Cockpit design and ergonomics.

[Al R]

Being the spotter that I am, I have just been looking at some fots of an F16.

Questions. I couldn't see any miniature detonating cord in the canopy. How would it shatter? I'm assuming that because of its shape and clean size and unrestricted design, it has to be a lot thicker and more resistant than a normal one. Is there a cord? Perhaps I couldn't see it.

If the slightly reclining seat idea was such a good one, why has it not been adopted since? I was always under the impression that it was designed that way, to allow the pilot to resist G forces or was it done just so that it could be shoehorned in to the airframe? I recall a trials Meteor fitted out in the 1950's or 60s which compelled the pilot to adopt the prone position. I imagine that low level at least, he would have been battered to f#ck in the turbulence.

The stick.. obviously off centre. Now, I'm thinking biking here. If I'm riding and take my right hand off the throttle to acknowledge someone, things go a bit Pete Tong. So.. how does the F16 pilot select switches on the right hand side in front, or beside him? Does he take his hand off the stick, or does he twist in his/her seat and try to reach over and use his left hand, which seems to be a right cake and arse way of doing things.

Cheers.

[forget]

No cord - old fashioned way. 1. Bang. 2. Gone.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1069982/posts

[GPMG]

There doesn't seem to many switches on the right hand side of the cockpit, I doubt that the few that are there would control anything that would be important during combat / low level etc.


Why not ask this chap?

http://www.frugalsworld.com/falcon4/images/marlin3.jpg

[Al R]

:D Awesome (sad git). Thats one shallow airframe though, which might be why the seat is reclined. I wonder if being reclined is all that its cracked up to be. And perhaps you're right Gimpy. There's an arm rest here and I suppose the operation of those underneath are secondary and quite intuitive.

http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/1107/images/PAF/f16c1.jpg

Forget,

Cheers. That must be one heck of a lump needed to shed that. It must be airflow assisted too, but if the nose is pitched up, I wonder if the seperation is as clean? If course, it must be, but I seem to remember that F4s had a problem with negative pressures preventing the canopy from being ejected. Or something, I forget. :ugh:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Wow! that's quite nice wallpaper.

:O

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Al

A couple of things:

The seat is reclined at 30 degrees because that was the only way to fit it in there. Myths about it being installed at an angle to improve G tolerance are just that.

US cockpits are designed in such a way that most of the switches and stuff that needs to be twiddled with in the air are located on the left console, thus allowing the pilot to fly the jet and operate its systems with his left hand, keeping his right on the stick.

In the F-16, a good HOTAS further makes the switches on the consoles redundant during normal flight operations.

Hope this helps.

[forget]

It must be airflow assisted too, but if the nose is pitched up, I wonder if the seperation is as clean?

Because the F-16 canopy uses thick polycarbonate throughout, it is not possible to eject by using the seat to puncture through the canopy. The canopy must first be blown off by small rockets, prolonging the ejection sequence slightly. On balance, the F-16 canopy concept is considered successful and it is continued in the F-22.

Anything else while I'm here. ;)

[artyhug]

Now I can't claim to be an expert but having spent a few thousand hours sat upright and a hell of alot less in the more relaxed position I know which keeps me awake the longest...

:ok:

[Wader2]

What does Mrs GPMG think of that in her living room?

[GPMG]

Mrs GPMG doesn't mind cause I made one for her as well, we sit side by side and extract revenge on all other cyber pilots, that's cause were well cool and mega rad man.

I think that if i showed any interest in that type of thing, that she wouldn't be Mrs GPMG for long, I hope she doesn't discover my Advanced Dungeons and Dragons set, or my collection of interesting stories about the Manchester Tram network.


I did however spend some of my 'not very hard earned' on a copy of MS Flight sim recently, I uninstalled it a couple of weeks later. My god what a boring piece of software, no boobs or guns anywhere.

Some of these people actualy have check lists prior to virtual take off and fly virtual airlines...... whats the point if you can't get a virtual hostess to play with whilst your on auto pilot?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

On balance, the F-16 canopy concept is considered successful and it is continued in the F-22.

