RedTiger Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) Well Red Tiger, I do not believe that fair to the guys here... No offense or unfairness was intended to anyone. It is what it is, and it is normal. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "sad". Edited May 4, 2009 by RedTiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulman Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Perhaps it was just a very high-speed ejection, or like Kara Hultgreen, the chap got on the wrong side of fate in the ejection timings. Terrible shame. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Perhaps it was just a very high-speed ejection, or like Kara Hultgreen, the chap got on the wrong side of fate in the ejection timings. Terrible shame. The K-36 is rated to and above the speed range of the Su-30, especially at 20.000 feet. I suspect the problems to be with the canards, but that's just speculation. It would explain the oscillations as the FCS would try to compensate for the inbalance and may start oscillating the horizontal control surfaces, leading to high G forces and a break up. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscode Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I doubt any modern CS would allow an oscilatory state. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I doubt any modern CS would allow an oscilatory state. Sure, and it compensates with the canards... which are (partially) gone. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscode Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 No. It compensates on every output. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobek Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I doubt any modern CS would allow an oscilatory state. Well i know it's old but it seems you do not know this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieef0tLrv9c I guess that counts as modern but maybe not as mature. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 ANd here's the reason it's old: It was fixed. Not only was it fixed, but the possibility of this happening was known, but that pilot was not familiar with this and so he induced PIO. The CS can't and won't save you from yourself ;) It -can- be programmed to cope with mechanical damage, but at this point it's probably guessing as to what's happened. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobek Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 ANd here's the reason it's old: It was fixed. Not only was it fixed, but the possibility of this happening was known, but that pilot was not familiar with this and so he induced PIO. The CS can't and won't save you from yourself ;) It -can- be programmed to cope with mechanical damage, but at this point it's probably guessing as to what's happened. So what? I didn't bash the preciousss 22, i just wanted to show that oscillations are possible even with modern FLCS. Never did i hint at that the production F-22s still have that flaw. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 The CS can't and won't save you from yourself ;) It -can- be programmed to cope with mechanical damage, but at this point it's probably guessing as to what's happened. Well, my in car computer that's controlling fuel/O2 mixture and windshield wipers behavior among other things died on me and went berserk several times within year and a half, I did nothing to cause it's malfunction or malfunction of other in-car systems! First I realized I didn't have to apply wheelbrake to start the engine, I mean engine shouldn't start if brakes are not applied. Then wipers go active each time I toggle windshield defrost fan switch on! Fuel consumption increased from 12L/100km to 18L/100km and when I took my car to service, guys told me my onboard CPU module got fried and replacing it is cca 1500€. I was lucky my car was still unded warranty so I didn't waste a dime! So flickus like systems in aircraft have slightly more dangerous consequences in aircraft than in cars when it goes ballistic! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikoyan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Well, my in car computer that's controlling fuel/O2 mixture and windshield wipers behavior among other things died on me and went berserk several times within year and a half, I did nothing to cause it's malfunction or malfunction of other in-car systems! First I realized I didn't have to apply wheelbrake to start the engine, I mean engine shouldn't start if brakes are not applied. Then wipers go active each time I toggle windshield defrost fan switch on! Fuel consumption increased from 12L/100km to 18L/100km and when I took my car to service, guys told me my onboard CPU module got fried and replacing it is cca 1500€. I was lucky my car was still unded warranty so I didn't waste a dime! So flickus like systems in aircraft have slightly more dangerous consequences in aircraft than in cars when it goes ballistic! what kind of car was that? sounds worst than my killer bicycle, It tried to kill me several times by flipping 360 degrees on the vertical, but I was faster!:smilewink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 It may be an anti commercial but I was really pissed then so WTF: Land Rover Discovery TVD6 2,7L 190HP! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I wonder if modern fighter aircraft have an equivalent of HUMS on rotary craft, even if it's integrated into the FCS; for instance checking trends over time on control surface movement, and flagging anything that is unusual that could suggest a problem. