Crazy question to solve argument

Ron Levy said:
the control system is extremely responsive to stick pressures. If you've ever flown something like an Extra 300, you have an idea of what it's like.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ron - Now I know that I can fly an F-16. ;)

FWIW, for folks who haven't flown one - The EA300 probably has a total stick deflection available of about 6 inches from center in all directions (a square, of course, not a circle - So roughly a square foot of space where the stick could be.) To do a nice, fun aileron roll took only an inch of deflection from center. It's VERY sensitive - But man, what fun! :goofy:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Thanks Ron - Now I know that I can fly an F-16. ;)

FWIW, for folks who haven't flown one - The EA300 probably has a total stick deflection available of about 6 inches from center in all directions (a square, of course, not a circle - So roughly a square foot of space where the stick could be.) To do a nice, fun aileron roll took only an inch of deflection from center. It's VERY sensitive - But man, what fun! :goofy:
Click to expand...
As sensitive as it was - I had no issue calibrating myself to it within a second or so. Humans are good at that sort of thing.
 
If you have flown one you have flown them all. That's what I say about airplanes. Now a helicopter most would last about a half a second.
 
dennyleeb said:
Now a helicopter most would last about a half a second.
Click to expand...
I think most fixed wing pilots could do OK in a helicopter once it's in cruise. Taking off, landing and hovering would be another matter.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
FWIW, for folks who haven't flown one - The EA300 probably has a total stick deflection available of about 6 inches from center in all directions (a square, of course, not circles - So roughly a square foot of space where the stick could be.) To do a nice, fun aileron roll took only an inch of deflection from center.
Click to expand...
The deflections are even less in an F-16 -- way less. Originally, there was no stick movement at all, just a pressure sensor, but the test pilots didn't like it, and they put in a little movement, but IIRC only an inch or less.

It's VERY sensitive - But man, what fun! :goofy:
Click to expand...
Amen to both.
 
jesse said:
As sensitive as it was - I had no issue calibrating myself to it within a second or so. Some humans are good at that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. You're a good stick. A lot of people, well... not so much.
 
Yes, they could keep it upright and keep it going in the right direction. Airplanes are airplanes.

Background: 1300 (and counting) hours in the F-15, 34 backseat sorties in the F-16 and no less than 50 incentive rides given to people that have everything from an ATP to never been in an airplane before. If the jet is already flying and they get even the most basic instruction, even non-pilots can keep jets going in the direction they are going. Maintain alt/airspeed? Probably not. Probably not by a long shot. But - keep it off the ground while in VMC? Oh yeah. Airplanes aren't that different.

The kicker with fighters is learning how to employ them - not how to fly them. They are designed to be easy to "fly" - basic takeoff/landing/instrument flying is easy because you have to be able to do all that crap while your mind is on tactics.
 
EvilEagle said:
Maintain alt/airspeed? Probably not.
Click to expand...

I've been experimenting with the G1000 "glass" panel in Flight Sim X, and am having trouble maintaining altitude and airspeed even in a Cessna 172. (I probably have close to 1000 hours in round-dial 172s.)

I'm finding that I HATE tape displays!
 
Isn't the F-16 one of the few military aircraft to be inherently aerodynamically unstable? Or maybe it is just less stable than it's brethren -- I remember reading something on the tradeoff between high speed maneuvering and low speed stability or similar, and General Dynamics opted for the first "all electro-hydro" control system to compensate for the lack of stability.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Isn't the F-16 one of the few military aircraft to be inherently aerodynamically unstable? Or maybe it is just less stable than it's brethren -- I remember reading something on the tradeoff between high speed maneuvering and low speed stability or similar, and General Dynamics opted for the first "all electro-hydro" control system to compensate for the lack of stability.
Click to expand...
First, I know the F-16 is much less stable than its predecessors, but I don't know if it was just reduced, neutral, or actually unstable, and I don't think it's far off in that regard from its Navy counterpart/contemporary F/A-18A-D. But I do know that it was not the first "'all electro-hydro' control system" -- that was the F-111 (designed and built by GD a decade before the Viper). The F-16's flight control system is largely a conceptual duplicate of the 'Vark's, with all the old electromechanial and analog boxes being replaced by more modern digital units with more or less the same functionality.

Also, the current run of fighter types like the F-22 and F-35 are even looser in stability and more computer-dependent than the F-16.
 
EvilEagle said:
Background: 1300 (and counting) hours in the F-15, 34 backseat sorties in the F-16 and no less than 50 incentive rides given to people that have everything from an ATP to never been in an airplane before.
Click to expand...

