[Snagger]

THere is a reason why controls haven ot changed in modern planes.. because its what use humans are used to and what works best its standard so that  it feels like a plane 1 plane to the other id imagen vipers must have theyr standards aswell.

Absolutely - the controls in all modern aeroplanes have the same configurations, ust like all modern cars (excepting manual and automatic transmissions), helicopters and so on.  Interestingly, even though the Airbus fly-by-wire system uses a similar configuration of stick, thrust levers and rudder pedals, all given the same axis as other aircraft, the mere manner in which the FBW operates, keeping attitude constant unless a pilot input is made (automatically compensating for gusts, trim changes, thrust asymmetry and even applying up elevator in the turn) initially causes considerable handling problems for pilots converting on to type, so strong are the motor function imprints on pilots.  Vipers, Raptors and other small craft would need to have a similar control system configuration in all variants for that very reason, even though their individual characteristics would vary like different aeroplanes do.

ALl New fighter planes have that now the f16 fighting falcon was the first to use that tech i dont think the f15 has it nore the f18 but the f35 does the f22 the Raffale the Eurofighter...im probably missing a few but my al ltime favourite is the F16C Block 50/52 AKA as the viper its original name is the fighting falcon but pilots call it a viper i think thats where the original BSG took theyr name for the vipers because at the time the f16 had just come out.I remmber reading this somewhere years ago.

F15 is not FBW, and I'm pretty sure the F18 isn't either.  Tornado is FBW, but doesn't have a constant "attitude hold" style of control.  My point was that regardless of whether the aircraft have FBW or not (and the Viper VII is meant to have the equivalent), or whether they are a big transport aircraft or a small fighter, they all have the same configurations and conventions.  Even helicopters share most conventions with aeroplanes, the only significant difference being the collective in place of throttles/thrust levers.

[Thaeris]

*snip

Again, drawing off-topic until we get some more images to argue over, but you need to take a look at your information more closely. The F/A-18 was FBW from the beginning, and I guarantee you that modern versions of the F-15 have some form of a digitized flight control system in addition to the older stuff. Also keep in mind that aircraft which don't have FBW (like the A-10) usually have some form of SAS, or Stability Augmentation System. Finding any modern warplane that is completely dependent on pilot input for controls is... maybe possible in North Korea? Anywhere else, yeah, the pilot will have some sort of automatic assistance in controlling the aeroplane.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

We have a bit of a novel idea on how to handle different resolutions in the interface, which should allow for pretty much any permutation of resolutions above a minimum of 1024*768. I'll leave it to LtCannonfodder to give the details if he wants, though, since he came up with it.

And I'll leave it to LuaP to actually answer since I know absolutely nothing of scripting

[Snagger]

*snip

Again, drawing off-topic until we get some more images to argue over, but you need to take a look at your information more closely. The F/A-18 was FBW from the beginning, and I guarantee you that modern versions of the F-15 have some form of a digitized flight control system in addition to the older stuff. Also keep in mind that aircraft which don't have FBW (like the A-10) usually have some form of SAS, or Stability Augmentation System. Finding any modern warplane that is completely dependent on pilot input for controls is... maybe possible in North Korea? Anywhere else, yeah, the pilot will have some sort of automatic assistance in controlling the aeroplane.

The F15E may have some electronic inputs, and I did say i wasn't sure about the F18, just had a strong feeling, but your assertion that all in-service combat airffames have some sort of FBW or electronic controls is wrong.  Harrier has electronics operatingt he combat settings of the flaps, but that's it - the primary controls for forward and vertical flight are pilot operated, not automated, and the same applies to many modern light combat aircraft, like the Hawk derivatives, AMX, Alpha Jet and so on.

Regardless, my whole point still holds - the control input devices and configurations are of a single global convention, even on the Harrier, which has just one extra lever despite its unique abilities and design.  I'm not arguing about the hardware between the cockpit and the control surfaces/devices, just about what the control interfaces are, how they're positioned and which axis they control.  My point was that whatever control system convention the Viper II has, it would be similar to that in the Viper VII and Raptor.  If they used pedals for thrust in one, they would use pedals the same way in the others.  I'm not trying to get into a pedantic argument about which real aircraft uses what electronic systems - they all use a stick/column for pitch and roll, all use pedals for yaw and wheel brakes and all use levers for engine power.

