The very first commercial airliner with FBW was Concorde. It was analogue FBW and just sent electrical signals to the powered flight control units (these were the actual hydraulics). No computers. The computers were used for the engine intake controls.

"seeing you again with other aircraft with fly-by-wire" I hope it's not gonna be an Airbus!

@mdhazeldine

Ай бұрын

I'm guessing it's going to have a lot of 7s in it.

@cjmillsnun

Ай бұрын

@@mdhazeldine It's certainly a possibility. Although he could go really old school and very fast. Concorde was FBW.

Eye opener ❤ Thanks Em!

Thank you very much for yet another enjoyable yet informative video! I have learned so much, just from watching your videos! Please keep doing what you’re doing.

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

Thank you very much!

It's kind of amazing the 737, even the NG and MAX versions are still not fly by wire. They really flogged a dead horse with that family of planes. Hopefully they start work on a clean sheet design pretty soon, because they're going to need it to stay afloat.

Lol ast first I thought it was about the fbw A320, not beeing study level or some other misconception :)

Great video Emi, Always great to see a new upload.

I am an outsider, but I guess I have been aware of fly by wire since the space shuttle was in development. It was said at the time that the shuttle was impossible to fly without computer aid. So I am surprised to learn that people equate fly by wire with sidesticks and Airbus. Boeing (recently) and Airbus (forever) use fly by wire, but each with a different programming philosophy. I thought it was obvious. Heck, the brakes in my electric car have computer assistance. I don't think the brake pedal is connected to the master cylinder.

@A330Driver

Күн бұрын

yep, electric connections have been in use for at least 30-40 years in many places now. People easily forget though and associate FBW with Airbus.

Technically then i guess our plug and play joysticks are also fly by wire (minus the actual flying). Apparently cars with steer by wire are a thing too which I’m not sure how to feel about.

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

They absolutely are

@musiqtee

Ай бұрын

Sure. Afaik SAAB did a lot of research into “drive-by-wire” quite a while back. They were in a unique position making both aircraft (fighters, transport, civilian, small airliners) and cars (of all kinds). Maybe the 80’s would be too soon, due also to expenses of computer tech. I have read somewhere though, that ordinary drivers didn’t like the feeling of not having that steering wheel. Cars at the time were after all software and firmware free, as even electronic ignition was very new. And well, SAABs car division went “dodo” some years back. Fierce competition also have downsides, I guess… 😅

@AnaheimBN

Ай бұрын

I consider steer by wire in cars can be dangerous since you can feel on your steering wheel most of the parts getting used up in your steering, chassis, brakes, tires and such by transfering all uneven movements of wheels and chassis vibrations on the steering column. So you can feel that your bolts, joints and brakes needs change soon, wheels are missaligned or not balanced and many others.

@musiqtee

Ай бұрын

@@AnaheimBN True, that went for any car I owned or just used up until 5-8 years ago. However, new EVs or “expensive” SUVs (heavy vehicles) don’t carry that feeling across to the wheel (or sense of driving). Except sports models, but people here don’t drive them much (highly taxed, harsh winter, few good highways). My experience is also biased from living in a country where 90.2 % cars sold now are EVs. They’re highly computer-assisted by default…

@99domini99

Ай бұрын

@@musiqteeInterestingly, cars with drive-by-wire steering wheels exist. This allows for different ratios for different speeds. They all have a back-up clutch that mechanically connects the steering wheel to the steering rack in case of a malfunction.

C*U on Boeing is still G command, when on speed is exactly same with C* on Airbus, the only difference is the speed difference to trim speed will provide an additional G command beside stick input. One advantage for C*U is when doing visual approach and A/T off, on C* you can't tell if your speed have deviated from Vapp until you scan the speedo, but on C*U, if you find yourself need to pull back on stick to stay on glide visually, you know you are slowing and need to apply more thrust, it can be done very quickly and instinctively, without even a glimpse on panel. While you should scan instruments on approach anyway, it's much easier to fly Boeing on manual approach with only outside view from below like 1000'

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

You missed a big difference. The airbus alpha protection is very useful and make terrain avoidance manoeuvres much more efficient.

