A Navy test pilot suggests that the F-16 pitch FLCS is not a g-command system
-
According to the article written by Mav-JP, the FLCS will always command a permanent +1G if no stick input is applied. So the aircraft is supposed to be “pulled” to 1G when inverted isn’t it.
While this article (http://defence.pk/threads/f-16-vs-f-18-a-navy-test-pilots-perspective.169261/) contradicts this by stating that:
Its ( the F-18 ) flight-control system in cruise is a “G-command” flight-control system; it continuously trims to IG flight regardless of aircraft attitude. If a pilot rolls inverted in a Hornet and lets go of the stick, the jet “pulls” IG and enters a gradual dive to maintain IG. Doing the same in the Viper causes the pilot to get light in the seat; the jet doesn’t feel any pilot input, so it continues to head straight and inverted.
which makes me quite baffled. How do you say guys.:mad:
-
Well know. And this article is full of shit ;).
-
This article has been pulled up in a couple of threads before… but even a cursory look at the F-16 T.O.s contradicts this guy
-
Assuming this a ‘real’ article, I’m sure as a Navy Test Pilot he is exceptionally well qualified. However, I still find this potentially relevant:
@Navy Test Pilot:
After 50 hours in the jet ……
IIRC, from reading accident investigation documents one is, by definition, ‘inexperienced’ in an F-16 with less than 1000 hours. 50 / 1000 = 5% ‘experience rating’ (my phrase) …. .
-
1.5.5.1. An experienced pilot has one of the following:
1.5.5.1.1. 500 hours F-16, or
1.5.5.1.2. 300 hours F-16 with 1,000 hours (FP/IP/MP), or
1.5.5.1.3. 100 hours F-16 and previously fighter EXPERIENCED.Our Navy pilot who is talking shit claims to be 50% F-16 experienced.
-
1.5.5.1. An experienced pilot has one of the following:
1.5.5.1.1. 500 hours F-16, or
1.5.5.1.2. 300 hours F-16 with 1,000 hours (FP/IP/MP), or
1.5.5.1.3. 100 hours F-16 and previously fighter EXPERIENCED.Our Navy pilot who is talking shit claims to be 50% F-16 experienced.
Maybe it was the 500 hour definition I was thinking of. I remember thinking it was a surprise to me how many hours it took to be considered ‘experienced in the F-16’.
-
They call 'em stick monkeys for a reason.
-
My understand was that it was the F-18c that responded in such a way.
-
…here we freaking go again…I actually know this guy personally, and I’ll stand by every single word he has to say. Period. I don’t give a crap what the T.O.s say.
-
Got a reply from the f-16.net forum:
I just checked with my friend who is retired from F-16 Stability & Control. He says most F-16s flying inverted with hands off the stick would maintain +1g, thus dive, as does the F-18 you describe. However, he thinks at some point, possibly Block 60, pitch command is multiplied by cosine roll angle and cosine pitch angle, so the airplane would maintain level inverted flight with hands off.
Edited
I went back and read the article in the link. Because the writer mentions the difficulty in knowing what the input is for a force sensing stick compared to a position stick, he may not realize he is slightly pushing forward to maintain level flight. He has many many hours with a position stick and only fifty hours with a force stick, so it may take more time to become fully acclimated. -
http://fightersweep.com/1904/hornet-vs-viper-part-three/
This author ( who flew both ) says they both auto trim for 1 G flight also.
-
…here we freaking go again…I actually know this guy personally, and I’ll stand by every single word he has to say. Period. I don’t give a crap what the T.O.s say.
I actually know the flcs logical diagram personnaly and i will stand every single formulae it says.
Serioulsy two possibilities
- the guy does not shit about f16 or is confused
- the reporter understood nothing
F16:
Cruise gain : g commanded
LG gain : pitchrate commended aoa blended -
This reminded me of another thread. A guy (username FulcrumFlyer) on another forum talks briefly about that article and notes there are some inaccuracies but still good info. His other posts are interesting too so will post them below.
For a good, even-handed read on the Viper vs the Hornet, I recommend doing a search for the Jun 2003 edition of Flight Journal magazine. I recommend typing in “F-16 vs F-18 John Tougas”. An article was written by Commander John “Toonces” Tougas about his experience flying the F-16 as a Navy exchange pilot with the USAF. John and I are good friends and we served together for nearly 3 years. He arranged for me to fly the Super Hornet. He prefered the Hornet as that is what he was comfortable with and I prefered the Viper for similar reasons.
There are a couple of inaccuracies in his article. The Viper HUD is certified as the primary flight instrument and has been for many, many years. The Block 40 and 50 F-16 have color displays and the seat is actually reclined at 30 degrees. The other evaluations are a matter of personal taste.