The real question is, how do I get to be number 51?
 
astanley said:
Isn't the F-16 one of the few military aircraft to be inherently aerodynamically unstable? Or maybe it is just less stable than it's brethren -- I remember reading something on the tradeoff between high speed maneuvering and low speed stability or similar, and General Dynamics opted for the first "all electro-hydro" control system to compensate for the lack of stability.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

In 1986/87 I worked with recently retired Air Force instructor pilots who flew for the 425th TFTS. Some of them flew with the aggressor squadron. We were building an F-5 school for GE. One of the things they talked about was how they mixed it up with F-14s, F-15s and F-16s. They commented on how the F-16's flight management system took the pilots inputs as one parameter of the decision and how they could get the F-16s down into the slow speed realm of flight and the computer wouldn't let it do some of the things they could force the F-5 to do. They were firmly of the opinion that the F-16 had a fly-by-wire system which did not allow the pilot to directly control it. That's what they said.

John
 
Ron Levy said:
In the F-16, it ain't the displays, it's the flight control feel and response.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that you're right. It's just that for me, I would have the double handicap of not being used to "glass" panels.
 
jsstevens said:
In 1986/87 ... They commented on how the F-16's flight management system took the pilots inputs as one parameter of the decision and how they could get the F-16s down into the slow speed realm of flight and the computer wouldn't let it do some of the things they could force the F-5 to do. They were firmly of the opinion that the F-16 had a fly-by-wire system which did not allow the pilot to directly control it. That's what they said.
Click to expand...
That was correct. Early on, F-16 pilots complained about that problem in slow speed fights. However, I think the system was later modified with an override mode to allow the pilot to do what s/he wanted with the plane.
 
Palmpilot said:
I have no doubt that you're right. It's just that for me, I would have the double handicap of not being used to "glass" panels.
Click to expand...
That might be an issue in actual instrument conditions, but in visual conditions, it wouldn't matter much in terms of basic control of the plane. In any event, the F-16's I flew in were not really "glass panel" airplanes. They had conventional flight instruments plus the HUD. The glass panels were for things like weapons selection and control, not basic flight instruments.
 
Ron Levy said:
That was correct. Early on, F-16 pilots complained about that problem in slow speed fights. However, I think the system was later modified with an override mode to allow the pilot to do what s/he wanted with the plane.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have an override mode, but they aren't allowed to use it in training. Who knows how it will fly when they try to use it... :dunno:

We often get them into the "region of Hal" where the pilot is truly only a voting member - it's easy to take advantage of them there. :cornut:

chucky said:
The real question is, how do I get to be number 51?
Click to expand...
Become a TV personality, congressional staffer or famous military historian and you might get a chance. If it were up to me, I'd put every guy/gal that works on the jets in them for a ride before anyone else got one... unfortunately it doesn't work that way. :confused:
 
EvilEagle said:
Yes, they have an override mode, but they aren't allowed to use it in training. Who knows how it will fly when they try to use it... :dunno:
Click to expand...
Based on the Ritchie Hypothesis ("You fight like you train"), they probably won't even try it. OTOH, if it were a Navy jet, the Cunningham Corollary ("...So train the way you want to fight") would probably result in pilots being taught how and when to use it under appropriate training conditions so they would use it in combat -- effectively.
 
EvilEagle said:
Become a TV personality, congressional staffer or famous military historian and you might get a chance. If it were up to me, I'd put every guy/gal that works on the jets in them for a ride before anyone else got one... unfortunately it doesn't work that way. :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not likely to ever be any of the above. Your way sounds like the right way for things to work, but I can't say I'm surprised it isn't that way.
 
EvilEagle said:
Become a TV personality, congressional staffer or famous military historian and you might get a chance.
Click to expand...
Local media (radio, TV and press) get rides every time the Blues or T-birds come to town, so you don't have to be Oprah or the like to get a media ride. But they do ration those rides for the purpose of the whole operation -- maximizing publicity.

That said, the Navy used to have a program where each pilot recruiting officer (all pilots themselves) had a T-34 to give rides to prospects -- and they flew a lot. Dunno if the USAF ever did the same or if the Navy still does it. A T-34 ain't the same as an F-16, but it can still be a fun ride.
 
EvilEagle said:
Yes, they have an override mode, but they aren't allowed to use it in training. Who knows how it will fly when they try to use it... :dunno:
Click to expand...

From my little knowledge, FLCS is over-ridden in situations where the aircraft has departed controlled flight (ie falling leaf stall). Otherwise, since it's by design tail heavy it's required for normal flight operations.
 
EvilEagle said:
Yes, they could keep it upright and keep it going in the right direction. Airplanes are airplanes.
Click to expand...

At Airventure a few years ago, Chuck Yeager was giving a talk, and someone asked him how he was able to fly so many different types of planes in his career (basically the entire USAF inventory and some Navy planes too).

His response was basically the same thing, airplanes are airplanes. I think there was an aw shucks in there. I wish I had a tape of it now.
 
JeffDG said:
Just pull back on one of them, and you'll very rapidly discover which is which.

Love that the USAF use a Canadian officer to demo their plane! :D
Click to expand...

So easy, even a Canadian can do it!





Haaachachachacha! Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top