First use of Fly-by-wire?
P. Jensen
When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
And who did it?
...Paul
Kristan Roberge
"P. Jensen" <pje...@mail.durham.net> wrote:
>
> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
> And who did it?
That sorta depends on how you define fly-by-wire. If you mean JUST the
control surfaces then the first was the Avro Arrow. If you mean the
whole damn plane including the throttles, engine managements, etc...
that would be the YF-16 and YF-17 which respectively became the F-16 and
F/A-18. So either about 1957 for the Avro or around 1971 for the two
YF birds.
Howard of Effingham
In article <332477...@mail.durham.net>,
P. Jensen <pje...@mail.durham.net> wrote:
>When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
>And who did it?
didn't the RAE have a specially modified Hawker Hunter, [they called it
a T.12 or something and it came in a green and white paint job] that tested
some fly-by-wire concepts, in the early 1970's or late 1960's?
i seem to recall that it was very much a one off as well.
t.
==============================================================================
Trevor L. Williams |
| "I'm writing to you because if I didn't, a little
"Howard of Effingham" | fairy at the bottom of the garden, said she would
| give me blue hair."
t...@coventry.ac.uk | Shelley Reynolds
==============================================================================
Mike Tighe
On 10 Mar 1997 19:08:34 GMT, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
>"P. Jensen" <pje...@mail.durham.net> wrote:
>>
>> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
>> And who did it?
>
>That sorta depends on how you define fly-by-wire. If you mean JUST the
>control surfaces then the first was the Avro Arrow. If you mean the
>whole damn plane including the throttles, engine managements, etc...
>that would be the YF-16 and YF-17 which respectively became the F-16 and
>F/A-18. So either about 1957 for the Avro or around 1971 for the two
>YF birds.
The YF 16 flew in January 1974, (all electric from the start?) The
YF17 (June '74) was more conservative and only applied elements of
FBW.
That means there are a few other candidates for the first 'all
electric' FBW flight, some of these being -
A B-52 flew with some kind of FBW as part of the Control Configured
Vehicle programme in the late sixties/early Seventies. It had fairly
large fins mounted under the forward fuselage and carried a quite
distinctive colour scheme. Anyone know dates?
The YRF-4C prototype spent its later days as an FBW test bed too,
first on trials from 1972 and then without manual reversion. It's
first full FBW flight was in January 1973. Later on it too carried
foreplanes and aft ballast as part of the CCV trials programme.
The Germans flew an F104G CCV with aft balast and rudimentary
foreplanes (actually another horizontal fin mounted behind the
cockpit) again, early seventies (dates anyone?).
Again around 1973, RAE Farnborough operated the one and only Hunter
T12 on FBW trials as a step toward the Jaguar ACT FBW programme which
paved the way for EAP/EF2000.
Japan flew a CCV version of the T-2 on trials, but I think this was
later, around the mid seventies
I dont have all the dates, but all these are around the same general
time.
Anyone know what the actual first flight order for these aircraft was,
with and without any manual/mechanical reversion on the flight
controls?
Mike Tighe
'What is the point of a safety briefing before a ditching at sea?
If it won't fly, what makes anyone think its going to float!'
Mary Shafer
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:03:02 -0800, "P. Jensen" <pje...@mail.durham.net> said:
P> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft? And
P> who did it?
The first USAF aircraft that did much flying with a fly-by-wire system
was the X-15, with its reaction control system. Built by NAA, control
system by Honeywell.
There was an analog FBW, with mechanical backup, F-4 that was an
experimental project, a technology demonstrator. I don't know who did
the FCS.
The first all-FBW aircraft was the Dryden F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire
aircraft. NASA Dryden did this, with C S Draper Lab & Honeywell as
the contractor on the DFBW system
The first USAF production FBW aircraft was the F-16, with an analog
FCS. Our current director, then the Principal Investigator on the F-8
DFBW, was told by a man who was then a vice president of GD that had
it not been for the F-8 DFBW's success, GD would not have been able to
build a FBW aircraft without a non-FBW backup system.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Kristan Roberge
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:03:02 -0800, "P. Jensen" <pje...@mail.durham.net> said:
>
> P> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft? And
> P> who did it?
>
> aircraft. NASA Dryden did this, with C S Draper Lab & Honeywell as
> the contractor on the DFBW system
>
> The first USAF production FBW aircraft was the F-16, with an analog
> FCS. Our current director, then the Principal Investigator on the F-8
> DFBW, was told by a man who was then a vice president of GD that had
> it not been for the F-8 DFBW's success, GD would not have been able to
> build a FBW aircraft without a non-FBW backup system.
>
Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
But again, the problem in the timeline comes down to what kind of FBW
aircraft your looking for... Analog, Digital, Full/Partial, mechanical
backup features, etc. The Arrow was the closest to a production aircraft
for military service UNTIL the YF 16/17s 15 years later. What some consider
FBW today say, the most advanced ATF type fighter, might not be what
was considered FBW 40 years ago (shit... has it been THAT long?!?).
Jesse Nadel
>
> Anyone know what the actual first flight order for these aircraft was,
> with and without any manual/mechanical reversion on the flight
> controls?
I agree that it depends on your definitions. Like many technologies,
FBW has developed over a long time in a lot of applications.
What is certain is that the first production application of FBW without
any mechanical control authority at all is the YF-16.
Jesse
Brian Raven
In article <5g4d7e$r...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<Krob...@magi.com> writes
>Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
>(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
>Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
testing a wire guided air to air missile (X-4 I think - they have one at
The Science Museum) towards the end of the war. Would that count as FBW?
--
Brian Raven
Ken Duffey
>
> That sorta depends on how you define fly-by-wire. If you mean JUST the
> control surfaces then the first was the Avro Arrow. If you mean the
> whole damn plane including the throttles, engine managements, etc...
> that would be the YF-16 and YF-17 which respectively became the F-16 and
> F/A-18. So either about 1957 for the Avro or around 1971 for the two
> YF birds.
Check out the Midland Counties book on the Sukhoi design bureau - Sukhoi
OKB.
Sukhoi claims that their T-4 supersonic bomber was the worlds first
fly-by-wire a/c.
But no doubt this will immediately be rubbished by all the blinkered,
ill-informed anti-Russian R.A.M.'ers out there (maybe I am getting
paranoid !).
I will check out the first flight dates when I get home.
The data obtained from the (susequently cancelled) T-4 was used to
develop the T-10 which became the Su-27 Flanker.
Ken Duffey
Mike Tighe
On 11 Mar 1997 19:53:18 GMT, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
><snip>
>Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
>(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
>Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
>
the Arrow was a bit more primitive than you have suggested, even if it
was electrically signalled and therefore a precursor to modern FBW.
As far as I can tell, its main role was really as a glorified
stability augmentation system, and the electrical link was only as far
as the command servo, which actually operated the valves and actuators
by traditional push rods and cranks (though I admit that I don't know
how long those mechanical runs were, as the schematic I have seen just
cut them).
It did build on Honeywell's past experience, and laid some of the the
foundation for more recent FBW systems, but was maybe not particularly
significant in itself. Electrically signalled controls of this type
(albeit on a more modest scale) go back to well before the Arrow.
In my opinioin, FBW really only came into its own when the following
conditions were met-
(a) Flight control computer speed, performance and reliability (i.e no
reliance on valve technology) advanced to the stage where relaxed
stability could be used to save on wing area and structure weight
while at the same time increasing manouverability. Why do you think
that many of the test airplanes mentioned earlier in the thread
carried aft ballast and/or forward aerodynamic surfaces? Just simple
electric control signalling for a conventionally stable aircraft could
have been reliably achieved at almost any time from the mid-fifties
on, but there was just no point in spending the money.
(b) Fuel costs rose to the level that an airliner with marginally
reduced stability and lighter control systems offered the prospect of
a significant reduction in fuel burn. This has finally happned with
the newer generations of jet transports like the A320. Even given the
airline industry's conservatism (n.b. small 'c' for the North
Americans who missed the significance of the word to the Europeans and
piled into someone who used it on the ng a few weeks back) an FBW
airliner could have been done earlier if there had been any money to
be made.
I know this is mostly opinion, and I know it won't be popular with the
Arrow/TSR-2 'why didn't anyone realise we were brilliant' crowd, but
does anyone agree?
unibw-muenchen.de
@unibw-muenchen.de wrote:
>
> P. Jensen wrote:
> >
> > When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
> > And who did it?
> >
>
> The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
> as I know the worlds first military fly-by-wire aircraft.
> There is an aditional mechanical backup-system when the electronic
> flight control system may fail.
>
> Thomas
forgot my e-mail adress in my first posting ... sorry.
unibw-muenchen.de
Thomas Peters
forgot my e-mail adress in my first posting ... sorry
EGELSONE
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:03:02 -0800, "P. Jensen"
<pje...@mail.durham.net> said:
>
> P> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft? And
> P> who did it?
>
> The first all-FBW aircraft was the Dryden F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire
> aircraft. NASA Dryden did this, with C S Draper Lab & Honeywell as
> the contractor on the DFBW system
>
> The first USAF production FBW aircraft was the F-16, with an analog
> FCS. Our current director, then the Principal Investigator on the F-8
> DFBW, was told by a man who was then a vice president of GD that had
> it not been for the F-8 DFBW's success, GD would not have been able to
> build a FBW aircraft without a non-FBW backup system.
>
>Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
>(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
>Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
>But again, the problem in the timeline comes down to what kind of FBW
>aircraft your looking for... Analog, Digital, Full/Partial, mechanical
>backup features, etc. The Arrow was the closest to a production aircraft
>for military service UNTIL the YF 16/17s 15 years later. What some
consider
>FBW today say, the most advanced ATF type fighter, might not be what
>was considered FBW 40 years ago (shit... has it been THAT long?!
Just to pick nits here, as far as I understand it the Arrow had a
conventional flight control system with a Honeywell (US MADE) stability
augmentation system. hardly can be described as FBW. It did not have
full authority and was used to augment and stabilize the aircraft control
system. While no slouch and certainly a precurser to FBW, I really don't
think you can call it that.
Just my opinion, don't get your shorts in a knot.
Ed
Maury Markowitz
In article <3328abca...@news.dircon.co.uk>, mik...@dircon.co.uk
(Mike Tighe) wrote:
> >Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
> >(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
> >Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
> >
> Kristan, you might never admit it, but the flight control system on
> the Arrow was a bit more primitive than you have suggested, even if it
> was electrically signalled and therefore a precursor to modern FBW.
The system in the Arrow was a gyro based SAS, examples of which date
back to WWII planes and just every autopilot of that era. It was by no
means FWB, it was rods, cables and servos like everyone else. The F-101
and F-106 included a similar system if I remember correctly, and I seem to
remember a WWII prop fighter with one as well.
> I know this is mostly opinion, and I know it won't be popular with the
> Arrow/TSR-2 'why didn't anyone realise we were brilliant' crowd, but
> does anyone agree?
Lots of people I'd bet.
Maury
rtm
Thomas Peters <Thomas...@unibw-muenchen.de> wrote:
>> The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
>> as I know the worlds first military fly-by-wire aircraft.
>> There is an aditional mechanical backup-system when the electronic
>> flight control system may fail.