@umi3017

6 күн бұрын

@@peteconrad2077 That doesn't matter if it's C* or C*U. you can even apply alpha protection with pitch-rate law or even direct law.

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

@@umi3017 I never suggested you couldn’t. I merely pointed out it was an extremely useful part of the airbus functionality.

Hey Emmanuel lately I've been feeling like I have learned about different aircraft from the professional himself😲I really appreciate all you do for us simmers sir💯👍🏾

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

Thank you very much!

As a non pilot I prefer the Airbus logic. When I had the G load concept explained to me it made sense instantly

Curious to know why Boeing did not go for a side stick in the 777. Is it also because of designing it according to pilots traditional flying techniques? As a designer myself working in the user experience field and in an aeronautical comapny as well (other than Boeing and Airbus), I think Airbus clearly brought in tbe late 80s smarter design choices in cockpit usability.

Thanks for the video. There is still one thing I am wondering about. What does the yoke movement command in Boeing's FBW Control law? Is it just the flight control surface deflection or is it something more sophisticated like the pitching/rolling angular rate or the deviation from the trimmed speed in order to simulate the deviation the pilot may want to trim out (the last option would make most sense to me)?

@chris22capt

Ай бұрын

more sophisticated than that. the yoke has no actual control to elevator on normal mode and the trim switch has no actual control to stabilizer. the fcc will determine which surface should be deflected. you can get the stabilizer moving with an input on the control column and you can get the elevator moving with input on trim switch. it's all under the mercy of the fcc. the only exception will be when the fbw degraded into direct law, that's the only time the yoke will actually move only the elevator and the trim switch will actually move only the stabilizer.

Hey, I have a question! In a traditional aircraft (mechanical controls), if you reduce the airspeed the aircraft will become out of trim and the nose will drop. Does the 777/787 do the same, or do they adjust trim?

Do rc planes have fbw controls :D

As a non pilot I can only imagine how intuitive the airbus system must be when you actually feel the g load. Does Boeing’s fly by wire control column increase it’s resistance with speed if they went for a “natural feel”?

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

The further you deviate from the trim speed the stronger the forces needed on the yoke. In fact the 777s flight control systems were tested on a Boeing 757 back in the day. There wasn't all that much of a difference the testpilots said. Felt just like their 757!

@mscigniewrudzinski5053

Ай бұрын

Oh that’s interesting, thank you. I meant comparing an aircraft trimmed to 150IAS with an aircraft trimmed to 250IAS and if there was a difference in the force to achieve the same deflection of the column. But if the pilots said it feels basically identical then I guess Boeing did a good job anyway.

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

At slower speed airbus selected for pitch rate and at very low speed or high alpha it selects for alpha. The big advantage in Airbus is the alpha protection which makes terrain escape manoeuvres much more efficient.

Pretty much the exact same reason they stopped using a cable-based handbrake in cars and replaced it with an e-brake: to save money. But people still continually blame "engineers" for it 🙃

@johnc.4871

Ай бұрын

Nah, electric e-brake servos are expensive. People don't keep the mechanical brake system working properly. The auto adjusters on drum systems quit and people don't service them properly. Then you have the application of mechanical breaks when the primary is malfunctioning. The locking ratchet for the foot pedal doesn't allow for gradual braking and the car goes into a skid. Electric system takes care of it all.

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

Neither fly by wire nor electronic brakes are cheaper to build. Try again.

While I agree with what you presented I think you undersold a couple of aspects of FBW. Redundancy is much easier to implement than running multiple cables to the same control surface although this is the case in some aircraft. Adding additional computers etc is easier although it’s not as simple as that. I read once an Airbus sidestick malfunctioned and as such could not be used reliably so luckily you have 2 sidesticks. Also having a computer(s) between pilot inputs and control surface movements gives tremendous opportunities to implement various safety / performance limits etc that wouldn’t be possible with just cables. OFC this is a very complex subject that many clever Airbus and Boeing engineers and pilots have spent many years perfecting and tuning to different aircraft types and phases of flight. Tuning and implementing these systems to give safe, comfortable and predictable behaviour in both normal, high workload flight phases and at times systems failure is perhaps the greatest achievement of these systems.

