer flies plane. The first two are what a fly-by-wire system is. The third is one particular implementation of fly-by-wire. And it doesn't matter whether it's analog or digital, or whether the a/c is inherently unstable and the FBW system keeps it in the air. Those are also just implementations of fly-by-wire . If I understand you correctly, you hold to the view that any electrically signalled flight control system is fly-by-wire? I think that makes the Vulcan a pioneer, along with the Vigilante. As long as we're talking about the primary flight controls. I'm not familiar enough with the Vulcan to say. The point I was trying to make was that the term has only gained currency recently, starting with the F-16. It has since been applied retroactively to aircraft that lack the intermediate computer (be it digital or analog), some of which have electromechanical equivalents (mixer boxes) and/or control augmentation systems, autopilots or terrain following systems. I don't think the term fly-by-wire was applied to these aircraft when they were being designed or in service, but I would be happy to be proved wrong, in the interests of illumination. Lots of things fall under a later definition, say, supercruise... Claiming you're the first because of your particular implementation is disingenuous. Thats a bit harsh. I stated up front that circular reasoning was involved in the definition I was using and also indicated that the line wasn't clearcut. No dishonesty or insincerity involved. I wasn't criticizing you.... And its not my claim, nor ever has been: it was GD's claim, and only in the sense that they made a selling point out of it. ....I was commenting on GD's re-definition of the term. Sorry if that wasn't clear. To me, fly-by-wire will always mean a system where the pilots inputs are moderated by the flight control computers. As we have just demonstrated, it has no clearly-agreed technical meaning, a fact which I ascribe to its birth in the mind of a marketeer. Can't argue with that. ciao. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , Alan Dicey wrote: If I understand you correctly, you hold to the view that any electrically signalled flight control system is fly-by-wire? I think that makes the Vulcan a pioneer, along with the Vigilante. As long as we're talking about the primary flight controls. I'm not familiar enough with the Vulcan to say. One reference below, look about 3/4 down the article for a paragraph entitled Vulcan: A Revolutionary Forebear. http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/av/s...e=1001a380.htm Anybody know if the B-52 was electrically signalled? How about Victor or Valiant? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Piper J3 Cub Parts | BFC | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 24th 04 03:20 PM |
'73 Piper Charger | Kobra | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | March 27th 04 08:49 PM |
Piper Pacer for Sale | GASSITT | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 25th 04 02:36 PM |
Piper Cub: "A Reflection in Time"... fine art print | highdesertexplorer | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 13th 04 03:47 AM |
The Piper Cubs That Weren't | Veeduber | Home Built | 5 | August 28th 03 04:38 AM |