The YF-16 flew for the first time in Jan 74--Tornado: Aug 74.
rtm
Kerry Ferrand
just to add another plane into the mix - the Sukhoi T-4/100 flew in 1972 with
FBW and no mechanical back up..under development since 1962.
K
oxcar...@aol.com
Anybody want to comment on the B-47 equipped for fly by wire flying way back when? Will check out my info and return with more info. Fred M.
Kristan Roberge
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
> KR added:
>
> >Which just confirms that the first Fly-by-wire aircraft of any sort
> >(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
> >Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
>
> >But again, the problem in the timeline comes down to what kind of FBW
> >aircraft your looking for... Analog, Digital, Full/Partial, mechanical
> >backup features, etc. The Arrow was the closest to a production aircraft
> >for military service UNTIL the YF 16/17s 15 years later. What some
> consider
> >FBW today say, the most advanced ATF type fighter, might not be what
> >was considered FBW 40 years ago (shit... has it been THAT long?!
>
> Just to pick nits here, as far as I understand it the Arrow had a
> conventional flight control system with a Honeywell (US MADE) stability
> augmentation system. hardly can be described as FBW. It did not have
> full authority and was used to augment and stabilize the aircraft control
> system. While no slouch and certainly a precurser to FBW, I really don't
> think you can call it that.
One of these days I'm gonna have to get around to buying a copy of
"The Arrow" seeing as how it is the DEFINITIVE refference source on
the damn plane. I guess I'll go do that in the morning.
I've seen the schematics for the control system, it was DEFINETLY an
electronic joystick and pedals driving the ailerons, elevators,
trim system, and rudder with a major boosted hydraulic system. I'll
have to check on the manufacturer of the flight control system, but it
was DEFINETLY not conventional as it was the FIRST successful 4000 psi
hydraulic system ever flown in a fighter (the next usage of such a system
would be in the XB-70 Valkyrie, which had its share of EX-Avro Engineers).
I suppose you could call it conventional in modern terms, but in 1957
it was state of the art. There were three operating modes, a standard mode
which was the normal FBW model operated by the pilot, an Automatic mode
where the aircraft could be flown electronically by ground control, which
in theory allowed a ground controller to actually LAND the plane in
an emergency, and the Emergency mode which served to keep the damn
plane from stalling or falling out of the sky if something went wrong
with the primary flight control system.
Ken Duffey
Once again........
The Soviet Sukhoi T4 mach 3 bomber/cruise missile carrier made its first
flight on 22 August 1972 with a 'full authority quadruplex FBW system
WITH NO MECHANICAL BACKUP !!!'
Check out Bill Gunstons 'Encyclopaedia of Russian a/c' published by
Osprey or 'Sukhoi OKB' by Midland Counties.
Ken Duffey
EGELSONE
:Once again........
:Ken Duffey
And here we go again. You guys are really going to get old KR made here.
he just posted that teh Arrow was the first FBW machine. he described in
detail that the Arrow had FBW. We all know that he is the most qualified
guy on the internet about the Arrow and allthinga aviation. Now just shut
up and listen to him. None of you guys have his qualifications, his
degrees and his awesome experience, you are all just a bunch of "wankers"
BIG GRIN :-)
Ed
Sorry, couln't help myself, it is a slow and rainy day.
R. Kyle Schmidt
In article <maury-14039...@199.166.204.230>,
Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote:
>In article <3328abca...@news.dircon.co.uk>, mik...@dircon.co.uk
>(Mike Tighe) wrote:
>
>> >(partial or full) was the Avro Arrow in 1957 (yes it was an analog FBW).
>> >Unless someone knows of a Nazi-German test-project during the 40s. :)
>> >
>> the Arrow was a bit more primitive than you have suggested, even if it
>> was electrically signalled and therefore a precursor to modern FBW.
>
> The system in the Arrow was a gyro based SAS, examples of which date
>back to WWII planes and just every autopilot of that era. It was by no
>means FWB, it was rods, cables and servos like everyone else. The F-101
>and F-106 included a similar system if I remember correctly, and I seem to
>remember a WWII prop fighter with one as well.
>
>> I know this is mostly opinion, and I know it won't be popular with the
>> Arrow/TSR-2 'why didn't anyone realise we were brilliant' crowd, but
>> does anyone agree?
>
> Lots of people I'd bet.
>
>Maury
I just thought that I would clear up a few misconceptions here. The Avro
Arrow, while possibly not the first *real* FBW aircraft still contained
several features that are worthy of note. Maury, the flight controls were
not strictly cable and rod.
The flight stick contained a force transducer (much like the F-16) that
relayed the pilots inputs to an analogue flight computer. The flight
computer used inputs in terms of Mach number, aircraft attitude, and gyro
information to determine the required control deflection. The computer
signalled the electro-hydraulic servos to deflect the control surfaces and
also to deflect the pilot's control stick. According to the Arrow mark 1
flight manual there was imperceptable lag in the deflection of the stick.
The flight computer had 3 modes of operation.
Normal: The system operated as I said above, with the computer
controlling 2 seperate hydraulic systems, a primary, and a damper system.
the damper system was particularly important above ~M1.5
Emergency: Emergency mode could be selected by the pilot (there was a
switch on the stick), or would be automatically triggered if certain
flight conditions were exceeded. In emergency mode the control stick
*was* connected by cables to mechanical servo controls. Pilot feel in the
stick was achieved by using springs an a mass system that would exert more
force on the stick as more g's were pulled.
Automatic: As the system was designed to recieve strictly electrical
inputs, the system was set up to allow ground controlled intercepts. This
functionality was not installed on the Mark 1 aircraft.
I hope that this clears things up. my reference for this material? The
Avro Arrow Mark 1 Flight Manual.
Incidently, I have held an Arrow control stick in my hand, and it
certainly does have a force transducer installed. Its rather bulky, and
right below the grip.
Kyle
--
R. Kyle Schmidt: http://sail.uwaterloo.ca/~rkschmid/
Avro Arrow: http://sail.uwaterloo.ca/~rkschmid/Arrow/AvroArrow.html
Lucas Three Position Switch: Dim, Flicker, Off.
Kristan Roberge
Ken Duffey <K.Du...@ncs.nerc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> rtm wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Peters <Thomas...@unibw-muenchen.de> wrote:
> >
> > >> The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
> > >> as I know the worlds first military fly-by-wire aircraft.
> > >> There is an aditional mechanical backup-system when the electronic
> > >> flight control system may fail.
> >
> > The YF-16 flew for the first time in Jan 74--Tornado: Aug 74.
> >
> > rtm
>
>
> Once again........
>
> The Soviet Sukhoi T4 mach 3 bomber/cruise missile carrier made its first
> flight on 22 August 1972 with a 'full authority quadruplex FBW system
> WITH NO MECHANICAL BACKUP !!!'
Fine. The NASA F-8 FBW demonstrator flew in 1969 as memory serves,
FULL authority quadruplex FBW system with no mechanical backup as
well. But there were one-off conversions of other aircraft during the
1960s, plus the X-15 with used a FBW reaction-control system for
high-altitude control and that thing flew in 1961 as memory serves.
But for the first time flight stuff of ANY sort of FBW, we get back
to the 1950s with things like the Avro Arrow Mk1 aircraft in 1957 thru
1959 (which did have a mechanical backup though).
Steve Hix
In article 2...@news.istar.ca, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
:Ken Duffey <K.Du...@ncs.nerc.ac.uk> wrote:
:> rtm wrote:
:> > Thomas Peters <Thomas...@unibw-muenchen.de> wrote:
:> >
:> > >> The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
:> > The YF-16 flew for the first time in Jan 74--Tornado: Aug 74.
:>
:> The Soviet Sukhoi T4 mach 3 bomber/cruise missile carrier made its first
:> flight on 22 August 1972 with a 'full authority quadruplex FBW system
:> WITH NO MECHANICAL BACKUP !!!'
:
:Fine. The NASA F-8 FBW demonstrator flew in 1969 as memory serves,
:FULL authority quadruplex FBW system with no mechanical backup as
:well. But there were one-off conversions of other aircraft during the
:1960s, plus the X-15 with used a FBW reaction-control system for
:high-altitude control and that thing flew in 1961 as memory serves.
:
:But for the first time flight stuff of ANY sort of FBW, we get back
:to the 1950s with things like the Avro Arrow Mk1 aircraft in 1957 thru
:1959 (which did have a mechanical backup though).
Saunders-Roe Princess flying boat. FBW (dual, electric, with artificial feel)
no mechanical backup. First flight, Aug. 1952.
Kristan Roberge
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
>
> rtm wrote:
> :Once again........
>
> :The Soviet Sukhoi T4 mach 3 bomber/cruise missile carrier made its first
> :flight on 22 August 1972 with a 'full authority quadruplex FBW system
> :WITH NO MECHANICAL BACKUP !!!'
> And here we go again. You guys are really going to get old KR made here.
> he just posted that teh Arrow was the first FBW machine. he described in
> detail that the Arrow had FBW. We all know that he is the most qualified
> guy on the internet about the Arrow and allthinga aviation. Now just shut
> up and listen to him. None of you guys have his qualifications, his
> degrees and his awesome experience, you are all just a bunch of "wankers"
>
> BIG GRIN :-)
Well, I DID just happen to buy a copy of the book "Arrow" an hour ago.
Really nice little book, nice COMPLETE original diagrams, contributions
from the ORIGINAL test pilots and Engineers, copies of the logbook entries,
etc.
Now to the relevant stuff...
The details can be found in Chapter 4 : FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM, page 57 but
the basics are that the Arrow's flying controls were fully powered,
irreversible with artificial feel. There were two independant hydraulic
circuits feeding the controls, each powered by two engine driven pumps. This
system which operated the ailerons, elevators, and rudder consisted of
mechanical, hydraulic, electronic, and electrical components. The pilot
had NO direct mechanical actuation of the control surfaces.
Now how does all that work?
There were (as many have listed) three modes of operation (Normal, Automatic,
and Emergency). I'll just list of the Normal mode since its the
relevant one (Automatic meant the plane was controlled by the automatic
flight control system, and Emergency was the backup mode for Normal
operations).
Normal Mode
When the pilot exerted a force on the control column to move the control
surfaces a force transducer incorporated in the control column transmitted
electrical signals to a series of servos, which converted the signals
into mechanical movement by means of hydraulic pressure.
Now IF that doesn't qualify as FLY BY WIRE I'd like someone else to explain
what it means?!? Ok fine, there was no digital databus with multiple CPUs
flying the plane, and yes the throttles were still mechanical and all
the instruments were analog, so there were no fancy LCD screens or MFDs.
But how many OTHER planes flew this way IN or Before the 1958 (rollout
was Oct'57, first flight Mar.25'58)?
Oh, and since this comes up now and then, according to the flight logs,
the highest speed recorded was Mach 1.98 by Arrow #25202 on Nov.11,1958
by test-pilot W. "Spud" Potocki.
> Ed
>
> Sorry, couln't help myself, it is a slow and rainy day.
What?!? The US Army doesn't let its pilots fly in the rain?!? No wonder
navy aviators makes fun of you guys.
ma...@interlog.com
What about this business about the Arrow being able to put stuff in orbit.
