FBW and RSS question

Is the FBW and electric FCS is because of the relaxed stability of the plane? or is it because of the side stick and the special seat and position of the pilot?

Relaxed Stability primarily, but I think the General Dynamics engineers figured that if you're just feeding a computer a command you don't actually need a big stick in the middle for leverage reasons and went with the futuristic idea of a side stick controller.

Relaxed Stability primarily, but I think the General Dynamics engineers figured that if you're just feeding a computer a command you don't actually need a big stick in the middle for leverage reasons and went with the futuristic idea of a side stick controller.

The F-16 has no "Control Stick" is because in the Viper the computer is all you have. There is no hydraulic backup.

The F-18C (and F-15C) Have FBW controls backed up with mechanical controls.

"If digital DEL fails, a mechanical link (MECH) automatically provides roll and pitch control through a direct mechanical input from the stick to the stabilator actuators."

Quoted from some book...:music_whistling:

So in short they could put the F-16 stick anyplace the wanted to.

I have it on good authority that its easier to do some fighter pilot "stuff" when reclined and the stick off to the side... You know, on those long boring flights.

The F-16 has no "Control Stick" is because in the Viper the computer is all you have. There is no hydraulic backup.

 

The F-18C (and F-15C) Have FBW controls backed up with mechanical controls.

 

"If digital DEL fails, a mechanical link (MECH) automatically provides roll and pitch control through a direct mechanical input from the stick to the stabilator actuators."

 

Quoted from some book...:music_whistling:

 

So in short they could put the F-16 stick anyplace the wanted to.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Did I say anything contrary to the above that needed correcting?

The F-16s stick is called the SSC (Side Stick Controller) hence why I used that name. I'm fully aware that there is no mechanical linkage between the stick and controls. I even mentioned that in my post that you are "Feeding a computer a command".

I remember when RAAF were deciding whether to replace the Mirage III-O with the F-16 or the F/A-18, so the respective followers of each published plenty of industry development material and technical information about each, strengthening their respective arguments.

I recall one such article discussing the sidestick and seat of the F-16, referencing some design spokesperson or other, describing it as part of the intention of the design to maximise pilot performance in aerial combat, so there were no frames forward in the pilot view orientated bubble canopy and the seating position was for maximum field of view to watch for e/a. The sidestick was because of the seating position and was controversial.

Just to postscript that story, I believe one of the deciding arguments between the types, it was a very close race, RAAF liked the toughened USN landing gear and the way carrier aircraft are designed to be handled suits Oz requirements for a fighter. But the popular argument was the F-16 being viewed as designed primarily for air to air engagements whilst the Hornet was a strike fighter and RAAF wanted a strike role more than a fighter one, from something that could also act like a fighter/interceptor on those rare missions. But I think it was more the landing gear and USN-NA qualities like twin engine reliability for long flights over barren Australian territories.