Talk:Aircraft flight control system/Archive 1

system
a "system" is a singular entity and does not take a plural number verb. it does not matter that the system is made of more than one component. you do not say "the computer are well-designed" do you, because the computer is made of multiple pieces of hardware? nor do you say, "the water are cold" because of its atomic composition of multiple atoms. please, because of such mistakes in this article, it is difficult to discern what exactly is being described: a single system or multiple systems. 141.211.120.63 14:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe it's describing the different types of flight control systems. First it describes what a flight control system is, then it describes the different types.  I checked all instances of the word system and it appears clear to me; I don't believe there is any misuse of the word.  Perhaps what you were talking about has been edited since you posted that comment though, I didn't check the history.  192.76.80.74 01:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fly By wire
A fly by wire flight control system is one in which there is no mechanical link from the pilot's controls [stick, throttle, rudder etc.] to the actual control surfaces [rudder, airlerons, elevators and engine etc]. Instead the connection is electronic,usually through a computer. The advantage of this is that the links between the pilot and the controls can be lighter, duplicated and run more conveniently. If a computer is involved then the plane can be programmed to stay within its flight envelope. Advanced planes such as the Eurofighter Typhoon could not be flown by a human alone. Of course, adding a computer to the process can create other problems, and lead to crashes. Most notoriously, the Airbus crash at the Tolouse airshow back in the 90s.

I do not believe that the Vulcan had a fly by wire system, not least because I remember seeing the world's first fully fly by wire aircraft at the Farnborough airshow in the 80s - it was a specially modified Jaguar.


 * Does fly-by-wire therefore get its name from the wires in the electronics? It would be helpful if this was clarified in the article. --BigBlueFish 09:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, it refers to the fact that all the flying inputs are made electronically, not physically. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 14:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is something wrong with this statement "first fitted to the Avro Vulcan in the 1940s." Aside from the date I must also add that I have sat in a museum exhibit Vulcan wiggled the rudder and heard the disconnected rod thumping in the fuselage. GraemeLeggett 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no mention of helicopter flight controls. they are much more complicated and interesting (preceding added by 64.180.167.82, 23 December 2006, unsigned 72.223.89.80 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)])

The whole of this Fly-by-wire section was copied straight from a book! (preceding added by 217.42.140.88, 29 January 2007, unsigned 72.223.89.80 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)])

I think that even the Airbus 330 has regular controls on its rudder and elevator trim, as backup. Hudicourt 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I agree that Flying a fixed-wing aircraft without control surfaces should not be a separate article, but should be merged into this one. EuroSong talk 10:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that A320 flight control should be merged into this article. Namely, A320 flight control is specific to the A320 family whereas this article has a more general scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Js coron (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we need a separate article on A320 flight control though? It seems too specific. ~EdGl   (talk)  14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft flight control systems -> Fly by wire -> cars
I realize that some cars are fly by wire, but it's a stretch to include a section on cars in an article about `aircraft flight control systems'. Perhaps it should be moved into a `fly by wire' or it's own article? dougmc 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this section, now covered by the Drive by wire article. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Fly By Wire
The Sukhoi T-4 was NOT a FBW airplane at all because the design was highly, and primarily dependent on the mechanical-hydraulic system. It would be more accurate to term the T-4's design as "electrically augmented flight controls", Not  FBW at all  (actually,  the T-4 was a bit of a flying nightmare, not a primitive FBW jet.)   The Avro Vulcan was not FBW either, a much more elegant design to say the least,  but not FBW. Also, the F-15 Eagle is NOT a FBW Fighter, because the conventional mechanical-hydraulic system is primary, and responsible for the airplane (in the F-15 the electrical flight controls part of it are termed "Automatic Flight Controls"  and it is  not credited as being an FBW aircraft.  Same goes for the F-18). In the F-15 and F-18 (as well as the T-4 and Vulcan) the airplane is totally dependant on rod and bearing connections from cockpit to hydraulics, and will crash without that mechanical link. Also the mechanical link, overrides the electrical or so-called "FBW" concept. The first ever True Fly By Wire type (at all) was the NASA F-8C the first ever FBW Fighter was the YF-16 in 1974, and the first production FBW Fighter was the F-16 in 1978. A lot of these other claims are non-substantiated and need to be deleted. The funny thing is, someone has deleted the F-16,  which was the first and most significant FBW Fighter of all of these. Bwebb00 (talk)

