Why not a sidestick on the Typhoon ?

[stilton]

It seems the trend in fighters these days has been to go with sidesticks, dispensing with the centre 'Joystick'


I would think there would be advantages as it takes up less space and offers a better view of the instrument panel.


Curious as to why the Typhoon has retained the center stick arrangement ?

[Courtney Mil]

There was a very long and involved programme for Eurofighter (as it then was) cockpit design. Pilots actually got to influence the design! Regarding the stick, there were a number of issues, one of which was arm pain under sustained high g. Mounting the stick lower and to the side would only have made this problem worse. The centre stick arrangement doesn't obscure anything significantly and there would have needed to to be a really good reason to redesign. Remember as well, when the basic design was laid down and where it came from.

[NutLoose]

I may be wrong but I always thought that if you were wounded in combat a centre stick mean you can fly it with either arm, a side stick makes that virtually impossible.

[Courtney Mil]

Then we need centre throttles too.

[NutLoose]

You can get it stable without touching the throttle so as to eject.

[Lima Juliet]

Nope, a side stick and a reclined seat is the way ahead - reduced 'G measles' in the arm and less need for a pressurised jerkin. But hey, the F16 was only designed in the 70s...:cool:

Good one, by the way, Courtney! :ok:

LJ

[Harley Quinn]

one of which was arm pain under sustained high g

I'm not an aviator in any sense but CMs partial explanation seems to be counter intuitive.

[Courtney Mil]

Please feel free to address me in the first person anytime you like, Harley.

Without taking up a lot of space on the right side of the cockpit, the side stick would be mounted down by the pilot's right thigh. The early problem with the Eurofighter stick was that it placed the pilot's right arm too low. Typhoon doesn't have the seating arrangement that Leon mentioned so the side stick option wasn't a player in this case. Maybe, had it been in the design from the beginning.

[NickPilot]

In the Airbus family the sidestick allows one a nice little table from which to eat one's dinner.

[Background Noise]

And somewhere to pop the camera.

[NutLoose]

http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3424&context=utk_gradthes

[engineer(retard)]

Courtney is correct, that is how it happened.

[ShotOne]

Courtney, (first person!) I'm struggling with your "arm pain under g" explanation. I've seen that given as part of the reason for the F 16 sidestick. "Had it been in from the beginning" seems nearer the mark. The simple reason is probably that aircraft design is very conservative and everything else BAe had built had a stick in the middle.

[Background Noise]

What (I think) he's saying is that the F16 has a reclined seating position and the sidestick arrangement works. Trials indicated that it didn't in the Typhoon (EAP/EF etc).

[Courtney Mil]

That's it, BN.

[engineer(retard)]

In my time in the programme, the aircrew who had tried both configurations had indicated a preference for a centre stick. I believe that there were concerns that the F-16 arm rest at the time may have been causing pain and potentially stress fractures because the rest was too short and it was later modified. I only heard about the F-16 dit by words of mouth, so cannot verify it.

[Courtney Mil]

You're right, Eng. They have also had a lot of neck problems with the reclined seat.

In a way, the Eurofighter design was conservative in some areas, but at the time (and later) the side stick issue wasn't thought to have significant advantages. Either arrangement is fine for straight and level, but in hard manoeuvres the side stick can be awkward if the pilot needs to twist round in the cockpit. It also means releasing the stick to operate equipment on the right console and right instrument panel instead of being able to switch hands - even with HOTAS and DVI, there are still switches around.

Unless the cockpit is big the amount of stick movement is limited, even reduced purely to stick force sensors, which in turn brings other design changes.

To go back to the OP, I don't think Typhoon loses out with a centre stick and it was the popular vote in cockpit assessment.

[Octane]

This may sound naive, I'm not a pilot. Wouldn't it be easier/ more ergonomic to incorporate weapons arming/ firing systems etc on a centre stick rather than a sidestick?

[LowObservable]

The reclined seat has not been tried by anyone else since the F-16. That may tell you something, or it may not.

[melmothtw]

The reclined seat has not been tried by anyone else since the F-16. That may tell you something, or it may not.

It tells me that no other fighter has been designed with a cockpit as small as the F-16s. My understanding is that the reclining seat was more about fitting it into the limited cockpit space than with increased g-tolerances for the pilot (something of a marketing gimmick).

