Last Plane Without a Computer
Charles Talleyrand
the Boeing 737 original version. And the largest sucessful airliner
without a computer was the Boeing 747 original. And I believe the last
successful large bomber without a computer was the B-47. Can anyone
confirm or refute this?
In particular, no internet source says if the engine controllers were
mechanical or computer.
Definitions:
There can be no necessary computer at all. Not in the engine
controller nor in the flight controls. If there is a computer, the
plane should be useable with that computer turned off.
A computer is an electronic machine with a CPU, RAM, and software.
Mechanical computing devices do not count for this exorcise (though
they are interesting).
-Curious
-Kitplane01
Brett
> I'm going to guess the last successful airliner without a computer was
> the Boeing 737 original version. And the largest sucessful airliner
> without a computer was the Boeing 747 original. And I believe the last
> successful large bomber without a computer was the B-47. Can anyone
> confirm or refute this?
The B-47 had a bombing and navigation system that included an analog
computer.
james cho
> A computer is an electronic machine with a CPU, RAM, and software.
> Mechanical computing devices do not count for this exorcise (though
> they are interesting).
microcomputers. Why not include analog computers?
james
David Dyer-Bennet
Yeah, but he defined computer, and his definition clearly limits it to
digital computers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
George Ruch
There are problems in your definitions. Your "no necessary
computers" restriction and your exclusion of mechanical/analog
computers are problematic at best.
Fuel controls for gas turbine (jet/turboprop/turboshaft) engines
are mainly fluid analog computers. It's only been within the
last 10 - 15 years, IIRC, that digital fuel control systems have
come into common use.
Your restriction also rules out any aircraft from about the '50s
onward that employs an analog flight control or stability
augmentation system or air data computer system. Flying an F-4
or most, if not all of, the Century-series fighters without these
systems was, I expect, more of an adventure than most pilots
would care to experience. (WaltBJ, Ed - comments?)
Going back to WWII-era aircraft, you could fly a B-17 or B-24
without using the Norden computing bombsight or the autopilot,
but the aircraft would be almost useless for their intended
purpose. You could make a similar case for the B-29's remote
controlled gunnery system, which used an electro-mechanical
analog computer to direct the gun turrets.
So - care to rethink your initial question?
| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"
Brett
> "Brett" <b...@192.168.105.234> writes:
>
> > "Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm going to guess the last successful airliner without a computer was
> > > the Boeing 737 original version. And the largest sucessful airliner
> > > without a computer was the Boeing 747 original. And I believe the
last
> > > successful large bomber without a computer was the B-47. Can anyone
> > > confirm or refute this?
> >
> > The B-47 had a bombing and navigation system that included an analog
> > computer.
>
> Yeah, but he defined computer, and his definition clearly limits it to
> digital computers.
Well "his definition" should have come before his claim of what didn't have
them.
Ed Rasimus
Series, but by that time they all had some form of "stability
augmentation" to assist the pilot. It's part of the quest for
manueverability--aircraft inherently have some stability, that's the
tendency to return to original conditions after a displacement.
Easy-to-fly aircraft, like the Piper Cub or Cessna 172 have positive
stability. Give a control push and release then watch for a while and
the aircraft will fairly quickly return to the original conditions.
If you want high manueverability you design out the tendency and seek
neutral or even some degree of negative stability. Neutral stability
means push a control and the aircraft will maintain the new attitude
rather than return to original conditions. Negative stability means
give a push and the aircraft will increase the departure from original
conditions.
To keep from continually chasing the aircraft back to stable flight
after control inputs but still allow the rapid excursions of high
energy maneuvering, a stability augmentation system is built in. These
systems quickly grew from single axis (typically rudder) systems which
reduced fish-tailing or Dutch rolling to three axis systems with pitch,
roll and yaw inputs all designed to stabilize the aircraft. Teen series
aircraft are so unstable that the digital systems are continually
flappiing the controls--simply watch one taxing and see the controls
compensating for bumps in the taxiway.
The F-4 could be flown without stab aug although you had to be aware
and keep your control inputs smooth. The aircraft was a bit twitchy,
but not overly so. In fact, because of the relatively crude
rudder/aileron interactions caused by the roll axis augmentation
channel, we typically turned roll stab-aug off prior to combat or
air-air manuevering. With roll aug on the aircraft roll was jerky and
much more polygon than circle.
The F-105 also had three axis stab aug and could also be flown quite
nicely without it. Over-controlling in pitch, say as with an
over-enthusiastic dive bomb recovery could often kick the pitch stab
aug off-line.
But, as for computers, I'd suggest that almost any supersonic capable
aircraft would have a computer at least for flight instrument
corrections and presentation.
Robert M. Gary
but still electronic with CPU, etc)? I'm not sure what you mean by
"software" the line between "software" and "firmware" is pretty blurry
to me, but then again, I've worked as an engineeer designing both. You
can update the "software" of the caluclator by changing out the chip.
-Robert
David Dyer-Bennet
Or you should have read to the end of his message before responding.
Brett
> "Brett" <b...@192.168.105.234> writes:
>
> > "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > > "Brett" <b...@192.168.105.234> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm going to guess the last successful airliner without a computer
was
> > > > > the Boeing 737 original version. And the largest sucessful
airliner
> > > > > without a computer was the Boeing 747 original. And I believe the
> > last
> > > > > successful large bomber without a computer was the B-47. Can
anyone
> > > > > confirm or refute this?
> > > >
> > > > The B-47 had a bombing and navigation system that included an analog
> > > > computer.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but he defined computer, and his definition clearly limits it to
> > > digital computers.
> >
> > Well "his definition" should have come before his claim of what didn't
have
> > them.
>
> Or you should have read to the end of his message before responding.
