Any Typhoon pilots?

[mysterywhiteboy83]

Can any of you guys that fly Typhoons, or maybe just know a lot about them, tell me... do the manoeuvre slats automatically extend and remain extended at sub-sonic speed or do they extend as a reaction to a sub-sonic turn, for instance, and then return to normal position?

[Courtney Mil]

WHen I was working on the project in the earlier days, the slats would schedule automatically, reacting to speed and AOA.

[mysterywhiteboy83]

Great. Thanks for that, mate.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, that doesn't mean it ended up that way. Remember that Tornado was supposed to have auto wingsweep, but the RAF wouldn't pay for the clearances so it was taken out. Worked fine for the Saudis. I hope a current pilot can confirm for you.

Courtney

[Lima Juliet]

Courtney

The RAF wouldn't pay for the clearances so it was taken out

I don't believe that this is entirely correct. I was always told by the likes of "the Major", Clive Rowley, "G+10", et al that the "Girls at Boscombe Down" didn't like it as they could do wingsweeping better than the automatics - fine if you're a 2,000hr FJ TP, but no so good for the ab initio f^cknuckle! I do remember collecting a jet from Waste O'space that still had it connected and worked pretty well in my opinion; at least it would have stopped the Navs from shouting "wings back" and "wings forward" all of the time. It would have also saved the poor crew whose Nav just shouted "wings" when in about 45 wing at .95M - unfortunately the poor pilot put the wings forward instead of back!

Anyway, back to the thread. I believe (if I recall correctly) that Typhoon's manoeuvre devices are automatic but you can manually override them. However, my experience was flying the sim at Warton during 17(F) Sqn's brief stay before going to CGY.

LJ

[Courtney Mil]

That was the best things about crew solos on the F3 OCU. Guy in the back had no more idea what was causing the buffet than I did so didn't get nagged about wings or manoeuvres.

[glad rag]

The RAF wouldn't pay for the clearances so it was taken out Something to do with displaying the total energy status of the aircraft :ooh: from memory....anyway it was a bit like the first RAF G bombers suddenly [over the weekend] having the white gloss under the slats toned down to match the rest of the wing....

anyway why are we discussing

do the manoeuvre slats automatically extend and remain extended at sub-sonic speed or do they extend as a reaction to a sub-sonic turn, for instance, and then return to normal position? an operational type?

[Lima Juliet]

Glad Rag

This is hardly state secrets is it? You can watch the manoeuvre devices schedule during air displays and company demonstrations! :ugh:

LJ

[cuefaye]

Leon. Quite. But no doubt a current operator will enlighten us?

[gashman]

First reply was correct.

Oddly the slats stow away when you put the gear down, I think so you can fly faster with a lower nose attitude and therefore see the runway on final. Also helps in the transition between air and ground to stop it skipping down the tarmac like an F16 I guess.

[AdLib]

The slats stow

= less lift (at given IAS/Wt/AoA)

= more AoA required to maintain landing RoD

= higher nose attitude

= less runway view?

Should I get my coat now?

[gashman]

Nope, it didn't make sense to me when I was told either.

The flaps still deploy so the camber of the wing is altered but because the slats don't drop too, the line drawn from the front of the wing to the trailing edge of the flap means that the effective angle of attack has been increased. The nose can then be lower with an effective high aoa on the wing. If the slats were down too then the effective aoa reduces again so your nose would have to be higher and your approach could be slower.

The TPs looked at it and putting the slats up produced a better picture.

[Courtney Mil]

The high nose attitude was an issue in the early days too. We played with opposing effort between the flaperons and the canards to reduce it, but ultimately the TPs thought it was manageable. The slats and flaperons simply adjust the wing's coefficient (actively), the interaction with the canards is a WAY bigger effect.

You would not beleive how much this complicated an already complex fight control software.

[mysterywhiteboy83]

Thanks for all the interesting info, folks. Courtney, was the flaperon/canard interaction more efficient/effective than the current configuration do you think?

[Finningley Boy]

the "Girls at Boscombe Down"

Is this true? There all girls that work at Boscombe Down?! This quite revelation for me.

FB:)

[AdLib]

AMC PDQ more like! Then shout WTF and GFOD with the ICO. LOL.

Wouldn't use a TLA without a DGR though. :rolleyes:







yes, yes, getting my coat now.

[Tarnished]

There is no manual slat option.
Scheduled automatically and proportionally throughout the flight envelope with a very clever anticipation factor built in. When the FCS sees a large stick input it will start to deploy slats in anticipation of the AOA rising through the point where they would deploy if the AOA was rising more slowly.
The gear down retraction of slats comes from the fact that the overall lateral/directional characteristics are better (for the task of approach and landing control) with the slats retracted. Early FCS sw loads had slats with gear down, but the jet wandered about a little so it was binned.
This is the story of the slats, let it be told.
Tarnished

[howiehowie93]

Good day Gents, very interesting bit about the Tonka; are you referring to the F3 - I always thought it had Auto Wing sweep ! Tho to be fair I never noticed a switch for that.