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobek Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I wonder if modern fighter aircraft have an equivalent of HUMS on rotary craft, even if it's integrated into the FCS; for instance checking trends over time on control surface movement, and flagging anything that is unusual that could suggest a problem. That's called an adaptive system and is currently the hottest shit out there concerning control systems. It's used in some fancy cars engine control but i can't say to what degree it's used in aviation engineering, though i guess a lot. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I wonder if modern fighter aircraft have an equivalent of HUMS on rotary craft, even if it's integrated into the FCS; for instance checking trends over time on control surface movement, and flagging anything that is unusual that could suggest a problem. Health and usage monitoring systems, if it is what I am thinking, has been part of many aircraft in many different versions and with different capabilities. I have never work on a piece of equipment called "HUMS" but looking in the net, looks like it is a diagnostic system, is that correct? If it is many aircraft have similar systems. For example, the F-16 is constantly checking it electronic components and will tell the pilots or maintainer of faults, like the Ekran in KA-50 to some extent. But this systems can not detect everything obviously, so accident still happen. Is that what you where referring or did I completely miss you question? To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulman Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Health and usage monitoring systems, if it is what I am thinking, has been part of many aircraft in many different versions and with different capabilities. I have never work on a piece of equipment called "HUMS" but looking in the net, looks like it is a diagnostic system, is that correct? If it is many aircraft have similar systems. For example, the F-16 is constantly checking it electronic components and will tell the pilots or maintainer of faults, like the Ekran in KA-50 to some extent. But this systems can not detect everything obviously, so accident still happen. Is that what you where referring or did I completely miss you question? Yes, absolutely. I understand they're getting very sophisticated, in terms of failure prediction, and the amount of data (and parts tracking) they can work with. I know there's been a lot of work with helicopters (gearboxes etc) in trying to understand the various problems that affect them. I don't know how much an FBW could hide from a pilot, should there be a control problem. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Yes, absolutely. I understand they're getting very sophisticated, in terms of failure prediction, and the amount of data (and parts tracking) they can work with. I know there's been a lot of work with helicopters (gearboxes etc) in trying to understand the various problems that affect them. I don't know how much an FBW could hide from a pilot, should there be a control problem. The FBW would not hide anything from the pilot. As you can see in this video (1:39) FBW could not prevent this Same here, The FBW is doing its best to save the aircraft; leading edge flap is all the way down, horizontal stabs are all the way deflected trying to get the nose up. But it could not stop nor prevent pilots misjudgments or mistakes. FBW would not correct physical problems on the aircraft, that is one of the reason FBW aircraft still need trim. I hope I am answering correctly, not sure if I'm understanding your question or comment properly. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 ^ bad comparison IMHO, all the F-16 is having is pitch override (no use when pulling up), the Su-30 has this big FCS override button right there on the stick, allowing the aircraft to exceed the max rotation/alpha combination (and stall after the maneuver). Ow hell, just wait for the accident report from the Indians. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Groove Posted May 7, 2009 ED Team Share Posted May 7, 2009 You guys know why this F-16 crashed, right? Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) You guys know why this F-16 crashed, right? Pilot error, My point is FBW does not correct pilot misjudgments. ForceFeedback I was comparing FBW aircraft. Not comparing specific the F-16 and the F-117 to the SU-30 MKI. I was just pointing out that FBW aircraft are not without their faults and that FBW will not hide anything from the pilot in my experience. I thought that is what Sulman was commenting on. I do not know what cause the Indian aircraft crash, just commenting on FBW aircraft with Sulman. I am not claiming to be an expert, just having a conversation on the subject. Edited May 7, 2009 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I remember the Russians said the Su-34 had a really good FCS, that it even would not allow the pilot to do a CFIT, but then again they might have been journalists 'transmutating' the terrain following capabilities into something more sensational :/ I think the problem with some FBW aircraft is that the soft limits become hard limits, combine that with pilot error and the results are fatal. I remember a HUD video of an F-16 during some Red Flag, and the pilot got disoriented, he tried to recover (in a way like Mr. Strickland), but met his maker. Due to this AoA limited FCS. I'm not paranoid of flying in an Airbus, au contraire, they're quieter and more comfy than Boeings, but this is about military jets, with high G-loads and lots of room for errors. You can become an expert on the F-18 FCS, it's whole architecture is readily available from NASA, and it gives you a headache after a few pages too :P Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You guys know why this F-16 crashed, right? Baro altimeter wasn't adjusted properly, is it?! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts