antiterror13
Brigadier
Accepting a misjudge or a mistake is a good thing, nothing wrong with it ... even you will get respected more
J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Accepting a misjudge or a mistake is a good thing, nothing wrong with it ... even you will get respected more
Engineer
Major
Hi i cant see the image, whats wrong with it
It is not a J-15 
but more rustic plants build cheaper aircrafts in general interesting and good, Russians have plants as it and do good stuff, with good production rate but yes LM Ft Worth plant looks a bit Las Vegas
We know perfectly China is now a modern country.
but more rustic plants build cheaper aircrafts in general interesting and good, Russians have plants as it and do good stuff, with good production rate but yes LM Ft Worth plant looks a bit Las Vegas We know perfectly China is now a modern country.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I'm guessing it's used to help aid landing.
Those antenna are wrongly positioned for any EW purposes, and are not robust enough for airflow/vortex control.
The only and most logical reason I can think of for needing two antenna positioned there, on both sides of the plane and above the wing, is to give good, accurate contracting roll and mabye yaw comparison measurements against a non-stationary, non-sea level target, like a moving and pitching carrier deck.
Conventional roll instrumentation gives aircraft attitude in comparison to standard sea level, so is rather useless for carrier landings in anything other than perfect sea states.
A pair of antenna receiving positional data from two or more transmitters on the carrier (or vise versa) would give enough contrast to allow your aircraft to retune it's roll position and attitude baseline comparison to the angle of the carrier deck, which could help remove a lot of the eyeballing from approaches.
Wolfie, Wolfie, my, my, you are a bright lad, and those antennae are likely positioned directly in front of the flaperon actuators?? they would feed commands directly to the the wing leveling system?? this is one area where computerized control inputs can actually do much better than the average pilot. As the ship rolls, you and I would "chase that roll with a control input, with a lag, by that time the ship is level and rolling the other way.
This would reduce the PIO or pilot induced oscillation, which most often happens in pitch, but I find myself setting up a dutch roll on landing in the FA-18 on Flight Sim X. It is very distracting, and roll response is greatly reduced at the 140-150 knts that you bring the aircraft aboard ship.
If we are wrong someone will tell us, but I had the exact same thought when I observed antennae on each wing.
Quickie
Colonel
Imo, the antenna won't have a direct control on the flaperon actuators and would only feed position signaling data to the computerized control systems within the cockpit. The control outputs to the flaperon actuators, and the rest of the flight control surface actuators, would have to come from the computerized control systems itself.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I suppose it depends on how advanced the FBW and autopilot systems are and how much control you want to give over to it.
I think it should be perfectly possible to design the FBW and have an autopilot setting where the plane automatically aligns its wings to be level with the carrier deck if it doesn't receive overriding direct pilot input.
In order for this to work, you first need a stick with force feedback, which can be partially disabled and set on the fly.
That means you need the ability to de-couple the stick from the position of the plane, so that you can leave the stick in the neutral position in the roll axes while retaining full pitch control so that the stick doesn't move in the roll axes even if the plane itself does.
That will allow the pilot to only need to focus on pitch, yaw and airspeed, taking the most difficult, roll control, out of his hands.
Its easy enough to set it so that moving the stick in the roll axis, out of the neutral zone will override the autopilot, at which point the pilot will again have full control authority without having to take his hands off of the stick or throttle or even push a button.
For quick movement inputs from the pilot at and after this point, the FBW would retain full responsiveness of the stick to give the pilot maximum control. Once pilot input speed falls below a certain degree/second threshold, the FBW could introduce some slack into the stick responsiveness to seamlessly re-allign the stick position with the plane attitude again.
Or at least that's how I would design the system as the best compromise between automation and responsiveness.
I think it should be perfectly possible to design the FBW and have an autopilot setting where the plane automatically aligns its wings to be level with the carrier deck if it doesn't receive overriding direct pilot input.
In order for this to work, you first need a stick with force feedback, which can be partially disabled and set on the fly.
That means you need the ability to de-couple the stick from the position of the plane, so that you can leave the stick in the neutral position in the roll axes while retaining full pitch control so that the stick doesn't move in the roll axes even if the plane itself does.
That will allow the pilot to only need to focus on pitch, yaw and airspeed, taking the most difficult, roll control, out of his hands.
Its easy enough to set it so that moving the stick in the roll axis, out of the neutral zone will override the autopilot, at which point the pilot will again have full control authority without having to take his hands off of the stick or throttle or even push a button.
For quick movement inputs from the pilot at and after this point, the FBW would retain full responsiveness of the stick to give the pilot maximum control. Once pilot input speed falls below a certain degree/second threshold, the FBW could introduce some slack into the stick responsiveness to seamlessly re-allign the stick position with the plane attitude again.
Or at least that's how I would design the system as the best compromise between automation and responsiveness.