As for G+10 is that a certain ex-228OCU Instructor G****bridge ? A great bloke always full of banter signing out & back in the Toom F700's in the Line Hut !!

Even better at beer calls !! :ok:


regards
H

[Dominator2]

I was lucky enough to be on the F3 OEU for a number of years and one of my trials was the AWS on the F3. The trial was to evaluate the tactical employment of Blah, Blah, Blah the AWS. Air Warfare Centre (CTTO) words to describe the trial. Results were very favourable. Only one part of flight regime where we recommended to over-ride into manual. However, in the meantime the OCU received its 1st jets with AWS. Since they were new and shiny they were used by Fred for his aeros. As Fred did not trust anything automatic, he moved the wings and slats manually, but without the system disabled. Within a couple of weeks the jets were grounded as the follow-up motors were screwed (a technical term). Alarm at Support Authority, lack of understanding at Group and months of prevarication. After 1 1/2 years, and due to a lack of interest the system was shelved. Not too sure who made the final decision but it was almost certainly based on mis-information and a total lack of knowledge.

[howiehowie93]

So where was the switch then ?

regards
H

[Dominator2]

If only I could remember. I will research, however, I do recall that there were square select buttons, I believe near the throttles. The system could be selected to be in full auto AWS and AMD or just auto AWS. Manual selection of either AWS or AMD deselected that part of the system.
The downfall of the AWS was that only 25/45/58/67 were in the programme so it was not fully variable. The AMD operated on AOA values. It could not anticipate manoeuvre and because the srew jacks took so long to operate, they could not cater for the rapid onset of AOA and so performance was less than optimal. When flying a non aerodynamic brick this was not on ideal situation.

[Stitchbitch]

howiehowie93...G+10, That's the Gent, last seen showing visitors around THAT hangar at the secret Lincs fighter base (with Clive R).:ok:

[spoff]

Flew the F3 or ADV as was named there with RSAF and it was superb. Made it just like flying a big hawk.

Disabled if for close formation and landing.

Whoever was responsible for the call not to enable it for the RAF was a donkey.

Button for on/off was next to your left thigh-old age, and too many type changes inbetween preclude any more detail.

[NITRO104]

AdLib,

http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/principlesofflight/flapcurve.jpg

No need for slats at landing.

[strikemaster82]

Yep. They extend the stalling a.o.a. but don't raise the lift coefficient.

[Lightning Mate]

They extend the stalling a.o.a. but don't raise the lift coefficient.

Care to explain the last bit?

[Stuff]

I think he meant to add, "at any given AoA"

[ORAC]

Am I wrong in recallng that one of the main reasons for disabling the F3 autosweep was fatigue.

The initial assumption was that the F3 would generate less fatigue than the GR1; however when they wired one up and did tests it was dramatically higher*. Specifically, it spiked and went through the roof when the wings swept when pulling G.

So the system was disabled and the brief was to sweep before or after, but not during, the turn........

(*The assumption being that the GR1 at low level would suffer more, but in fact the carried stores and majority of flight wing swept kept it in a benign regime. The F3 constantly thrashing the wings back and forth with no tanks was much worse. At which stage they introduced a test rig and ran it to keep ahead of the fleet; which lead to one FI programme after another to fix things as more bits fell off.

I did hear the story that the final life of the airframe was determined when the test item "disintegrated catastrophically" in the rig. But that was possibly anecdotal.)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I was the Sqn Fatigue officer for a while. I recall this too.

[strikemaster82]

I think he meant to add, "at any given AoA"

oops, yes :ouch:

[Out Of Trim]

I was the Sqn Fatigue officer for a while.

Sounds like a very tiring job! ;)




Sorry, I'll get my coat!

[Courtney Mil]

ORAC,

Mostly right, but the reasons for this were interesting (to say the least). Using the wing sweep (auto or manual), which one has/had to, would take the aircraft through an astonishing number of defined limitations (speed, normal g, aoa and rolling limits). The aircraft could only record consumed FI at set points and (we all know) the computer(s) didn't have the capacity to interpolate between these points. In truth, no one really knew what happened anyway, because the testing on the fatigue model was still running (obviously).

The apparent fatigue consumption as recorded by the fatigue meter didn't match what was really happeneing (as we discovered when they opened them up for the first time) AND the assumptions about how the F would burn FI compared to the GR were based on a fictitious interceptor role; we then went on to do loads of low level and a lot of 'high' g manouvring that wasn't 'expected'.

As far as I know, there was no significant FI penalty in moving the wings under normal g - there would have been yet another set of endless NO and NE limits for that if there were.

The issue with AWSMDS wasn't one of fatigue. It was, I am convinced, to do with clearances and money.

IMHO.

Courtney

[EAP86]

I wasn't actually involved at the time but I was told later that the reason in post #19 by Dominator2:

"As Fred did not trust anything automatic, he moved the wings and slats manually, but without the system disabled. Within a couple of weeks the jets were grounded as the follow-up motors were screwed (a technical term)."

...is closer to the mark. As confirmation its worth noting the Saudi ADVs had no issues with AWS as the default option.

[Dominator2]

Courtney,

You are correct to say that the issue with AWSMDS wasn't one of aircraft fatigue although it was to do with the fatigue or failure or the followup system. AWS was not designed to be manually over-riden. The systems engineers at Warton had no concept that a pilot would wish to move the wings manually. Also, there was a belief that a pilot would never use an intermediate wing aweep setting since they were not cleared for service. The system failed to come into service in the RAF due to a lack of knowledge at middle management. As mentioned, the RSAF operated the system throughout the life of the aircraft without problem.
The story of the aircraft fatigue is a different one. The fatigue was recorded at the different wing settings and at certain G. The factoring to ascertain the total aircraft fatigue was based on the profiles in the Statement Of Operating Intent. Engineers believed that these profiles were accurate and aircrew could not be bothered with it. At the end it was very simplistic and was like trying to crack a walnut with a sledge hammer.

[Lightning Mate]

No need for slats at landing.

There certainly is if trailing edge double or triple slotted Fowler flaps are used.

These create a powerful nose-down pitching moment which may be offset somewhat by the nose-up pitching moment caused by slats.

Don't know about the Tornado, having not flown it.

[Courtney Mil]

I think the thread is slightly confused, the point was about Typhoon's slats and that, of course has socking great canards to control the pitching moment. Tornado needs all the 'high lift devices' it can muster for landing.

[Dominator2]

It is difficult to believe that Tornado F3, in 25 wing, full flap and slat landed nearly 20 kts faster than the F4. Due to it being a screwed up mod of a GR1 if you landed slower you could run out of pitch control. I remember that a TP tried and ended up heavy landing.

[EAP86]

",,,socking great canards to control the pitching moment..."

I believe that while the foreplanes are used in starting and stopping manoeuvres they're not sized as conventional control surfaces – compare the FP size to Tornado tailplanes and note the shorter lever arm to the cg. Once the manoeuvre is initiated the foreplanes are used to trim in pitch and enable the flaperons to operate in the middle of their range of movement at all incidences. This way the flaperons shouldn't get too close to saturation (hitting the end stops) and losing pitch control/damping. This also assures plenty of roll control/damping at all incidences. I was once told that for a delta wing, starting the roll is easy, stopping it was the hard part.

[NITRO104]

Lightning Mate,
what I meant is, slat as such won't add any lift to the Typhoon.
Since I never saw Typhoon deploying flaperons on approach, the FCS may just as well stow the slats, too.

[Courtney Mil]

EAP86,

Well put, but have you seen where the limit of travel is on those big boys? I think the difference is in the effect foreplanes have on pitch vs that of tail planes - dynamically stable vs unstable. And you are absolutely right, even more so in pitch with canards; starting the pitch is easy...

[TBM-Legend]

Typhoons were for kids according to my 92 year old Tempest pilot friend.
He recently flew to UK and attended 80 Sqn reunion. When asked how it was he told me..."a good time but a bit lonely and I was the only one there from WW2!":ok:

[Murray flew Tomahawks, Hurricanes, Kittyhawks and Spitfires in the desert and Italy with 260 Sqn and others]

[EAP86]

Courtney,

The nose down FP travel limit is likely set by the lift dump requirement. Nevertheless I think I'm right in saying that the pitch control power (FP and flaperons) is still insufficient to recover from stalled incidences. For unstable platforms, travel is important but so is the rate of movement; I think the Typhoon FPs angular rate about twice as fast as Tornado TPs. The frequency response requirement for the FP actuators is also far higher than the Tornado TP actuators.

Bear in mind the previous experiments with the fly by wire Jaguar (XX765, S62) which was quite unstable in pitch (from memory ~ -10% manoeuvre margin and fitted with large LE strakes) and that was controlled quite happily by a normal tailplane.

The 'right' configuration may be a combination. I recall a conversation in the early 90s with a pretty good aerodynamicist who suggested that having both foreplanes and tailplanes was the optimum for agility. I believe Farnborough were looking at a config like this in the windtunnel around that time too but I can't remember its name.