PAK-FA: video
05-21-2010, 03:31 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Petah-Tikva, ISRAEL
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: PAK-FA: video
did anyone saw the VERTIGO REBEL?
it has a full flying rudders as well
http://www.airshowrc.com/rebel_vertigo.html
it has a full flying rudders as well
http://www.airshowrc.com/rebel_vertigo.html
05-21-2010, 04:00 AM
#28
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: PAK-FA: video
ORIGINAL: bevar
John,
I beg to differ with your beg to differ. My old room mate, who I talked to more this afternoon was an original 117 test pilot back when ''there was no such thing as the 117''. He was one of the guys who was dual qualified as an A-7 pilot as a smoke screen to explain why they flew so many night missions.
He has hundreds of hours logged flying the F-117 and clearly described the vertical surfaces as ''fins''. He went on in depth to explain why they were called ''fins'' instead of rudders, ruddervators, elevons ETC. Since he actually flew them I would think he would know what he is talking about. He said that due to the designed dynamic instability in pitch and roll...the FCCs would send primary yaw and secondary roll inputs to the fins and primary pitch and roll inputs to the 4 elevons. He said that when the pilot made a control input, the FCCs would first query the fuel system to check the CG at that moment in time and then make combined deflections to best fulfill what the pilot was asking for.
Beave
John,
I beg to differ with your beg to differ. My old room mate, who I talked to more this afternoon was an original 117 test pilot back when ''there was no such thing as the 117''. He was one of the guys who was dual qualified as an A-7 pilot as a smoke screen to explain why they flew so many night missions.
He has hundreds of hours logged flying the F-117 and clearly described the vertical surfaces as ''fins''. He went on in depth to explain why they were called ''fins'' instead of rudders, ruddervators, elevons ETC. Since he actually flew them I would think he would know what he is talking about. He said that due to the designed dynamic instability in pitch and roll...the FCCs would send primary yaw and secondary roll inputs to the fins and primary pitch and roll inputs to the 4 elevons. He said that when the pilot made a control input, the FCCs would first query the fuel system to check the CG at that moment in time and then make combined deflections to best fulfill what the pilot was asking for.
Beave
ORIGINAL: John Redman
I would beg to differ on the ''fins'' of the 117. They were rudders is all accounts. Rigged , removed, and reinstalled those for a good many years and never were they ever referred to as fins; by Lockheed, tech manuals, or those that lived with them. They were rudders only and only provided yaw control. At least that is what we rigged them and operationaly checked them for. All roll control came from the (4) elevons. Either way, that new bird does look pretty awesome!
I would also agree totally with the comment on the RCS, unless they have figured out a way to change the laws of physics.
I would beg to differ on the ''fins'' of the 117. They were rudders is all accounts. Rigged , removed, and reinstalled those for a good many years and never were they ever referred to as fins; by Lockheed, tech manuals, or those that lived with them. They were rudders only and only provided yaw control. At least that is what we rigged them and operationaly checked them for. All roll control came from the (4) elevons. Either way, that new bird does look pretty awesome!
I would also agree totally with the comment on the RCS, unless they have figured out a way to change the laws of physics.
Haha, this is the classic, "drivers" think they know the systems vs the guys how actually have to know how it works to fix them..
I used to work for this guy who was an ex F/A-18 driver, and I was just starting out in my trade, He was interested and so i showed him some of the text books we were learning from and his response was "oh, they train you guys up to almost the same level as us.." to my response, "ha, no. You guys are almost trained to our level" he wasn't impressed
All they have to know is to read the figure off the dial and when you push left, it goes left... how it actually works??? that was always our problem.
Thanks
dave
05-21-2010, 06:22 AM
#29
RE: PAK-FA: video
John,
Good points on the "fins". He was an initial cadre test pilot so by the time "it hit the line" no doubt things had changed. The "FCC" we talked about were indeed Flight Control Computers. Since we both fly 767s that's what they are called on that jet so maybe for the sake of conversation that's what he called them. No doubt I knew what he was talking about so I guess it must have worked. [&:] He does keep on threatening to come to a meet so maybe your wish may be granted. Just don't volunteer to buy all of the beer...because you might just end up broke!
See ya,
Beave
Good points on the "fins". He was an initial cadre test pilot so by the time "it hit the line" no doubt things had changed. The "FCC" we talked about were indeed Flight Control Computers. Since we both fly 767s that's what they are called on that jet so maybe for the sake of conversation that's what he called them. No doubt I knew what he was talking about so I guess it must have worked. [&:] He does keep on threatening to come to a meet so maybe your wish may be granted. Just don't volunteer to buy all of the beer...because you might just end up broke!
See ya,
Beave
ORIGINAL: John Redman
Hey Beave,
I understand your points and your friend's as well. I was not there at the beginning, but do know when I made it to the program during 1987 they were never referred to as fins. They were rudders only. By this time many changes had come to life from the very early bird your friend flew and what we ended up with. The enlarged rudders on the actual production version compared to the smaller rudders on the early FSD birds along with other flight control system parameters (possibly from all his test flights, god knows they learned a lot very fast due to their expertice) made her what she was; one of hte most acurate bombing platforms we have ever seen. All of our tech manuals that we wrote in the late 80's to fix that beast referred only to rudders. Keep in in mind all parts referrences had to match Lockheeds data, no exception there. It was that way until I left the bird in mid 1998. It is truly possible that nominclatures changed during the early days, I just know from my time with the black jet; 1987 - 1998, they were never reffered to as fins. The base was a sub fin and the moveable portion was a rudder. Maybe from those names we can see where they might have been called fins in the very early days. That would not surprise me at all.
Also one other small note is the FCC was never queried in the flight control process. It was the FLCC. I am confident this was a typo due to not knowing all of our acronyms for parts. The FCC is the Fire Control Computer (weapons delivery computer) and the FLCC is the Flight Control Computer of which there was only one with (4) main branches for the quad redundancy. There were not 4 independant flight control computers. Used the same one as the F-16 keep in mind. Also the FLCC would query the gyros first, then the FMC (Fuel Management Computer) before delivering any inputs. At least tht is the way the fault isolation manuals lead us in serious flight control malfunction troubleshooting. This was the same on the F-16 as well, same flight control system. I never flew it, but damned I sure fixed a hell of a lot of them in my many years with that great aircraft!
I would love to have a few beers with your buddy and hear some of his stories. A few hundred hours in that bird in its early days could deliver some stories that I am confident would blow anyone away. I just had a few hours - better than 27,000 hours fixing them in my eleven years.
Hey Beave,
I understand your points and your friend's as well. I was not there at the beginning, but do know when I made it to the program during 1987 they were never referred to as fins. They were rudders only. By this time many changes had come to life from the very early bird your friend flew and what we ended up with. The enlarged rudders on the actual production version compared to the smaller rudders on the early FSD birds along with other flight control system parameters (possibly from all his test flights, god knows they learned a lot very fast due to their expertice) made her what she was; one of hte most acurate bombing platforms we have ever seen. All of our tech manuals that we wrote in the late 80's to fix that beast referred only to rudders. Keep in in mind all parts referrences had to match Lockheeds data, no exception there. It was that way until I left the bird in mid 1998. It is truly possible that nominclatures changed during the early days, I just know from my time with the black jet; 1987 - 1998, they were never reffered to as fins. The base was a sub fin and the moveable portion was a rudder. Maybe from those names we can see where they might have been called fins in the very early days. That would not surprise me at all.
Also one other small note is the FCC was never queried in the flight control process. It was the FLCC. I am confident this was a typo due to not knowing all of our acronyms for parts. The FCC is the Fire Control Computer (weapons delivery computer) and the FLCC is the Flight Control Computer of which there was only one with (4) main branches for the quad redundancy. There were not 4 independant flight control computers. Used the same one as the F-16 keep in mind. Also the FLCC would query the gyros first, then the FMC (Fuel Management Computer) before delivering any inputs. At least tht is the way the fault isolation manuals lead us in serious flight control malfunction troubleshooting. This was the same on the F-16 as well, same flight control system. I never flew it, but damned I sure fixed a hell of a lot of them in my many years with that great aircraft!
I would love to have a few beers with your buddy and hear some of his stories. A few hundred hours in that bird in its early days could deliver some stories that I am confident would blow anyone away. I just had a few hours - better than 27,000 hours fixing them in my eleven years.
05-21-2010, 08:33 AM
#30
My Feedback: (8)
RE: PAK-FA: video
Fair enough Beave. I am sure is stories would be great. One other little note is he was the line as he tested the aircraft. Those guys made things happen when no one else could. We of course followed on their coat tails to keep it working. A great program to say the least.
05-21-2010, 04:59 PM
#31
My Feedback: (34)
RE: PAK-FA: video
Was the F-117 really setup as a dynamically unstable aircraft? I thought they went away from that and back to relaxed stability when the F-16 didn't work out so well initially.
Interestingly, the F-22 seems to have gone back to full dynamic instability. Pretty amazing to watch the elevators deflect to set a pitch rate and then immediately return to neutral, then deflect in the opposite direction to stop the rate upon command of the pilot.
Interestingly, the F-22 seems to have gone back to full dynamic instability. Pretty amazing to watch the elevators deflect to set a pitch rate and then immediately return to neutral, then deflect in the opposite direction to stop the rate upon command of the pilot.
05-21-2010, 05:27 PM
#32
My Feedback: (34)
RE: PAK-FA: video
ORIGINAL: patf
armchair engineering here but looking at the canopy lines and gear doors etc.. i have a feeling the rcs isnt going to be that small
armchair engineering here but looking at the canopy lines and gear doors etc.. i have a feeling the rcs isnt going to be that small
Biggest RCS problem that airplane is going to have is head-on looking into the intakes. The engine compressor blades are going to show up like the side of a barn! There's a reason those are shielded from direct view on the F-22 and F-35.
