AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Hey also why is there so much fly by wire in these planes? What happens if you run out of electrical power or such? How do you move the controls and other items if you get rid of hydraulics?

There is always an APU (additional power unit), in other words one more small engine that feeds power independently from the others. Usually it is located near the tail.
Losing hydraulics presents another big challenge but there are cables running along the plane for emergency handling, old school style.

MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

You mean...Fly by Wire.

MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

Me too, I prefer Boeing to Airbus.
I know someone in the airline biz and they prefer Boeing too.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

Christopher Hartman wrote:
What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

Wings Fall Off a C-130 Hercules
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A4QZAxrb28

MTAP wrote:
Almost forgot something’s. On the Boeing 757 if there complete electrical failure, there is a little turbine that pops out of the side of the aircraft powered by the wind to provide electricity.  I’m not aware of it ever being used. Most critical systems run on DC and the batteries provide about 45 min of power.

Air Canada did when they ran out of fuel shortly after the 75/76 was introduced. They landed on a drag racing strip.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

What happens if ALL the engines fail or the wings fall off?

There are manual backup systems. On the 787, the rudder is in full control, the elevator is operated by manual controls to the trim tab and roll is handled by manual controls to the spoilers (you lose the ailerons).

"Old school" isn't necessarily more reliable than fly by wire. Primary flight control systems were operated hydraulically which has more room for failure. Moreover, fly by wire has several layers of redundancy before requiring manual controls that include bypassing the primary control system (direct electronic control) and then a battery in case of power loss.

If the wings break off, everyone dies. However, that hasn't ever happened on a modern jetliner. Last commercial plane I believe that happened to was the Electra 440.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

You mean...Fly by Wire.

No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

In the highly unlikely event that all that should happen you should...

stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
No, I thought fly by wire was the current method. I meant what happens if all the systems including fly by wire and the redundant backups fail. Is there a more mundane manual option for flight controls?

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

This one was amazing.  The pilots were able to steer the airplane without flaps or spoilers, and they landed roughly but safely.  The pilots rightly were feted as heroes.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

This one..and it was a Airbus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236


They call it Deadstick Landing...

Ta thanks

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
If that wasn't a serious story I'd be laughing...

But I did when I heard they are now changing all the batteries to Ni-Cads........ Is this a plane or a toy? Sorry I know but the moment they said Ni-Cad I just could not help but laugh.

Are you sure they said Ni-Cad? I couldn't find any mention of it in the last 8 months.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

Me too, I prefer Boeing to Airbus.
I know someone in the airline biz and they prefer Boeing too.

Please do tell us the reason... and not because you saw a sticker that said "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going".

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

But what happens on a plane like the 787 or A380 if there's a total electrical failure in flight, and the backups are also out?

Have they done away with old school controls?

No they still have basic instruments and the odds of losing all systems including the APU and RAT are so slim that it has NEVER happened since the early 80's when the first major screw up happened going from imperial measurements to metric. That was Air Canada 767-200 FIN604 that ran out of fuel and the pilots landed the aircraft dead stick. The engines having no fuel could not power the various on board systems and the APU which also runs on the same fuel was unable to provide back up power so the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) was deployed and it generated enough power to keep basic cockpit controls operational.

When the Airbus 320 that lost both engines due to multiple bird strikes had to ditch in the Hudson it was able to power the controls because the APU (Aux Power Unit) in the tail of the aircraft was able to run (there was fuel) and the RAT was also deployed.

FYI, Airliners tend to have triple redundant systems and in United FLT 232 a DC-10, the number 2 engine in the tail failed causing it to shoot shrapnel and puncture the lines of all three hydraulic systems routed through that area. The pilots used the remaining engine 1 and 3 to fly/steer the aircraft now having no wing surface controls.

Robb Mann wrote:
The Airbus A380, the Dreamliners main rival, suffered far worse teething problems, and got far less bad press.

The A380 is NOT the 787-800 main rival.

The A380's main rival is the 747-800 and maybe the 777-300ER.

FYI, the 787-800 is a 767-300ER replacement.

MTAP wrote:
Before I opened my studio, I worked for the airlines.  My last job with them was as a technical instructor. First of all there are no cables. The aircraft is too big. All the control surfaces are electrically controlled hydraulic actuators. What they do have is redundant systems.  Boeing normally has a left and right system. If you lose both of those systems the APU is not going to do anything for you. I’ll get on a Boeing any day of the week over an Airbus.

Yes, there were steel cables that controlled wing and tail plane surfaces at one time and on the biggest beasts in the air. The C5 Galaxy and the early 747s both used steel control cables.

de BUEN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

The A380 is NOT the 787-800 main rival.

The A380's main rival is the 747-800 and maybe the 777-300ER.

FYI, the 787-800 is a 767-300ER replacement.

I disagree. The A380 and 787 represent the direction each company believes will be the future of long range air travel. Airbus bet on a true 747 successor with huge capacity while Boeing choose efficiency and fuel savings. Both planes represent a huge risk and enormous gamble for their respective companies. I see each plane as the current 'halo' product for their company. These are the planes in the spotlight. The ones they bring to airshows to impress crowds.

de BUEN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
That was Air Canada 767-200 FIN604 that ran out of fuel and the pilots landed the aircraft dead stick.

The 757/767/777 (and I suspect 787) have 7:1 altitude to glide ratios, which also helps substantially when losing power!

Robb Mann wrote:

I disagree. The A380 and 787 represent the direction each company believes will be the future of long range air travel. Airbus bet on a true 747 successor with huge capacity while Boeing choose efficiency and fuel savings. Both planes represent a huge risk and enormous gamble for their respective companies. I see each plane as the current 'halo' product for their company. These are the planes in the spotlight. The ones they bring to airshows to impress crowds.

Airbus knew that Boeing with the smaller (than the 747-400ER) 777-300ER would not do what airlines wanting more seats wanted. The 747-400ER was over 20 years old by the time Airbus started on the A380 and was looking to take any orders that would have been for Boeing's 747 and 777.

The A380 was a direct attack on the 747-400ER market and Boeing responded by going to the 747-800.

Airbus is now going after the 787 and 777 markets with their new A350.

Claiming that two completely different aircraft types are direct competition is like someone claiming that the station wagon is the direct competitor to the 5 ton truck because they both haul goods and companies need that.