Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on July 17, 2004, 11:05:29 AM
-
I like to travel a lot, and use various different airlines with different routes and fare plans. For this reason, I’m always interested to note what’s going on with regard to airliner development so that I have some idea of what I’m likely to be flying in.
A few years ago, I watched a documentary in which the fly-by-wire concept was explored. Many people had had reservations about this since that airshow disaster with the A320 many years ago. But it seems the pros outweigh the cons, with airlines and even the pilots themselves favouring the fly-by-wire concept rather than conventional hydraulic controls. The documentary pointed out that once the fly-by-wire concept had been adopted, there would be no going back to conventional controls. However, I do wonder how the Gimlie Glider incident would have ended up had the plane involved been an Airbus, with little more than a Saitek EVO to control it.
So I wondered how fly-by-wire would be accepted in America, given that it was primarily a European development by Airbus, and might be eschewed by America under the mantra of “not invented here”. Well maybe by Boeing but not, it would seem, by the airlines themselves. Flying from Denver to San Francisco with United Airlines in 1997, I was surprised to find myself aboard an A320, developed in France! (British Aerospace helped out with the wings) A few years later, I flew to the WB 2000 con with US Airways – not a Boeing, but an A330! One of the guys at that con was a 757/767 pilot with US Airways and asked me about the flight over. He said he had ambitions to step up to the A330, but that it was “way too senior” for him at present. (I think he’d done it within a year though)
Now it seems that F-B-W is moving on in leaps and bounds. Cut price airlines like easyJet, whose entire fleet used to consist of B737s, have begun moving over to Airbus – with cost being given as the main reason, but no mention of the flight control system. They have plans to buy another 240 Airbus aircraft…
Still, it seems that Boeing is catching up – the 777 is F-B-W with one important difference, if my sources are to be believed: The pilots can override the computers, the Airbus pilots cannot. I take it that all Boeing aircraft will, in future, be built with the F-B-W control system?
The 747-400 is, I am told, the largest airliner in service. A great aircraft, and yet American Airlines has no 747s at all. Apparently AA is not impressed with 747 fuel consumption when compared with that of other aircraft.
Soon, Boeing will be kocked off its perch as producer of the largest airliner when the A380 enters service in 2006. In a typical configuration the A380 will seat 555 passengers.
So it looks like Europe is carrying the torch for airliner development right now, and will continue to do so for many years.
Will Airbus buy up Boeing? Well… not yet. Besides, the spectacle of Ripsnort having to sell his guns so he can relocate to France to live and work is beyond my powers of imagination!
:rofl
-
Fly-by-wire was in the F-16 long before Airbus adopted it. I'm assuming when you said it was a European development that you meant it was first adopted commercially by Airbus?
Little doubt that fly-by-wire will eventually be the standard, drive-by-wire will be too.
Doing a bit of research, fly-by-wire goes back to the early 1960's. Not sure who did it first.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm assuming when you said it was a European development that you meant it was first adopted commercially by Airbus?
Yes, indeed.
-
Maybe this was the first Digital FBW A/C: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-024-DFRC.html
-
fly-by-wire concept rather than conventional hydraulic controls
Wrong statement. Fly by wire is still a hydraulic control system.
Fly by wire as used on the F16, then later copied (plagarized?) by Airbus still moves thea flight controls by hydraulics. The conventional flight control systems typically uses cables to deliver input to the hydraulic servos.
dago
-
Im on thin ice here, but wasnt an F8 Crusader fitted with the fly by wire system that was destined for the spaceshuttle the first ac with fbw?
-
The Honeywell MH-96 adaptive flight control system was tested on the X-15 as part of the Dyna-Soar test project in the early 1960s. It completely separated control input from the control surfaces too, had to to blend control of the control surfaces with the reaction control system for flight above the atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The Honeywell MH-96 adaptive flight control system was tested on the X-15 as part of the Dyna-Soar test project in the early 1960s. It completely separated control input from the control surfaces too, had to to blend control of the control surfaces with the reaction control system for flight above the atmosphere.
ok, wasnt sure at all. How is the body recovering btw?
-
There seems to be a distinction made between fbw and digital fbw.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There seems to be a distinction made between fbw and digital fbw.
I guess a kite would be analog fbw :D
-
Originally posted by Dago
Wrong statement. Fly by wire is still a hydraulic control system.
Yes I know that, D**kbrain. :rolleyes: The keyword was "conventional". You don't seriously believe anyone thinks that control movement is dependent on the pilot's strength? :lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
ok, wasnt sure at all. How is the body recovering btw?
