John Smith wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I have one!
He likes it. On the plus side for the 777, it's controls behave like
controls al the time. The 'Bus has several "laws" it operates in
givng the pilot several distinct types. For instance,one, "direct
law" will behave just like any airplane. This law comes into play as
the airplane closes in on the ground during approach. it's seamless
with the previous mode so you shouldn't evn notice it. Another law
will give you pitch and attitude control similar to some older
autopilots. You pull pitch and when the pitch you require is reached,
you neutralise the stick and the airplane will sit at that attitude
all day or until it starts doing something it doesn't like, in which
case it will recover. The bank is the same. you roll to the bank you
like and release and the airplane will sit there. Mostly you'd just
be using the heading select, speed select alt hold and nav tracking
functions and bitching about how much you had to work for what you
were paid and how that asshole at security took your emery board off
you and then let you go out to your 200 ton 500 knot bomb.

Computerized negative stability?

Well, they are less stable, and that is one of the main reasons they
wanted the FBW in them. With an aft CG the airplane is effectively
lighter since the downforce on the stab is less. so the airplane goes
better for a start. Another benefit of this is your buffet margins are
improved so you can go higher. Higher mesans lower burn. Big savings
over the lifetime of an airplane. Same "traditional" airplanes like the
747-400 and MD-11 also do this with the autopilot engaged by virtue of
their ability to shift fuel in flight. They;re all still stable, but
stability is relative and these would be difficult to hand fly without
the augmentation supplied by the computers, unlike the drastically
unstable military airplanes that rely on these devices.

Bertie