FriarTuck <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:22tFk.57446$yU7.27275
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:30:36 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> parris_k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in news:e3141775-8cda-4759-bca5-85e8e24177d0
>> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> On 3 Okt, 16:58, Bertie the Bunyip <T...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> parri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in news:32b34de4-626c-4207-8fdb-
317988a61ee4
>>>> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> > 1) Yes.
>>>> > 2) Of course, That's how Cheney managed to remotely pilot one
into
>>>> > the Pentagon.
>>>> > 3) No. The only FBW Boeing is the 777, the 757 uses conventional
>>>> > cables and hydraulics.
>>>>
>>>> > Votes please...
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> No, you refuse to vote or no the 757 is not FBW?
>>>
>>>
>> It's not FBW
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> if the throttle control goes through an ecu (probably a plc) isn't it
at
> least partially fly by wire?
Nope.
>
> as there is no cable involved (since WWII probably when still thick
wire
> controls) and its all electro mechanical/hydraulic isn't it fly by
wire?
There is a cable, or else it would be FBW and I would have said so.
Keep up.
>
> as the FMCS is fully capable of flying the plane is it not fly by wire
> during the duration of FMCS control?
>
> I mean in the broader sense of the phrase.
No, read my lips.
>
> obviously there seems parrallel control on the 757 rather than on
airbus
> which is full fly by wire as joystick goes to FMCS but on 757 it has
> both, and the FMCS unless turned off is always doing a bit of fly by
> wire....
It isn't parralell control. It's is a conventional mechanicla hydraulic
control system with a relatively sophisticated autopilot that flies the
airplane through that system, period.
Bertie
>
|