It's doing great, down almost 25lbs now.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's doing great, down almost 25lbs now.
outstanding....congrats :)
maybe i should do it to....kinda like a preemptive strike
-
Boeing and Airbus navigation is functionally pretty much similar, does alot of the same things.
You could fly planes of the both manufacturers with almost completely from departure to arrival with autopilot.
There are some things which prevents it from being completely automatical: autopilot is activated only after passing certain altitude; there usually are vectors from ATC, which limits you from using every aspects of the autopilot; not every airport is equipped with CAT-IIIb ILS equiptment, which would enable fully automatic approach & landing + pilots and planes needs to be certified for this (plus possible company limitations).
Otherwise you can pretty much fly automatically the full route with Boeing and Airbus manufactured planes.
Of course it depends on the cockpit layout - older planes can have non-modernized cockpits with so called steam gauges.
All this is done by a flight management computer, where your route is input into.
Planes are then capable of flying along the programmed vertical and lateral navigational profile.
Different airline companies have different regulations, ie. some does not allow use of vertical navigational properties, but that does not mean they dont use autopilot: they input wanted vertical speed and the autopilot then maintains it.
etc.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I guess a kite would be analog fbw :D
Nah, that'd be FBS
The earlier FBW may have used electrical synchro/servos vs the digital electronics used later.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Nah, that'd be FBS
The earlier FBW may have used electrical synchro/servos vs the digital electronics used later.
yes of course....fly by string!. how silly of me :)
-
Airbus buying out Boeing? Not in our lifetime. Boeing is a prime contractor for the U.S. in many different facets of aerospace. Space shuttle, next generation X-planes, Military(Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines,) Titan2,3,4 rockets and satellites, Boeing even profits 20% of its total business due to computers (Mainframes). We build everthing from surface to air missile transports to airborne and survellience early detect radar. Boeing's diversification across many aspects of aviation AND aerospace as well as military has kept it strong through its history, not relying strictly on Commericial sales as they have in the past. Even bids that it loses, Boeing is usually a major sub-contractor for those companies (IE. F-22, JSF)
An article from this weeks Paris airshow:
CHICAGO, July 12, 2004 – The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today detailed its media presentations for the July 19-25 Farnborough International Air Show, which include discussions of the transformational 7E7 Dreamliner and Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft programs.
The company’s schedule begins Monday, July 19, at 9:30 a.m. with a briefing by Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally. That session will be in the Radlett Suite of the show’s Media Centre. Also on Monday, representatives from the U.S. Navy and Boeing will brief the media on the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft program that the Navy recently awarded to Boeing, at 11:00 a.m. in the Media Centre’s Hatfield Suite.
“The Boeing story is about aerospace leadership, and we are looking forward to telling that story at Farnborough,” said Tod Hullin, Boeing senior vice president of communications. “This company is on the move and generating real momentum. Our successes with the 7E7 and the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft programs are just the latest examples of Boeing executing its strategy of commercial and military balance to lead the aerospace industry.”
Several Boeing-built aircraft will be on display at the show, including the F/A-18F Super Hornet, AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter and F-15C Eagle, which are scheduled for daily flight demonstrations. Other Boeing products scheduled to be on static display include the F-15E Strike Eagle, C-17 Globemaster III, the Standoff Land Attack Missile, Harpoon and a full-scale mock up of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS).
Accredited journalists are invited to the Boeing Press Chalet (B6), adjacent to the main Boeing chalet, throughout the week. Boeing will hold a series of briefings on key programs and issues. Each day, media should check the briefing schedule at the Boeing Press Chalet, Boeing Exhibits and the Media Centre for updates.
Also, good news for laid off Boeing employees:
Boeing to bring back more workers (http://www.komo-am.com/stories/32218.htm)
Don't worry about us, we alive and on the upswing commerically speaking,Beetle. ;)
-
that was alot of text rip......short conclusion is that Boing is doing well?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
that was alot of text rip......short conclusion is that Boing is doing well?