Maybe the Iranians might choose to adopt it for their new 'stealth' fighter...

http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag380/garethjennings1/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-talk-domestically_zpsu05vwveg.jpg (http://s1373.photobucket.com/user/garethjennings1/media/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-talk-domestically_zpsu05vwveg.jpg.html)

[Martin the Martian]

Let us not forget that trials with the prone pilot Meteor also showed a better tolerance of increased g-loads, but it was not adopted for other, obvious reasons.

[thing]

Interestingly the sidestick has found it's way into GA. The odd one or two aircraft have had it in the past but the Cirrus has it across the range as well as the Cessna Corvalis.

Mind you if you can afford a Cirrus or Corvalis you could probably afford an early block F16...

[Courtney Mil]

My understanding is that the reclining seat was more about fitting it into the limited cockpit space than with increased g-tolerances for the pilot (something of a marketing gimmick)

Absolutely right, Mel. If you think of Sin 30 you'll see how little difference the recline makes to heart-brain vertical distance and, therefore the effect of Gz. Especially when the pilot has his head forward - with all the neck issues that causes.

[EAP86]

While BAe hosted the cockpit committee, the aircrew/Services from all 4 nations got their say on cockpit configuration matters; 180º decisions seemed to be quite common:)

I recall at the time that some of these decisions were made, the IAM were a little skeptical about the Gz claims made for the reclined seat. They said a more reclined state was required for significant gains but this increased the potential for injury on ejection.

I believe side sticks were explored as an early option but the majority of all concerned, aircrew and engineers, seemed to favour the centre stick. Arm pain (and bleeding) hardly seemed to get a mention at the time. Force sticks were also considered but many aircrew hated the idea. The F16 'first flight' episode always got a mention during discussions.

[Danny42C]

Maybe a stupid question from a (much older) generation: What was wrong with the old centre stick we'd all grown up with ?

D.

[Lima Juliet]

Never let science get in the way of a good story...

...take a look at the graph below. You will see that a 30deg reclined seat occupant still has some blood in their head at 6g whereas the more upright seat occupant is now sleeping! The 30deg recline gives you about 1 extra G of tolerance.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=2308&sid=82a11b50796ac9988c825b8e430efe59&mode=view

[juliet]

The arguments against the side stick are interesting. Why then did the F-22, and then later on the F-35 both arrive at a side stick as a solution?

Regarding one of the arguments, that of support for the arm. How is a centre stick any better than a side stick with a purpose built arm support?

Cheers.

[SSSETOWTF]

If they were thinking about arm pain, then why did they leave the throttles so low down and put so many HOTAS switches on them? Are pilots not supposed to have any feeling in their left arm?

As far as I could tell, Typhoon cockpit design was a race-to-the-bottom compromise from the brightest minds around at the time. Trouble was that it would appear that the brightest European minds around at the time had backgrounds in F-104, Jaguar, Phantom & the cutting edge (at the time) Tornado - none of which could ever be described as paragons of ergonomic greatness.

The whole cockpit is a relic of the mid-1980s. A switch to cover the flap that covers the pickle button - seriously? Shift HOTAS & HOTAS with long-hold and short-hold functions? RPM gauges and a MIDS display where every other modern fighter in the world puts a data entry panel or an up front controller? You've got 3 nice big colorful MFDs and yet it was decided to do all data entry through the casio-watch-calculator buttons of the 'left hand glare shield' (that someone robbed out of a Jag 96)(because everyone loves typing with their left thumb, right)? A fold out panel that hides the standby instruments (but the front of the panel just shows you what tacan channel and what transponder codes you selected and haven't messed with for the last hour)? The list goes on... Hats off to the guys who are able to operate it effectively - I hated the thing.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Danny42C]

SSSETOWTF,

Amen to that !

D.

[melmothtw]

Never let science get in the way of a good story...

I see what you did there Leon, good comeback ;-)

[engineer(retard)]

Regarding one of the arguments, that of support for the arm. How is a centre stick any better than a side stick with a purpose built arm support?

The way that I heard it was that the edge of the support was acting as a stress raiser. As I said, it was a dit so I never saw any corroboration.

[engineer(retard)]

As far as I could tell, Typhoon cockpit design was a race-to-the-bottom compromise from the brightest minds around at the time.

My recollection was that there were always aircrew in the active cockpit and teams of aircrew at human factors meetings. Perhaps it was the old adage of "9 aircrew and 10 opinions" coming into play :E

[RetiredF4]

Juliet
Regarding one of the arguments, that of support for the arm. How is a centre stick any better than a side stick with a purpose built arm support?

Cheers.

I have not flown side sticks, but lot center stick time fast jet.
With the center stick the upper leg acts as armrest, and it works for left handed or right handed operation. No adjustment necessary, it was always there and always the correct height. On long missions I operated the stick alternating left and right hand, or even with the knees for small corrections or to hold it tight for few seconds. For a look over the left shoulder to check six we would grab the stick with the left, lean forward, grab the left canopy rail with the right hand while moving the left shoulder back to the seat could look back to nearly 170°. With a right side stick this would not be possible, all turning could only be done by the head, not the whole body. When operating switches on the side consoles we just switched the operating hand for the stick, most of us were proficient to fly even close formation with one or the other hand.

If the gadgets in the cockpit allow to sit tight and check your six by by pure electronic means, and most of the flying is done by some automatic mode like in an airbus where the stick is only touched about 10 minutes per flight and both hands are free mto move most time, than the advantages of a center stick are not present and the Side stick can play its advatages to full degree.

There might be more therefore to the center stick in the typhoon than only old design.

But really I do not know the reason for the center stick in Typoon.

[chevvron]

I've only got experience of sidesticks in very low weight aircraft (Moni, Shadow) and central sticks in side by side 2 seaters - so effectively sidesticks for both occupants (AX3 and Chevvron) but i've always found them much easier to use than a central stick or yoke.
The Moni in particular, even though it had a 'V' tail was very pleasant to fly; you just had to think what you wanted the aircraft to do and with virtually no control input, it did it.
A Friend of mine part owned a Cirrus SR22 and he had no problems flying from the UK to Menorca at about 170 kt ias in 3.5 hours using the sidestick.

[thing]

A Friend of mine part owned a Cirrus SR22 and he had no problems flying from the UK to Menorca at about 170 kt ias in 3.5 hours using the sidestick.

Or more probably using the GNS 1000 auto...:). Well if it's there you're going to use it aren't you?

[melmothtw]

...smart enough to stop pulling when it starts hurting

...Fnar Fnar

[Courtney Mil]

Leon,

Just two points. First you're comparing the "reclined" seat with an upright one. None of our seats is upright. Second your charts assume the pilot has his head back in the headrest. We know that not to be true.

The "facts" don't quite follow the chart.

[Lima Juliet]

Courtney

IIRC the Typhoon has a 15 degree seat - compared to the 30 degree seat in a Viper then they would have 5 times the blood pressure in their heads than the Typhoon driver. But as we both know, Typhoon has Chest Counter Pressure Garment (CCPG), full length speed jeans and inflatable bladders in the boots to help with G tolerance. This will do much more than 15 degrees of extra seat angle. However, as the Airmens' Supermarket always says "Every Little Helps..." :ok:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

FWIW I agree with SSSETOWTF. The Typhoon's cockpit did suffer from the 'old and bold' influencing its design. Just look at it:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4069/4397907362_c2626c12d6_z.jpg?zz=1

Compared to the Viper cockpit that was designed 20+ years earlier! :eek:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4001/4542377490_2b07317415.jpg

The Typhoon is an ergonomic slum for its generation when you compare it to F22...

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Commercial_Airliners-Military_Aircraft_Pictures/f22_cockpit_image.jpg

LJ

[O-P]

LJ,


I only flew the Typhoon once (from the back seat), and I thought it was pretty well laid out...at least compared with the F3 where someone loaded a shotgun with switches, fired, and then set them where the ricochets landed!


Oh, my last car had virtually no switches as everything ran off the central touchscreen...f&*king hated it! It took several days to find the seat heaters!


More buttons, less sub menus!!!

[Lima Juliet]

someone loaded a shotgun with switches, fired, and then set them where the ricochets landed!

^^^:D:D:D

I couldn't agree more! I just thought that we could have done soooo much better with Typhoon some 25 years after Tornado!

LJ

[DITYIWAHP]

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.

Excellent point, Deliverance!

:D

[Courtney Mil]

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...

Have you flown it?

[gums]

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.

[Courtney Mil]

Gums, thank you for the inside knowledge. Good post.

[stilton]

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 :eek:

[Lima Juliet]

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! :ok:

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

[RetiredF4]

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.



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.

[ColdCollation]

Didn't the Israelis consider and then reject a side-stick for the Lavi on the basis that if the pilot's right arm was injured (s)he couldn't then fly the aircraft?

[Lima Juliet]

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

[typerated]

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.