[Dermeister]

THere is a reason why controls haven ot changed in modern planes.. because its what use humans are used to and what works best its standard so that  it feels like a plane 1 plane to the other id imagen vipers must have theyr standards aswell.

Absolutely - the controls in all modern aeroplanes have the same configurations, ust like all modern cars (excepting manual and automatic transmissions), helicopters and so on.  Interestingly, even though the Airbus fly-by-wire system uses a similar configuration of stick, thrust levers and rudder pedals, all given the same axis as other aircraft, the mere manner in which the FBW operates, keeping attitude constant unless a pilot input is made (automatically compensating for gusts, trim changes, thrust asymmetry and even applying up elevator in the turn) initially causes considerable handling problems for pilots converting on to type, so strong are the motor function imprints on pilots.  Vipers, Raptors and other small craft would need to have a similar control system configuration in all variants for that very reason, even though their individual characteristics would vary like different aeroplanes do.

ALl New fighter planes have that now the f16 fighting falcon was the first to use that tech i dont think the f15 has it nore the f18 but the f35 does the f22 the Raffale the Eurofighter...im probably missing a few but my al ltime favourite is the F16C Block 50/52 AKA as the viper its original name is the fighting falcon but pilots call it a viper i think thats where the original BSG took theyr name for the vipers because at the time the f16 had just come out.I remmber reading this somewhere years ago.

F15 is not FBW, and I'm pretty sure the F18 isn't either.  Tornado is FBW, but doesn't have a constant "attitude hold" style of control.  My point was that regardless of whether the aircraft have FBW or not (and the Viper VII is meant to have the equivalent), or whether they are a big transport aircraft or a small fighter, they all have the same configurations and conventions.  Even helicopters share most conventions with aeroplanes, the only significant difference being the collective in place of throttles/thrust levers.

And to actually throttle up i na choppper you pull the collectvie back wards .. in a plane you pus the throttle foward >_>

But i agree with the point of how all modern airframes are pretty muhc configed the same  push noze goes down pull it comes up left you  roll left right you roll right right rudder you yaw right .... in all modern aircraft this will be set in stone.

if you pilot a tornado and you hop in a f16 youl be able to know what the stick does and throttle and rudders and theyl be places similarly by the exeption that the stick in a tornado might be between the legs and in a falcon its on the right side but you get the point.

[Snagger]

I'm really not sure about this, but to my knowledge, the F16 is the only fighter that did go for a side-stick; the F18, Rafale, EFA, MiGs and Sukhois all use conventional positions between the legs.  I can't remember seeing photos of the F22 or F35 cockpits (the latter seems a moot point since I have doubts it'll ever enter service), but I think they have centre-sticks too.  I suppose it's because of the F16's then ground breaking G-pulling ability and the fact that the pilot had to be so reclined and supported, while later aircraft with comparable agility use full-body g-suits. - the F16 was designed as a relatively simple fighter and would not have needed many cockpit controls, though it later developed into a more universally capable aircraft.  The fact that they manages to squeeze in so many extra interfaces on later models is impressive.  So, I think the F16 remains almost unique in that respect - I think someone else mimicked it, perhaps an Indian or Chinese fighter - I really can't remember where, but I seem to very vaguely recollect it being once.  It is also unique in having a fixed stick that senses pressure rather than a moving stick which senses displacement.  Regardless - it obeys convention of a right-hand operated stick controlling pitch and roll.

As for power control convention between aeroplanes and helicopters, technically they both obey the same convention - they are instinctive in that the aircraft will move in the direction the lever is moved - forwards on thrust levers/throttles increases forwards acceleration, upwards on a helicopter's collective will accelerate the helicopter upwards.  I'm curious about the V22, though, as to whether they made it primarily a helicopter with aeroplane mode, or made it an aeroplane with helicopter mode (like the Harrier).

Anyway, as you said, you can jump from one pit to another and know what's what.  I can jump from my B737 into an A380, and while the aircraft is totally different in operating systems, I could fly one if I had to - the most confusing part would not be the flight controls but the automatics, but in direct law, it'd be simple (if a little strange with that attitude-hold behaviour).

[Dermeister]

f35 is a side stick they essentially made an f16V2 the f35 will eventully replace the vipers in the USAF.

I think the raptor has a side stick too i can easly find out. but here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHJMIOlHt1U << f35 pit

[newman]

They want the F35 to replace a lot of things. They're even bullying the Navy to get them, even though the Navy doesn't really like single engine aircraft for carrier use. Thing is, the F-35 is already late, and is much more expensive per unit than planned. I wouldn't hold my breath for the F-35, so far the story of that plane wasn't all that impressive. Give me a Harrier over that overpriced gimmick any day of the week

[Mobius]

Italy is obtaining 131 F-35s, and investing less on the Typhoon.

*facepalm*

[Dermeister]

Canada is buying like some 65 f35.... the thing is it will eventually make it because politicians in the usa have of money put in the lockeed martin company and they wont allow it to shut down too muhc money being made for the company therefore the politicians are making money its late its expensive .. its still alive and its only getting worse till they release it.. its enevitable were getting a ****ty plane ladys and gents ! al lof us USA canada Itali who els? Dutch? who els? autralia? theres of countrys who are getting it... lol

[Demitri]

UK are getting them for the royal navy to replace the harriers on the new carriers that are being built. Problem is, first carrier will be built and have no plane to fly off them because the harriers have already been retired! Don't know if the RAF are taking any.

[Dermeister]

same deal in canada we got f18s that the wings crack our air frames are fallin into peices we had to borrow US F16s to replace our old hornets untill we get 35s ......its 1 big Frackup of a mess

but any how point with the 35 is its brand spanking new and the controlls are still like  a f16 so weather ud fly a mk2 or the new Vii i bet u the controlls are the same just maybe instead of a centre stick they moved it on the side for leg room reasons or confort or a less mobile but more precise stick ect.

[Snagger]

UK are getting them for the royal navy to replace the harriers on the new carriers that are being built. Problem is, first carrier will be built and have no plane to fly off them because the harriers have already been retired! Don't know if the RAF are taking any.

They were supposed to be, but the RN is now getting F18s instead.  It's probably intended as a stop-gap measure, but will likely become permanent.  The RN is not at all keen on the F35B anyway - it's the RAF who wants them, but given that they'd be operated from the carriers, I can't see why the RAF had any input.  Anyway, with the A model prototypes expiring, the B model being a bag of nails and the C model not even having a prototype, I don't see the project as anything more than a money pit.  There are plenty of other better existing airframes already.

I wasn't going to continue this OT discussion, but it might be worth moving it to a new thread if anyone can do that.

[KewlToyZ]

F35's..... Osprey's.......
The vertical take-off and landing high performance ac requirements try to push the previous envelope.
Many aspects of air battles are being replaced by UCAV's.
They are far more economical as a solution and do away with many of the resource demands that required the F35 in the first place.
All are task specific answers to ever changing geographical demands.
I still do not see the F35 having anything near what it takes to perform its role reliably.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

With all this discussion it brings me back to the f-16 ATFI.  The falcon already had an advanced avionics package, but they added a dorsal spine to her, packed with even more avionics to control ventral canards both fore and aft.  The craft will rotate on the Z axis.  IE, it can fly sideways.  Now this was a wonderful testbed, everybit as much as the x-29 was a wonderful testbed.  I've always had an affinity for FSW craft.  Maybe because they are inherently unstable, and it is that instabiliy that makes them so fantastic at manoevering.  My thought, and to be honest I'm totally surprised that some modeller hasn't put one in game, is an atmospheric fighter that couples Forward Swept Mission Adaptive Wings, with mobile canards and Vector nozzled engines.  Reaction control valves coupled with the canards to control yaw and pitch, added benefit of doing away with the tail and thus lowering the radar cross section.  Air intake up top to lower it further, and maybe even get mental about it all and do away with the cockpit canopy.  If man is finally ready to fly in a totally synthetic environment. 

