Dozy, thanks. It does not matter one whit that "since 1950" the force gradients and feedback mechanisms have been added ... they were necessary due to the magnitude of control forces as planes flew faster, and in part due to the undesirability of direct feedback heading back down the pipe into the cockpit.
What evolved was the concept of the "trimmed position" which is a null point about which correction is made. Many of the advances since just after Wilbur and Orville hung up their cleats amount to is ways to aid and abet the standard task loop of flying, and to do so from around a known "neutral" position ... not of the airfoil, but of that which controls it.
Set condition (what you want the airplane to do) via control inputs (which
includes power, we'll leave gliders out of it, yes?) and then check to see if it does what you want it to, or not. If yes, hold, and then trim, that condition until you want to change. If no, change and retrim until you get to your yes ... and you are in a steady state climb, level flight, turn, descent, or combination thereof.
Again, there was good reason, both behavioral and psychological, to retain the use of tactile sense in the control loop as an error detecting input.
I disagree with your attempt to dimiss it in this little throwaway.
The "feel" that a pilot gets back through the yoke from the Comet onwards has been mechanically interpreted. You are not "feeling" what the aircraft is doing, you are merely feeling what the artificial feel system thinks you should be feeling based on the input parameters it is getting
I disagree with your
merely. The point is to scale it
so that what you feel is a tactile representation of what the aircraft is doing. (Good example is nose trim: "I gotta push to keep the stick outta my lap, nose is in, and trimmed in, the wrong place for this flight condition.") That feedback system is useful for pilot decision making. The art and craft of feel and feedback developed over some years. It allows you to add the tactile sense to your suite of tools, rather than limit it or even eliminate it.
Consider the training that gums and his comrades underwent
on a continuing basis. (The USAF is nothing if not zealous about training).
Your
operator is a necessary element of the control system.
I was hoping you'd see the link, and that I was pointing to the underlying issue: you have to train to proficiency. Since most people don't begin flying in FBW, and do begin with an ergonomically sound, and proven, method that applies the tactile senses to the system (man and machine in the gestalt ... ) you have to pay attention to how you do your transition training,
and your proficiency and habit building. If you design your system with
erroneous assumptions on that score, you open up a nice can of risk whoopass.
I am done with that, thanks for your insights.
Note: thanks to poster who explained better the feel system in the Airbus design.