To: Boot Hill
Since the A-300 is a fly-by-wire, i.e. a computer translates an input from the yoke and pedals to an electrical signal to an actuator, this would simply be a programming change.
11 posted on
06/01/2004 1:29:12 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Since the A-300 is a fly-by-wire, i.e. a computer translates an input from the yoke and pedals to an electrical signal to an actuator, this would simply be a programming change. Not quite. Part of the equation is the rate of response of the actuator and this could be related to air pressure on the airfoil as well as it's structural requirments.
There may not be a solution that meets NTSB requirements as well as the stability and structural requirements of the rudder.
17 posted on
06/01/2004 1:37:42 PM PDT by
tbeatty
(On ANWR: "Why should I care about a Caribou I'm never gonna eat?")
To: Blood of Tyrants
Since the A-300 is a fly-by-wire, i.e. a computer translates an input from the yoke and pedals to an electrical signal to an actuator, this would simply be a programming change. Actually the A300 and its smaller sister the A310 are not fly-by-wire. The A320 family (A318/319/320/321), A330-200/300, 340-200/300/500/600, and the new A380-800 are FBW.
To: Blood of Tyrants
Not the A310. It was conventional controls. A320s are FBW. However, if you think it was a shoe bomb, or a baggage bomb, an FBW plane would be much harder to take out, since the fiber optics and multiply redundant and the redundant links are run physically far apart.
30 posted on
06/01/2004 2:27:19 PM PDT by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Since the A-300 is a fly-by-wire... This was an early version of the A-300. It was not "fly by wire".
78 posted on
06/01/2004 5:31:33 PM PDT by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson