-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Blues to Get Supers?
- Thread starter Hopeful Hoya
- Start date
Very cool stuff MIDN and Seven, as a plane geek I love reading about this stuff, so thank you.
I think we reached that point a while ago.
^^ what he said. Thanks for the clarification man. Guess what I was trying to say was "force vs displacement" rather than "rate vs displacement." Touche on your edit…..can't make that mistake in the debrief
I'm just glad it made sense. I like your description of the F-16 takeoff, BTW- I remember a little hop as I got airborne in that jet. Do you think a simulated flameout approach is easier than the normal landing pattern? I did- for some reason, the energy management felt more intuitive than the "normal" pattern.
Some other points about being "off trim" are that it's hard to replicate a precise off-trim force/displacement the same way every flight for precision formation, and the trim force would not vary linearly throughout the range of pitch rate and g, making it a very difficult compensation technique. A spring the pilot can disconnect from the stick is also way better for safety if there is an problem with the jet or the pilot needs to remove their hand from the stick in-flight for any reason. Off-trim conditions don't make that as quick, and some FCS failures would be dangerous trimmed to one end of the longitudinal range (MECH reversion in the Hornet comes to mind, which is a squirrely failure at the best of times). Finally, I don't remember having that neutral position "dead band" with the F-16, so being off trim would seem to be a solution looking for a problem.
I'll bet the Thunder Chickens fly "normal stick" jets, unless their mod package includes some kind of change to the control laws, which sounds expensive, but hey- it's the Air Force. Money doesn't matter.
On my last deployment, it wasn't so much that we had separate Hornet squadrons so much as an airwing-wide shell game to make the ATO. With some assists from the Supers. Those broke-ass early lot Charlies made us fat kids look good. Yeesh.
You've just described P-3 operations for many years now.
Yes, I would agree with that statement. IMO, it is because there are less variables. I think we all have a pretty good feeling for sink rate, and if we can make the runway from a given point with that sink rate. You can also really cheat (as I do), and just fly a tighter/higher pattern and know that you have excess energy to burn with the boards or dropping the gear earlier…..kind of like a haircut, you can always take more hair/energy out, but you can never add it back. In the power on landing pattern, you have to divorce yourself from our normal Hornet habit patterns. I think that is mainly the engine response, and a much higher thrust/weight ratio at comparable power settings. I'm sure you saw that jockeying the throttle around as you would in a Hornet, gets you real fast real quick with an F100. There is a little weirdness with throttle for glideslope or nose position/FPM, but to be honest, I still fly it with power controlling GS……you just need to be a lot more ginger and patient with power corrections. That and you need to have a feel for the flare. If I'm greater than 11 AoA when I start, the throttle goes immediately to idle and I bleed the excess speed in the flare and generally still land a little flat/fast…..typically a bounce. If at 11-13 AoA, that is both where you can make a pretty precise landing without a bounce, and also where you need to be really aware of sink rate and correct it with a smooth power off movement to keep it from bouncing. So in short, I think there are a lot more variables in the normal pattern, and your average guy (myself being an example) will probably be pushing 180-200 knots until short final if left to their own devices. The well ingrained muscle memory of our Hornet "no further aft" point with throttle position is a bear to overcome in the Viper. The position of the F-16 throttle in a controlled, steady state 2.5 deg final is way aft of the point where you 903/904 a Hornet or have a scary fly through down to the ace.
But does the F-16 HUD have a crosshairs? WHAT DOES IT MEAN
We have a bananas guns pipper/reticle/equivalent FEDS pair which still blows my mind, but is somewhat more useful than the Hornet symbology somehow.
The pedals in both jets move.
Here's another thing to take into account: The F-16 is rate command while the F-18 is g command. In the F-16 (Viper, Fighting Falcon, whatevs), movement of the control stick generates a rate in that direction. So you pull back on the stick and the aircraft moves up at a predetermined rate. You pull back on the stick more and there's a higher rate. Same in the other axis. While this seems normal (more pull = more movement), there are some different nuances between rate command and your standard aircraft. For example, you roll into a dive delivery and with the nose pointed at the target and you release the controls, it won't move. You're not commanding a rate out of the aircraft so it'll keep going that direction.
In the F-18, it's g command meaning movement of the control stick increases (or decreases) g loading. You pull the stick back more you increase the g (and turn rate, etc). Again, this seems normal but now you go back to the dive delivery and when you roll on the target the nose wants to wander upwards. The reason is that in a dive you're at less than 1g so the aircraft is trying to achieve 1g. That's where trim comes into play.
Rate commanded systems are more prone to "ratcheting" or sampling because movement of the stick doesn't feel natural so you're trying to find the right amount. When I flew it, I had the same issue and it took a little bit getting used to. The narrow wheel base of the F-16 doesn't help either on landing (I bounced it left to right a couple times).
I think the F-16 is rate command with the gear down as well, but changes when you open the refueling door and goes to AOA command. This is your more traditional aircraft control logic and feels mostly like a conventional aircraft. The F-18 is AOA command with the gear down which makes it easier to land (especially when you're doing AOA approaches) and again, feels like a more conventional aircraft. The Mirage (2000D), is g command at all times however, has it's own nuance of increased stick forces when AOA goes above 15-17. I think that's more warning for getting slow than for landing itself. It has it's own landing issues in of itself but the g command system doesn't help either.
Hope that all makes sense.
In the F-18, it's g command meaning movement of the control stick increases (or decreases) g loading. You pull the stick back more you increase the g (and turn rate, etc). Again, this seems normal but now you go back to the dive delivery and when you roll on the target the nose wants to wander upwards. The reason is that in a dive you're at less than 1g so the aircraft is trying to achieve 1g. That's where trim comes into play.
Rate commanded systems are more prone to "ratcheting" or sampling because movement of the stick doesn't feel natural so you're trying to find the right amount. When I flew it, I had the same issue and it took a little bit getting used to. The narrow wheel base of the F-16 doesn't help either on landing (I bounced it left to right a couple times).
I think the F-16 is rate command with the gear down as well, but changes when you open the refueling door and goes to AOA command. This is your more traditional aircraft control logic and feels mostly like a conventional aircraft. The F-18 is AOA command with the gear down which makes it easier to land (especially when you're doing AOA approaches) and again, feels like a more conventional aircraft. The Mirage (2000D), is g command at all times however, has it's own nuance of increased stick forces when AOA goes above 15-17. I think that's more warning for getting slow than for landing itself. It has it's own landing issues in of itself but the g command system doesn't help either.
Hope that all makes sense.
"100%" Combat Sortie Completion Rate
Hey, if the CAOC said they didn't really need that ATO event, it never existed. Right? Right??
Romeo! Get me the LNO up on chat!! I have FITREP bullets to write!
