Re: Design Philosophy -Reply -Reply
Geoffrey McCarthy (GMCCARTHY_at_FALCON.AL.WPAFB.AF.MIL)
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:15:29 -0500
I started this very defensive exchange, and the 2 or 3 responses from
defenders thus far have said 1. "I love the airplane I'm *now*
flying." A valid response, but an emotional one. *I* like any
airplane, good or bad, that gets me some flying time... 2. "The
training was the toughest and thus most rewarding..." I'll bet the
training was mostly about the intricacies of the software - the list
of flight control laws was impressive, for one. For comparison, the
F-16 has one for gear-up flight from -3 to +9G, with alpha and the 9G
limiter, and modifies the laws for landing. There is a manual pitch
overrride that allows direct control of the slab for deep stall/spin
recovery. Training: virtually none. I twould be of interest to
compare the original FBW machine, the Space Shuttle, which has a
quad-parallel flight control computer with a 5th channel on standby.
The 5th was written independently, just in case of unknowm flaws in
the primary. I'll bet it's less complex than the European
manufacturers... As for the accident rate, the numbers don't lie.
Accidents attributable to crew uncertainty re the automation, I still
bet its the hands-down leader. Opinions my own, and thus far I am not
convinced by the respondents. McC