PAK-FA: video
05-19-2010 | 05:40 PM
#1
PAK-FA: video
Full flying rudders. Wow. A world's first on a jet fighter ?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6dc_1274280680
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6dc_1274280680
05-19-2010 | 05:52 PM
#2
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Jose,
CA
RE: PAK-FA: video
Pretty cool, but it didn't do anything "special" in the video 
It should be able to do some nice knife edges. It also should be able to recover from a flat spin much quicker.
Jeff
It should be able to do some nice knife edges. It also should be able to recover from a flat spin much quicker.
Jeff
05-19-2010 | 06:04 PM
#3
RE: PAK-FA: video
We clearly see it's at the beginning of the testing phase. It can barely roll more than 90 degrees. Maiden flight occured less than 1 year ago. Exploring the flight envelope will be great fun, no doubt about that.
05-19-2010 | 07:06 PM
#8
My Feedback: (27)
RE: PAK-FA: video
To be correct, the SR-71 did indeed have elevons...but they have nothing to do with the rudders. The -71 had regular "rudders...albeit full flying. Elevons are combined elevators and ailerons.
The -117 did have elevons...4 in total...two per side. The 117's "fins" as they are called are called "fins" because they supply rudder control and assisted roll control. All pitch control is supplied by the 4 elevons.
Just to make sure, I called a couple of my former DFW roommates, one who flew the -71 and the other who flew the -117.
Beave [8D]
The -117 did have elevons...4 in total...two per side. The 117's "fins" as they are called are called "fins" because they supply rudder control and assisted roll control. All pitch control is supplied by the 4 elevons.
Just to make sure, I called a couple of my former DFW roommates, one who flew the -71 and the other who flew the -117.
Beave [8D]
ORIGINAL: jmohn
I think the F117 uses elevons and the SR71 has a setup similar. I think this is the first to have both rudders and elevators ''full-flying''.
I think the F117 uses elevons and the SR71 has a setup similar. I think this is the first to have both rudders and elevators ''full-flying''.
05-20-2010 | 12:19 PM
#18
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Thurso, UNITED KINGDOM
RE: PAK-FA: video
Hi
I like it, the fins look too small for the plane but otherwise I think it looks cool. Given the plan form it will have bags of wing area and a low wing loading.
As regards it's looks I agree it does look like a YF-23 but I always prefered it looks wise over the F-22.
I have one question. Why does India think it needs to invest in a 5th gen fighter. Who are they so nervous of?
Mike
I like it, the fins look too small for the plane but otherwise I think it looks cool. Given the plan form it will have bags of wing area and a low wing loading.
As regards it's looks I agree it does look like a YF-23 but I always prefered it looks wise over the F-22.
I have one question. Why does India think it needs to invest in a 5th gen fighter. Who are they so nervous of?
Mike
05-20-2010 | 07:30 PM
#23
My Feedback: (8)
RE: PAK-FA: video
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 also agree totally with the comment on the RCS, unless they have figured out a way to change the laws of physics.
05-20-2010 | 07:53 PM
#24
My Feedback: (27)
RE: PAK-FA: video
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
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.
05-20-2010 | 11:26 PM
#25
My Feedback: (8)
RE: PAK-FA: video
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.
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.