Forget

You make it sound as though it was a new concept to the F-16. It was not; the US has always favoured this system (off the top of my head, the F-86, F-4, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-100 and F-101 all used it in place of MDC), and the F-15 and F-14 (which pre-date the F-16) also use it.

So, I don't think that it's accurate to suggest that the F-22 uses this system because was proven by the Viper.

Al

Yes, it does place more strain on the neck compared to other fighters.

In fact, there has been a propensity for the earliest operational F-16 pilots (now in their 50s and 60s) to start developing neck problems, while contemporary F-15 pilots are more prone to lower back problems. Both groups put their worsening problems down to the expansion of the G envelope (from the traditional 7.33G to 9G) that the Viper and Eagle brought about.

[forget]

Forget. You make it sound as though it was a new concept to the F-16. It was not; the US has always favoured this system (off the top of my head, the F-86, F-4, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-100 and F-101 all used it in place of MDC), and the F-15 and F-14 (which pre-date the F-16) also use it.

That's not implied at all. :confused: In fact, most of the aircraft you mention probably pre-date Detonating Cord. I don't know when it was first used (don't forget the Russians) but the first UK use of it (I think) would be the Buccaneer.

[GPMG]

I thought that it was the Harrier that first used blast cord as they could not rely on air effect to move the canopy out of the way of an ejecting pilot.

However upon searching I found this.



Another Buccaneer innovation was the miniature detonating cord (MDC) in the canopy which would fragment the canopy in the event ejection was necessary, making ejection through the canopy much safer (since used on the Harrier, Hawk, Tornado, etc). Initially designed to help underwater ejection it was soon realised how useful it could be out of the water as well!

So I'll wind my neck in.

[Odie]

No cord - old fashioned way. 1. Bang. 2. Gone.

But having MDC is a damned good back up if the canopy jettison, for some reason, fails. It saves the seat trying to bash it's way through the canopy as some early seats had to, which because they could bounce a couple of times before the canopy gave way could cause added spinal damage. :{ For example, the Tornado goes for belt and braces as it has a pair of decent rocket motors that normally would whip the canopy off, but if the canopy for some reason is still there as the seat travels, it fires off the MDC and the seat goes through the disintegrating acrylic. :ok:

[Al R]

Ewan said: Yes, it does place more strain on the neck compared to other fighters. In fact, there has been a propensity for the earliest operational F-16 pilots (now in their 50s and 60s) to start developing neck problems, while contemporary F-15 pilots are more prone to lower back problems. Both groups put their worsening problems down to the expansion of the G envelope (from the traditional 7.33G to 9G) that the Viper and Eagle brought about.

Interesting, cheers. I've had a rummage about and if anyone is as interested (zzzz) as I was, here are some reports of F-16 pilots with brachial radiculopathies and being grounded quite routinely for a couple of months, which can't be too good. As you implied, one of those studies mentions a career incidence of injuries at a rate of 85%. Having night aids strapped on too, can't help and its strange to think of early F16 pilots now being in their 60s.

Great jet mind. As it enters its autumnal years, I'd be interested to know if looking back, it was all it was cracked up to be, in terms of servicability and reliability too and not just flying capability, which I guess is second to none. Was it the genuine last 'cut price' fighter, I wonder.

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123055906

http://www.refresharticles.com/articles/back-pain/sleep_apnea_in_f16_pilots.txt

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9856546?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubme d_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Another Buccaneer innovation was the miniature detonating cord ... Initially designed to help underwater ejection ...wouldn't it get wet? :hmm:

[artyhug]

Well I guess I'd best order some more bananas then because the F-16 is by far the most comfortable and ergonomically well designed cockpit to ever have the pleasure of my ever widening rear end.

But then I'm sure someone who made up some statisitics on the spot knows best...

:cool:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

On G-tolerance etc, there was originally intent to improve basic g-tolerance with a reclined seat, but then someone with a simple grasp of trig pointed out that the seat would need to be reclined past 30deg for any real difference to start to become apparent (see 90-angle clockface rule for all you rule-of-thumbers out there)

[BEagle]

Pot calling kettle......

Back when every other NATO country was getting F-16s and the RAF was still flying clapped-out old F4s, the only way we could nab one was by luck - or by using sneaky tactics.

