757 avionics

On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
"FriarTuck" wrote in message

...

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

A better question is...

Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
same
questions using different sock puppets?

Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm not
one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the 757
FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.

I was first! Nyah!

That just makes you the wankee.

Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

Good Lord, no.

On Oct 4, 4:20*am, wrote:

The question as to whether the 757 is FBW or not certainly has been...
Why don't you ask them what diameter the turn Hanjour made was? Or try
and explain to them how it would have been impossible for him to have
flown it, even though you don't knwo what the diameter of the turn
was? Or how, if he had flown it, you feel he would have probably
entered a "graveyard turn" despite it being mid-morning on a CAVU
day?

If you ignore the kook typeover messages this video was taken off a
kook site and shows a graphic of the socalled 'impossible' turn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0
At no time does the turn exceed a slow descending rate 2 turn and is
generally a rate1 throughout !

wrote in message
...
On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
"FriarTuck" wrote in message

...

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

A better question is...

Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
same
questions using different sock puppets?

Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm
not
one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the
757
FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.

I was first! Nyah!

That just makes you the wankee.

Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

Good Lord, no.

I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.

On 3 Okt, 21:38, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
"FriarTuck" wrote in message

...

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

A better question is...

Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks the
same
questions using different sock puppets?

Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you I'm
not
one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on the
757
FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.

I was first! Nyah!

That just makes you the wankee.

Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

Good Lord, no.

I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.

Cool! Jealous?

wrote in message
...
On 3 Okt, 21:38, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 3 Okt, 21:19, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 20:54, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 18:39, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
wrote in message

...

On 3 Okt, 17:46, "Mike" nospam@ microsoft.com wrote:
"FriarTuck" wrote in message

...

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

A better question is...

Why should anyone answer the questions of a troll who asks
the
same
questions using different sock puppets?

Ahem... by no means the same question, and I can assure you
I'm
not
one of Ducky's sockpuppets. He looked up a wiki article on
the
757
FMCS and decided it meant that the 757 was FBW.

Both of you asked the same question no less than 2 hours apart.

I was first! Nyah!

That just makes you the wankee.

Well, that's to be preferred, surely?

The pitcher and catcher are on the same team, no?

Good Lord, no.

I'm starting to see why you're the wankee.

Cool! Jealous?

No, just amused.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

FriarTuck wrote in
:

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?


Neither


you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k... why
is that?


The FMCS has full flight and landing capability, is it a separate
control system?

It can autland but it's seperate from the flight controls. You can
disengage it anytime you like.
It fails passive, which means you can manually oer-ride any time you
want.


The FANS network, is it capable of directing "goto location/altitude"
and "set airspeed to K" type commands to the plane?


Doesn't have one


Is the yoke and throttle a completely separate control system from the
FMCS control system or are they common?


seperate


but you contradict yourself in another reply and say its shared, you say
the fmcs uses the same controls as yoke...

is the throttle control in cockpit only routed through FMCS ?

No


I read that the yoke was capable of exerting more power on the surfaces
than the FMCS could, essentially giving yoke priority, is that correct?
If so can you describe how that works?


The stick will give more authority because the autopiot flies the
airplane in a more limited way than a pilot would. When it intercepts an
altitude, it does so smoothly with a limited G. A pilot can manuever the
airplane as abruptly as he likes, but of course, most do so just as
smoothly as the autopilot does.

so if autopilot/fmcs could not be switched off then the pilot has no way
of over-riding the controls?

Sometimes the autopilot isn't quite so smooth. If it gets "surprised" by
a track interception, for instance, it will be a bit jerky in roll, or
if it gets surprised by a pitch intercept it wasn't expecting and the
autothrottle gets a bit out of step it will pitch a bit harshly. Ridig
as a passenger this sort of thing is often felt in the back and mistaken
for hand flying.


Bertie

"FriarTuck" wrote in message
...
some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?



Your best bet is to talk directly to one of our experts on using flight
computers and autopilots:


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

FriarTuck wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

FriarTuck wrote in
:

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?


Neither


you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k... why
is that?

Apparently it's because

A, you can't read

B. you're a conspirawhacko

C. all of the above.



Take your pick.


Bertie===

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote in
:

"FriarTuck" wrote in message
...
some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?



Your best bet is to talk directly to one of our experts on using flight
computers and autopilots:



That's just mean.


Bertie

On 4 Okt, 01:52, FriarTuck wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
FriarTuck wrote in
:

some questions if anyone knows the answers...

is 757 fly by wire or fly by cable?

Neither

you contradict yourself again and say its fly by wire to parris_k...

No, he didn't. He said, over and over again, that it WASN'T fly by
wire. You're simply too stupid to understand what you are being told.
You ****ing braindead kook-sucker