Nah, if he wants to use his own definition of a computer his post should
have started with it.
So when his opening paragraph was garbage, the rest of it got dumped.
Charles Talleyrand
>computers" restriction and your exclusion of mechanical/analog
>computers are problematic at best.
There must be some restriction. Even a simple cable and pully system
can be considered a computer as it can be used to compute ratios. Yes
a Noren bombsight does complex math but it's a different kind of beast
than my Intel box.
Would the phrase "no software" have made more sense? Because "no
software" and "no digital CPU" mean the same thing.
Using the definition given a fluid analog computer for the engine is
fine. An analog flight control system is fine. And so is a Norden
bombsight.
Given this, what's the last large commerically successful plane without
a computer.
Shees!
-Kitplane01
Charles Talleyrand
-Thanks
-Kitplane01
Charles Talleyrand
>and keep your control inputs smooth. The aircraft was a bit twitchy,
>but not overly so. In fact, because of the relatively crude
>rudder/aileron interactions caused by the roll axis augmentation
>channel, we typically turned roll stab-aug off prior to combat or
>air-air manuevering.
Do you know if these were digital or analog computers? And were the
engine controllers digital or analog?
-Thanks
-Kitplane01
james cho
>>There are problems in your definitions. Your "no necessary
>>computers" restriction and your exclusion of mechanical/analog
>>computers are problematic at best.
>
>
> There must be some restriction. Even a simple cable and pully system
> can be considered a computer as it can be used to compute ratios. Yes
> a Noren bombsight does complex math but it's a different kind of beast
> than my Intel box.
>
> Would the phrase "no software" have made more sense? Because "no
> software" and "no digital CPU" mean the same thing.
>
> Using the definition given a fluid analog computer for the engine is
> fine. An analog flight control system is fine. And so is a Norden
> bombsight.
I think the problem with your definition is that it's arbitrary. An
electric analog computer can integrate and take derivatives of functions
quite well. They are not as powerful as modern microcomputers, nor can
they be re-programmed easily, but they are full-fleged computers. The
Russian Soyuz still uses an electric analog computer to compute orbital
trajectories.
james
Harry Andreas
"Charles Talleyrand" <kitpl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There are problems in your definitions. Your "no necessary
> >computers" restriction and your exclusion of mechanical/analog
> >computers are problematic at best.
>
> There must be some restriction. Even a simple cable and pully system
> can be considered a computer as it can be used to compute ratios. Yes
> a Noren bombsight does complex math but it's a different kind of beast
> than my Intel box.
>
> Would the phrase "no software" have made more sense? Because "no
> software" and "no digital CPU" mean the same thing.
Depends on your definition of software. In the avionics field (and most
computing fields) there is a distinction between software and firmware.
I suspect you'd probably include firmware in your restriction based on
what I've read so far.
BTW, the computer that ran the MA-1 fire control system on the F-106
was initially an analog computer. Later changed to digital, mostly to
make it easier to change and add functions.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
Charles Talleyrand
>electric analog computer can integrate and take derivatives of functions
>quite well. They are not as powerful as modern microcomputers, nor can
>they be re-programmed easily, but they are full-fleged computers. The
>Russian Soyuz still uses an electric analog computer to compute orbital
>trajectories.
First, I think you are wrong on the relative power of analog and
digital computers. There are many operations that are VERY difficlt to
perform in an analog way but can easily be done digitally. For
example, processing GPS signals probably cannot be done without digital
electronics, nor could the USAF's jam resistant radios work without
digital computation.
Second .... Fine! Can you suggest a definition and then answer the
original question based on this definition?
Seriously, I think I asked a well defined question and you are being a
nea-sayer. However I would also be interested in your definition and
the answers given that definition.
-Kitplane01
Diamond Jim
"james cho" <ja...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:Yeegf.1587$yb2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Why not include mechanical computers?
George Ruch
The F-4, IIRC, was a completely analog aircraft, at least until
the ALR-46 warning receiver and APR-38 homing system came into
service.
As far as the engine fuel controls are concerned, I don't recall
the J-79 being fitted with a digital fuel control system.
Possibly for test purposes, but none in service, IIRC.
George Ruch
>>There are problems in your definitions. Your "no necessary
>>computers" restriction and your exclusion of mechanical/analog
>>computers are problematic at best.
>
>There must be some restriction.
Agreed, but yours is, to me, confusing and contradictory.
>Even a simple cable and pully system can be considered a computer
>as it can be used to compute ratios.
Disagree. The computation in simple mechanical control system has
already been done by the designer for specific factors like range
of motion, control force and pilot feel.
Compare this with the F-111 analog flight control system or, even
better, F-16 digital FCS, which, for a given control input,
decides, within the aircraft's performance limits, how much of
that pilot input to apply to the control surfaces.
>Yes a Noren bombsight does complex math but it's a different kind
>of beast than my Intel box.
>
>Would the phrase "no software" have made more sense? Because "no
>software" and "no digital CPU" mean the same thing.
Closer. What I think you were trying for was "no systems capable
of programmed mathematical computation". That would cover fluid,
mechanical, electrical and electronic analog computers as well as
digital computers.
>Using the definition given a fluid analog computer for the engine is
>fine. An analog flight control system is fine. And so is a Norden
>bombsight.
>
>Given this, what's the last large commerically successful plane without
>a computer.
That would take you back a _long_ way.
George Ruch
[snip - much good info]
Thanks for the excellent background info.
>The F-4 could be flown without stab aug although you had to be aware
>and keep your control inputs smooth. [...]
>
>The F-105 also had three axis stab aug and could also be flown quite
>nicely without it. [...]
I remember, from my years working the F-111, that most problems
in the flight control system were complete show-stoppers.