Even sending its payload to the moon. I heard that on the CBC's
nationalist/sentimental TV-movie about the plane.
Mat
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5gmp7g$4...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
[snip]
>When the pilot exerted a force on the control column to move the control
>surfaces a force transducer incorporated in the control column transmitted
>electrical signals to a series of servos, which converted the signals
>into mechanical movement by means of hydraulic pressure.
>
>Now IF that doesn't qualify as FLY BY WIRE I'd like someone else to explain
>what it means?!? Ok fine, there was no digital databus with multiple CPUs
>flying the plane, and yes the throttles were still mechanical and all
>the instruments were analog, so there were no fancy LCD screens or MFDs.
>But how many OTHER planes flew this way IN or Before the 1958 (rollout
>was Oct'57, first flight Mar.25'58)?
Well, if it is fly-by-wire, then the Arrow *still* doesn't win. The F-86E,
which first flew on September 23rd, 1950, had a system very similar to what
you described above. The mechanical FCS was replaced by an "irreversible,
hydraulically actuated" FCS. An artificial "feel" was introduced to compensate
for the lack of physical feedback to the stick. I'd be very surprised if other
aircraft of that era didn't use a similar system as well.
FWIW, I don't think either system counts as fly-by-wire. I always understood that
a FBW FCS included a computer in the system that might override the pilot's
control inputs for one reason or another.
Cheers,
Brad
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5gmn44$2...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
>But for the first time flight stuff of ANY sort of FBW, we get back
>to the 1950s with things like the Avro Arrow Mk1 aircraft in 1957 thru
>1959 (which did have a mechanical backup though).
The Arrow had nothing new there - the F-86E model of the venerable SabreJet had
that in 1950. I don't think either system constitutes fly-by-wire, however - there is
no computer in the system to alter pilot input when deemed neccesary. Without
the computer, the pilot has to be much more aware of the envelope and
concentrate on staying within it than s/he does if a flight computer is assisting.
Cheers,
Brad
Matthew Saroff
Hi,
I believe that the first FBW system to go into a PRODUCTION
aircraft (i.e. an aircraft that actually reached production) was a
quadraplex analogue FBW system on the Concorde.
--
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcment officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana, cocaine,
cia,plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, dea, nsa, pgp, hacker, assassinate.
Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
msa...@REMOVE.THIS.ANTI-SPAM.SHIELD.TO.REPLY.pobox.com.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Kristan Roberge
ben...@cds-inc.com wrote:
>
> Well, if it is fly-by-wire, then the Arrow *still* doesn't win. The F-86E,
> which first flew on September 23rd, 1950, had a system very similar to what
> you described above. The mechanical FCS was replaced by an "irreversible,
> hydraulically actuated" FCS. An artificial "feel" was introduced to compensate
> for the lack of physical feedback to the stick. I'd be very surprised if other
> aircraft of that era didn't use a similar system as well.
The F-86E would then be the earliest, but it was a one-off experiment
as I recall. The Arrow Mk1s were the pre=production aircraft for what
was to be an operational fighter. Until the YF-16/17, no other FBW aircraft
came closer to operational status than the Arrow.
> FWIW, I don't think either system counts as fly-by-wire. I always understood that
> a FBW FCS included a computer in the system that might override the pilot's
> control inputs for one reason or another.
The Arrow had just such a computer, but it was analog, not digital.
The emergency flight mode could be activated automatically by
the analog computers if certain conditions were met. The plane also
had various sensors that the computer analysed and automatically adjusted
the trim of the aircraft. You could engage and disengage the afterburner
on the Arrow while flying on one engine and the plane would just
continue on merrily as if nothing had happened. On MOST twin-engine
aircraft without an automated flight-control system, a sudden thrust
increase while on one engine would introduce an acute yaw and sideslip
motion into the flight.
Kristan Roberge
ben...@cds-inc.com wrote:
>
> In <5gmn44$2...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
> >But for the first time flight stuff of ANY sort of FBW, we get back
> >to the 1950s with things like the Avro Arrow Mk1 aircraft in 1957 thru
> >1959 (which did have a mechanical backup though).
>
> The Arrow had nothing new there - the F-86E model of the venerable SabreJet had
> that in 1950. I don't think either system constitutes fly-by-wire, however - there is
> no computer in the system to alter pilot input when deemed neccesary.
The arrow had a computer, and it fought with the pilot alot during Automatic
mode tests early in the flight program while they worked the bugs out.
> the computer, the pilot has to be much more aware of the envelope and
> concentrate on staying within it than s/he does if a flight computer
>is assisting.
The arrow's computer automatically trimmed the aircraft among other
things.
Kristan Roberge
That was just fluff for the movie, there WERE other variants proposed
including a high-altitude recon version, a Mach-3 interceptor, several
improved range/speed/radar models, a tactical bomber, etc. The closest
to putting stuff into orbit was a proposed Anti-ICBM missile armed
version, similar in basic concept to the F-15 ASAT programme. Basically
an Arrow Mk.3A variant would be used as the boost stage for an missile
designed to intercept an ICBM while still in flight.
Alot of the white models seen in the movie being thrown in boxes were
models of US Aircraft/Vehicles (the Lunar landing module from the
Apollo program, and the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, among others) that would
be designed in the future with significant contributions made by former
Avro engineers. Throwing the models into the scene was added as a bit
of comic relief/inside joke amongst the Avro historians/workers who
contributed to the TV movie's production. As i recall, design work for
the XB-70 didn't even start on paper until the early 60s, and the
final design for Lunar module was settled on until the mid 60s. NACA/NASA
wasn't even looking at putting a man on the moon when the Arrow was
cancelled.
Steve Hix
In article b...@news.istar.ca, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
:ma...@interlog.com wrote:
:
:Alot of the white models seen in the movie being thrown in boxes were
:models of US Aircraft/Vehicles (the Lunar landing module from the
:Apollo program, and the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, among others) that would
:be designed in the future with significant contributions made by former
:Avro engineers. Throwing the models into the scene was added as a bit
:of comic relief/inside joke amongst the Avro historians/workers who
:contributed to the TV movie's production. As i recall, design work for
:the XB-70 didn't even start on paper until the early 60s,
North American was selected as the prime contractor for the WS-110A
project December 1957. On Feb. 6, 1958, the WS-110A designation was
changed to XB-70 Completed mockup presented March 1959.
Design work began at North American well before they submitted what
was essentially the final XB-70 layout in July of 1957.
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5gpg9m$b...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
>The arrow had a computer, and it fought with the pilot alot during Automatic
>mode tests early in the flight program while they worked the bugs out.
The Arrow had some dedicated logic in the flight system, as did the F-86, but
it didn't have what is considered a true flight computer. It's dedicated logic
couldn't, for example, alter the pilot's control inputs to enforce a specified
g-limit.
>The arrow's computer automatically trimmed the aircraft among other
>things.
My radio controlled F-16 does the same thing - perhaps you should define
fly by wire first. Or better yet, I imagine there are aerospace professionals
here who could do a better job than either of us.
Cheers,
Brad
Kristan Roberge
ben...@cds-inc.com wrote:
>
> The Arrow had some dedicated logic in the flight system, as did the F-86, but
> it didn't have what is considered a true flight computer. It's dedicated logic
> couldn't, for example, alter the pilot's control inputs to enforce a specified
> g-limit.
Perhaps you should work on your definitions as well.
>
> >The arrow's computer automatically trimmed the aircraft among other
> >things.
>
> My radio controlled F-16 does the same thing - perhaps you should define
> fly by wire first. Or better yet, I imagine there are aerospace professionals
> here who could do a better job than either of us.
Perhaps you should have READ the FIRST postings in this thread. Like
perhaps the one where I said "depends on your definition of fly-by-wire".
All your doing is repeating something I said last week.
Arie Kazachin
In message <3329B2...@unibw-muenchen.de> - @unibw-muenchen.de writes:
>
>P. Jensen wrote:
>>
>> When was fly by wire first developed for military aircraft?
>>
>> ...Paul
>
>The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
>There is an aditional mechanical backup-system when the electronic
>flight control system may fail.
>
If that's your criterion for FBW, then F-4 is also "FBW" in pitch axis:
with autopilot engaged, the pilot's pitch input is measured by RVDT,
amplified and sent to the pitch actuator, which them moves the tail
and through the whole system of cables and links also moves the
stick. BTW, I vaguely remember that in the process of development
of FBW FLSC, there was also a FBW F-4, which makes this plane
"a first high performance a.c. with FBW FLCS". I'm not 100% sure about
it, though. Wait, I'll search for "fly by wire" and "FBW" in all files
(600MB)...OK, after 21 minutes of search I found nothing and I'm too
lazy to start searching in "The Phantom story" book.
Just my NIS 0.06 (about $0.02). :-)
******************************************************************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: ariek3.141592...@ibm.net *
* *
******************************************************************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my userID. Sorry, SPAM trap.
Ken Duffey
ben...@cds-inc.com wrote:
>
> In <5gmp7g$4...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> writes:
> [snip]
> Cheers,
> Brad
Wasn't the Wright Flyer a Fly-by-wire a/c ??
It used wires to warp the wings and operate the other control surfaces
and the engine throttle was probably connected by a wire cable !!
If by FBW, you mean control by electical signals via a computer with no
mechanical connection to ALL the conrol surfaces, then once again, the
Soviet Sukhoi T4 supersonic bomber which made its first flight in August
1972 must be a contender. It had a FULL AUTHORITY FBW SYSTEM WITH NO
MECHANICAL BACKUP.
Just because it is Russian and most westerners have never heard of it
doesn't make it untrue.
Ken Dufey
PDonen
I had always thought that the first use of full authority digital fly by
wire was in the NASA F-8 Crusader test aircraft in the late 60s or early
70s.
Any truth, or are we simply talking about the first aircraft to go into
service other than a testbed.
Kristan Roberge
ariek3.141592...@ibm.net (Arie Kazachin) wrote:
> If that's your criterion for FBW, then F-4 is also "FBW" in pitch axis:
> with autopilot engaged, the pilot's pitch input is measured by RVDT,
> amplified and sent to the pitch actuator, which them moves the tail
Are you sure that's not part of the electrim trim system? Hell, the
A-37B Dragonfly could be considered partially FBW if the criteria
is so vague... it has electrim trim in all 3-axis.
> and through the whole system of cables and links also moves the
> stick. BTW, I vaguely remember that in the process of development
> of FBW FLSC, there was also a FBW F-4, which makes this plane
> "a first high performance a.c. with FBW FLCS".
Define High-Perfomance please...
If you mean Military-aircraft, then the one-off FBW F-86E (which was
a two-seater as I recall) did it around 1950.
If you mean Mach-2, hi-altitude Fighter-Interceptors then the Arrow
Mk1s earned that title in 1958. (Ok, the top recorded speed during
testing was Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft. but that was on the J-75 powerplants
and not the Iroquois PS13s that the Mk.2s were to have, which were more
powerful).
> it, though. Wait, I'll search for "fly by wire" and "FBW" in all files
> (600MB)...OK, after 21 minutes of search I found nothing and I'm too
> lazy to start searching in "The Phantom story" book.
Alas I don't think there is a specific refference book about FBW although
there probably SHOULD be one.
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5h4418$r...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> writes:
>If you mean Military-aircraft, then the one-off FBW F-86E (which was
>a two-seater as I recall) did it around 1950.
Another quick follow-up: North American couldn't supply enough F-86Es to the
USAF, so in 1951, Canadair started building them. They also built F-86Es for
the RCAF, which took delivery of the 'Es in late 1951. They were the first in the
line of Canadair Sabres.........
Brad
ben...@cds-inc.com
In <5h4418$r...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> writes:
>If you mean Military-aircraft, then the one-off FBW F-86E (which was
>a two-seater as I recall) did it around 1950.
Ok, one more time : The F-86E was a not a "one-off", nor was it a two-seater.
The F-86E went into full production at the end of 1950. You are thinking of
the TF-86, which was the two-seat flavor that never went into production.
The F-86F, which also went into full production, had the same control system.
The F-86H, which went into full production, had a similar system. If you
have proof otherwise, post it........
Cheers,
Brad
Kristan Roberge
YOu missed the boat when the brains were being passed out right?
The FLY BY WIRE F-86E was a ONE_OFF Test-aircraft based on a two-seat
F-86E. Is that clear enough for you to comprehend?!? None of the
production F-86s used fly-by-wire, they were all mechanical aircraft.
spit...@infonie.fr
Hello Friends
Maybe you will be surprised but the very first plane to use the Fly by
Wire
If the concept of fly by wire mean for you control of moving surface
like flaps elevators without a mechanical link between commands and
commanded device...
I think so the very first Fly by wire plane of the aeronautical
history is certainly the Focke Wulf 190.
alla commands of the FW 190 was electric, and command servo engine to
move flaps, elvators ...
It's the reason of the presence of a big battery right rear of the
pilot seat in a very armoured compartment...
So this fly by wire have not any computer.. but i think it's teh very
first attempt of this system
>>> The European Panavia Tornado made its first flight in 1974 and is as far
>>> as I know the worlds first military fly-by-wire aircraft.
>>> There is an aditional mechanical backup-system when the electronic
>>> flight control system may fail.
>
>The YF-16 flew for the first time in Jan 74--Tornado: Aug 74.
spit...@infonie.fr
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Almeida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation pages:
Les Ailes de La Royale
Site non officiel de l'aéronautique navale francaise
http://www.infonie.fr/public_html/spitfire/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Curtiss H75 and French Aviation pages
_______________________________________________________________
Site non officiel sur le Curtiss P36 dans l'armée francaise
Site non officiel de l'aviation francaise mai-juin 40
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3211/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forces Aériennes Francaises Libres
&
Normandie-Niemen
Flyboy495
I think i saw it on the Discovery Channel's "Wings" that the F-16 was the
first Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
Jason Ward, SrA, 459th AES
United States Air Force Reserve
Jonas Norrby
Flyboy495 wrote:
I might be wrong but I think the SR-71 had fly
by wire?
Regards
Jonas Norrby
Stuart Butts
spit...@infonie.fr wrote:
>
> Hello Friends
>
> Maybe you will be surprised but the very first plane to use the Fly by
> Wire
> If the concept of fly by wire mean for you control of moving surface
> like flaps elevators without a mechanical link between commands and
> commanded device...
>
> I think so the very first Fly by wire plane of the aeronautical
> history is certainly the Focke Wulf 190.
>
> alla commands of the FW 190 was electric, and command servo engine to
> move flaps, elvators ...
> It's the reason of the presence of a big battery right rear of the
> pilot seat in a very armoured compartment...
>
> So this fly by wire have not any computer.. but i think it's teh very
> first attempt of this system
I'm pretty sure that is was just the trim system that was electrically
actuated (maybe the flaps as well), and if I remeber right the entire
horizontal tail was electrically actuated for trim purposes. It'd be
pretty hard for the entire flight control system to be FBW. What did
they use as an actuator, electric motors? You need some sort of actuator
if you don't have any mechanical connections between the stick/pedals
and the control surface.
======================
Stuart Butts
stu...@sprintmail.com
======================
John A. Weeks III
In article <19970622042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
flyb...@aol.com (Flyboy495) wrote:
> I think i saw it on the Discovery Channel's "Wings" that the F-16 was the
> first Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
It may have been the first large scale production of a militar fighter
using fly-by-wire, but was by no means the first aircraft to use it.
The folks at NASA Dryden have been doing fly by wire for many years,
and have adapted several early fighters to use fly by wire over the
years.
-john-
--
===========================================================================
John A. Weeks III (612) 891-2382 jwe...@visi.com
Newave Communications FAX 953-4289 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks
===========================================================================
brian balster
i think the f-16 was just the first production airplane
to be completely fly by wire.
i seem to remember the usaf museum's b-50 being
called fly by wire on its sign post in front of it.
but i may be thinking of a different plane.
bb
--
brian balster
233-3414
gil...@iastate.edu
Emmanuel.Gustin
Flyboy495 (flyb...@aol.com) wrote:
: I think i saw it on the Discovery Channel's "Wings" that the F-16 was the
: first Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
I believe the first military aircraft in service with fly-by-wire was the
Panavia Tornado. The F-16 was groundbreaking in that (1) it had not
'conventional' back-up system and (2) it was unstable, so it needed FBW
and computers to fly safely.
Emmanuel Gustin
Walter Witherspoon
Jonas Norrby wrote:
>
> Flyboy495 wrote:
>
> > I think i saw it on the Discovery Channel's
> > "Wings" that the F-16 was the
> > first Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
> >
> > United States Air Force Reserve
>
> I might be wrong but I think the SR-71 had fly
> by wire?
>
> Regards
>
> Jonas Norrby
The SR-71 has electronic stability enhancing systems, but the basic
flight controls are mechanical.
I'm fairly sure the first fully fly-by-wire aircraft, with no
mechanical backup, was a NASA F-8, modified for fly-by-wire research.
The success of the F-8 let the F-16 designers proceed with a completely
electic system.
Stuart Butts
Walter Witherspoon wrote:
>
> Jonas Norrby wrote:
> > I might be wrong but I think the SR-71 had fly
> > by wire?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonas Norrby
>
> The SR-71 has electronic stability enhancing systems, but the basic
> flight controls are mechanical.
>
> I'm fairly sure the first fully fly-by-wire aircraft, with no
> mechanical backup, was a NASA F-8, modified for fly-by-wire research.
> The success of the F-8 let the F-16 designers proceed with a completely
> electic system.
I'm not sure how much direct crossflow happened between these two
prgrams, since the NASA F-8 was digital FBW and the YF-16, F-16A/B, and
F-16C/D Blocks 25/30/32 are analog FBW, although I am sure there was
some. The USAF had a program at Edwards with an F-4 modified with an
analog FBW system, although I believe the hydro-mechanical systems was
retained (unlike the NASA F-8), in the late 1960s/early 1970s. I know
I've got a paper or report on it around here somewhere, but I can't find
it, and don't remember the exact name of the program.
--
Kristan Roberge
Not much point in arguing it anyways, If you want to argue research
aircraft, then their was an 2-seat F-86E as I recall that had one cockpit
with mechanical controls, and the other with an analog FBW setup back
in the early to mid-50s. In the late 1950s the five pre-production
Avro CF-105 Arrows Mk.1s were flying with a full analog FBW flight
control system with automatic computer controlled stabilization and
they were the closest thing to a production fighter (the 6th aircraft,
and first production example, was a week from completion, and a month
from its first scheduled flight when the program was cancelled)
until the lightweight fighter competition in the early 1970s.
Stuart Butts
> Not much point in arguing it anyways, If you want to argue research
> aircraft, then their was an 2-seat F-86E as I recall that had one cockpit
> with mechanical controls, and the other with an analog FBW setup back
> in the early to mid-50s. In the late 1950s the five pre-production
> Avro CF-105 Arrows Mk.1s were flying with a full analog FBW flight
> control system with automatic computer controlled stabilization and
> they were the closest thing to a production fighter (the 6th aircraft,
> and first production example, was a week from completion, and a month
> from its first scheduled flight when the program was cancelled)
> until the lightweight fighter competition in the early 1970s.
Didn't know about those programs, thanks. Did you have any reference
papers or reports for them? TIA
Kristan Roberge
The F-86 experiment was done by NACA as I recall, so there might be
something in the NASA archives.
The Avro Arrow development is fairly well-documented and there are quite
a few good books on the subject, though finding them outside of
Canada is a bit tricky.
Maury Markowitz
In article <5op89e$6gd$4...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> Not much point in arguing it anyways, If you want to argue research
> aircraft, then their was an 2-seat F-86E as I recall that had one cockpit
> with mechanical controls, and the other with an analog FBW setup back
> in the early to mid-50s. In the late 1950s the five pre-production
> Avro CF-105 Arrows Mk.1s were flying with a full analog FBW flight
> control system with automatic computer controlled stabilization
AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! The Arrow was *NOT* fly by wire!!! How many times do I
have to say this?!?
The Arrow had a SAS system. The linkage from the control inputs to the
control surface outputs was direct, push the rudder pedal and the rudder
surface moves. Not the ailerons, not the speed breaks, the rudder - and
only the rudder.
Contrast this with a real FBW plane like the F-18. Pull the nose up at
low speed and the _rudders_ are used! Hold the stick stead, watch all the
control surfaces continue to move. Ask for flaps and the flaps may or may
not do anything.
The Arrow's SAS was common to planes of the era, typically to help with
yaw problems of having a skinny airplane with wide wings. This problem
was so well known that the Brits actually built an airplane to test it and
solve the problem. All of the contemporary fighters of the time, the
F-106 for instance, had a pretty much identical SAS system.
Maury
Stuart Butts
Kristan Roberge wrote:
> The F-86 experiment was done by NACA as I recall, so there might be
> something in the NASA archives.
>
> The Avro Arrow development is fairly well-documented and there are quite
> a few good books on the subject, though finding them outside of
> Canada is a bit tricky.
Thanks.
Stuart Butts
Maury Markowitz wrote:
> AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! The Arrow was *NOT* fly by wire!!! How many times do I
> have to say this?!?
>
> The Arrow had a SAS system. The linkage from the control inputs to the
> control surface outputs was direct, push the rudder pedal and the rudder
> surface moves. Not the ailerons, not the speed breaks, the rudder - and
> only the rudder.
Ah, I thought we were getting ahead of ourselves a little. I wouldn't
use the fact that only the rudder moves as my criteria for calling
something FBW though, there are ARI and RAI mechanical systems <g>.
[snip]
> The Arrow's SAS was common to planes of the era, typically to help with
> yaw problems of having a skinny airplane with wide wings. This problem
> was so well known that the Brits actually built an airplane to test it and
> solve the problem. All of the contemporary fighters of the time, the
> F-106 for instance, had a pretty much identical SAS system.
>
> Maury
I'd never heard either of these projects put forward as FBW before (I do
this sorta thing for a living - USAF flight test enginner), so I was a
litle skeptical, but willing to take the original poster at his word and
go look for these programs myself.
Maury Markowitz
In article <33B159...@sprintmail.com>, Stuart Butts
<stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, I thought we were getting ahead of ourselves a little. I wouldn't
> use the fact that only the rudder moves as my criteria for calling
> something FBW though, there are ARI and RAI mechanical systems <g>.
