On 3 Okt, 20:13, Bertie the Bunyip <B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> FriarTuck <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:22tFk.57446$yU7.27275
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:30:36 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> parri...@[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.
Rotsa ruck...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
>
|
