7e7 side stick?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: below the sky
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7e7 side stick?
It's rumoured that the the 7e7 (dreamliner) will be using "side sticks" instead of "yoke - control column". Is this a good idea?
nooluv..........
nooluv..........
Last edited by nooluv; 14th May 2004 at 22:22.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's true... I read it in Popular Science earlier this week.
As a matter of fact the airlines think it's a better idea to have a sidestick vs. a yoke, but naturally Boeing thinks otherwise.
I guess they will have to swallow their pride this time
As a matter of fact the airlines think it's a better idea to have a sidestick vs. a yoke, but naturally Boeing thinks otherwise.
I guess they will have to swallow their pride this time
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Work's with the Boeing C-17.
But thats got a fighter style one
Think Boeing would consider that in the 7E7?
Actually why not just use this in the 7E7:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/362526/L/
But thats got a fighter style one
Think Boeing would consider that in the 7E7?
Actually why not just use this in the 7E7:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/362526/L/
Last edited by jonathang; 15th May 2004 at 00:02.
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidestick
Tactile clues such as moving thrust levers and moving yokes/ sidestick are the way to go. Hope Boeing does not follow Scarebus philosophy on those aspects.
JJ
JJ
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJ - Lot's of Airbii flying very successfully around the globe...
With such a modern aeroplane, MODE awareness is the key ingredient to safe flying. (actually as in any aircraft!!!)
With such a modern aeroplane, MODE awareness is the key ingredient to safe flying. (actually as in any aircraft!!!)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: According to my GPS... 5981NM from Dubai... too far to drive!
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very likely, personally I think the 777 is so automated that it might as well have a sidestick. It lands for you, tells you where to taxi, even tells you when to flare....its completely idiot proof!
Boeing investigated mechanically coupled side sticks in the 757 development simulator several years ago. The 777 went with a conventional stick, in part so as not to follow Airbus, to keep all Boeing flights deck standard, and that improved technology was not then available. However, modern side sticks can be cross coupled and dynamically back-driven giving the crew all of the characteristics of force feel and control feedback. There are many arguments as to which type of control input to use, probably the new side sticks being just ahead, but my money would be on the 7e7 having a centre stick and a 777 look-alike flight deck.
Pilots and designers rarely have as much sway in these decisions as do the marketing teams i.e. keep the same flight deck, fleet commonality, and reduced training costs. It is unfortunate that these types of decision may hold back the industry, some preventing safety improvements … why doesn’t the industry update the FMS keyboard etc, it may be a poor design but it’s the standard.
Pilots and designers rarely have as much sway in these decisions as do the marketing teams i.e. keep the same flight deck, fleet commonality, and reduced training costs. It is unfortunate that these types of decision may hold back the industry, some preventing safety improvements … why doesn’t the industry update the FMS keyboard etc, it may be a poor design but it’s the standard.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably, unless a side-stick is back-driven, auto-trim would be a pre-requisite? Without the back-driven information, the pilot would have no physical reference for trimming the aircraft?
Is the 777 fitted with auto-trim (like the Airbii)?
A side-stick that had 'force feedback' would be nice. If you can get one for a PC, Boeing shouldn't have any problems!!
Is the 777 fitted with auto-trim (like the Airbii)?
A side-stick that had 'force feedback' would be nice. If you can get one for a PC, Boeing shouldn't have any problems!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Force feedback sidesticks have been available for several years now - from both Lear-Siegler (as was) or Sterling as examples. Both models have been tested & flown successfully in the Bombardier ACT (Active Control Technology) Challenger.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBW
All flight controls, whether they be manual or powered or FBW MUST have feel. Early FBW side stick in F16 has a feel of 3 pnds per G up to 27 pnds for 9G
3 pnds per G is the minimum for fighter/small aircraft. Normal minimum for lighties is 5 pnds per G. For a yoke in a heavy the minimum is around 11 pnds per G. I think the Boeing will be heavier than this. Otherwise the ham fisted ones amongst us will be breaking wings off.
The Boeing system is going one better to provide some Q feel as well. That is a feel for indicated air speed = half roe v squared.