In any case, I have flown against the Hornet in all the fighters I have flown and Toonces’ assessment is correct. The Hornet is a good slow-speed fighter (as are the F-15, F-5 and MiG-29[the MiG-29 is kind of like an F-18 on steroids]). Fighting against the Hornet in the F-16 meant I had to be wary of his slow-speed, nose-pointing capability. I had to drive the fight to my advantage in sustained turn rate and my ability to out accelerate and out climb the F-18. It was a tough fight and each pilot had no room for mistakes.
I hope you find the article. We did give Toonces a large ration of grief regardless.Other posts:
In March 1984, I was a young punk F-15 pilot and brand-new first lieutenant. I was making my first trip to Nellis AFB for Red Flag. The first Monday is always Fam Day. You simply fly across the northern Nellis Ranges to become familiarized with the visual landmarks and learn which landmarks will keep you out of the Container (Area 51). On Tuesday, I was on the schedule for this thing called Constant Peg. I was disappointed not to be on the Red Flag schedule but the squadron old craniums told me Constant Peg would be OK. My flightlead and I arrived at the Red Eagle’s location at Nellis (an old building from the 1950s). There I got inbriefed into the program and signed away my first-born male heir. I was not married at the time and had no kids (that I knew of) and I still don’t have any sons. Later that day, I got to fly 2 sorties against MiG-21s. What a great Air Force!!
The first sortie was called a performance profile. You got paired up with a MiG and flew manuevers to see the relative performance of your aircraft versus the MiG. The second sortie started out as 2 F-15s versus 2 MiG-21s. After one engagement, we got to split up into separate 1 versus 1 offensive and defensive maneuvering. The MiG-21 was no match for the F-15 (no surprise there). Three years later, as a fairly new F-5E Aggressor pilot, I got to fly a couple of times against the MiG-23 and a couple of times against the MiG-21. The Flogger was also not very good but the F-5E and the MiG-21 were fairly evenly matched in a maneuvering fight. The F-5’s advantages were a bit more fuel and better handling qualities.
The commanders of the 64th and 65th Aggressor Squadron and the commander of the 4477th all had the same boss - the 57th Fighter Weapons Wing Director of Adversary Tactics. The ways into the 4477th were to be a Top Gun graduate, USAF Fighter Weapons School graduate or a USAF Aggressor pilot.
From 2002 to 2004, I was commander of the aforementioned Det 3 / 53d TEG (aka Red Eagles). I had the unit’s history in my personal safe. In the 10 years from 1979 to 1988, over 6800 fighter aircrews were exposed to the the threat in a DACT environment. You can attempt to make some correlation to the Red Eagle’s old mission to the new. Don’t; you’ll only be wrong and I’ll neither confirm or deny any guess you would care to make.As a response to a U2U, I’ll attempt to give my perspective of US vs Soviet fighters. I have flown against Soviet fighters while flying the F-15, F-16, F-5 and MiG-29 (of course, the MiG-29 really doesn’t count since it’s also a Soviet fighter; we just didn’t have any dissimilar adversaries). While flying the US fighters, I have flown against the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 and Su-27.
One should remember that Soviet fighters were designed and built using a different mindset with respect to tactical aviation. It’s almost like comparing the playbook of the Dallas Cowboys with that of some profi-league football (soccer) team in Europe. The sport goes by the same name but it’s just not the same (I must give credit to that analogy to a friend of mine who did a very comprhensive study of the MiG-29 in the mid-1990s - www.sci.fi…). The mindset of the Soviets was centralized control and centralized execution. That means the pilot and aircraft were an extension of the ground controller. The pilot was not provided with the tools nor the training to operate autonomously. If you cut off his communications link with his ground controller, the Soviet pilot was not equipped to operate on his own. US fighters are conceived around the concept of centralized control, decentralized execution. That means that US fighter has all the tools necessary for the pilot to operate and make autonomous decisions. The US pilot’s aircraft sensors and displays are designed to provide him with the battle-space information required to make those decisions. AWACS and GCI are there to provide peices to the puzzle. They have no real ‘control authority’. I’ve been known to tell AWACS to STFU and quit garbaging the radios.
Flying against the MiG-21 and MiG-23 with the F-15 was relatively easy. The Fishbed is difficult to see and you have to ask yourself if that speck on the canopy is a piece of fly do-do or a MiG-21? I also flew against those airplanes while flying the F-5. The MiG-23 was still a baby seal while the MiG-21 was much more evenly matched.
I have flown against the MiG-29 and Su-27 while flying the F-16 (Blocks 30, 40 and 50). Since I have 500 hours in the MiG-29, I’ll talk a little more about it.
