New Blackhawk

[Gatordev]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3252386&C=airwar

Anybody know anything about what the fly-by-wire computers actually do? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just don't understand how it makes things "better." My take-away from the article: 3 onboard flight computers (instead of one), so that means 3 times the AFCS troubleshooting, right?

 

[ChuckMK23]

So I would guess the FBW actuators simply replace the hydraulic control servos - so no hydraulic plumbing running to the cockpit - just multiple fiber runs. Very evolutionary - e.g. the appropriate use of mainstream technology to improve an already great aircraft!

I bet you get all sorts of cool things now - as far as AP and stabalization - a lot more consolidation of black boxes and connectors, etc.

Can't be bad thing.

 

[MasterBates]

All I can see is elimination of the mixing unit, PAM, and TR control cables.

Replace the PAM/Mixing Unit moving the Primary Servos with the Primaries being actuated by a solenoid controlled valve vice the PAM/MU moving the pilot valves on the servos.

IMHO, unneeded complexity, and in something that is going to be shot at and operating in a heavy EM environment (SPY At GHP, 10 feet from array, TACSIG anyone?) is asking for trouble..

Commercial jets have it.. They don't get shot at as part of their normal job. Fighters have it, but they have the "magic handle" when all else fails (ejection seat)

I can't recall there being enough problems with the -60's flight controls.

Plus, the reliability of the current AFCS is not exactly confidence inspiring, if that is all that is flying. At least in the 60B, we had a backup when AFCS failed... YOU!

 

[Brett327]

Fighters have it, but they have the "magic handle" when all else fails (ejection seat)

I really doubt that this is a factor when they're designing requirements for new hardware.

Brett

 

[Rubiks06]

No...but when you lose your ability to control the aircraft taking a quick ride to the outside must be a nice option. As opposed to being strapped to a multi-million dollar brick.

 

[Brett327]

No...but when you lose your ability to control the aircraft taking a quick ride to the outside must be a nice option. As opposed to being strapped to a multi-million dollar brick.

While that may be true, it's not the point I'm making. Whether a particular aircraft has a means of egress during an emergency has absolutely no bearing on design or reliability consideration for the hardware in that aircraft. The engineers don't say, "Well, this new AFCS works 90% of the time, so we'll just put it in ejection seat aircraft and the crew will just have to punch out for that other 10%." I'm just pointing out a flaw in MB's logic.

Brett

 

[MasterBates]

I'm just pointing out that in an aircraft that has BEEN KNOWN to have EMI issues at the boat, making it FBW is not a good plan. I was glad I had the AFCS in the 60B, but I have seen too many weird things at das boot, even with the AFC for shielding on the wires.

SPY pumps out a lotta juice.

I can't see the benefits of the the FBW for the 60s.. Just can't. Not that much weight to be saved. The reliability of the current AFCS in the helo, even if the new one is 100x better/reliable, and there are 3 (vice 2 now).. I'm glad I'm not flying it.

 

[phrogdriver]

FBW does not mean it will be EMI suseptible. Even if one fries, it's got 2 friends that are crosschecking it and can take over if need be. The redundancy builds reliability, as does the nature of electronics itself. I know everyone thinks of Windows 95 when they think of computer reliability, but electrons are a hell of a lot more reliable than pulleys, bellcranks, and cables. You can run electrons through a wire from now until doomsday, and its not going to wear out. How many times can you move a pushrod before that cotter key falls out? Don't know? Neither do I.

Plus, obviously the Army and Navy are planning on having this platform for awhile. FBW helps upgradability. If something changes in the system, you don't have to rejigger everything--you just reprogram the software and test it primarily via modeling and simulation. That's not even including the UAV upgrade they seemed to be hinting at in the article!

 

[Brett327]

^^ Hey, somebody gets it! Whee!