No, but the direct application of input always resulting the direct
application of a specific output is a good indication that the system is
not FWB. The Arrow used an electrical system to actuate the control
surfaces (some of them anyway) as opposed to pushrods, but that does not
make it fly by wire.
> I'd never heard either of these projects put forward as FBW before (I do
> this sorta thing for a living - USAF flight test enginner), so I was a
> litle skeptical, but willing to take the original poster at his word and
> go look for these programs myself.
Well I have looked at the Arrow - in the form of books anyway - and it
had an SAS system and nothing more. SAS dates back to WWII.
Maury
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <5op89e$6gd$4...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
> <krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>
> > Not much point in arguing it anyways, If you want to argue research
> > aircraft, then their was an 2-seat F-86E as I recall that had one cockpit
> > with mechanical controls, and the other with an analog FBW setup back
> > in the early to mid-50s. In the late 1950s the five pre-production
> > Avro CF-105 Arrows Mk.1s were flying with a full analog FBW flight
> > control system with automatic computer controlled stabilization
>
> have to say this?!?
Have I called you a moron this month yet. Gee, the VP-Engineering of
Avro Canada at the time called it a fly-by-wire aircraft, so I'm gonna
take his word and knowledge over your limited understanding of the
plane.
> The Arrow had a SAS system. The linkage from the control inputs to the
> control surface outputs was direct, push the rudder pedal and the rudder
> surface moves. Not the ailerons, not the speed breaks, the rudder - and
> only the rudder.
It was NOT direct. The control stick was an electronic joystick. Fine
the computers were all analog, with vacuum tubes which sucked alot of
power. Whoopy. But you still moved an electronic joystick, which measured
the amount of movement, and translated this thru actuators and high-pressure
hydraulic lines to move the control surfaces. An artificial feel for
the control imputs was provided by a series of springs and dampers
in the stick and pedal movement.
> Contrast this with a real FBW plane like the F-18. Pull the nose up at
> low speed and the _rudders_ are used! Hold the stick stead, watch all the
> control surfaces continue to move. Ask for flaps and the flaps may or may
> not do anything.
Probably has to with the position of the rudders providing a better
bite into the wind than the tailplanes at low speed.
Maury Markowitz
In article <5orpda$6ms$2...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> Have I called you a moron this month yet.
Don't let me stop you.
> Gee, the VP-Engineering of
> Avro Canada at the time called it a fly-by-wire aircraft
He called it FBW at that time? Or do you mean now? What exactly did he
say, and where did you see him saying it?
> take his word and knowledge over your limited understanding of the
> plane.
Insults insults. Stop acting like such a petulant child and try to
> It was NOT direct. The control stick was an electronic joystick.
Which fed the wires, which turned the actuators. Instead of pushing the
control rod which turned the actuators. There is a direct 1:1 linkage
between the controls and the control surfaces. That is not FBW.
The computer you are so fond of referring to had only a single purpose,
to damp adverse yaw. Lots of planes had it then, lots of planes have it
now.
> the computers were all analog, with vacuum tubes which sucked alot of
> power. Whoopy. But you still moved an electronic joystick, which measured
> the amount of movement, and translated this thru actuators and high-pressure
> hydraulic lines to move the control surfaces. An artificial feel for
> the control imputs was provided by a series of springs and dampers
> in the stick and pedal movement.
As it does in the MiG-31, which is also not FBW. The MiG also includes
movement control gates which come on at certain speeds to limit you to 7.5
gees.
> Probably has to with the position of the rudders providing a better
> bite into the wind than the tailplanes at low speed.
It does.
Maury
James Wilkins
Does Kettering's radio-controlled cruise missile of WWI count as fly-by-wire?
--
James Wilkins
The Mitre Corp.
Bedford, MA
Maury Markowitz
In article <jesw-25069...@m21664-mac.mitre.org>, je...@mitre.org
(James Wilkins) wrote:
> Does Kettering's radio-controlled cruise missile of WWI count as fly-by-wire?
How about the FW-190's trim system?
Maury
Stuart Butts
Maury Markowitz wrote:
> No, but the direct application of input always resulting the direct
> application of a specific output is a good indication that the system is
> not FWB.
Well, I guess I'll just have to say I think there are better criteria.
<g>
> The Arrow used an electrical system to actuate the control
> surfaces (some of them anyway) as opposed to pushrods, but that does not
> make it fly by wire.
Which surfaces? I'd have to say that this does sound like a FBW system
for those particular surfaces anyway. Perhaps not what we are typically
used to calling one, but without any mechanical connections (assuming
there aren't any) this would seem to mee the "letter of the law". IIRC,
you could consider the F-111's ailerons (or was it spoilers, I can't
remember, anyway something for roll control) FBW.
> Well I have looked at the Arrow - in the form of books anyway - and it
> had an SAS system and nothing more. SAS dates back to WWII.
I realize this, 1942 if I remember what I read in my copy of the USAF
Test Pilot School manuals correctly.
>
> Maury
Stuart Butts
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <5orpda$6ms$2...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
> <krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> > It was NOT direct. The control stick was an electronic joystick.
>
> Which fed the wires, which turned the actuators. Instead of pushing the
> control rod which turned the actuators. There is a direct 1:1 linkage
> between the controls and the control surfaces. That is not FBW.
I'd have to disagree. The fact that there is a 1:1 linkage does not, in
and of itself, mean its not FBW. You pull on the pole in an F-16 and the
only thing that moves, as a direct result of pilot input, are the
horizontal stabilators. That's a 1:1 linkage, and I think we can agree
that the F-16 is FBW.
Stuart Butts
Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> It was NOT direct. The control stick was an electronic joystick. Fine
> the computers were all analog, with vacuum tubes which sucked alot of
> power. Whoopy. But you still moved an electronic joystick, which measured
> the amount of movement, and translated this thru actuators and high-pressure
> hydraulic lines to move the control surfaces.
Sounds like FBW to me. Which surfaces were invovled?
> An artificial feel for
> the control imputs was provided by a series of springs and dampers
> in the stick and pedal movement.
This is done on most mechanical irrevisible controls systems.
Stuart Butts
James Wilkins wrote:
>
> Does Kettering's radio-controlled cruise missile of WWI count as fly-by-wire?
>
> James Wilkins
> The Mitre Corp.
> Bedford, MA
Probably, as I suspect most, if not all, missiles would, but since there
is not pilot in the loop, I don't think anyone ever thought of how to
control the missile by anything but electronic means.
Stuart Butts
>
> > Does Kettering's radio-controlled cruise missile of WWI count as fly-by-wire?
>
>
> Maury
TBW. <g>
Brad Benson
Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> wrote:
] Not much point in arguing it anyways, If you want to argue research
] aircraft, then their was an 2-seat F-86E as I recall that had one cockpit
] with mechanical controls, and the other with an analog FBW setup back
] in the early to mid-50s. In the late 1950s the five pre-production
] Avro CF-105 Arrows Mk.1s were flying with a full analog FBW flight
] they were the closest thing to a production fighter (the 6th aircraft,
] and first production example, was a week from completion, and a month
] from its first scheduled flight when the program was cancelled)
] until the lightweight fighter competition in the early 1970s.
Sigh....I thought we discussed this a while ago.
There was one and only one 2 seat F-86 built, it was called the TF-86.
The production F-86E had the analog FBW system, and was produced in
large numbers by not only North American Aviation, but also under
license by Canadair as well.
Cheers,
Brad
Kyle Schmidt
Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote in article
<maury-25069...@199.166.204.230>...
> AHHHHHHHHHHH!!! The Arrow was *NOT* fly by wire!!! How many times do
I
> have to say this?!?
>
> The Arrow had a SAS system. The linkage from the control inputs to the
> control surface outputs was direct, push the rudder pedal and the rudder
> surface moves. Not the ailerons, not the speed breaks, the rudder - and
> only the rudder.
>
> Contrast this with a real FBW plane like the F-18. Pull the nose up at
> low speed and the _rudders_ are used! Hold the stick stead, watch all
the
> control surfaces continue to move. Ask for flaps and the flaps may or
may
> not do anything.
>
> The Arrow's SAS was common to planes of the era, typically to help with
> yaw problems of having a skinny airplane with wide wings. This problem
> was so well known that the Brits actually built an airplane to test it
and
> solve the problem. All of the contemporary fighters of the time, the
> F-106 for instance, had a pretty much identical SAS system.
>
> Maury
>
I will not argue the fact the the Arrow was not an F-18 and used a fairly
standard stability augmentation system. HOWEVER, the connection between
the pilot's control stick and the control surface actuators was an
electrical one. This is what constitutes fly-by-wire.
Fly-by-wire is not having a computer on board that will override the
pilot's inputs (although this may be the case) it refers to the connection
between control stick and actuators.
Avro was at the time considering an aircraft that had configurable
stability using a fly by wire system. By using the computer they could
make the aircraft simulate the *feel* of a fighter or a bomber or any such
aircraft.
Copies of the Arrow flight manual are available and they discuss in quite
the detail how the fly by wire system operates.
Since you, Maury, are so adament that the Arrow was not fbw, I would like
you to indicate some references that would indicate the truth of what you
utter. Simply repeating it will not make me believe.
Kyle Schmidt
Avro Arrow home page: http://www.totavia.com/arrow
David Lentz
Kyle Schmidt wrote:
>
> I will not argue the fact the the Arrow was not an F-18 and used a fairly
> standard stability augmentation system. HOWEVER, the connection between
> the pilot's control stick and the control surface actuators was an
> electrical one. This is what constitutes fly-by-wire.
>
> Fly-by-wire is not having a computer on board that will override the
> pilot's inputs (although this may be the case) it refers to the connection
> between control stick and actuators.
>
> Avro was at the time considering an aircraft that had configurable
> stability using a fly by wire system. By using the computer they could
> make the aircraft simulate the *feel* of a fighter or a bomber or any such
> aircraft.
>
> Copies of the Arrow flight manual are available and they discuss in quite
> the detail how the fly by wire system operates.
>
> Since you, Maury, are so adament that the Arrow was not fbw, I would like
> you to indicate some references that would indicate the truth of what you
> utter. Simply repeating it will not make me believe.
I has struck me that is some bloody engineer had called Fly By Wire
(FBW) instead Fly by Computer (FBC) much of this whole thread could have
been avoided.
Really in a modern FBW aircraft the wire doesn't fly the aircraft. Then
neither does the pilot. The pilot tells te computer where to fly and
the computer does the rest.
David
Kristan Roberge
David Lentz <dle...@pop.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> Kyle Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Since you, Maury, are so adament that the Arrow was not fbw, I would like
> > you to indicate some references that would indicate the truth of what you
> > utter. Simply repeating it will not make me believe.
>
> I has struck me that is some bloody engineer had called Fly By Wire
> (FBW) instead Fly by Computer (FBC) much of this whole thread could have
> been avoided.
True. But it doesn't sound like much fun doesn't it. Flying by computer,
Hmmmm, sounds like a drone. Why do we pilots then?!?
> Really in a modern FBW aircraft the wire doesn't fly the aircraft. Then
> neither does the pilot. The pilot tells te computer where to fly and
> the computer does the rest.