Yes, very well compared to 2002 and 2003. Here's the latest status for Year to date on commericial aircraft only, which is a only one facet of Boeings profits. (This does not include the 7E7 orders its received to date)
July 11, 2003 - Midday Edition
BCA logs 32 deliveries and 73 orders in June
Customers ordered 73 new jetliners from Boeing in June, while accepting delivery of 32 commercial airplanes, according to the newly updated Boeing Commercial Airplanes Orders and Deliveries Web pages. During the month, Boeing finalized new orders for 45 737s with All Nippon Airways, four 777-300ERs with GE Capital Aviation Services and one 737-800 for a Boeing Business Jet customer, as well as 15 737s and eight 767s for unidentified customers. In June, Boeing delivered 17 737s, five 777s, four 767s, three 757s, two 747s and one 717. Korean Air received its first 747-400ER Freighter and was revealed as the customer for a total of three such airplanes on June 13. In addition, Air China received its first 737-700 on June 17. This year-to-date, Commercial Airplanes has taken orders for 112 and delivered 145 jetliners.
-
again.....alot of text but that must mean that there has been alot of orders :aok
-
Incidently, we have 1,400 job openings, for hiring off the street as well.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Incidently, we have 1,400 job openings, for hiring off the street as well.
need anyone with marketing skills abroad?....europe to be precise?
-
210,000 employees get stock payout in July (http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=1984005) in addition to the EIP that more than 85,000 nonunion employees received in Febuary 2004 ( 8.0 days of incentive pay)
We're on track for this year to have a pay out of 15 days for Feb. 2005.
-
*sniff* swims away perplexed eschewing obfuscation
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
need anyone with marketing skills abroad?....europe to be precise?
Couldn't tell ya Nilsen, but check out the employment tab at http://www.boeing.com
My search results netted:
Note, this is both Internal, and External jobs.
Your query " (status='Open Internal Only' or status='Open Internal and External') matched 1573 job postings.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
l Airbus buy up Boeing? Well… not yet. Besides, the spectacle of Ripsnort having to sell his guns so he can relocate to France to live and work is beyond my powers of imagination!
:rofl
The invasion already started some years ago
Ask Ripsnort to list the 3D CAD/CAM software they use at boeing :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
The invasion already started some years ago
Ask Ripsnort to list the 3D CAD/CAM software they use at boeing :)
Dassault! Funny though, Airbus chose not to use CATIA for many years, they recently got onboard with CATIA...
-
I know it's Dassault I was yanking yer chain :p
The funny thing is that one day Dassault will make more money with the software :D
I don't know what software they use at Airbus.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
yes of course....fly by string!. how silly of me :)
nope...fbw you can chop up other kites good with the right sort...string is for wussies
actually the avro arrow had a fbw system...
-
Many people had had reservations about this since that airshow disaster with the A320 many years ago.
As I understand it, the crash wasn't the result of fbw, but the onboard computer insisting that the plane was landing, over riding the pilot insisting that it was not.:D
Another Boeing feature popular with many piolts is control feedback. They like laying their hands on the yoke while autopilot is engaged, and feeling what the airplane is doing.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.:aok
-
Originally posted by straffo
I know it's Dassault I was yanking yer chain :p
The funny thing is that one day Dassault will make more money with the software :D
I don't know what software they use at Airbus.
I know you were. :)
Airbus started using CATIA V5 for the development of the A380, however I'm not sure what they used before that. It was not CATIA V4 though.
-
I’m pretty sure Boeing will do well, and after working on their jets night after night, I feel I might have an inside or better take on this issue. And yes, I worked on Airbus stuff before. Boeing is good stuff, so is Airbus.
Still, to have Droopsnore be the resident professional because he made some tooling to make ‘who knows what’ part of it and spends most his day yanking on the AH BBS at work, kinda pisses me off .
Please STFU Droppy. You couldn’t find the CDU if your pop can was in the cockpit sitting on it, and asked to find the APU Oil level.
Your stock goes up by people that actually do something, not you.
FACT.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Many people had had reservations about this since that airshow disaster with the A320 many years ago.
As I understand it, the crash wasn't the result of fbw, but the onboard computer insisting that the plane was landing, over riding the pilot insisting that it was not.:D
Another Boeing feature popular with many piolts is control feedback. They like laying their hands on the yoke while autopilot is engaged, and feeling what the airplane is doing.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.:aok
Popular misconception.
Later investigation showed that the pilot disabled the safety system and contributed to the crash because of a poorly documented situation that the plane was vulnerable to.
When he was making his descent to do a 100 foot pass over the runway for the airshow, he disengaged the program that would maintain a safe performance envelope, throttled his engines back to idle, and manually guided the plane in with full landing flaps. He realized that he was running out of e and firewalled the engines, but since they were at idle instead of at a point in their powerband where they could produce active thrust, there was a lag (turbo owners know this as turbo lag) as the turbines throttled up to thrust producing levels, and the plane impacted the trees before he could climb away.