AFCS = Automatic Flight Control System
In the opinion of aircraft engineers the AFCS is an abbreviation of "Automatic" FCS, as the words used in this article "Aircraft Flight"CS are tautological: the word "Flight" implies, that an "Aircraft" is meant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.44.178 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:AvroArrow1.jpg
The image File:AvroArrow1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Departure
Would be nice if this article defined flight control "departure". 70.251.147.137 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would but the scope of this article is very specific to the control systems only as it states in the lead paragraph where a link to Flight mechanics is given, the 'see also' section of that article gives many links to similar subjects. Protection of 'departure from controlled flight' via systems is rightly mentioned here (stick shaker, stick pusher and a sentence in the digital FBW section etc.). By having a defined scope for articles the project avoids too much overlap of subjects, relying instead on readers to click the blue links to find out more, its mostly there, just need to find it which is not always as easy or logical as it could be sometimes. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nimbus. What I probably should have said is that I want to disambiguate a flight control departure.  Since I'm not an expert on such matters, I'll take your word that flight mechanics is a better place to put this information; the "stick shaker", "stick pusher", etc. terms mean nothing to me.  Agree that appropriate scope is important, but I'm trying to make it easier for novices like me to find appropriate places to look for terms like "departure".  This article seemed like the appropriate place to ask.  70.251.241.131 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Article split
The possible split of this article is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is split, which seems a good idea, can we lose the Incidents on commercial airliners somewhere as it doesnt appear to add any value as presented. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spit and also MB1's suggestion! - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at that section before, quite well written but again, virtually unreferenced. Those accidents are easy to reference. The control failures were secondary to the main causes, some of them are notable for how the crews maintained flight after the failure. I think we need another split though not sure quite where to send this stuff, a 'list of' article? We do need this article to focus purely on the systems. More head scratching! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have formed the basis of a new article in one of my sandboxes relating to the incidents section. I think the subject is notable enough. I have removed incidents where there was no hope and it was not proven that the pilots had any control left at all and started to add cites. A problem I have is what to call it, in the infobox I have called it List of aircraft incidents and accidents involving loss of flight controls which is a bit lengthy but I do think that it can only be a list article. There will be sourced military aircraft incidents for another section but I have not looked for any yet. Suggestions on a post card please on the title and indeed whether it is worth continuing with this or just deleting the section outright (I am an inclusionist if it can be achieved). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sandbox article looks good and I agree with what you have proposed. The current sandbox article is really more than a list right now, so perhaps the title could be tightened up to Aircraft flight control incidents and accidents or List of aircraft flight control incidents and accidents ? - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is slightly more than a list with the prose (but you can have lists with prose!!). I'm not entirely sure of the scope either, most of the events there have been control problems caused by something else (so secondary I suppose). Roy Chadwick was killed in an aircraft with reversed cables and there will be a few incidents of taking off with the controls disabled, gust locks fitted etc. The section header is currently 'Flying with disabled controls', I have considered the much shorter Flight with disabled controls. This could include the consequences of trying to fly with disabled controls, like the Chadwick accident. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree that the sandbox stuff looks less like a list now looking at it again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may wnat to include a link to DH4 Caribou with controls locked. That kind of sums up the whole issue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the kind of thing, seen that before. I would think that hurt a bit. Have not even looked at the FBW section yet, seemed easier to start with the part that I could cite easily. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thought (dangerous!) is that the article can always be moved if the title is not to everyone's liking (with or without discussion as the case may be!). In that case Flight with disabled controls is looking likely at the moment. Will hang on for other comments and I should try to expand/improve the current sandbox version before preparing for PROD/AfD! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good title. Shorter is better. As you note if people don't like it then it can be moved. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, all welcome to have a play in there BTW. I just split the incidents using cause headers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, that article is live now and the section has been removed, added a link to it from the see also section. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fly-by-wire
