![]() |
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 |
Quote:
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). |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 :) |
the previous f16
and the f18 is pretty short if you ask me ;) http://www.clarksmachine.com/img/f18stick1.gif 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 ;) |
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" |
why should i name another, one plane designer thought as me
so you dont agree that sensitivity is related with run edit: a force is a resistance to move, exactly what the f16 stick has, if you dont like the name force feed back thats all right we may call it the force onwards |
Quote:
Well, as it turns out, they don't. Sorry. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.