![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Lotsa snip IMO, the handling differences between the two jets are sometimes mischaracterized. Both aircraft are very honest. Workloads in the hover are very similar, except the first Harriers have neutral static stability in yaw below about 60kts -- a not-so-insignificant difference for transition flight. The first Harriers also have a much "lighter" control feel. I've seen it described as being more of a sportscar feel vs. a sedan, i.e. more responsive, and some experienced pilots preferred it. I've not heard that characterization but its a good one. However, in spite of the heavier stick forces, in conventional flight the H II is generally a much more maneuverable aircraft. Due to the stronger stability augmentation on the H II, it is slightly more forgiving of inattention to sideslip generation in transition flight, and protects the less experienced pilot as he (or she) ventures near the edges of the envelope. This would be the area where yaw-induced intake momentum drag rears its ugly head, especially in the first generation a/c? Intake momentum drag is a factor, but usually pilot action (overly aggressive roll inputs) or inaction (don't center the vane) are usually the biggest contributors to sideslip issues. Biggest change for most jet guys is learning to use their feet for something other than brakes and nosewheel steering. Particularly important factor in the first jet since the static margin in yaw is less than the H II. However, due to the different wing and its associated high-lift devices, at higher winds over the deck and while using the aft-most spots on the ship, you have to pay more attention to roll excursions. I suspect FBW will take care of that sort of thing in the F-35B. Of course, development to get the software to that point can be prolonged, as the MV-22 has been demonstrating. They seem to have gotten the uncommanded roll in the hover half over the deck and half not, and on the deck behind a helo, tamed at last. Any idea how the throttle logic is being implemented? AvLeak had an article a couple of years ago on the different approaches being pursued by Boeing and LockMart. IIRR one of them was planning for the throttle to control RoD directly in the hover, as opposed to controlling thrust directly. So, with the throttle in a hover position (with the computer providing whatever thrust is needed to achieve that), pulling the throttle back x amount would command say 3 fps RoD, y amount 5 fps, pushing it forward from neutral z amount would command 2 fps ascent, etc. Not sure what LM uses. I thought the Boeing arrangement was TOO automated, but that was based on very limited exposure in the sim. I know both went through many iterations. ISTR the other company was planning to use it to control hover height, but my memory of the article is very hazy. Guy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Frijoles" wrote:
Lotsa snip lotsa more snip flight. The first Harriers also have a much "lighter" control feel. I've seen it described as being more of a sportscar feel vs. a sedan, i.e. more responsive, and some experienced pilots preferred it. I've not heard that characterization but its a good one. However, in spite of the heavier stick forces, in conventional flight the H II is generally a much more maneuverable aircraft. Due to the stronger stability augmentation on the H II, it is slightly more forgiving of inattention to sideslip generation in transition flight, and protects the less experienced pilot as he (or she) ventures near the edges of the envelope. This would be the area where yaw-induced intake momentum drag rears its ugly head, especially in the first generation a/c? Intake momentum drag is a factor, but usually pilot action (overly aggressive roll inputs) or inaction (don't center the vane) are usually the biggest contributors to sideslip issues. Biggest change for most jet guys is learning to use their feet for something other than brakes and nosewheel steering. Particularly important factor in the first jet since the static margin in yaw is less than the H II. Just a note of thanks, Frijoles, from an old, broken down Ops pogue who retired out of VMA-231 before they got the "B". I've been watching your exchanges with Guy like a hawk, since there've been precious few "B" pilots posting here - like you're maybe the second or third. [Not many AV-8A pilots either, for that matter. Fighter jocks by the score, both shade of blue, but since they can't hover ...] -- OJ III [Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading. Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Tony | Naval Aviation | 290 | March 7th 04 07:58 PM |
Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14? | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 265 | March 7th 04 09:28 AM |