Piper Cub Vs F-15

What the F-15 does have is a stability augmentation system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-15e.htm

The first production fly-by-wire aircraft was the F-16.

Concord actually. They even wanted to put sidearm controllers on it.


F-16 was the first with a DIGITAL FBW. I think Corcorde, and possibly F-111
too had analog systems.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

In article ,
(Eunometic) writes:
Alan Dicey wrote in message ...
Emilio wrote:

Do F-15 fly by wire system prevent the aircraft from stalling at that low
speed? Last time I saw an aircraft with fly by wire system did such a
stunt, Airbus plowed right in to the forest at the end of the forest!


The F15 does not have what avionics people think of as fly-by-wire. In
fly-by-wire the control surfaces are moved by the computer alone, which
integrates control inputs (pilots suggestions) with the aircrafts
position in the flight envelope (the sensed environment). In
fly-by-wire there is no mechanical connection between the pilot and the
control surfaces. The F-15 has hydromechanical connections between the
pilots controls and the ailerons, stabilators and rudders.

What the F-15 does have is a stability augmentation system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-15e.htm

The first production fly-by-wire aircraft was the F-16.

Concord actually. They even wanted to put sidearm controllers on it.

F-111, actually. And, perhaps the A-5 Vigilante, depending on how you
want to define FBW.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

First, lets note that a Piper Cub (usually a J-3) is one thing and a
Cessna 172 is another.

Actually, I think you'll find a Piper Cub is always a J-3.

Wasn't there a J-5 version as well?

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

This led me to go find my F-15A-1, circa 1975. Level flight, 0 bank,
military thrust, gear & flaps down, sea level stall speed (defined as
30 deg AOA) was about 100 KIAS. Final approach speed under those
conditions was 143 KIAS. So, assuming the numbers haven't changed much
for the F-15C/D, staying with a 110-120 KIAS Cessna would be sporty,
but doable.

Jim Thomas


Emilio.

Its actuallly about a C-172 getting intercepted, about a 110 knot airplane.
Still pretty slow though.
Guess we would need one of the eagle drivers to chime in...


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

Your comment about Airbus is quite out... The fact you are speaking
about is coming from a direct mistake of a pilot stupid enough to
execute a non planned demo, with passengers on board, over an un
prepared field...
And this aircraft is not a fighter...

That particular case was a 172.

F-16s were evidently dispatched to intercept me while I was bring a
Cub home on 9/11. Happily I was on the ground before they located me.
www.pipercubforum.com/defcon.htm

Which is what sparked my interest in the matter. I hope you hear from
an F-15/F-16 driver who has been obliged to make such an interception.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:19:45 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The J-3 would be cruising at 65-75 MPH

In my case, 60 knots on the nose. Makes the chart work a breeze

(The wind tends to spoil things, however. I never know how much until
I put a GPS on the front seat-back.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On 29 Jun 2004 19:45:36 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

What tripped my BS alarm was the C-172's pilot's first hint he wasn't alone was
the "smell of burning paint." Unless the guy was stone deaf would he not have
heard the F-15 if it were close enough to smell? I'm am not saying the event
didn't occur, just not the way it was written.

That's the pilot talking, not the reporter.

Personally, I read the Aero-News Propwash every morning and find it at
least as informative as this newsgroup, and the opinions probably less
biased.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

Wasn't there a J-5 version as well?


The J-5 was the "Cub Cruiser".

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Eunometic) writes:
Alan Dicey wrote in message
...
Emilio wrote:

Do F-15 fly by wire system prevent the aircraft from stalling
at that low
speed? Last time I saw an aircraft with fly by wire system did
such a
stunt, Airbus plowed right in to the forest at the end of the
forest!


The F15 does not have what avionics people think of as
fly-by-wire. In
fly-by-wire the control surfaces are moved by the computer alone,
which
integrates control inputs (pilots suggestions) with the aircrafts
position in the flight envelope (the sensed environment). In
fly-by-wire there is no mechanical connection between the pilot
and the
control surfaces. The F-15 has hydromechanical connections
between the
pilots controls and the ailerons, stabilators and rudders.

What the F-15 does have is a stability augmentation system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-15e.htm

The first production fly-by-wire aircraft was the F-16.

Concord actually. They even wanted to put sidearm controllers on
it.

F-111, actually. And, perhaps the A-5 Vigilante, depending on how
you
want to define FBW.


This is a cut and paste job. However I suspect we could go back to
before even 1956.


A few quotes from the relevant chapter from Bill Gunston's book
"Avionics":

The author was privileged to have flown in about 1956
in the world's first FBW aircraft, the Tay-engined
Viscount 663 which had been bailed to Boulton Paul to
support the Valiant bomber programme. Through primitive,
the system was true pioneering. The right-hand seat was
'all electric', with wiper potentiometers transmitting
pilot demands along dual electrical channels (I believe
one used 28V DC and the other, basically identical, used
110V AC), with a feedback potentiometer at each powered
surface.

[snip]

In 1962 the basic design of Concorde was settled, one of
the Anglo-French choices being to use fully powered elevons
and rudder with electrical signalling. (Further it is
added the the jet inlet control system is also FBW.)

[snip]

In 1972 the United States got into the act, most notably
with the NACA F-8C Crusader, which in May 1972 made the
first FBW flight without mechanical reversion. This
aircraft had simplex digital control, the first wholly
non-analog aircraft in the world, the standby system
being triplex analog.

[snip]

These encouraging results confirmed Panavia in their
much earlier (1968) choice if triplex analog for Tornado,
and, apart from Concorde, this was the first production
FBW aircraft in the world. [snip] FBW links feed the
computerised outputs to the tailerons, spoilers and
rudder, with mechanical reversion for the tailerons only.

[snip]

Tornado first flew in 1974, and the same year saw the
first flight of the General Dynamics YF-16. [snip] Its
FBW system was the first in the world to have no
reversionary system whatever.