I once crept up alongside some head-down Dane on a Priory at low level over the North Sea. We'd spotted him early, then flew a very slack search stern attack before slowly formating on him. Boy was he surprised when he looked round!

Never heard a F-16 mate ever complain about his beloved little 'scooter'!

[forget]

I think you will find that you would have had to have finished your education and gained some qualifications to be Aircrew. You found your niche handing out CCS exam papers. Now you are left with spewing your opinion on everything on PPRuNe

You're a nasty piece of work samuraimatt. Yet another interesting thread tainted by your drivel. As they say, you can't trust a special like an old time copper........ And your eyes are too close together for my liking. :hmm:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/2110271341_b5b818029a.jpg

[Ewan Whosearmy]

PBA

No doubt true that it doesn't make any real difference to G tolerance, but as someone lucky enough to have sandbagged a number of sorties in various pointy nose types, I felt a lot more comfortable pulling Gs in the Viper than in the F-15 or F/A-18. Would be interested in Artyhug's views...

[Raymond Ginardon]

It certainly feels like reclination makes a big difference. Nb the Hornet is only a 7.5g machine (and generally just briefly) and IIRC the seat is a bit reclined (but not of F16 degree). High g was definitely more 'comfy' (less uncomfortable) in the 16 than the 15. The only negative about the F16 g was that you didn't have that psychological 'hrrrmmpphhh' of pulling a 'proper' stick back into your guts - which I find 'comforting' in a strange kid of way.......

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Raymond

Interesting comment about getting the stick back into your belly... perhaps there are some physiological benefits to your g strain when you have to pull to overcome the tension of the springs? I know a few Eagle guys who use both hands on the stick during a good defensive break and probably derive similar benefits.

Ref. the Hornet G limits, the Swiss (who I flew with) have strengthened their C/D-models to allow 9Gs. Just an FYI.

[Raymond Ginardon]

I didn't know about the Swiss strengthening - the Hornet is a very under-powered aeroplane so I don't think you'd be at 9 odd for long (provided you hadn't porked your speed). It was always the 'nose pointing' of the Hornet that was (often) the key to the fight. I think the 'stick into the guts' is more a psychological thing than a physiological one (for me anyway).

[gashman]

WRT the switches issue, once the beastie's fired up, there is no need to press any switches which aren't either HOTAS, on the buttons around the sides of the MFDs, or on the Up Front Control (the boxy keypad looking thingymagig under the HUD). It's a very small cockpit, but once you are sat in the thing, everything is where you expect it to be. The hardest thing about a side-stick is that a pure pull back is a bit tricky to master at first, but after a few hours, it is the most natural way of steering an aeroplane around that I've experienced. Oh, it trims itself too, so unless you've demanded an out of trim condition, taking your hands of the controls is no issue. If the RAF had bought these when the EPAF members did, we'd have been even more capable.

[Al R]

Cheers Gashman, and all for the sensible replies. I seem to remember that the sticks on the very first test F16s were immovable (quite the cutting edge 70s technology) and worked by sensed pressure, but that the pilots needed to feel some movement there, in order to translate the sensation of inputting command.

[gashman]

still the case with the sensed pressure. You demand G and the jet tries to give it to you. In theory, a 9lb pull on the stick should equal a 9G pull in the jet if the speed is available. You are dead right about the movement though, yet it is a token amount: the big brain guys figured out that a small movement helped with precise flying scenarios like AAR and formation flying.

[Greenleader]

At the end of the day, still a cool jet, and one that I wish I'd had the opportunity to fly. Everyone knows that the seat is only reclined so far so the pilot can look cool!!! ;)

Imagine what the likes of 100Sqn and FRADU could do with a bunch of these? Certainly better than some very aged Hunters, which have just been pressed back into service as opfor for CQWI!!? F16's to provide proper red air for the Brit Mil - or would the opfor then be too capable!!!? :)

[Someone Different]

gashman, The hardest thing about a side-stick is that a pure pull back is a bit tricky to master at first

I found landing the thing ('neatly') was the hardest thing initially - I guess it was parly the FLCS (particularly the old analogue one), but the stick certainly didn't help.