The crash wasn't entirely pilot error, Airbus later documented a different landing procedure after another plane was lost in similar circumstances that would help pilots stay out of trouble.
-
You seem well versed in Aerospace and aviation Chairboy. Cool.
Just wondering what your career in aerospace or aviation is.
I’m going to say you are in aerospace engineering, or commercial jet development?
What company, and what do you think about future aircraft designs?
-
The pinnacle of my BBS achievement has been to elicit a thought out response from Rip which went beyond cutting and pasting! ;)
American Airlines cites the MD80 as the centrepiece of its fleet - is this FBW or conventional?
Our friend Steve could have been an Airbus pilot - he likes easymode planes! :lol;) Go ahead - wring my neck!
-
I thought the Lunar Landers had the first fly-by-wire systems...which formed the basis of the first ones for aircraft (Vought F-8)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
American Airlines cites the MD80 as the centrepiece of its fleet - is this FBW or conventional?
LOL. Beetard, you know better.
Err, you do, right?
-
I think it will be an interesting few years ahead. Yes the A380 will get some headlines when it first flies and yes it has a good order book but can Airbus survive on A380 alone ???
The A320 series is actually getting a bit old now and in the A321 is probably as stretched as it will get. Likewise the A330 and 340 are up at their limits of improvements. Boeing however have a clean sheet design which is getting good responses from the airlines - 7E7 I think will re-ignite the fight between Boeing and Airbus in the commercial sector.
As far as FBW goes - well it's nothing new - but ask anyone who's done avionics or FADEC about software .................. it's not just on your PC where strange things happen.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
You seem well versed in Aerospace and aviation Chairboy. Cool.
Just wondering what your career in aerospace or aviation is.
I’m going to say you are in aerospace engineering, or commercial jet development?
What company, and what do you think about future aircraft designs?
Thanks Creamo! But I'm just a hobbyist who reads a lot. I'm actually in software engineering.
My parents and grandparents (Boeing going back two generations) would probably have liked it if I had done the same path, but...
For the specific information on this Airbus crash, a great quick summary is in a book called Set Phasers on Stun: And Other True Tales of Design, Technology, and Human Error by Steven Casey. It's a bunch of engineering mistakes or usabillity/human factors errors that ended badly.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963617885/qid=1090107384/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9159212-4034515?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Oh, and in regards to the company I have my money on, still Boeing. The 7E7 might be a less sexy then the aborted Sonic Cruiser, but it's a lot of important technology that'll change jet travel. The question is, will it change it the way the Dash-80 changed it? Or will it do it the way the DeHavilland Comet changed it? :D
-
The question is, will it change it the way the Dash-80 changed it? Or will it do it the way the DeHavilland Comet changed it?
Interesting point Chairboy but one thing is for sure - the headlines when the first A380 makes a hole in a field killing 600 folks are going to be bigger than those for a 200 seat 7E7. How long it is before the first 380 accident may well be the key to its sucess or failure.
Out of interest anyone know how long it was from the first 747 going into service to the first one ploughing in??
-
The reason I mention the Comet and the 7E7 is that both have a lot of new technology in them. The Comet was doomed after the problem with the windows brought down planes.
I think that composite technology is mature, but for a structure as large as a wing, there's always room for more learning. It's not practical to prevent the 7E7 from rolling out because of this concern, but I hope that Boeing will be actively involved in examining the first generation of planes for any possible 'fatigue' or stress related problems.
The technology isn't the problem, it's making sure that the organization is committed to fulfilling their part of investigating in-field deployment to validate their simulations.
-
Hehe creamo, see? Just can't stay away from stalking...
Hey, hows that United Airlines (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=18187&referrerid=3203
) stock holding up? ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think that composite technology is mature, but for a structure as large as a wing, there's always room for more learning. It's not practical to prevent the 7E7 from rolling out because of this concern, but I hope that Boeing will be actively involved in examining the first generation of planes for any possible 'fatigue' or stress related problems.
Wish I could say more, unfortunately anything I might add at this point could be proprietary information.
-
but I hope that Boeing will be actively involved in examining the first generation of planes for any possible 'fatigue' or stress related problems.
====
Ive heard things you wouldnt even imagine possible. Like rip I cant say anything specific but suffice it to say Boeing has broken the mold that airbus stole from us twenty years ago and is starting a whole new game and making the rules. You will not be disappointed. The 7E7 and its variants are the future of commercial air travel. the a380, although very much a boeing inspired airplane, is really just old news in a new package.
