Yea….and what’s cool is when in Nav/“Auto Sequence Mode” You get a 2 mile buffer when automatically switching waypoints in case your in a hurry to final😃
Also….I feel like a bit of a Noob……I was very surprised by The Eagles Flight model….I was very much expecting it to fly like The Hornet…The Oscillating and constant need to trim was kinda a Shock.
Then I found out The StrikeEagle is NOT a Fly by Wire Aircraft!!
This really surprises me considering it is one of The Air forces Premier Strike Fighters.
QTY is how many total bombs will be dropped in a given program.
So yeah, QTY 6, single ripple is 6 bombs released, alternating between the selected stations (at the top of the MPD) until the QTY is achieved.
Ripple Multiple: one bomb will drop from each station simultaneously until the quantity is achieved. So still 6 total in your example, but 2 bombs will drop (simultaneously) at the interval rate until a total of 6 (the QTY) is achieved (assuming just 2 stations are selected). Although if you have 3 (or more) stations selected (at the top of the MPD), then it’s 3 (or more) stations simultaneously.
It was designed in 1969 as a replacement for the Phabulous Phantom. Considering our F-16 has the computing power of an Atari, its easy to see an earlier aurcraft had no computer aided controls. However, the S4 suite is chock full of power. Its a technological marvel for its day and holds up even now. IMO the Strike Eagle is very stable. Maybe because ive been flying the Jug and 104 lately. Both of them require constant attention. The Eagle is quite tame be comparison.
Did my first flights with @MBot yesterday after completing only the cold start and taxi training.
The cockpit layout and systems are quite intuitive. We dropped some bombs in CDIP. Most of my bombs hit the mark but we had some issues with cold runs and the target designation diamond which is created after you pickle is off (sometimes several miles off).
Dogfighting is very easy (pretty much like in the Charlie). It’s almost impossible to stall the plane and departures can be caught easily.
After that MBot wizzoed in my jet and we dropped some LGBs. Ground mapping destroyed my fps (dropped from 100 to 30). I was running the MT executable and assigned 5 of my 8 cores to the radar. I guess my 5 year old CPU is not quite up to the task.
Crew management is amazing. The ability to share the screens has so much potential. In the end we went full airliner mode. I activated AP heading and altitude hold and MBot could make adjustments on the HSI page.
Isn’t it a “little bit” FBW? A friend who flew the F15C told me that, for dumb fun, he would stop the base of the stick from moving with his knees and fly just with the top of the stick. With movement of the stick locked, the resulting pressures were input only through the digital part of the FCS.
Yes…I understand That it’s been around since early 70’s…I just thought since it is still very active in service it would of been redesigned at some point.
Which leads me to this Question, Is The New F-15 EX Fly By Wire??
The Viggen has a hybrid system like that. The stick angular deflection controls the mechanical system and a force transducer below the stick grip senses the force applied to the stick and sends signals to the control system. This is mode SPAK as you may have seen in the DCS AJS-37.
The stick grip service manual states that the bottom part of the stick must be sanded planar after assembly, to mate properly with the force transducer.
The feel trim actuator, located in the aft fuselage of most aircraft, is located below the control stick in the F-15. This reduces the amount of linkage, thus reducing control stick dead-band, and lessens overall applied stick force. Added safety is also obtained should there be a linkage separation downstream of the PRCA. If a separation does occur, a “fly-by-wire” capability is provided by the electronics and the pilot will still have positive feel at the stick. With a manual system such as installed in the F-15, a pilot may not even realize he has a linkage separation since the aircraft will fly and feel the same with or without the problem.
I don’t know much about force sensors in the stick, but I think FBW (in the general sense) is a term that requires only that the controls and the control surfaces not be irrevocably connected.
I’m not sure that even certain implementations of Stability Augmentation or Departure Resistance couldn’t be considered “partial FBW” as they filter (perhaps in some cases, prevent) the pilot’s inputs from direct surface control.
So a SE with Stab Aug and auto flaps likely gives “FBW-like” performance without a total redesign of the legacy Eagle’s flight control system.
Just a guess.
The other thing that is interesting is that there seems to be a certain tendency to think of the SE as a fighter that can bomb, rather than a bomber that can fight.
I can’t say that I have any direct experience with the 15 but, when I was a young Air Force ROTC cadet (before joining the dark side as a Marine), all the talk, all the glossy pictures, all the motivational movies of the SE featured it with bombs. Lots of bombs.
Not missiles.
In fact, the article posted below about the E losing its CFTs for the first time notes that this would have, until the recent reduction in the prevalence of the C, been thought of as “unspeakable”.
This isn’t to say that the SE should, or shouldn’t, be shooting down waves of Flankers with 120s (the article seems to suggest its most recent mission may be exactly that). But it does suggest what the SE was designed for.
Deep strike with a self protection capability.
So, in long, the designers may not have felt a full FBW redesign to have been strictly necessary for the Mudhen to move mud.
Question: That graphic suggests the E can carry 10 AAMs (120/9). I can’t figure out how they arrive at that figure; it seems in DCS (I’ve only briefly messed with the loadout) that it can only carry 8 (2x on each wing pylon, 2x on each CFT). What am I missing?
ETA: Based on reading the -15E manual, nothing. It appears that graphic may be a bit marketing-oriented.
Not dealt that deep with the F-15 origins but pretty sure Harry Hillaker said he went to give a presentation to MacAir on the F-16 in the early 70s and met the FBW team there. Anyway he said FBW was left off because it was too high risk considering the cost and the importance of the F-15 program. The F-16 on the other hand they didn’t expect to sell many lightweight air superiority fighters but they did make sure they could move the main wings forward if it failed on the YF-16.
FBW on the F-15 was developed for and paid for (IIRC) by Saudi Arabia on the F-15SA which was a modified E. The QA and EX are just mods to the SA basically. One thing about the SA on is they can use the outer pylons and that is apparently due to FBW.
Right, the SA, QA, and EX variants can and do use the outers.
But that graphic (the top one) claims the E can carry 10. I was temporarily confused how to get there, before determining that is incorrect. Unless you mean that some Es can, but not our E in DCS?