That really depends on the aircraft, if its an unstable lawndart, then
yes you absolutely need the computer to constantly make corrections
to the flying surfaces to keep the thing in the air. But that doesn't
change the fact that any aircraft where the pilots control movements
are converted to electrical signal along a mess of wires which then
move actuators or servos to move the control surfacecs is still by
definition, FBW.
Maury Markowitz
In article <01ba435c$00a0cb60$964fb5cf@rks-technology>, "Kyle Schmidt"
<rksc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> Fly-by-wire is not having a computer on board that will override the
> pilot's inputs (although this may be the case) it refers to the connection
> between control stick and actuators.
Which is contrary to every description I've heard of it. The
description quoted to me (perhaps incorrectly) is that if the link is
direct between the controls and inputs, it's not FBW. The fact that the
Arrow used wires instead of push rods or cables is not the issue, the
linkage was direct and thus not "allowed" in this definition. I believe I
heard this specific definition from Mary, but it was some time ago.
If this definition is incorrect, I retract my complaint.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <33B1DE...@sprintmail.com>, Stuart Butts
<stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Probably, as I suspect most, if not all, missiles would, but since there
> is not pilot in the loop, I don't think anyone ever thought of how to
> control the missile by anything but electronic means.
Hmmm. If I know the one he's referring to, then it is, by the "other"
defintion, FBW - as is any wire-guided missile today.
Maury
Stuart Butts
Kristan Roberge wrote:
> That really depends on the aircraft, if its an unstable lawndart, then
> yes you absolutely need the computer to constantly make corrections
> to the flying surfaces to keep the thing in the air. But that doesn't
> change the fact that any aircraft where the pilots control movements
> are converted to electrical signal along a mess of wires which then
> move actuators or servos to move the control surfacecs is still by
> definition, FBW.
Well, not by the definition given in the following texts:
According the the USAF Academy's Aircraft Performance, Stability, and
Control textbook:
"An electronic fly-by-wire system gets around these problems [explained
in the paragraph above] by substituting wires for push-rods and then
adding several redundant wirepaths at different locations in the
aircraft to make the overall system less vulnerable to damage. In
addition, a computer is used in order to "shape" or modify the
electrical signals generated by the pilot in order to provide "optimal"
control deflections according to altitude, weight, speed, configuration,
and desired response."
According to the USAF Test Pilot School's Flying Qualities Phase
textbook:
"The most modern flight control systems have replaced the mechanical
linkages between the pilot controllers and the control surface with
wires carrying electrical actuation signals from flight control
computers. The flight control computers are basically a control
augmentation system with 100% control authority. Systems of this type
have come to be known as fly-by-wire flight control systems."
Stuart Butts
David Lentz wrote:
>
> I has struck me that is some bloody engineer had called Fly By Wire
> (FBW) instead Fly by Computer (FBC) much of this whole thread could have
> been avoided.
Probably so. I have gone back to see what my textbooks really say, and
it looks like you need both -- wires and computers -- for your system to
meet the FBW definition that is recognized by the aeronautical
engineering community
> Really in a modern FBW aircraft the wire doesn't fly the aircraft. Then
> neither does the pilot. The pilot tells te computer where to fly and
> the computer does the rest.
>
> David
We typically refer to it as the pilot gets a vote and the flight control
computers get a vote, but the flight control computers, some of them
anyway, have veto power. :)
Stuart Butts
True, but since I have gone back to see what it was I was really
supposed to learn, versus taking the words for their direct meaning <g>,
I retract my statements. :)
According the the USAF Academy's Aircraft Performance, Stability, and
Control textbook:
"An electronic fly-by-wire system gets around these problems [explained
in the paragraph above] by substituting wires for push-rods and then
adding several redundant wirepaths at different locations in the
aircraft to make the overall system less vulnerable to damage. In
addition, a computer is used in order to "shape" or modify the
electrical signals generated by the pilot in order to provide "optimal"
control deflections according to altitude, weight, speed, configuration,
and desired response."
According to the USAF Test Pilot School's Flying Qualities Phase
textbook:
"The most modern flight control systems have replaced the mechanical
linkages between the pilot controllers and the control surface with
wires carrying electrical actuation signals from flight control
computers. The flight control computers are basically a control
augmentation system with 100% control authority. Systems of this type
have come to be known as fly-by-wire flight control systems."
--
Stuart Butts
Brad Benson wrote:
>
> The production F-86E had the analog FBW system, and was produced in
> large numbers by not only North American Aviation, but also under
> license by Canadair as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
My references, T.O. 1F-86D-1 (dated 18 May 1956) and USAF Academy
"Aircrat Performance, Stability, and Control" textbook, described the
F-86D and F-86F, respectively, as having hydro-mechanical flight control
Kristan Roberge
Allow me to quote from THE Arrow Book, revised edition (this is going to be
several paragraphs), page 83 in my copy.
Section entitled "Fly-By-Wire (A.F.C.S.)
We asked Spud Potocki to recall something about the fly-by-wire system.....
"The Arrow as you probably know was an aircraft "flown by wire", in
its final stages. I'm not sure if the average person would realize just
how really advanced the Arrow was. In fact, the only other aircraft I know
of to "fly by wire" between the Avro Arrow and 1971 was the X 15 experimental,
which was the North American Aviation stratospheric hypersonic aircraft.
Some experiments had been carried out at Cornell University on "fly by
wire" on the F-86 Sabre; one of the two seaters. We had the Arrow in 1958
flying on an electric signal. How was this done? The pilot had in the control
column some form of feel spring, which when he put a half pound of
pressure on the column an electric contact would close within the base
of the column and send a signal to the control system via amplifiers
and electronics to the control servos. This was an electronic hydraulic
jack which in turn moved the control surfaces themselves. The pilot would
get response to his small movement and pressure on the control column.
If he increased pressure on the column, the electronics would respond
proportionally with rapid movements to the aircraft controls. Superimposed
on top of this was a differential servo which was connect to the damping
system that moved the controls completely independant of the pilot's
control column in the cockpit.
The pilot could move the column in one direction while the control itself would
possibly move in the opposite direction. This was part of the complexity
of the "Arrow fly-by-wire syste,s."
When all the bugs were out of the Arrow, it would be a fully automatic
aircraft with the pilot an emergency factor only. The pilot would
start the engines, taxi the aircraft to the take-off point and the plane
would in effect be able to fly itself. The pilot would simply keep an
eye on things and take over in an emergency. After its mission, the aircraft
would be capable of landing itself with the pilot simply taxiing back to park
it. The reason - with interception at supersonic speeds, human reaction
would be too slow. It would require fully automatic control from the
ground to intercept something flying 1,000 to 1,500 mph. Time is a great
factor and manoeuverability at that kind of closing speed is very limited.
At Mach 2 which is around 1,300 mph, the raius of turn is in the order of
15 miles so the problems are colossal.
The Arrow was to be fully automatic with everything done by black
boxes. We call them computers today.
I recall many times while flying chase in the CF-100 on Jan Zurakowski,
I would watch the Arrow control surfaces and the movements would not make
sense to me. Remember, Jan would be telling me on radio what his control
stick movements were. The system would be sensing and aplying corrections
to the aircraft without the pilot being aware of it. For example, it was a
completely synthetic control system.
Normally if a twin engined airplane loses one engine, by fialure or
by pilot simulation failure, the aircraft would immediately create sideslip
and roll; on the Arrow, when it was in fly-by-wire mode, the aircraft
would remain steady. I recall flying the Arrow in something like an angle
of 60 degrees climb with full afterburner cut in and I would chop one
engine. It was amazing to watch the sideslip instrument remain perfectly
steady when the automatic control system took over instantly to keep
the aircraft steady and straight. Speed of course would fall off rapidly
in such a steep climb.
A number of times I had carried out completely automatic take-offs
and landings,, as well as taking the aircraft fully through its entire
flight envelope. The Arrow "fly-by'wire" control system was easily the
most advanced in the world in 1958."
ANY QUESTION?!? Then go buy the book yourself.
fly
Brad Benson
Stuart Butts <stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
] Brad Benson wrote:
] >
] > The production F-86E had the analog FBW system, and was produced in
] > large numbers by not only North American Aviation, but also under
] > license by Canadair as well.
] >
] > Cheers,
] > Brad
] My references, T.O. 1F-86D-1 (dated 18 May 1956) and USAF Academy
] "Aircrat Performance, Stability, and Control" textbook, described the
] F-86D and F-86F, respectively, as having hydro-mechanical flight control
] systems.
True enough, but the hydro-mechanical systems were linked to the
stick/pedals via wires, so in that sense it was FBW. The F-86D was
a very different aircraft as well (flying stab instead of an
articulated, all moving surface, etc). This is from "F-86 SabreJet
Day Fighters: The Complete Reference" or something like that (it's at
home; I'm at work :-(.
My main point was that the F-86E wasn't a one-off experiment, but
instead was a production aircraft.
Cheers,
Brad
Maury Markowitz
In article <5ovnka$r15$1...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> We asked Spud Potocki to recall something about the fly-by-wire system.....
> "The Arrow as you probably know was an aircraft "flown by wire", in
> its final stages. I'm not sure if the average person would realize just
> how really advanced the Arrow was. In fact, the only other aircraft I know
> of to "fly by wire" between the Avro Arrow and 1971 was the X 15 experimental,
> which was the North American Aviation stratospheric hypersonic aircraft.
> Some experiments had been carried out at Cornell University on "fly by
> wire" on the F-86 Sabre; one of the two seaters. We had the Arrow in 1958
> flying on an electric signal. How was this done? The pilot had in the control
> column some form of feel spring, which when he put a half pound of
> pressure on the column an electric contact would close within the base
> of the column and send a signal to the control system via amplifiers
> and electronics to the control servos. This was an electronic hydraulic
> jack which in turn moved the control surfaces themselves.
Ok, here they describe the control inputs being sent electrically. So
by the definition "The most modern flight control systems have replaced
the mechanical
linkages between the pilot controllers and the control surface with
wires carrying electrical actuation signals from flight control
computers." we're 1/2 way to FBW.
> proportionally with rapid movements to the aircraft controls. Superimposed
> on top of this was a differential servo which was connect to the damping
> system that moved the controls completely independant of the pilot's
> control column in the cockpit.
But by "The flight control computers are basically a control
augmentation system with 100% control authority." we've missed the second
requirement.
This "differential servo" that drives the "damping system" is the SAS
that I have talked about in all of my messages. It had control over one
control surface from what I recall, and not full authority.
> The pilot could move the column in one direction while the control itself
> possibly move in the opposite direction. This was part of the complexity
> of the "Arrow fly-by-wire syste,s."
Now this is interesting. Any more on this?
> When all the bugs were out of the Arrow, it would be a fully automatic
> aircraft with the pilot an emergency factor only.
Again, this is hardly all that ahead of it's time. The F-102 was very
similar, using SAGE for fully automatic interception (the pilot was there
to take off and land), and the MiG-25 was the same with direct control
from radar driven computers on the ground (on a smaller scale though).
