Talk:Fly-by-wire

Mirage IV

Is it checked true that Mirage IV of the French air forces was equipped with FBW since 1964 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.98.233 (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

History of FBW

Isn't there evidence that the WW II FW-190 actually had servo-operated flight controls? If so, that would make it the first production FBW airplane. 76.24.201.240 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)DJT k2kq@weca.org76.24.201.240 (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? If so this can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that servo-operated flight controls are the same as fly-by-wire. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured a good ref would clarify that! - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Fw190 had an electrically driven tailplane incidence motor and electrically driven flaps but was otherwise conventional according to Jane's. I did wonder if it had servo tabs but it appears that it didn't. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A good ref clears it up - not really "fly-by-wire". - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I was told long ago that "fly by wire" was, long before even that, a term for using backup controls when hydraulic systems failed, or planes that had cable systems to begin with. See Aircraft flight control system#Mechanical and De Havilland Tiger Moth for examples of cable systems. The thing is, the man who told me this was also a computer programmer at an air force facility, and it was a quarter of a century ago, so he may just been being ironic. Anyone? Zaphraud (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is occasionally used today as a joke term for vintage aircraft with cable operated controls but we would be pushed to find a reference for it. 'Armstrong starter' is similar (for aircraft that have to have their propellers swung by hand for starting). I've not heard it used for control after loss of hydraulic power, that's generally known as 'manual reversion'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Airbus/Boeing differences

the Airbus/Boeing section hardly says anything, and what is there is confusing. From what I understand, these two MAJOR companies approach the issue from very different perspectives. Shouldn't this article say more? 96.224.43.92 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure it should, but it all hinges on finding references that explain it. Do you have any? - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment was directed at people with knowledge and expertise in the area. If you don't have it, your comment is sort of obvious and unnecessary. If you do have it, then your comment is taunting. The folks who have created the article thus far have a great deal more information than I have, and I am aware that Airbus has pursued fly by wire much more completely than Boeing has. It is inconceivable that an expert would not have at hand more sourced information to add to the article. 96.224.43.92 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My reply was intended to neither be taunting nor obvious, please see WP:AGF. Adding this sort of information does not require an expert, it requires reliable references as explained at WP:V. That is why Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit; you don't need to be an expert, just have good refs available to work from. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What is there is effectively a summary of another article, Flight control modes (electronic), the link is at the top of the section. This is inline with the guideline WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I effectively created the basis of the current version of this (FBW) article with this edit, the Boeing/Airbus text was copied at that time. Ideally a pilot or licensed engineer who has experience on both manufacturers' systems could help (I have FBW experience but not Boeing/Airbus), as Ahunt says though anyone with the right sources could make this better. Is the main article clearer/correct? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

you've written the same comment over and over on this very page, not to mention that you could write it on every single talk page in wikipedia. your response was generic, not to mention it's hardly an unknown idea to anybody who has been on wikipedia more than a day, let alone years and years. my comment was specific to this situation. somebody who has already read the sources necessary to improve this page is in a better position to quickly improve the page than I am, that's just a fact, despite that I could theoretically devote the time to become an expert on many many many more wikipages. I'll tell you this though, I'm not going off to become an expert on WP:this or WP:that if it leads to me writing comments like yours over and over. I'm not attacking you, I would simply be more appreciative of non generic comments when I take the time to write a specific one 96.224.43.92 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually my initial comment was razor precise - if you have access to references that explain the different approaches that Airbus and Boeing take then you can read it, understand it and add a summary of the information to the article. I don't have that reference, so I can't do it, but if you do, then you can add it. Fundamentally the way Wikipedia works is that if you notice that a topic isn't well covered then you try to find the references and then add the missing material yourself. It really does all hinge on the references and asking other people to do the work on the talk page rarely results in the work getting done. - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone actually involved in the original Boeing 777 FCS development there's actually not that much of a difference in approach at the practical level (a large part of the 777 team had previously done A320 work). It's an engineering problem with a well understood solution. What differences there are lie in the flight control laws that are used to determine the correct control responses, but that's a bit like different car companies having different preferences for handling, and in the overall philosophy with regard to envelope protection. The Airbus philosophy will prevent the pilot taking the aircraft outside of the flight envelope, the Boeing system will make it progressively harder to take the aircraft outside of the flight envelope, but not stop them. There's limited differences in cockpit control philosophy, but they're really quite minor at the system level.

