Any Typhoon pilots?
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!"
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!"
[Murray flew Tomahawks, Hurricanes, Kittyhawks and Spitfires in the desert and Italy with 260 Sqn and others]
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 12th Oct 2012 at 22:54.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