The F-106 reversed this and went with a pilot and intercept officer, as
this gave it much more autonomous interception ability. This whole idea,
ground directed interception, quickly fell out of favour as better
interception missiles came online, and bombers went low to avoid them.
> start the engines, taxi the aircraft to the take-off point and the plane
> would in effect be able to fly itself. The pilot would simply keep an
> eye on things and take over in an emergency. After its mission, the aircraft
> would be capable of landing itself
How? What system did it use to receive ground signal information for
precision guiding to a landing?
> it. The reason - with interception at supersonic speeds, human reaction
> would be too slow. It would require fully automatic control from the
> ground to intercept something flying 1,000 to 1,500 mph. Time is a great
> factor and manoeuverability at that kind of closing speed is very limited.
> At Mach 2 which is around 1,300 mph, the raius of turn is in the order of
> 15 miles so the problems are colossal.
A problem that was further magnified in the case of the F-103, where (at
mach 3 to 4) the settling time of the radar was longer than the
interception times.
> A number of times I had carried out completely automatic take-offs
> and landings,, as well as taking the aircraft fully through its entire
> flight envelope. The Arrow "fly-by'wire" control system was easily the
> most advanced in the world in 1958."
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <33B31F...@sprintmail.com>, Stuart Butts
<stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> "An electronic fly-by-wire system gets around these problems [explained
> in the paragraph above] by substituting wires for push-rods and then
> adding several redundant wirepaths at different locations in the
> aircraft to make the overall system less vulnerable to damage.
Ok, so far the Arrow is "in" (although it may have had only a single
cable run, but I'd say that's a minor point and I doubt it anyway).
> addition, a computer is used in order to "shape" or modify the
> electrical signals generated by the pilot in order to provide "optimal"
> control deflections according to altitude, weight, speed, configuration,
> and desired response."
And that's where it's out. From what I've read of the systems the
"computer" in the Arrow (and F-101/F-102/F-106/F-107 and lots of other
planes at the time) was an electromechanical device that adjusted rudder
trim in order to damp adverse yaw. It was a direct feedback system and as
far as I know it did not have authority on any other control surfaces, nor
did it have authority over the pilot.
It should be pointed out that the same is true for the early MiG-29's as
well - they use gates on the control stick itself to modify the inputs!
You note another definition....
> "The most modern flight control systems have replaced the mechanical
> linkages between the pilot controllers and the control surface with
> wires carrying electrical actuation signals from flight control
> computers.
Here again, the Arrow is in.
> The flight control computers are basically a control
> augmentation system with 100% control authority.
And here again, the Arrow is out. I like this definition in fact, it
does provide a black and white line between FBW and
controls-are-electrical, that the flight computers have 100% authority.
This is, from my readings, not the case for the Arrow, where the system
had _some_ authority over a single axis.
I am bold in saying so, but I'll bet the other planes mentioned may be
cut off by these definitions as well.
Maury
gosc...@real3d.com
In article <33B322...@sprintmail.com>,
Stuart Butts <stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> > That really depends on the aircraft, if its an unstable lawndart, then
> > yes you absolutely need the computer to constantly make corrections
> > to the flying surfaces to keep the thing in the air. But that doesn't
> > change the fact that any aircraft where the pilots control movements
> > are converted to electrical signal along a mess of wires which then
> > move actuators or servos to move the control surfacecs is still by
> > definition, FBW.
>
> Well, not by the definition given in the following texts:
>
> Control textbook:
> in the paragraph above] by substituting wires for push-rods and then
> adding several redundant wirepaths at different locations in the
> addition, a computer is used in order to "shape" or modify the
> electrical signals generated by the pilot in order to provide "optimal"
> control deflections according to altitude, weight, speed, configuration,
> and desired response."
>
> textbook:
> linkages between the pilot controllers and the control surface with
> wires carrying electrical actuation signals from flight control
> augmentation system with 100% control authority. Systems of this type
Nice definitions.. Of course they don't refute any aspect of the quoted
post....
John
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <5ovnka$r15$1...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
> <krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> But by "The flight control computers are basically a control
> augmentation system with 100% control authority." we've missed the second
> requirement.
There's more info in the book, which I don't have handy at this moment.
> This "differential servo" that drives the "damping system" is the SAS
> that I have talked about in all of my messages. It had control over one
> control surface from what I recall, and not full authority.
Actually it had control over all the control surfaces, part of self-correcting
for an engine loss involves stabilizing both the yaw and the roll rates.
They also specifically mention in the book that there was no direct
linkage between the controls in the cockpit and the control surfaces
or their movement.
> > The pilot could move the column in one direction while the control itself
> > possibly move in the opposite direction. This was part of the complexity
> > of the "Arrow fly-by-wire syste,s."
>
> Now this is interesting. Any more on this?
Several pages more. Again, you should really go buy the book yourself
(Its only $30 or so). The three modes of operation for the flight
control system (Normal, Automatic, and Emergency) are described in
better detail, and there are schematics and flowcharts in the book that
give a better understanding of how the whole system worked.
> > start the engines, taxi the aircraft to the take-off point and the plane
> > would in effect be able to fly itself. The pilot would simply keep an
> > eye on things and take over in an emergency. After its mission, the aircraft
> > would be capable of landing itself
>
> How? What system did it use to receive ground signal information for
> precision guiding to a landing?
Well, as I recall from one passage in the book, the aircraft had what
they called a "dead reckoning computer" into which course headings
and other data could be inputed that would allow the plane to fly completely
automated. I'm guessing it was an early form of an inertial navigation
system.
> > A number of times I had carried out completely automatic take-offs
> > and landings,, as well as taking the aircraft fully through its entire
> > flight envelope. The Arrow "fly-by'wire" control system was easily the
> > most advanced in the world in 1958."
>
> Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Noted.
Stuart Butts
Brad Benson wrote:
>
> Stuart Butts <stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> ] Brad Benson wrote:
> ] >
> ] > The production F-86E had the analog FBW system, and was produced in
> ] > large numbers by not only North American Aviation, but also under
> ] > license by Canadair as well.
> ] >
> ] > Cheers,
> ] > Brad
>
> ] My references, T.O. 1F-86D-1 (dated 18 May 1956) and USAF Academy
> ] "Aircrat Performance, Stability, and Control" textbook, described the
> ] F-86D and F-86F, respectively, as having hydro-mechanical flight control
> ] systems.
>
> True enough, but the hydro-mechanical systems were linked to the
> stick/pedals via wires, so in that sense it was FBW.
Wires, true enough, but surely not wires to transmit electrical signals
(which is what FBW means), but cables. I find it hard to believe that
the E model would be so drastically different (if it did have FBW as you
state) than the later F model, but I am certainly not the end all, be
all authority on the F-86.
> The F-86D was a very different aircraft as well (flying stab instead of an
> articulated, all moving surface, etc).
Guess I don't understand the difference your drawing here.
> This is from "F-86 SabreJet Day Fighters: The Complete Reference" or something like that (it's at
> home; I'm at work :-(.
Guess I need to go look this up.
> My main point was that the F-86E wasn't a one-off experiment, but
> instead was a production aircraft.
Ok. The thing that was confusing me was the statement that the F-86E was
equipped with an analog FBW system.
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
Stuart Butts
gosc...@real3d.com wrote:
[stuff deleted so this would post]
> Nice definitions.. Of course they don't refute any aspect of the quoted
> post....
>
> John
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Well I guess I disagree. What Kristan said: "But that doesn't change the
fact that any aircraft where the pilots control movements are converted
to electrical signal along a mess of wires which then move actuators or
servos to move the control surfacecs is still by definition, FBW."
Implies, to me anyway, that electrical signals and wires alone are
necessary to define FBW. The texts I quoted imply, again to me anyway,
that not only are electrical signals and wires required, but also some
form on computer for "shaping" the commands.
Stuart Butts
Brad Benson wrote:
>
> Stuart Butts <stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> ] Brad Benson wrote:
> ] >
> ] > The production F-86E had the analog FBW system, and was produced in
> ] > large numbers by not only North American Aviation, but also under
> ] > license by Canadair as well.
> ] >
> ] > Cheers,
> ] > Brad
>
> ] My references, T.O. 1F-86D-1 (dated 18 May 1956) and USAF Academy
> ] "Aircrat Performance, Stability, and Control" textbook, described the
> ] F-86D and F-86F, respectively, as having hydro-mechanical flight control
> ] systems.
>
> True enough, but the hydro-mechanical systems were linked to the
> stick/pedals via wires, so in that sense it was FBW.
Wires, true enough, but surely not wires to transmit electrical signals
(which is what FBW means), but cables. I find it hard to believe that
the E model would be so drastically different (if it did have FBW as you
state) than the later F model, but I am certainly not the end all, be
all authority on the F-86.
> The F-86D was a very different aircraft as well (flying stab instead of an
> articulated, all moving surface, etc).
Guess I don't understand the difference your drawing here. My F-86D dash
1 says "the horizontal stabilizer and elevators are combined into a
single surface known as the controllable horizontal tail". How does that
differ from the "articulated, all moving surface"?
> This is from "F-86 SabreJet Day Fighters: The Complete Reference" or something like that (it's at
> home; I'm at work :-(.
Guess I need to go look this up.
> My main point was that the F-86E wasn't a one-off experiment, but
> instead was a production aircraft.
Ok. The thing that was confusing me was the statement that the F-86E was
equipped with an analog FBW system.
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
--
Stuart Butts
Maury Markowitz wrote:
[some stuff snipped]
> And that's where it's out. From what I've read of the systems the
> "computer" in the Arrow (and F-101/F-102/F-106/F-107 and lots of other
> planes at the time) was an electromechanical device that adjusted rudder
> trim in order to damp adverse yaw. It was a direct feedback system and as
> far as I know it did not have authority on any other control surfaces, nor
> did it have authority over the pilot.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I may just be reading more
into this than you meant, but you seem to imply here that all surfaces
must be electrically controlled in order for the system to be considered
FBW. I wouldn't go quite that far. There are some mixed systems out
there that have FBW for some control surfaces and hydro-mechanical or
just straight mechanical for others. The SAAB 2000 (mechanical for
elevator and aileron, FBW for rudder), Yak-38 and Yak-141
(hydromechanical for lateral and directional axes, FBW for longitudinal
axis), and Su-27 (FBW for horizontal stab and hydro-mechanical for
aileron and rudder) come to mind.
[more stuff snipped]
>
> Maury
P. Jensen
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <01ba435c$00a0cb60$964fb5cf@rks-technology>, "Kyle Schmidt"
> <rksc...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> > Fly-by-wire is not having a computer on board that will override the
> > pilot's inputs (although this may be the case) it refers to the connection
> > between control stick and actuators.
>
> Which is contrary to every description I've heard of it. The
> description quoted to me (perhaps incorrectly) is that if the link is
> direct between the controls and inputs, it's not FBW. The fact that the
> Arrow used wires instead of push rods or cables is not the issue, the
> linkage was direct and thus not "allowed" in this definition. I believe I
> heard this specific definition from Mary, but it was some time ago.
>
>
> Maury
The linkage was not direct. The Arrow used an electronic
system for flight control and could be controlled from the ground
in an actual intercept mission. An earlier AVRO Canada aircraft, the
CF-100, was being tested with an experimental rocket pack. There was
some mention of augmenting the control of the aircraft electronically
when the rockets were being fired. Any comments?