Brett

 

[BigIron]

I am not sure if the article got it right. Maybe I'm the confused one. The author is calling the new flight control system FADEC. FADEC is engine controls; not flight controls. Unless they are talking about the collective being a sensory input to the FADEC FCU. I thought some of you 60 warriors already had FADEC (of some sort).

This whole FBW is a different beast. I think it involves signals sent to actuators and servos vice control rods. That makes me nervous as a pilot especially in cases of power failures. However, I guess that's why the govt pays SAC the big bucks to figure this stuff out.

The airframers are going to dig it. They can blame all the AE/ATs for everything now.

 

[MasterBates]

^^ Hey, somebody gets it! Whee!

Brett

You ride in it..

I've had a couple not so nice experiences over the back of the boat or on approach when SPY was not shut down as needed and AFCS started going bat-shit. And I'm not the only one. Traced to bad shielding (which was an AFC at one point before my time). Worked good/solved problem when new. Not so good when the shielding had worn by so many flexing cycles, being stepped on, what have you.

Having a fairly good working understanding of the flight controls on a 60.. Short of the UAV upgrade, I don't see where its better. If a helo was being designed from the ground up for it, I could see where it helps with packaging.

I prefer to be a pilot, not just a piece of baggage that has 1 of 4 votes on what the aircraft does.

 

[Brett327]

You ride in it.

I do. My jet has a new digital AFCS system in it that is less (not more) susceptible to EMI than it's electro-mechanical predecessor. FBW has been around for a long time now and SPY isn't the only thing putting out a bunch of trons. If there were issues with either, we would have heard about it by now. DFCS/FBW systems allow legacy aircraft to do things that weren't possible before - flyability, performance, envelope expansion, etc. Your fears are irrational.

Brett

 

[phrogdriver]

I do ride in a fly-by-wire aircraft that also uses FADECS for engine control. It really is the way to go. The 1-out-of-4-votes cliche is really garbage. Is the CO really 1 voting member out of 150 in a squadron? I suppose, but his vote is the one that matters. The "votes" of the flight control computers are really more like an electronic ASO coming in and saying, "uh...you really don't want to do that, 'cause that will kill everyone here" It's not as if you'll be saying "go left," and the FCC says "no, I think we'll go this way."

No ejection seat for me, BTW. Not that it matters.

 

[k_smittay]

FBW is a great idea. Phrogdriver really hit it on the head with his post talking about the reliability and redundancy of the new system. As a maintainer CDQAR for 5 years now I have seen hydro-mechanical systems work less than 4.0 on many occasions with no real troubleshooting guidelines to help fix them.

Flight control rods, hardware, bearings and bell cranks go out of limits often and they really are a pain in the ass to check with any real certainty unless you are just looking at the flight controls you can easily see such as the ones in the mixing units or readily on top of the aircraft.

I am sure some of the 53 pilots on this site can attest that they have had to have the airframers out during a pre-flight with a micrometer on many occasions to verify if the bell cranks on the MGB were still within limits, because they never looked like they were! Also, you always run that risk of jamming a control rod somewhere in the system with some sort of FOD or something that shouldn’t be near a flight control but finds its way there.

The new system takes out a lot of guesswork for troubleshooting. A+. Wires are very reliable, unless you are in an old H-53 for example which still may have capton wiring. As far as EMI goes, only certain signals are susceptible and those are normally modulated analog signals not 5/28 vdc digital control signals.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

I've never been a fan of the whole FBW concept either. However, if there is one thing that it brings to the table that I'm all for, its the elimination of many FOD risks. As a COD crewman / Mech I have been involved in a couple FOD incidents that scared the sh!t out of me (when looking back on it I realized what could have happened.) I've been launched off the boat with a 12" MagLight tucked up in the main gear doors. Somehow it was still there when we landed on the beech. And the sencond was at my last command, we were delivering an E-2 to Norfolk and when we shut down over there we folded the wings on the line and a 8 inch section of a 2x4 was found stuck in the wing butt area during the squadrons acceptance inspection.