The sandbox now has the FBW section in it for a new article, provisionally Electronic flight control system, Fly-by-wire redirects here at the moment, getting there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wondering whether to highlight this at WT:AIR? I am trying to weed out any irrelevant stuff but this will still leave many unreferenced (but mostly correct) facts behind. I don't have any paper references and don't really have the time to trawl the Internet either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    09:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The new article looks good, I have a watch on it! I think it couldn't hurt to ask for contributions at WT:AIR. The worst you will get is ignored! - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * True! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess that there are no FBW experts in the aircraft project from the predicted underwhelming response! Is there a problem with creating a new article that already has cite needed tags? Probably not. It has a few references, the stuff I added is from my own memory (OR, God forbid!) but is correct to the best of my knowledge, just needs a reliable source. I did some traditional flying by wire today, they all held together for an hour, marvellous! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem with a new article having some fact tags in it, hopefully that will encourage someone to add refs! Personally my own library just about all predates FBW! - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, do we think that the title would be ok (Electronic flight control system)? The redirect Fly-by-wire could be filled with the text but to me FBW is a nickname, although it might well be the most common term for this type of system, I ought to look what the aviation authorities call it around the world. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance the UK CAA and the FAA seem to just call it 'fly-by-wire'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fly-by-wire seems to be the Transport Canada terminology as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I've tweaked the wording in the sandbox to suit and will fill the redirect, leaving the lead para behind for this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a viable plan! - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, I hope a bot fixes any double redirects, a lot of articles link to it. It looked like there was article content at the redirect page before it was redirected here, the talk page had been previously deleted. Are we done?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects needed to this article
Flight-control system needs to redirect this article to make things a lot easier to do with other articles that need to link to this one. Furthermore, there are compeling grammatical reasons why these terms should includ hyphens: Aircraft flight-control system and Flight-control system. People need to look up and read about the use of attributive adjectives in the English language. To simplify things, it needs to be observed that "flight-control" is one adjective that modifies "system", and the hyphen is needed for clarity. Let the letters {A, B, C} represent three words in English where "C" is a noun. Then, it is not hard to find cases in which "A-B C" means one thing, but "A B-C" means something else, but {A B C} is just plain ambiguous add confusing. Here is an example: "blue-book store" and "blue book-store" mean different things. "blue book store" is just plain ambigous. Thus, the title of this article needs to be changed somewhat. 98.67.107.90 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Primary controls
trottle is NOT one of the primary controlls of aircraft. Due to the fact that an aircraft is able to fly without the engine, the trottle is not considered to be primary. It should be changed to secondary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.172 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. Not all aircraft are able to fly without the engine. Gliders certainly can. But the sentence is already qualified with the phrase "for powered aircraft". Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In my experience we are unlikely to get a response from a single post IP but the general criteria of primary controls is that they change direction and speed (also being subject to duplicate inspections during maintenance where secondary controls would not). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not a qualified flight instructor so I cannot comment but as a low hours pilot, I do know that " Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight controls as they change speed" is an un-true statement. Aircraft engine controls affect power which is not the same as speed. Ignoring the secondary effects of all controls for a moment, elevators control airspeed. Langewiesche says "The so-called 'elevator' is really the airplane's speed control, the throttle is really its up-and-down control".[1] Pedantic I know but the encyclopaedia should not present incorrect information


