[simpits-tech] RE: [simpits-tech]F-16 Side-Stick-Base
Marv De Beque
simpits-tech@simpits.org
Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:39:46 -0400
I have a flight manual from 1994 that states the following:
Max Pitch Up = 25 lbs.
Max Pitch Down = 16 lbs.
Max Roll = 17 lbs. (Limited to 12 lbs at takeoff and landing gains).
Marv
On 8/7/03 8:48 PM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch@msn.com> wrote:
> Marv,
>
> Look here on page 5 for non-linear roll description.
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1996/PDF/H-2031.pdf I Can't remember seeing
> anything about the pitch
> curve.
>
> I've done a lot of web searching and not found too much.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig R.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org
> [mailto:simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:14 PM
> To: simpits-tech@simpits.org
> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] RE: [simpits-tech]F-16 Side-Stick-Base
>
>
> My friend who flew them said something like 3 G's for ever 5 lbs of force,
> but I think that seems wrong since you can max out at +9 G's (+9 G is the
> limit that the Falcon's FCS will let you have, it's electronically governed)
> with 25 lbs. of force on the grip..
>
> If the curve is really linear, then that is 9/5 or 1.8 G's per 5 lbs. of
> force.
>
> If it is the same for pitch, then 19 lbs. would yield -6.84 G's in pith
> down.
>
> I'll bet the the force curve versus G's pulled is not linear.
>
> Another thing, the fly-by-wire system has been around for some time and I
> would think that the USAF has dinked around with the maximum forces required
> for full G, force curves, as well as grip deflection. I would think you
> could look back historically and see that they have been fine tuning those
> numbers as the aircraft design matures.
>
> Marv
>
>
> On 8/7/03 3:35 PM, "Craig Rochester" <johncraigroch@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Marv,
>>
>> Thank you very much. That helps a lot. Three real sticks say it all for me;
>> 19 lbs. it is. :) I
>> didn't know the flight control system's control variable was G's... that's
>> cool. Makes sense when
>> the pilot's G-tolerance is the limiting factor in hard maneuvers.
>>
>> Thanks again for your help,
>>
>> Craig R.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org
>> [mailto:simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org]On Behalf Of Marv De Beque
>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:31 PM
>> To: simpits-tech@simpits.org
>> Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] RE: [simpits-tech]F-16 Side-Stick-Base
>>
>>
>> I find the reverse is true when actually seated in a cockpit with everything
>> set in the correct orientation (seat, stick position and grip orientation,
>> rudders, etc.).
>>
>> A friend of mine is/was an F-16 driver and he stated that the position that
>> most pilots adopt when flying the Falcon is with their head and upper torso
>> slightly erect as opposed to laying back fully in the seat.
>>
>> The correct force for pitch down is 19 lbs. for full deflection.
>>
>> I think one of the documents you gave me, Craig, also backs this up with an
>> explanation.
>>
>> I have three real side sticks that also seem to back up that number, but
>> since these are removed from service, I can't be certain that their
>> calibration is still good.
>>
>> Additionally, the electronic flight control system of the Falcon is set so
>> as to produce a set amount of G force that is proportional to the amount of
>> force applied to the grip unlike conventional aircraft that yield a set
>> amount of elevator deflection for a set amount of stick movement. If that
>> force is the same for both directions in pitch, then it makes sense that the
>> forward force required would achieve maximum G's in the negative direction
>> is less than pulling back would.
>>
>> Marv
>>
>>
>> On 8/7/03 9:30 AM, "Rochester, Craig" <CRochester@biopure.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks ben,
>>>
>>> I agree with you for 2 reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. After "flying" my test rig, I find that I have a better mechanical
>>> advantage for pushing the stick forward. Because shoulder is supported by
>>> seat back. I didn't expect this.
>>> 2. The pitch-down axis was purposely limited in travel to reduce over
>>> controlling. Why would you make it stiffer but lower the max force?
>>>
>>> Anyone see it differently?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Craig R.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>>> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
>>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>>> Thanks!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>> Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
> Thanks!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech@simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
> Thanks!