Fly by wire always reminds me a rc aircraft and its servos. I had never heard of using gs as a flight control measure. I think what Boeing is better at, a priori, is in the control column. Flying with the sidestick in the non-dominant hand should be almost an act of faith

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

Except you’re wrong. I swapped to left seat in airbus either my right dominant hand and it took me about five minutes to feel completely comfortable with it.

How to prevent tail strike while flaring 777?

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

Use the correct rotation technique as per the FCTM.

Does an Airbus in direct law (most degraded state) acts like a cable-driven aircraft?

What do you mean by "selecting a speed" with the trim switches? It's at minute 7:53

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

In the 777 you trim by basically defining which speed you target speed is. That is not visible to the pilots (contrary to the A220! It actually shows you the trim speed!), but that’s how the computers work.

@ralue3187

Ай бұрын

@@A330Driver Thanks!

@inverterrace

Ай бұрын

The PMDG 777 will show you as a "simming" option the trim reference speed too with a blue speed bug. Sure Emi will demonstrate when the time comes.

I'll continue trusting Airbus's seven computers onboard that are working flawlessly since the 80's.

@flyblue6749

Ай бұрын

Actually it´s quite the opposite, the flightcontrols on the 777 and 787 have never failed before. Can´t say the same about the Airbus

@jagermain4207

Ай бұрын

Are you sure lol?

@peteconrad2077

6 күн бұрын

@@flyblue6749that’s utter nonsense.

I just don’t understand why anyone would prefer the Boeing approach. What could possibly be more intuitive than pointing the nose somewhere and the aircraft stay there? The whole idea of trimming for speed is kind of odd too, surely the better control for speed would be the speed on the MCP rather than the trim?

@A330Driver

Ай бұрын

Well, "pointing the nose somewhere and the aircraft stays there" is not what an Airbus would do, if you're suggesting that.

@Angel33Demon666

Ай бұрын

@@A330Driver Well, the Airbus is pitch-stable, so when you pull back on the stick for example and then let go, it will stay at that pitch until you do something or it triggers some envelope protection. The same is true for roll, when you roll the plane to a certain bank, it’ll stay there until you put it back. That’s what I meant when I wrote that it ‘stays there’. As for what exactly happens (like maintaining 1G flight path) behind the scenes, the most intuitive thing I can imagine is *makes control input*->plane does something->*stops making control input*->plane stays in the same attitude and configuration. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the Airbus flight control system?

@mscigniewrudzinski5053

Ай бұрын

@@Angel33Demon666 well if I understand this correctly, maintaining a 1g flight path means it will not keep the nose in the same place. As the aircraft (for example) slows down the nose will have to go up to keep the altitude and therefore vertical g loading stays at 1. This happens with no input from the sidestick. What you describe is actually a pitch hold which is what CWS mode does even on a hydraulic 737 system, and in that case, if you slow down with no steering input, you will start to descend, and the g loading drops below 1.

@mdhazeldine

Ай бұрын

People get set in their ways. Many people prefer to keep doing something the way they've always done it, especially when they've built up muscle memory over 1000s of hours, rather than learn something completely new. When you get into an emergency situation and your stress levels go up, you're more likely to fall back on your instincts, so keeping things the same could be seen as safer, even if it's not "better".

@andreww7564

Ай бұрын

This is an oversimplification of course, but trimming for speed is what you use your trimmer for, even in a trainer C152. Basically, the faster you go, the more airflow under your wings and the more your plane will want to rise, so if you want to fly straight and level for a given airspeed you need to "cancel out" that tendency to rise with downward pitch and reduced AoA. Obviously, you would rather let the trim tabs on your plane take care of this instead of pushing your stick forward for hours in cruise, so you trim. If you change speeds, you have to change trim to maintain straight and level flight.

Only narrative and no video to support it???