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..........

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 :sad: :\ :E

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.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/open.file/362526/L/

I like the idea of a side-stick - But ONLY as long as it's mechanically connected to the other one.

Side sticks are great, dinner on a table thanks very much:ok: :ok:

You had better get down the gym pronto or prey they come up with a very long stick:D

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 - 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!!!)

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.

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!!

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.

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..

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.:hmm: 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. :uhoh:


Lekker slapen, tot ziens mijnheerrrrrr.

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. :D

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! :ok:

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. :E

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? ;)

Yep that makes sense... we mechanically link them and use fly by wire in the rest of the ship.... :hmm:

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 :E

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...).:uhoh:

IO No just to keep the mug of beer from their leder hosen.... ;)

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. :O

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. :ok:

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. :uhoh:

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. :E

Gone on the A340-5/600 and the A380 I believe.

Max Angle
 

I found out first-hand that the A340-500 and -600 still have the trim backup, and even despite their length, why wouldn't they? :ooh:

Remember that you still have hydraulics in the situation I described. Only if those would also fail the plane would be (almost) uncontrollable, just like any other Boeing, Fokker or McDoDo that has a powered control system relying solely on hydraulic pressure.

How they solved it on the A380-800, I don't know. But if it can be done on the A346 the A388 probably has it too, as the big bus is in fact shorter, reducing the cable length required. How else do you suggest Airbus will solve the problem of having no pitch control when none of the buses ( :O ) are powered? :hmm:

I think the DHL Baghdad A310 - missile - event clearly demonstrated the products controlability in extremis.

I am amazed that this accident doesn't receive more coverage on PPRuNe - its a bigger story than Sioux City yet the Skipper will never be a name like Al Haynes. Maybe it needed 200 people on board.

Cheers

WWW

It was already decided that the 7E7 will not have a side stick.

747FOCAL
 

Says who? Says where?

WWW: A missile strike is not something you take into account when designing your 7E7 or A380. I'm sure the relatives of those lost on Korean 007 and Iran Air 655 will be able to tell you that. :(

I'm sure the outcome of that particular DHL flight would have been a whole lot different had the IR-guided SA7 not hit the tip of the left wing but one of the engines, the tail or the pressure cabin instead. Nontheless, the crew did an excellent job on saving themselves and the plane against all odds, and I hear the A300-600F in question is in fact scheduled to return to active cargo duty as soon as she is sorted. :ok:

On another note, the DHL A300 lost all hydraulics and flight controls during that event and landed by using differential thrust alone. So I guess the stick-or-not-to-stick issue doesn't really apply here, but, you know, like, whatever... :E

I was under the impression that the 777 and the 7e7 were to be on a combined type rating as per the 757 and 767. IF the 7e7 were to have a side stick this surely couldn't happen. Bus as 747Focal says it seems it will have the good old yoke.

Expedite :ok:

The Airbus was FBW, with yoke, with no hydraulics. Ignore the missile cause but add in a raging fire. Consider low ATC assistance over enemy territory and the flightdeck confusion as to what could have caused such a set of failures.

They had no flight surfaces. Just differential thrust combined with a wing spar fire/severe damage.

They got it down.

Incredible.

A sidestick or a yoke made cock all difference.

Cheers

WWW

A-FLOOR,

There will be no sidestick.

expedite-climb,

I believe you are right, though I have not heard that exactly. The reason you will not see a sidestick on a Boeing aircraft is all the Boeing senior engineers think that system is unsafe. That is probably a lot to do with "NIH". :hmm:

Nothing much changes

The first pilots given an ASI to help them avoid the stall said they were ceratinly never going to trust a thing like that when they could listen to the wind in the wires

747FOCAL
 

You already said that. I asked you where you picked up this piece of information.

But never mind, as I guess because you state you live in Seattle, therefor you must work at Boeing as one of the lead engineers in charge of the 7E7, right? :rolleyes:

edit: a whole minute worth of Googling revealed this:

http://forum.gazeta.pl/forum/72,2.ht...5318&w=9075055

Hmm :hmm: :O

WWW,
The A-310 is NOT FBW.

Maybe A-FLOOR is right....Boeing may just have to take their pride and swallow it....

Plus its a great space saver....love the desk up front!:ok:

tmrmel,

I think you are going to get something to swallow. :E

A-F

Errr... I think not. Try a button on the sidestick maybe?

It's not a button to "get" manual control of the plane really - it's just a pretty bog standard autopilot disconnect button - just like you have on errr, a Boeing, MD and presumably Fokker...

NoD

NoD
 

I stand corrected :ok:

great one 747focal....how old are you???
Did i offend you in anyway? :confused:

...I was just sharing my view, no harm in that.

A-F...

The thing on the glareshield looks like a button, but is actually an indicator light. It is not used when you disconnecting the Autopilot, but when pressing the sidestick takeover button to "disable" the other sidestick...

NoD

tmrmel,

It was a joke. Sorry if it offended you.

No problems 747FOCAL, none taken.
I'm new around here so I just wasn't sure if that was the done thing

anyway.. back to the topic!...

NoD
 

You sure? :D ;)

As I probably won't be able to stand corrected one more time in a single topic :O