People confusingly use FBW to describe the F-15 CAS system, or other hybrid systems such as the spoilers on the F-14, the ailerons on the YF-17.
The A-5 Vigilante primarily used electrical signals to all the control surfaces and has a fully mech back up system so that could be FBW technically.
I would agree with the above that only systems with no mechanical connections to primary flight control surfaces should be the only FBW systems. I suppose another thing to this is F-16 and F-117 cannot be flown with a conventional system for example so need FBW and some extra intelligence to keep flying. Whereas legacy hornet and Su-27 for example have what is called FBW but they also have conventional mech backup systems.
Sorry - I wonder if they ever certified those QUAD missile adapters on the F-15? that could be how but I donāt know. I will try to find some of the other mockup pylons they did.
[quote=āMigBuster, post:1060, topic:7012ā] 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 didnāt 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
[/quote]
Interesting, and completely believable!
Itās always funny to look back and see what is now considered, ācommonplaceā be thought of as āVoodooā once.
I forgot about the 2x2 missile racks. Obviously not implemented on our E, and IIRC not procured by the USAF, but probably possible to carry, right? Or were those only for the outer pylons and weāre back to square one?
Not sureā¦some are definitely tested and required to be hardened to some degree against this today (F-35 e.g.)
F-16s were doing nuclear alert in Germany in the early 80s and they were according to an ex pilot hardened against EMP (I suppose someone could have been lying to them LOL ). There is also a 1985 senate hearing where they mention the F-16 was put through EMP hardening tests and the system design was very good against that.
Only saw photos / images with them on the inners years back. One looks like it is a photo but not certain. Boeing could have certified them independently but cannot find anything that confirms such a thing.
The optimistic F-15CX and twin CFT pylons Boeing render remains a fantasy for now.
I apologize because it does look like Iām doubting you- wasnāt my original intentionā¦
I simply canāt imagine a stick with two different behaviors like that BUT thatās a me problem.
Also as Troll reported it isnāt something SO weird/wrong soā¦
I am pleased to stand corrected.
Es are losing CFTs because they are being Shifted to A2A Roles, while the CFTs are being moved to the EXs as they arrive, as they Purchased EXs, but no additional CFTs for themā¦ so as EXās enter the fleet, the CFTs are taken from the existing Es
The 15E and 15EX, is technically a Fighter that Learned to bomb/precision strike, since itās literally the Fighter Airframe w/ modifications.
As for role wiseā¦ itās a Self Escorting Strike Aircraft.
LOL, not certain of the genesis of that remark; must have missed the first go around.
In any case, the article speaks to the point I think.
The E isnāt a fighter that learned to bomb.
The E is a bomber that that was built on the bones of a fighter.
But itās not the same aircraft. It was intended as a striker from the outset (unlike the, ānot a pound, for air to groundā 15A/C) and I think youāre going to see the intention in some of its design choices, like the addition of a dedicated WSO, non-droppable fuel tanksā¦or the decision of not redesigning the basic A flight control system with FBW.
I hadnāt heard the assertion that the SE was considered ātoo importantā to use FBW. Having spent some time in DC though, that sort of remark, doesnāt surprise me.
The fact that they removed the CFTs (temporarily or otherwise) reflects, IMO, the changing mission of the E and also the sunset of the C āfighter mafiaā that was very protective of its role as the Air Forceās āMiG killersā.
