Why not a sidestick on the Typhoon ?
someone loaded a shotgun with switches, fired, and then set them where the ricochets landed!
I couldn't agree more! I just thought that we could have done soooo much better with Typhoon some 25 years after Tornado!
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The problem is if you use being better than Tornado as your metric you don't really have achieve much to claim such a feat.
Originally Posted by Deliverance
it really could be sooo much better than it is. The lack of a side stick shows the middle of the road, design by 4 nation committee that stifled the design. But it is just the tip of the iceberg of the disaster that is the pilot machine interface. Don't get me started on the cluster that is DVI. Disappointing...
Salute to a few here and good to find the thread.
Okie and Retired can help me here, but didn't find this thread until today.
At Leon...... the reclining seat in the Viper had almost no benefit except cruising a long ways. How come? Well, we didn't lay back and enjoy the gee. We sat straight up and looked over the rails, back and up and....... Besides, what's one gee of tolerance?
The big thing about the stick was about inadvertant inputs when yanking and banking. I used the "wrist support" doofer, but many didn't, but only relied on the forearm support when pulling gees.
The side stick allowed a very small panel in front to see the video, and we had no big trouble entering data or using the nav panels with either hand.
I flew the Sluf, and it had more and better displays than early Vipers, and had traditional center stick. But the displays were all up and left and right of the stick -very big cockpit and comfortable. Flew the F-20 and F-18 sims in 1984 - 1985 and they were like the Sluf. They both had larger cockpits than the Viper. Guess they needed someplace to put the coffee as we did in the Sluf.
Okie and Retired can help me here, but didn't find this thread until today.
At Leon...... the reclining seat in the Viper had almost no benefit except cruising a long ways. How come? Well, we didn't lay back and enjoy the gee. We sat straight up and looked over the rails, back and up and....... Besides, what's one gee of tolerance?
The big thing about the stick was about inadvertant inputs when yanking and banking. I used the "wrist support" doofer, but many didn't, but only relied on the forearm support when pulling gees.
The side stick allowed a very small panel in front to see the video, and we had no big trouble entering data or using the nav panels with either hand.
I flew the Sluf, and it had more and better displays than early Vipers, and had traditional center stick. But the displays were all up and left and right of the stick -very big cockpit and comfortable. Flew the F-20 and F-18 sims in 1984 - 1985 and they were like the Sluf. They both had larger cockpits than the Viper. Guess they needed someplace to put the coffee as we did in the Sluf.
Thread Starter
According to the IAF the reclining seat on the F16 was a major issue on their incredible long range mission to bomb the reactor at Osiraq.
Both of the accounts I have read said it contributed to fatigue and made it next to impossible for the pilots to relieve themselves when necessary
Both of the accounts I have read said it contributed to fatigue and made it next to impossible for the pilots to relieve themselves when necessary
Gums - "what's one gee" I bet you would have liked that extra 1g in your A7 SLUF when you went head to head with a Viper! 
As for the reclining seat and neck strain. I remember flying with a guy at Kleine-Brogel in a B model and he explained that you shouldn't keep your head forward all the time and let it rest back whenever you can. It all felt right to me except for the control stick - even with a little bit of movement it still felt strange. Overall, it felt like a star-ship compared to the ergonomic slum that was the Lincolnshire Land Shark (F3). The Typhoon didn't feel much better and if it hasn't changed in the past 5 years since I last went in one, then it is quite frankly embarassingly-underwelming for a cockpit one generation on from the F3. The F22 and F35 cockpits are examples of where the Typhoon should have been.
Finally, a story about G-tolerance and aircraft design. I was being shown around a Mirage 2000C by an exceptionally short French fighter pilot in the late 90s. Scanning around the cockpit I asked where the G-meter was - the Frenchman replied "I am ze G-Meter. I cannot pull more Gs than the aircraft can take". Now considering he was short, smoked, drank like a fish and had a few extra pounds that he shouldn't have been carrying, then I guess his blood pressure was higher than the average - so I guess he was good for 10G+!!!
LJ
As for the reclining seat and neck strain. I remember flying with a guy at Kleine-Brogel in a B model and he explained that you shouldn't keep your head forward all the time and let it rest back whenever you can. It all felt right to me except for the control stick - even with a little bit of movement it still felt strange. Overall, it felt like a star-ship compared to the ergonomic slum that was the Lincolnshire Land Shark (F3). The Typhoon didn't feel much better and if it hasn't changed in the past 5 years since I last went in one, then it is quite frankly embarassingly-underwelming for a cockpit one generation on from the F3. The F22 and F35 cockpits are examples of where the Typhoon should have been.
Finally, a story about G-tolerance and aircraft design. I was being shown around a Mirage 2000C by an exceptionally short French fighter pilot in the late 90s. Scanning around the cockpit I asked where the G-meter was - the Frenchman replied "I am ze G-Meter. I cannot pull more Gs than the aircraft can take". Now considering he was short, smoked, drank like a fish and had a few extra pounds that he shouldn't have been carrying, then I guess his blood pressure was higher than the average - so I guess he was good for 10G+!!!
LJ
Deliverance LJ,
After 2-3 sorties that side stick feels the most natural way to fly; you think, you move. It truly makes you feel like you are the aircraft. You would have felt the same after a couple of trips, I'm sure of it.
After 2-3 sorties that side stick feels the most natural way to fly; you think, you move. It truly makes you feel like you are the aircraft. You would have felt the same after a couple of trips, I'm sure of it.
I never felt otherwise with the center stick. It is a matter of practice and not one of a single passenger ride. Once you feel comfortable with everything it feels that way.
I think gums made some valid points. He flew both and should know, especially the value of the reclining seat for g tolerance. I never had problem with not being able to tolerate g the aircraft would allow, and often did not connect the Anti-G suit to prevent me from overstressing the aircraft. Body G- tolerance is a question of practice too.
Personally, I think the argument about being able to fly the aircraft with either hand on a central stick is to quote my favourite USMC Lt Col, 'Hollywood crud':
1. There aren't throttles on either side of the cockpit so landing is going to be a tricky and you are certainly 'out of the fight' and will shortly fall victim if you're still in one!
2. The chances of being in any fit state to continue to fly having had either a cannon-shell, expanding rod, fragmentation or shrapnel penetrate either your body or the cockpit is exceptionally small (very sadly Flt Lt Steve Hicks in 1991 was killed by the warhead of a SAM - his pilot survived but the aircraft was unflyable and he left it shortly afterwards). Even if you survive, unless you're in the overhead then you will probably bleed out if you received such a wound as to stop you using your right arm.
3. Flying an aircraft with the other hand is like left-foot braking in a car - it takes a bit of practice! I found this out the first time I flew an aircraft with my right hand on the stick and the left hand on the throttle having flown bugsmashers with my hands the other way around - all over the place for the first 10 minutes!
LJ
1. There aren't throttles on either side of the cockpit so landing is going to be a tricky and you are certainly 'out of the fight' and will shortly fall victim if you're still in one!
2. The chances of being in any fit state to continue to fly having had either a cannon-shell, expanding rod, fragmentation or shrapnel penetrate either your body or the cockpit is exceptionally small (very sadly Flt Lt Steve Hicks in 1991 was killed by the warhead of a SAM - his pilot survived but the aircraft was unflyable and he left it shortly afterwards). Even if you survive, unless you're in the overhead then you will probably bleed out if you received such a wound as to stop you using your right arm.
3. Flying an aircraft with the other hand is like left-foot braking in a car - it takes a bit of practice! I found this out the first time I flew an aircraft with my right hand on the stick and the left hand on the throttle having flown bugsmashers with my hands the other way around - all over the place for the first 10 minutes!
LJ
LJ,
I agree - I have swapped seats a few times and it takes a readjustment.
The battle damage case against a side stick seems very silly.
I am disappointed but not surprised to hear your comments on Typhoon. I remember being at Farnborough in the mid-late 80s (when it was changing name every year) and being quite underwhelmed by the research into cockpits HUDs and human interfaces etc. I assumed they knew the F-16 was flying a good decade before but now I am not so sure! I think there was a some sort of not invented here philosophy.
I remember doing a couple of tests on instrument interpretation for new cockpit design. Don't remember anything about the tests but the girl running them was very pleasing on the eye.
I agree - I have swapped seats a few times and it takes a readjustment.
The battle damage case against a side stick seems very silly.
I am disappointed but not surprised to hear your comments on Typhoon. I remember being at Farnborough in the mid-late 80s (when it was changing name every year) and being quite underwhelmed by the research into cockpits HUDs and human interfaces etc. I assumed they knew the F-16 was flying a good decade before but now I am not so sure! I think there was a some sort of not invented here philosophy.
I remember doing a couple of tests on instrument interpretation for new cockpit design. Don't remember anything about the tests but the girl running them was very pleasing on the eye.
