whats the main difference btwn airbus FBW and the 777 FBW
anyone?
cheers |
The short version,
"In Airbus aircraft, the computer always retains ultimate control and will not permit the pilot to fly outside the airplane's normal flight envelope. In a Boeing 777, the pilot can override the system, allowing the plane to be flown outside this envelope in emergencies." This is not really true either since the Airbus pilot can override the computer by switching off the augmentation computers and IRS's. Cheers, M |
XPMorten covered it nicely. Another significant difference is that the B777 has a real wire (a steel one) connected to pitch and roll control as a last ditch means of control if all else fails. That's my kind of fly by wire :ok:
Regards, Old Smokey |
Originally Posted by Old Smokey
XPMorten covered it nicely. Another significant difference is that the B777 has a real wire (a steel one) connected to pitch and roll control as a last ditch means of control if all else fails. That's my kind of fly by wire :ok:
Regards, Old Smokey |
True as that may be Old Smokey the signal from the Yoke to the ACE's is still an electric one, even in Direct Mode.... (same goes for the alternate pitch trim).
At least that's how I read the system... |
Airbus/Boeing??
Embraer:- Similar to 777 Direct Mode:- sensors(LVDT/RVDT) mounted on the control column send analogue electrical signals to the Actuator Control Electronic (ACE) this is an analogue circuit that controls the position of the PCU/control surface. all analogue, no software input. Normal Mode:- As above but the ACE also receives input from the Flight Control Module(FCM) which it sums with the pilot input to give high level augmentation such as Airspeed gain schedule, mach trim(190) AoA limiting, Configuration trim, Elevator thrust compensation, Yaw damping and turn co-ordination and one day maybe thrust assimetry compensation. same company makes the embraer and boeing systems. |
Assuming we're staying in normal law, and not pulling any breakers:
Airbus computers limit the pilot's commands and have final authority. Boeing computers TRY to limit the pilot's input, but can be overridden by applying excess force. This force is way beyond the normal forces required, so the pilot cannot inadvertently exceed limits. It must be a deliberate effort, possibly requiring both crewmembers. IMHO the boeing system is safer overall. Look at this article. I'm not so sure the outcome would be as good on an airbus. |
I'm not so sure the outcome would be as good on an airbus |
Originally Posted by Hand Solo
Its never happened on an Airbus, despite it being a much older FBW system with many more sectors accumulated over its life span than the 777. Perhaps Boeing need to take some lessons in how to design redundancy and automatic integrity monitoring into a FBW system.:ok:
|
Originally Posted by Shaka Zulu
True as that may be Old Smokey the signal from the Yoke to the ACE's is still an electric one, even in Direct Mode.... (same goes for the alternate pitch trim).
At least that's how I read the system... Mechanical Backup In the unlikely event of a complete electrical system shut-down, cables from the flight deck to the stabilizer and selected spoilers allow the pilot to fly straight and level until the electrical system is restarted. (End of quote). No electrics required, just a good old steel cable to the hydraulic actuator/s. Hydraulics are, of course necessary. Perhaps Shaka, we were reading from a different version of the Boeing manual :E (Prooners, that's not sarcasm, it's a private joke). Does Airbus have a last ditch mechanical backup such as this? I don't know, it's an honest question. Regards, Old Smokey |
On the 320 the rudder and stabiliser have mechanical backup. Not easy to fly with it though!
|
Originally Posted by Old Smokey
In the unlikely event of a complete electrical system shut-down, cables from the flight deck to the stabilizer and selected spoilers allow the pilot to fly straight and level until the electrical system is restarted. (End of quote).
No electrics required, just a good old steel cable to the hydraulic actuator/s. Hydraulics are, of course necessary. Perhaps Shaka, we were reading from a different version of the Boeing manual :E (Prooners, that's not sarcasm, it's a private joke). Does Airbus have a last ditch mechanical backup such as this? I don't know, it's an honest question. Regards, Old Smokey And no I think both of our Ops Manuals agree on that one, and thanks again, it has helped me getting through the course! |
Also the 777 FBW is "speed" stable - in other words it maintains an in-trimmed speed. Whereas the Airbus FBW (i am given to understand) is "attitude" stable; it maintains the attitude at which the joystick was released.
There's a big difference in this. |
airbus 330/340 back up comes thru basic redundancy in the form of 5 flight control computers.3 priamary 2 secondary. All are capable of controling the plane but in a reduced capacity.
If a computer in charge fails next takes over with the loss of some surfaces eg Spoiler with no loss of aircraft stability/control. Direct cable cable input to the stab trim and early models have direct cable input to rudder pca s. Late model have a tiny back up control module in the form of a tiny hydraulic powered generator which supplys power to a backup RVDT on rudder pedals and power to the servovalve on the rudder PCP. I like the boeing system better :ok: |
Originally Posted by Bolty McBolt
airbus 330/340 back up comes thru basic redundancy in the form of 5 flight control computers.3 priamary 2 secondary. All are capable of controling the plane but in a reduced capacity.
And I like the Boeing system better as well :ok: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.