 * [1]
 * --Senra (Talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Propulsive force' may be more technically correct but I expect this is a valid generalisation following the guideline of Make technical articles understandable.


 * British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) defines a control system for the purposes of duplicate checks as: A system by which the flight path, attitude, or propulsive force of an aircraft is changed, including the flight, engine and propeller controls, the related system controls and the associated operating mechanisms.


 * Your example of the use of controls is correct for an aircraft in flight but not on the ground, we also have to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and should not be read as one either. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Placement of elevators
I updated the page slightly and also like to see some information added on why the control surfaces are placed where they are. In particular the elevators are placed on a weird spot for anyone that isn't schooled in aeronautics. If one does not have prior knowledge, one could think that:

it would be possible to integrate the elevators for ascending/descending (pitch) on the wings (normally, they're on the tail, see the wikipedia animation). For this, both ailerons would be rotated in the same direction (down for lift, up for descending). The tail is then only given a rudder (for yaw; left and right) For the roll, wing warping could be used.

However, the elevators are on the tail and the ailerons are on the wing for good reason. The ailerons have to be far out on the wing to give a good lever arm to roll the airplane. The elevators have to be far ahead of the center of gravity on the airplane (canard, as used ie in Wright Brothers aircraft) or far behind the center of gravity (on the tail) to give a large lever arm for attitude control. For a typical small airplane the elevators are adjusted to put about a 200 lb (100 kg) load on the tail.

Add in article. 91.182.167.237 (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article for this would be Flight control surfaces, mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. This article is about the systems (cables and chains etc) that drive these surfaces. It's possible we need a hatnote to make this clearer. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    13:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is Trim covered in Wikipedia?
I just searched for 'trim' in Wikipedia and there is no such article. Instead, it directed me to this article. Which virtually doesn't cover it.

Even the word 'trim' occurs twice only, and only in passing. Hence there seems to be no definition of 'trim' in Wikipedia.

As late as 2013, that there can be a subject left uncovered in Wikipedia is amazing to me.

Hence: One, define 'trim'. Two, there should be at least a separate section with heading 'Trim'. Three, perhaps you may want a separate article, 'Trim'.

Jimlue (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Trim tab. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And Trim (aircraft) (from the DAB page Trim) which redirects to the relevant section of this article. Not much to add as the mechanical systems work much the same as the main controls. There are some other trim systems, fuel transfer on the Avro Vulcan and Concorde for pitch trim comes to mind which are possibly beyond the scope of this article. An article or section on actually trimming an aircraft for balanced flight would come under WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTMANUAL so is probably why it's not here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added some main article links for secondary controls, might help. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The links you added actually look good. Hopefully that will help readers find what they are looking for. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not in alphabetical order but that's not compulsory! The post did perhaps show a shortfall in coverage/linking, hopefully it's better now. There is more interesting stuff on trimming, Spitfire aileron trailing edges being bent with pliers and pieces of rope doped to ailerons of WWI biplanes etc. but it's most likely unencyclopedic. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft flight control system. 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/20110616074103/http://www.flxsys.com/aerospace.shtml to http://www.flxsys.com/aerospace.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322211547/http://www.flxsys.com/pdf/NATO_Conf_Paper-KOTA.pdf to http://www.flxsys.com/pdf/NATO_Conf_Paper-KOTA.pdf
 * Added tag to http://journals.pepublishing.com/content/m9r3684g2874w026/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Circular linking
In the 'Secondary controls' subsection of the 'Cockpit controls' section, the link for 'elevator trim' takes the reader to the Trim tab article, which states that "Trim tabs are small surfaces [...] used to control the trim of the controls", with the link for 'trim' bringing the reader back to the 'secondary controls' subsection of this article. Thus the reader is none the wiser what 'trim' actually means..... ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. I have changed the target for the link from "elevator trim" - see my diff. What do you think? Dolphin ( t ) 11:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That is better. Thanks. Do you think the link to this article from the Trim tab article also needs changing, or even removing, seeing as the trim tab article is listed as a 'main article' for this concept? Indeed, which is the best article that explains the concept of 'trim'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I now think the best explanation of the verb to "trim" an aircraft is found in the Trim tab article, at Trim tab. I will deactivate the link to this article. Dolphin ( t ) 00:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)