the air forces know the secret for uber piloting the sports world doesnt

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by raaaid

haha so moving one cm = 100 kg onn the elevator

myself on the stall limit paragliding measure by grams while normally by 20 kg so youre gullible if you belive that

You're not getting it: The stick in an F16 is not connected mechanically to the actuators that drive the control-surfaces as you would find for example in the F4 Phantom. The stick in an F16 only moves 1/4th of an inch in order to give the stick SOME deadzone, which was a wish from the first pilots that flew the bird since they found that a completely non-moving stick (which was what the very first production-birds actually had) was unnatural to them.

The stick in an F16 senses how much force you put on the stick, sends that input to the flight-control-computers, who then do the math to make the aircraft do what you want it to do, as long as you don't exceed the maximum G-load the aircraft can take at that speed.

So again: Posting an image of an F16-stick in this discussion is completely and utterly useless, since it's not mechanically linked directly to the control-surface actuators as you have in a Spitfire (Wire-and-pulley system) or an F4 Phantom (hydraulic system).

[raaaid]

youre confusing the thing by throwing random facts

the fact:

modern fighters have short sticks

old fighters had long sticks

modern fighters have short run

old fighters had long run

modern fighters have high sensitivity

old fighters had low sensitivity


show me a picture of a new fighter with a long stick that is with low sensitivity

man i grant you in the future racers will go with insane high sensitivity in their wheels is a matter of a pioneer doing it and washing the floor with the rest

[hegykc]

Hahahaha, not one, not one thing you just said is correct

F-16 doesn't have short stick travel. It has 0 stick travel.
But then pilots started complaining that they have trouble orienting and realising where the stick acctually is. Then the designers introduced 1/4 inch or 6mm stick travel. And that is "empty travel" not connected to the control surfaces in any way.
Maximun noseup and nosedown pitch commands are genrated by 25 and 16 pounds of input, respectively. Roll commands are generated by a maximum of 17 pounds in cruise gains and by 12 pounds in takeoff and landing gains.

But that is still only one aircraft, and it was problematic.

Wanna talk f-14, f-15, 1-104, f-111, f-117 and literally hundreds and hundreds of airplanes before and after that from all the countries around the world that have conventional sticks, with 20-30+ cm of travel. Just like the WWII fighters.

Even if your statement would be correct, older fighter can still out-turn any modern one.

Have you actually checked any of your statements before stating them??

Oh, and by the way, I'm an inventor with a engineering degree. A professional one, making a living of it. So I'm all for open mindedness and thinking out of the box.

[raaaid]

ive seen many FIGHTERS in movies and all used short sticks

your confusing run with force feedback

f16 has a stick with extreme short run AND A STRONG FORCE FEED BACK

sensitivity is related with run not feed back

so the f16 and many other stick SHORT RUN give away my point of the high sensitivity advantage

the only sensible point ive seen so far except childish bias is that high sensitivity in racing is limited for safety reasons

[hegykc]

Name a modern fighter with your "short stick".

And please, movies Are you really kidding me
You do know that they film the cockpit footage on the ground, and mostly on mock-up cockpits

[raaaid]

the previous f16

and the f18 is pretty short if you ask me



edit:

i wont go into complex stuff but just exposing the obvious:

do you know why soome one designed a 0.5 mm run stick for an extreme plane?

because countersteering a stall like that is faster

nope it was not fashion

[hegykc]

F-18, 2G per one inch of stick travel. That's 4.5 inches or 12cm for pitch up. And there is more stick travel, but you can't achieve it because of the forces being too strong to pull of, again, for safety reasons.
So, the F-18 has exactly the same stick travel as a WWII 109.

F-16 doesn't have any force feedback, and that's where it becomes apparent that you haven't actually spent more than 5min researching the subject.

Again, name another modern fighter with you "short stick"

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by raaaid

ive seen many FIGHTERS in movies and all used short sticks

your confusing run with force feedback

f16 has a stick with extreme short run AND A STRONG FORCE FEED BACK

sensitivity is related with run not feed back

so the f16 and many other stick SHORT RUN give away my point of the high sensitivity advantage

the only sensible point ive seen so far except childish bias is that high sensitivity in racing is limited for safety reasons

No. ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you don't believe me, go look up the history of the F16, the TCTO's for the F16's, and the horrendous amount of information on the F16's flightcontrol-system.

The F16's stick moves 1/4th of an inch. That 1/4th of an inch is built into the system to give pilots a deadband so that they don't input unwanted commands, especially in pitch. ABSOLUTELY NO force feedback is in the stick of an F16. AT ALL. Period. That's one of the things that catch new pilots on the Viper off when they transition from the T38 Talon (which is based on the F5) to the Viper. So I'll say this again: The F16's flight-control system is based on FORCE of the input, not the TRAVEL of the input. That's one of the key differences between the stick in an F16 and for example an F18. Both are fly-by-wire designs, but the F18's stick move in a more traditional manner.

But hey! Don't believe me all you want. I don't know jack shit about the F16's, even though I served as an F16 groundcrew during my RNoAF servicetime (yes, this is irony, since you seemingly need to have things fed to you with very small spoons). I've seen, touched and handled every single part of the F16's airframe and systems through that, I've spent more time with my nose in the TCTO's for the aircraft, and I'd daresay I know a TAD more about the F16 than you do. So stop talking out of your butt, and try to understand that there are people here with far greater knowledge, even hands-on knowledge, with the aircraft.

[raaaid]

youre trowing random facts again and trying to apply the autority criteria in your favour

what of this statements is false?

statement number 1:

the f16 stick has an extreamly short run


statement number 2:

a high or low sensitivity depends on the stick run

statement number 3:

the f16 has a short run which it implies it has high sensitivity

edit:

your making a sophism in your point:

the control is based on the force

oh yeah to move it farther you have to apply more force

then so its a 109 stick based on the force to move it farther you have to apply more force

a sophism

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by raaaid

youre trowing random facts again and trying to apply the autority criteria in your favour

Nothing of what I've said is random in any way, shape or form. If you doubt me, go look it up.

Originally Posted by raaaid

what of this statements is false?

statement number 1:

the f16 stick has an extreamly short run

Not false. What YOU fail to recognize, however, is that the 1/4th of an inch of travel on the stick is deadband. Nothing happens inside that 1/4th of an inch, AT ALL. Once you reach the limit of that 1/4th of an inch, where the stick doesn't move anymore, THEN the flight-control system starts translating the FORCE (basically the weight you put on the stick) you input into control-surface deflection, which again makes the aircraft roll/pitch.

Originally Posted by raaaid

statement number 2:

a high or low sensitivity depends on the stick run

Which is NOT true for the F16's stick.

Originally Posted by raaaid

statement number 3:

the f16 has a short run which it implies it has high sensitivity

Which again is NOT true, because the travel of the stick has absolutely nothing to do with the maneuvering of the aircraft what so ever. Again, when you reach the LIMIT of that travel, the WEIGHT (i.e. force) you put on the stick is what defines how large the effect on the controlsurfaces will be. High weight (i.e. pulling hard on the stick) equals a faster and higher response from the aircraft.

Originally Posted by raaaid

edit:

your making a sophism in your point:

the control is based on the force

oh yeah to move it farther you have to apply more force

then so its a 109 stick based on the force to move it farther you have to apply more force

a sophism

You're comparing a wire-and-pulley system to a computer-controlled system. You might as well compare a squirrel and a pig. They're both mammals, but that's where the comparison ends.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Either you're being a deliberate troll, or you're as intelligent as my right shoe.