ChristiaanJ -
As I stated in another post, perhaps the "computer controlled" engines need to bne grouped in this discussion as well.
As to:
"(DC-8 comes to mind).
Not to mention that, more often than not, they are moved by a relay jack up front, and in turn they move servo valves on hydraulic power controls at the other end.... so there's no direct manual connection anyway."
That's not all true. The tabs are directly connect by cable. Read one of my previous posts.
And as to:
"Cable isn't all that great. They rub and chafe (and can break...). They need a lot of rigging and regular adjustment. In a long aircraft, they tend to be affected by the simple fact that an aircraft isn't rigid..."
Quite true. That's why there's periodic inspections.
And, I'm not interested in which aircraft are FBW/Computer controlled now or in the past. I'm trying to get some input on WHY folks think its SAFER.
And your:
"On the A320 etc. the redundancy issue is settled by four separate "electrical signalling" channels, IIRC. No more mechanical back-up, but still a few tricks up the PIC's sleeve, just in case..."
...points out the fact that they're not quite sure of themselves if they have to have that many back-ups.
On the DC-8.....CABLES were the back-up! Otherwise it was hydraulic power.
Your last:
"I would say that 'FBW' is mostly used as a misnomer for the various computer control modes used in the Airbus family."
I don't think it's a misnomer at all. It describes the system exactly: electric, read wire.
Gee...isn't this fun?!