-
Great stuff to hear! When the 7E7 was announced, I was interested, but not excited. As I learn more about the technology in it, the more interested I get. My hope is that the 7E7 will be an integral part of lowering the cost of air travel or increase the profit margins for airlines, either of which will result in a stronger industry that can then start looking forward to things like a next generation SST. I think the sonic boom problem will be solved in our lifetime, so fast cross country travel is still a possibility.
-
Keep in mind that 7E7 and A380 are in a whole different class.
B747/B777 and A330/A340/A380 are more on the same lines.
7E7 is more like replacement for B737 or competitor for A32x
I'd be more interested to know with what Airbus will replace its 32x-series.
Those are already getting little oldish.. or then I just see too many Airbus 32x's around EFHK :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ive heard things you wouldnt even imagine possible. Like rip I cant say anything specific but suffice it to say Boeing has broken the mold that airbus stole from us twenty years ago and is starting a whole new game and making the rules. You will not be disappointed. The 7E7 and its variants are the future of commercial air travel. the a380, although very much a boeing inspired airplane, is really just old news in a new package.
Very inspiring speaker, wasn't he? (If you had the same guy speak at your group...)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
7E7 is more like replacement for B737 or competitor for A32x
ehhh, no. :) not unless you can pack 289 people on a 737 ;)
-
Will airbus survive
No worries sparks airbus will always survive as it is subsidize by europe
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think that composite technology is mature, but for a structure as large as a wing, there's always room for more learning. It's not practical to prevent the 7E7 from rolling out because of this concern, but I hope that Boeing will be actively involved in examining the first generation of planes for any possible 'fatigue' or stress related problems.
I have a superlight weight carbon fly rod that must be about 15 years old. I've sat on it, fell on it, and bent it back on itself when I caught fish too big for the tackle. That and my carbon shafted Callaway driver as well as the Navy's Super Hornets and carbon composite's use in business jets and homebuilt aircraft give me some confidence as to the maturity of the technology.
-
About "Fly by Wire": I can't be sure but IIRC Avro Arrow was first aircraft using that system.
Not sure how good this link is but it's something: http://www.spitcrazy.com/avroarrowstory1.htm
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
ehhh, no. :) not unless you can pack 289 people on a 737 ;)
Well.. okey, 757
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well.. okey, 757
767, particularly the -300 model. (260 passengers) however its really a niche aircraft. The 7E7 is a twin isle aircraft, where the 757 and 737 are single isle.
Responding to the preference of airlines worldwide, the 7E7 will be a super-efficient commercial airplane that applies the enabling technologies developed during the feasibility study for the Sonic Cruiser. The airplane will carry 200 to 250 passengers (But can be configured to up to 289) and fly 7,800 to 8,300 nmi, this translates into dramatic savings in fuel use and operating costs. The performance will come from improvements in engine technology, aerodynamics, materials and systems. It will be the most advanced and efficient commercial airplane in its class and will set new standards for environmental performance and passenger comfort. Its my opinion that all Boeing aircraft will one day be composite and derivitives of this new 7E7 technology.
-
Concorde was better than the lot! :aok
-
Does anybody else reccgnize this as just another one of beetles Europe good USA bad threads? Here he is trying to show how great and successfull a subsidized Euro aircraft manufacturer is, and how the predominant American manufacturer is going down hill.
It follows his previous pattern of spreading negativity about the USA in a sometimes discreet, sometimes not manner.
The fact that he doesn't know squat about the industry, about how aircraft are built and what the realities of the situation are are irrelevant to him.
dago
-
The Avro Arrow was the first FBW aircraft. Not surprising that the Luner Lander had it as well, seeing as the designer of the Lunar Lander was an engineer on the Arrow.
-
Beet1e said: Will Airbus buy up Boeing? Well… not yet. Besides, the spectacle of Ripsnort having to sell his guns so he can relocate to France to live and work is beyond my powers of imagination!
:rofl
Though this post is nearly two years old, I felt compelled to reply to Beet now that a couple of years have past.
Boeing has pulled all of its IT test division out of Paris as of this year and we've relocated it back into the U.S. Alot of it had to do with the expense of operating out of France, and the turmoil going on over there.
Regarding Boeing for sale...Febuary of 2003 Boeing stock dipped to $26.85 a share. At $30 a share I invested heavily into this bluechip stock. Today, it sits at $79.07 at the time of this posting. It will split this year sometime. I don't think Boeing will be selling anytime soon.