On 6 Okt, 15:30, FriarTuck  wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:14:22 -0700, parris_k wrote:
> > On 6 Okt, 15:09, FriarTuck  wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:39:20 퍍, FriarTuck wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:32:53 -0700, parris_k wrote:
>
> >> >> On 4 Okt, 20:32, Bertie the Bunyip <B...@BB.not.aaaaaaa> wrote:
> >> >>> FriarTuck  wrote
> >> >>> innews:XeyFk.1626$qw.48@newsfe18.ams2:
>
> >> >>> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:13:16 퍍, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> FriarTuck  wrote in
> >> >>> >>news:E_qFk.4622$8T1.4572@newsfe28.ams2:
>
> >> >>> >>> 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===>
>
> >> >> Hmm... that would seem to answer your question, woudln't it Tucky?
>
> >> > not in the slightest.... someone called bertie the bunyip posts two
> >> > or three contradictory statements.... so... whats new...
>
> >> > fact is, to my post he said "neither" (as you quoted above) to you he
> >> > said its fly by wire....
>
> >> > read into it what you like...
>
> >> > I say the wrong definition is given to the airbus, its the latest in
> >> > a long chain of fly by wire (the electrical hydraulic activators
> >> > without which the surface control would not happen) aircraft and is
> >> > in fact "fly by software".
>
> >> > I await your proof that the 757 can fly without electrical power.
> >> > (carried through wires...)
>
> >> if you want an example you can look up the gimli glider incident where
> >> the rat was deployed to generate emergency electrical power... (along
> >> the "wires")
>
> >> note the mention of "electronic" and "battery".... for critical
> >> systems...
>
> >> no electrical power... no flying... (well unless you consider
> >> plummeting flying...)
>
> > Bullshit. YOu may have noticed aircraft don't generally have electric
> > engines...
>
> well its a feedback loop, engines provide power (hydraulic and
> electrical) to systems (hydraulic and electrical) that regulate how much
> power the engines produce...

In a very small subset of aircraft..

>
> how do the engines start?  surely not electrically? through wires?

Depends on the aircraft. Larger airliners use a battery to start an
APU which starts the engines with bleed air. Some GA planes can be
hand-propped, black-powder cartrdiges were also pretty popular up to
the 60s...

> through the ground electrical hookup or plane battery systems....

More often than not. So?

>
> and all flight instruments are electrically powered on 767 and 757, you
> will be telling me you can fly it without instruments next....

Of course it can fly without instruments, you silly sod. What
aerodynamic effect do you think they give? Hang gliders manage it
perfectly well.

>
>
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
>
> >> The 767 was one of the first airliners to include an Electronic Flight
> >> Instrument System (EFIS), a system that required the electricity
> >> generated by the aircraft's jet engines in order to operate. With both
> >> engines stopped, therefore, the system went dead, leaving only a few
> >> basic battery-powered emergency flight instruments.- Dölj citerad text
> >> -
>
> >> - Visa citerad text -
>
> > LOL! What tangent are you off on now, you silly lying cunt?
>
> what is a lie about that? its a classic example of them not being able to
> have saved the plane without possibly the most critical system in the
> plane the electronic instruments

No, the most critical system in the plane (from the point of view of
the instrumentation) is probably the static ports/pitot tubes.

>
> you see they landed the plane without engines... but could not have done
> it without battery backup electronic systems

What does any of this have to do with your utter inability to
understand what FBW is or the fact that the 757 is not FBW?