82.24.122.84 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy

I've rewritten the first paragraph to make it less hysterical - computers do not go 'insane', not even with quote marks - and made the failure scenarios more generic rather than try to get into details of the various possibilites such as the potential failure of air data systems pumping faulty data into the FCS.

I've also rewritten the third paragraph and popped it out into a new section 'Efficiency of Flight' as it was trying to talk about the improved efficiences in operating costs and fuel usage of FBW systems, which is not relevant to redundancy, but probably is worth noting in terms of civil usage. 'Efficiency of Ownership' would probably be more accurate, but readers are more likely to be interested in lower fuel usage than in lower maintenance costs 82.24.122.84 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fly-by-wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327095042/http://personales.upv.es/juaruiga/teaching/TFC/Material/Trabajos/AIRBUS.PDF to http://personales.upv.es/juaruiga/teaching/TFC/Material/Trabajos/AIRBUS.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass-Tagging everything without detailed reason and even DELETING text just without a reference

...is not supported by Wikipedia rules! Period. This WHOLE article is seriously written by experts. Often the wording is not good. Mostly no reason for tagging without detailed reason or even deletion.

@Ahunt: Provide reasons for every paragraph. 87.150.119.206 (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually they are, per WP:V and WP:RS. As for your claims that the article is written by "experts", see Wikipedia:Expert editors for advice on that. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh Bilcat, as always you only see what you want to see: a reason to delete and destroy others work. Wikipedia:Expert editors clearly states problems with this text: But nothing about needed mass-tagging or required deletion. You are clearly wrong: A specific reason is needed for each tag. For each tag: what is the required challenge? 87.150.119.206 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In general: I do see a need for refs and rewriting some because of the wording of this expert-text. No reason for WP:TAGBOMB ! WP:OVERTAG and WP:DETAG gives everybody possibility to remove tags.

But Ahunt, if you detail your tags, it would help all. I spent already several hours, don't know if i do the rest, but surely i do nothing in a destructive environment. 87.150.119.206 (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: quickly read the whole article: cannot find anything wrong or clearly bad worded. What this article obviously needs is NOT 8 year old vague tag-bombing but a supportive environment! See overtag: "Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia." In improving Wikipedia, i will remove all tags without detailed reason after a few days. Ahunt, if needed we can use WP:DR. 87.150.119.206 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is clearly stated in Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We have mountains of stuff in this article which is uncited. It might be accurate or not, but it is unverifiable. Most of it has been tagged as needing a ref for eight years. The policy on this is very clear, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." We have no choice on Wikipedia polices, all editors are bound to follow them. It gets cited or it gets removed. If you need some time to find appropriate citations that is fine, that is why we have tags to indicate where citations are needed and also to warn readers that the text is unverified. If you are an expert on the subject then you should have a good idea where to find appropriate references to cite. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahunt: So you do not have the required challenge for each tag? 87.150.121.189 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to list each tag and why it was put there, because in each case it is the same, the text is not sourced and therefore not verifiable. Policy requires it to be sourced so it is verifiable, as I quoted above. Anything that is not verified by a footnote gets tagged as needing a footnote, Anything that has been tagged for a reasonable length of time (I think eight years is long enough to find a source) then must be removed. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales summed it up pretty well: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Wikipedia policy takes that same approach, sources are required. If the tag gets removed without a source cited then the text gets removed. Of course it can be restored at any time in the future, with a proper ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)