Pilots will have to do some realigning of their subconscious clues from stick movement as some designers want to have sticks which don't move. Just force input. We should all continue to require some amount of movement to preserve some of those clues..
All flight controls, whether they be manual or powered or FBW MUST have feel. Early FBW side stick in F16 has a feel of 3 pnds per G up to 27 pnds for 9G
3 pnds per G is the minimum for fighter/small aircraft. Normal minimum for lighties is 5 pnds per G. For a yoke in a heavy the minimum is around 11 pnds per G. I think the Boeing will be heavier than this. Otherwise the ham fisted ones amongst us will be breaking wings off.
The Boeing system is going one better to provide some Q feel as well. That is a feel for indicated air speed = half roe v squared.
Pilots will have to do some realigning of their subconscious clues from stick movement as some designers want to have sticks which don't move. Just force input. We should all continue to require some amount of movement to preserve some of those clues..
A-Floor: Even the Fokker planes never had a sidestick. Maybe Boeing's 777 engineer-designers were not too impressed with the problems using an A-320 "control"-stick in a strong crosswind? Some of our A-320 pilots seem unsatisfied with the so-called "control" in such landing conditions, but maybe I would like it one day.
The planes flown by many of us (by choice) require a good bit more airmanship-there is no mode mgmt., which we had on the 757. 
Lekker slapen, tot ziens mijnheerrrrrr.
The planes flown by many of us (by choice) require a good bit more airmanship-there is no mode mgmt., which we had on the 757. Lekker slapen, tot ziens mijnheerrrrrr.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 16th May 2004 at 04:12.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override
As a matter of fact, I worked for a company at Schiphol that used to be a part of the great Fokker company, and was salvaged after Fokker Aircraft B.V. went belly-up. I learned that there was at some point talk of outfitting the F70 and F100 with force-loaded sidesticks. 
Ofcourse this was never implemented because the implementation of airworthy force-loading systems is very expensive, and Fokker, like Boeing, was always a company that paid a lot attention to the way their planes handle and therefor pure airmanship, and I believe the people who are lucky enough to fly Fokkers today can certainly vouch for that!
Naturally, the pilots themselves and most old-school manufacturers speak from an airmanship point of view and mostly prefer the yoke, and the airlines speak from a beancounter POV and prefer the sidestick so they can save a lot of weight, and you (the airman) can have your super-duper laptop and paperwork on a tray to perform your tasks in a comfortable way and make the airplane run with utmost efficiency in normal conditions. The success of the Airbus FBW aircraft is ofcourse thanks to the latter having the upper hand these days.
Furthermore, I learned that the F70NG and F100NG, which will hopefully be announced at Farnborough this summer, will feature some kind of flight-envelope protection system like Airbus. Whether or not this will include full FBW and even sidesticks I don't know, but probably not, for the simple reason the design, construction and testing of such a system will absorb copious amounts of money and the system in use today works fine. So why change it eh?
Ofcourse this was never implemented because the implementation of airworthy force-loading systems is very expensive, and Fokker, like Boeing, was always a company that paid a lot attention to the way their planes handle and therefor pure airmanship, and I believe the people who are lucky enough to fly Fokkers today can certainly vouch for that!
Naturally, the pilots themselves and most old-school manufacturers speak from an airmanship point of view and mostly prefer the yoke, and the airlines speak from a beancounter POV and prefer the sidestick so they can save a lot of weight, and you (the airman) can have your super-duper laptop and paperwork on a tray to perform your tasks in a comfortable way and make the airplane run with utmost efficiency in normal conditions. The success of the Airbus FBW aircraft is ofcourse thanks to the latter having the upper hand these days.
Furthermore, I learned that the F70NG and F100NG, which will hopefully be announced at Farnborough this summer, will feature some kind of flight-envelope protection system like Airbus. Whether or not this will include full FBW and even sidesticks I don't know, but probably not, for the simple reason the design, construction and testing of such a system will absorb copious amounts of money and the system in use today works fine. So why change it eh?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Never diverting!
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But ONLY as long as it's mechanically connected to the other one.