Paul
Maury Markowitz
In article <33B558...@sprintmail.com>, Stuart Butts
<stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I may just be reading more
> into this than you meant, but you seem to imply here that all surfaces
> must be electrically controlled in order for the system to be considered
> FBW.
No, I'm using another part of the definition, that the computer needs to
have complete authority. A SAS system typically has very little control
authority.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> The linkage was not direct. The Arrow used an electronic
> system for flight control and could be controlled from the ground
> in an actual intercept mission.
But so could the MiG-25 and F-102, neither of which are FBW. Remote
control planes existed since the 1940's, maybe earlier. Is the V-1 a FBW
plane? How about the Fritz-X? If anything that's a missile, not a plane.
Maury
Stuart Butts
Understand.
Brad Benson
Stuart Butts <stub...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
] > True enough, but the hydro-mechanical systems were linked to the
] > stick/pedals via wires, so in that sense it was FBW.
] Wires, true enough, but surely not wires to transmit electrical signals
] (which is what FBW means), but cables. I find it hard to believe that
] the E model would be so drastically different (if it did have FBW as you
] state) than the later F model, but I am certainly not the end all, be
] all authority on the F-86.
According to the aforementioned book, the wires were used to transmit
electrical impulses as opposed to transfering mechanical force.
] > The F-86D was a very different aircraft as well (flying stab instead of an
] > articulated, all moving surface, etc).
] Guess I don't understand the difference your drawing here. My F-86D dash
] 1 says "the horizontal stabilizer and elevators are combined into a
] single surface known as the controllable horizontal tail". How does that
] differ from the "articulated, all moving surface"?
The F-86D had a one piece stabilator, much as do modern day jet
fighters. The F-86E/F, in contrast, had a separate stabilizer and
elevator that both moved. Compared to the stabilator of the F-86D,
it seems like an overly complex system, but then again, I think the
F-86D was a later development.
] > This is from "F-86 SabreJet Day Fighters: The Complete Reference" or something like that (it's at
] > home; I'm at work :-(.
] Guess I need to go look this up.
] > My main point was that the F-86E wasn't a one-off experiment, but
] > instead was a production aircraft.
Also, like most (all) others posting here, I'm certainly not an F-86
expert - I can just remember and regurgitate stuff I've read in the
past :-).
Cheers,
Brad
J Kahn
Maury Markowitz <ma...@softarc.com> wrote in article
<maury-30069...@199.166.204.230>...
The Avro Arrow's hydrualically powered controlls were operated by a flight
control computer that drove the surfaces in response to a force transducer
at the base of the control grip along with air data and stability
requirements.
There was a mechanical connection that was for emergency use only.
When the pilot moved the stick the transducer supplied the command to the
computer, which then made the appropriate surface movement. The surface
movements would not necessarily match the physical movements of the pilot's
hand, the mark of a true fly by wire system. In "normal mode" the computer
was completely in charge of surface position.
The mechanical linkage connected to the base of the column was moved by
a command servo that moved the column in the applicable direction
instantaneously following the force transducer input to the computer. The
pilot
would apply pressure, and the stick would move normally, only he
wasn't the one doing the moving, the computer was. The control surface
could
move in a completely different direction from the nominal input if that's
what the
computer felt was necessary.
In "emergency mode" this linkage could be used the operate the flight
control
servos thru direct mechanical input. The only difference today is the
mechanical
backup is replaced by multiple channels in modern fighters and the
computers
are digital.
All this with analog computers. Not bad for 1956 eh?
That's one reason why the US aerospace industry was lining up to hire away
Avro's engineering staff following cancellation. It was a team of "Kelly
Johnson"
calibre.
John Kahn
Stuart Butts
> ] (which is what FBW means), but cables. I find it hard to believe that
> ] the E model would be so drastically different (if it did have FBW as you
> ] state) than the later F model, but I am certainly not the end all, be
> ] all authority on the F-86.
>
> According to the aforementioned book, the wires were used to transmit
> electrical impulses as opposed to transfering mechanical force.
Very interesting.
> ] Guess I don't understand the difference your drawing here. My F-86D dash
> ] 1 says "the horizontal stabilizer and elevators are combined into a
> ] single surface known as the controllable horizontal tail". How does that
> ] differ from the "articulated, all moving surface"?
>
> The F-86D had a one piece stabilator, much as do modern day jet
> fighters. The F-86E/F, in contrast, had a separate stabilizer and
> elevator that both moved. Compared to the stabilator of the F-86D,
> it seems like an overly complex system, but then again, I think the
> F-86D was a later development.
Ah, I suspected it might have been something like that. I would think
the E/F models were later developments, but the USAF doesn't necessarily
always do things in a logical manner. :)
> Brad
Kristan Roberge
> ] Guess I don't understand the difference your drawing here. My F-86D dash
> ] 1 says "the horizontal stabilizer and elevators are combined into a
> ] single surface known as the controllable horizontal tail". How does that
> ] differ from the "articulated, all moving surface"?
>
> The F-86D had a one piece stabilator, much as do modern day jet
> fighters. The F-86E/F, in contrast, had a separate stabilizer and
> elevator that both moved. Compared to the stabilator of the F-86D,
> it seems like an overly complex system, but then again, I think the
> F-86D was a later development.
The seperate stabilizer and elevator, which both moved was NOT a new
concept. The Messerschmitt Me262 has this feature. The moving stabilizer
was used to adjust the trim, while the elevator provided the primary
pitch control. Unfortunetly on the first prototypes, which were
tail-draggers, the stabilizer didn't get enough bite into the airstream
on the take-off run for the elevator to be of any effect, so the pilots
used to tap the brake pedals, which tipped the plane's nose forward
and lifted the tail off of the ground enough for the elevators to
function. Later models employed tricycle-gear and didn't have these
take-off dificulties.
>
David Lednicer
The F-86E/F horizontal tail was not a trimmable stabilizer with an
elevator. Instead, the tail was what could be called a "camber
changer". As the pilot deflected the stick, the elevator would move one
way and the stabilizer would move the other way, to change the camber of
the tail.
Aircraft like the Me 262 are set up so that as the pilot moves the
stick, only the elevator moves. The stabilizer only moves when the trim
wheel or trim switch is moved. The original F-86 was set up this way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
Emmanuel.Gustin
A few quotes from the relevant chapter from Bill Gunston's book
"Avionics":
The author was privileged to have flown in about 1956
in the world's first FBW aircraft, the Tay-engined
Viscount 663 which had been bailed to Boulton Paul to
support the Valiant bomber programme. Through primitive,
the system was true pioneering. The right-hand seat was
'all electric', with wiper potentiometers transmitting
pilot demands along dual electrical channels (I believe
one used 28V DC and the other, basically identical, used
110V AC), with a feedback potentiometer at each powered
surface.
[snip]
In 1962 the basic design of Concorde was settled, one of
the Anglo-French choices being to use fully powered elevons
and rudder with electrical signalling. (Further it is
added the the jet inlet control system is also FBW.)
[snip]
In 1972 the United States got into the act, most notably
with the NACA F-8C Crusader, which in May 1972 made the
first FBW flight without mechanical reversion. This
aircraft had simplex digital control, the first wholly
non-analog aircraft in the world, the standby system
being triplex analog.
[snip]
These encouraging results confirmed Panavia in their
much earlier (1968) choice if triplex analog for Tornado,
and, apart from Concorde, this was the first production
FBW aircraft in the world. [snip] FBW links feed the
computerised outputs to the tailerons, spoilers and
rudder, with mechanical reversion for the tailerons only.
[snip]
Tornado first flew in 1974, and the same year saw the
first flight of the General Dynamics YF-16. [snip] Its
FBW system was the first in the world to have no
reversionary system whatever.
\ Emmanuel Gustin gus...@uia.ua.ac.be /
\ Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium /
| FROM StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer; |
/ http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/ \
/ http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/ \
/ http://www.topedge.com/~gustin/ \
DAK
P. Jensen wrote:
> The linkage was not direct. The Arrow used an electronic
> system for flight control and could be controlled from the ground
> in an actual intercept mission. An earlier AVRO Canada aircraft, the
> CF-100, was being tested with an experimental rocket pack. There was
> some mention of augmenting the control of the aircraft electronically
> when the rockets were being fired. Any comments?
>
> Paul
I think your talking about the Rocket Belly Pack, which in the end was
not adopted. It held 48 rockets, and when the pack was lowered, the
nose would pitch up. The pack was only lowered during firing for about
1/3 of a second, and it was noted by AVRO : "As a result it will be
necessary to fit a pitch compensating device to the auto-pilot to cancel
out the resulting trim change."
The system was installed, and one A/C was lost on trials (18112), but it
seems from the book "The Avro CF-100" by Milberry that it was a
mechanical device which would be cued by the firing of the ventral
rocket pack.
But in 1954, a fully powered elevator control was fitted in 18107 a
Mk.2T for developmental work on the ARROW.
There has been much argument on whether or not the Arrow was true FBW,
but it should be noted that when it did fly, there was an opportunity
for the chase plane to monitor the operation of control surfaces and it
was noted that not all the movements were as a result of Pilot
commands. The Arrow had a damping system which in Normal and Automatic
mode which would stabilize the A/C in all three axis, in Emergency Mode
only a Yaw damper would be used and all surfaces would be controlled
electrically by the pilot. Source: "ARROW" published by Boston
Mills(Stoddart).
Hope it helps
Dave
Maury Markowitz
> There has been much argument on whether or not the Arrow was true FBW,
> but it should be noted that when it did fly, there was an opportunity
> for the chase plane to monitor the operation of control surfaces and it
> was noted that not all the movements were as a result of Pilot
> commands. The Arrow had a damping system which in Normal and Automatic
> mode which would stabilize the A/C in all three axis, in Emergency Mode
> only a Yaw damper would be used and all surfaces would be controlled
> electrically by the pilot. Source: "ARROW" published by Boston
> Mills(Stoddart).
The question remains, how much control authority did the control damping
system have? For instance, no one calls a B727 a fly-by-wire aircraft,
but it uses a similar system with cables triggering hydraulics, which is
dampened by a SAS with authority over the rudder surfaces (two of them).
Like the description of the Arrow, chase planes would indeed see
"non-commanded" control surface movements as the system attempts to
correct dutch roll.
Maury
F 94C
David Lednicer writes:
>The F-86E/F horizontal tail was not a trimmable stabilizer with an
>elevator. Instead, the tail was what could be called a "camber
>changer". As the pilot deflected the stick, the elevator would move one
>way and the stabilizer would move the other way, to change the camber of
>the tail.
I beg to differ. I don't remember any F-86 with an elevator except the
F-86A and F-86B models. I think you'll find the F-86 "D", "E", "F", "H",
"K",
and "L" all have a one piece "all-flying" slab horizontal stabilizer. Move
the stick
forward or aft and whole slab moves. No elevator on horizontal stabilizer.
Electrically trimming stick moves it to a new "hands-off" position along
with
horizontal stabilizer too since it is connected to stick.
"camber changer" ??? I haven't heard that term before and literally,
I can't
see any meaning in this context. Could you explain please?
Will