The Fulcrum is a very reliable airplane. It seldom breaks. The same can be said about the F-16. The F-16 absolutely owns the MiG-29 from beyond visual range (BVR). Initial contact ranges from both aircraft are similar although I’d give a slight edge to the F-16. The BVR AMRAAM against the AA-10A is a joke. By the time the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to shoot an AA-10, the AMRAAM has gone active and the F-16 pilot has turned around and is going away. If forced to merge, I’d still give the advantage to the F-16 pilot. His sensors will tell him exactly where multiple MiG-29s are. The Fulcrum pilot may have situational awareness (SA) on one F-16 and his displays won’t point out exactly where his F-16 adversary is. If the MiG-29 pilot does have SA, then his helmet-mounted sight and AA-11 Archer make him a deadly adversary. If the F-16 pilot has the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X, the advantage is still with the Viper pilot as the off-boresight capability of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the AA-11. If it comes down to a gun fight, I still give the advantage to the F-16. The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor (the Block 50 F-16 will out accelerate the Raptor below about 25,000 ft). The Fulcrum is a very sloppy-flying airplane. I’m not saying the Fulcrum is a push over; the Viper pilot needs to bring his A-game. The Fulcrum pilot better prosecute the merge pretty fast because he doesn’t have the fuel to hang around very long.While flying the MiG-29, I have flown against the F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Tornado F-3, and Mirage 2000. The ‘deadliest’ was the F-15C, the worst was the Mirage 2000. It was the only one I’d walk out the door knowing we were going to kick their a$$es.
While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it’s a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it’s a maintenance nightmare.Mig-29 vs F-14
I spent two weeks flying against F-14s with the big motors over the Mediterranean. We were both operating from a base on the island of Sardenia. The MiG-29 was outclassed in the BVR arena but we occasionally managed to get someone to the merge untargeted. In the visual fight, the tables reversed.
Link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread233946/pg3&mem=
-
Nice Spinets….Thanks
-
This reminded me of another thread. A guy (username FulcrumFlyer) on another forum talks briefly about that article and notes there are some inaccuracies but still good info. His other posts are interesting too so will post them below.
Fulcrumflyer is Fred Spanky Clifton - same username on F-16.net also
The Toonces write up is from years back as well which needs to be considered for some of it.
-
His other posts are interesting too so will post them below.
Great info!!! Those articles will be on my test flight lists!!! I know this is mainly for BMS, but I’m also going to try this in the Wings Over Vietnam series just for fun and than compare the two. I already know that the BMS avionics and cockpits are no match for WOV, so don’t go there:)) Just curious to compare the ACM.
Thanks
c
Update
Again I know this is a BMS forum. I am an old WOV rat and I am used to its characteristics, so its just a good base for me to compare. BMS by far exceeds WOV in cockpit realism and visibility and to me is a much better technical simulator. There is no comparison in BVR ACM between the two and I would never embarrass my beloved WOV, so I didn’t even try it I’m also aware that many of you may reach different results as we all fly differently based on our experience. With that being said, this was still fun to do and Thanks again BMS for making us use our brain cells more than most air combat sims.
Well I did a few hops and here’s what I got
Guns only for both Sims
Falcon BMS
F-16 vs AI F/A-18
Accelerated turns- F-16
Zoom climbs F-16
Slow Speed ACM F/A-18 I was still able to shoot down the F/A-18 but it was aggressive.
High G ACM that’s a tough one. The AI F/A-18 really didn’t engage in high G maneuvers after the initial pass.
AI Aggressiveness Medium. Once engaged the F/A-18 never seemed to accelerate past 250 kts
Gun Platform difficult and realistic. As I have no experience flying military fighters this is only an opinion.
(cockpit on)
Flight Model Excellent. IMHO. It flys like a real sim not an arcade. Nice work BMS You didn’t forget that there is a rudder on these planes :))))WOV SF1
F-16 vs AI F/A-18
Accelerated turns- F-16
Zoom climbs F-16
slow speed ACM F/A-18
High G ACM F/A-18 < 400kts
F-16 > 400kts In order for it to be a little more realistic you have to stay in the cockpit view or else you are not affected by blackouts.
Aggressiveness AI High. The AI F/A-18 would change tactics from low speed to high speed, vertical and laterally, give it about a B- for AI
Gun Platform More accurate than BMS but I think it may be less realistic.
(cockpit on)
Flight Models smooth but maybe just a little to smooth for realism. WOV seems to compensate for rudder coordination and is also very
forgiving. BMS has more of a performance “envelope”. WOV has more of “box” if you will.