Let's face it Boeing only difficulty to decide on side stick is a simple one: MARKETING For years they have slagging of Airbus so much on the side stick that some people even believe that it is not the best option... The only people in a position to judge are the ones that have flown both.. In LH the majority off A340 crews when interviewed on this indicated that the AI system was prefered over the 747-400s that used to fly on..... Makes ya all wonder...
So the answer is simple: yes it 99% sure will have a side stick if marketing can come up with areason why their version of this side stick is some much better! I start laughing already
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: LONDON
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economical?
If Boeng does indeed introduce a sidestick in its "7e7 dreamliner" will it be a ecomical decision for them as airlines that already operate boeing aircraft want training and maintenance compatability with other boing aircraft and by introducing the side stick maintenance and pilot training would have have to change.
Trainer Too 2: Possibly LH crews prefer to eat Spaetzle (Butter und Salz drauf) mit Schnitzel on an Airbus 'tray', instead of on a metal logbook balanced upon their knees?
Goede Middag A-Floor: interesting points, especially about the cost of developing fly-by-wire.
I believe that the new Embraer jet also has it.
But is it worth the extra development costs, or does Boeing need to 'ape' the trend which was developed by Airbus? I can not find a funny face which looks like a chimpanzee.....
Does fly-by-wire affect the insurance costs of such planes? If not, then that might also say something about conventional controls. Most transport jets still need hydraulic boost-maybe a manual reversion back-up (cables to large control tabs?) might encourage pilots who are requested/blackmailed into flying civilian freight into Iraq (i.e. DHL...).
Goede Middag A-Floor: interesting points, especially about the cost of developing fly-by-wire.
I believe that the new Embraer jet also has it.
But is it worth the extra development costs, or does Boeing need to 'ape' the trend which was developed by Airbus? I can not find a funny face which looks like a chimpanzee.....
Does fly-by-wire affect the insurance costs of such planes? If not, then that might also say something about conventional controls. Most transport jets still need hydraulic boost-maybe a manual reversion back-up (cables to large control tabs?) might encourage pilots who are requested/blackmailed into flying civilian freight into Iraq (i.e. DHL...).
Last edited by Ignition Override; 17th May 2004 at 04:55.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IGN OVRD
As I'm not learning how to count beans I don't know about the insurance costs of FBW planes as opposed to planes with "conventional" controls, but ofcourse since Airbus has been using FBW since 1985 ( I think) and Boeing has already developed it for the 777, the development costs are much much higher if you have to start from scratch like Fokker might as well do and Embraer has done recently. 
The Embraer 170 and 190 are the first Brazilian planes to have FBW, yet they, like the 777 use a yoke. Ofcourse one following the Embraer tradition of having this Concorde/Trident/Tu-204 bicycle-type yoke. I have yet to fly a plane/simulator with this kind of yoke, but like more things British, it somehow makes sense although being a bit strange.
Concerning mechanical backup: Airbus uses a system that allows the rudder and trim wheels to be used for directional control if all computers fail for whatever reason, even in the event of a complete electrical power failure. Provided the plane is still hydraulically powered of course by the demand pumps on the engines or even just the RAT on the green system.
JJ/TT2: mechanical linkages between sticks/yokes make no sense whatsoever in a FBW aircraft. In buses, they put a sidestick priority button on the glareshield the PF must push to "get" manual control of the plane.
The Embraer 170 and 190 are the first Brazilian planes to have FBW, yet they, like the 777 use a yoke. Ofcourse one following the Embraer tradition of having this Concorde/Trident/Tu-204 bicycle-type yoke. I have yet to fly a plane/simulator with this kind of yoke, but like more things British, it somehow makes sense although being a bit strange.
Concerning mechanical backup: Airbus uses a system that allows the rudder and trim wheels to be used for directional control if all computers fail for whatever reason, even in the event of a complete electrical power failure. Provided the plane is still hydraulically powered of course by the demand pumps on the engines or even just the RAT on the green system.
JJ/TT2: mechanical linkages between sticks/yokes make no sense whatsoever in a FBW aircraft. In buses, they put a sidestick priority button on the glareshield the PF must push to "get" manual control of the plane.