While we are at it, why wouldn't my computer on board that knows what kind of fighter it is place a  wire frame representation superimposed onto the fighter I am seeing?  This would certainly defeat low observability. 

I can go on and on about things such as this but will spare you that.

[Dilmah G]

We were having a fighter discussion? Why did nobody tell me?!

F35's..... Osprey's.......
The vertical take-off and landing high performance ac requirements try to push the previous envelope.
Many aspects of air battles are being replaced by UCAV's.
They are far more economical as a solution and do away with many of the resource demands that required the F35 in the first place.
All are task specific answers to ever changing geographical demands.
I still do not see the F35 having anything near what it takes to perform its role reliably.

Yeah, it's interesting, 100+ years ago, people were fighting to keep people in the air, and now they're fighting to get them back on the ground.

And argh, don't get me started on the F-35. Outfitting the ASRAAM in replacement of AMRAAMs seems like a bloody step backwards - and to think, it comes from a country that have been ditching the dogfight at every available opportunity for the last half century.

With all this discussion it brings me back to the f-16 ATFI.  The falcon already had an advanced avionics package, but they added a dorsal spine to her, packed with even more avionics to control ventral canards both fore and aft.  The craft will rotate on the Z axis.  IE, it can fly sideways.  Now this was a wonderful testbed, everybit as much as the x-29 was a wonderful testbed.  I've always had an affinity for FSW craft.  Maybe because they are inherently unstable, and it is that instabiliy that makes them so fantastic at manoevering.  My thought, and to be honest I'm totally surprised that some modeller hasn't put one in game, is an atmospheric fighter that couples Forward Swept Mission Adaptive Wings, with mobile canards and Vector nozzled engines.  Reaction control valves coupled with the canards to control yaw and pitch, added benefit of doing away with the tail and thus lowering the radar cross section.  Air intake up top to lower it further, and maybe even get mental about it all and do away with the cockpit canopy.  If man is finally ready to fly in a totally synthetic environment.   

I agree, FS needs more FSW aircraft. But seriously, flying in a totally synthetic environment isn't something I'd be comfortable with, ever. I spend about 80% of my time looking outside the cockpit (which is the way I was taught), unless I'm padlocked...which is a rather long time when you take think about how FS combat functions.

One obvious risk I could see is if whatever device, cameras or whatever were disabled by enemy fire or even systems failure in-flight. If someone shows me a system that works, I'll accept it, but I'd rather not encounter a systems failure and spend the rest of the sortie asking my wingmate what's next to me.

While we are at it, why wouldn't my computer on board that knows what kind of fighter it is place a  wire frame representation superimposed onto the fighter I am seeing?  This would certainly defeat low observability. 

I can go on and on about things such as this but will spare you that.

Hmm, while that'd be cool, it'd probably get distracting if the aircraft's avionics couldn't pinpoint exactly where the aircraft was (from what I've seen, the 'box' seems to jerk around a bit). But in bad weather, any indication is better than no indication.

[IceFire]

same deal in canada we got f18s that the wings crack our air frames are fallin into peices we had to borrow US F16s to replace our old hornets untill we get 35s ......its 1 big Frackup of a mess

but any how point with the 35 is its brand spanking new and the controlls are still like  a f16 so weather ud fly a mk2 or the new Vii i bet u the controlls are the same just maybe instead of a centre stick they moved it on the side for leg room reasons or confort or a less mobile but more precise stick ect.

RCAF is still flying CF-18s. We don't have any F-16s to the best of my knowledge and I probably would have read about it if we did. The political play right now is the F-35 and buying it or not buying it. At some point we'll have to replace our Hornets as they are getting old as you've quite rightly pointed out. Some have suggested that we don't need fighters any more ... I think that is a hilarious notion but I guess it can't be helped.

[SpardaSon21]

Canada needs a military?  Who in their right mind would invade Canada?

[StarSlayer]

Canada needs a military?  Who in their right mind would invade Canada?

Annexation of Canada

[SpardaSon21]

Wasn't the U.S. secretly led by the Enclave?  I wouldn't call those guys in their right minds.