Salute!
Guess we can bitch, whine and moan over on a new thread about "feedback" for control inputs versus aircraft response and aero surface displacement, huh?
I finally looked up the "haptic" entry on Wiki:
Haptic technology, also known as kinaesthetic communication or 3D touch,[1] refers to any technology that can create an experience of touch by applying forces, vibrations, or motions to the user.[2]
I really like that term "kinaesthetic communication: so I'll use that from now on to impress the newbies and wannabees ( lOL, jez kidding)
Brief background ++++++++++ I learned to fly in planes such as the Champ,Luscombe and Taylorcraf, that all had piure, basic control systems.Then to T-37 and T-33. I could feel every pressure and even "buzz/burble" in some portions of the envelope due to impending stall and/or high mach flow. Moved on to the Century series and irreversible hydaulic controls where the ailerons and elevator could not provide any feedback to the stick. We used springs like the 'bus for aileron, plus bellows to make the stick stiffer in pitch at higher dynamic pressure. Retired using a stick with zero feedback and 1/8 inch of movement to the 35 pound pitch limit and 17 pound roll limit.
I take some small issue with
Detent's view, in that there are several control systems for personal flight simulators that employ "force feedback" and not simply springs. Early others used the same spring implementation as the 'bus and the VooDoo and SLUF I flew - the more you move the stick, the higher the force reuired. You know, the basic spring equation where the force required is proportional to the square of the displacement and the spring constant. The biggest advantage the 'bus has over the Viper is the physical movement adds another "kinaesthetic communication" channel ( LOL).
To be honest, I prefer the small movement, if any, and primarily force transducers to command the plane's comtrol surfaces. Most of the precise profiles, tracking scenarios and timy corrections flying close formation experiences I had did not involve moving the stick hardly at all, and it was all pressure on the stick. As technology for hydraulic valves advanced, I could see the difference between the T-33 aileron boost and the A-7D system. The Viper was different, as the stick pressures I used did not directly move a hydraulic valve component.
The visual and kinetic feedback we get nowadays in the pure FBW planes has been shown to be more than enough to maintain aircraft control and execute very precise maneuvers. If the regulatory agencies wish to require control forces or "feel" related to AoA and gee and roll commands, my feeling is we have to go back and come up with new requirements for certification. I point to the Airbus 320, and we have had 30 years of FBW for that plane to examine. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Gums sends...