Hi,
Pilots are taught to think in terms of pressure on stick not displacement.
That is part of the reason that the F-16 is built the way it is.
Thats OK, I agree, with one small change:
pilots are not *taught* to think in terms in terms of pressure on stick.
It is the natural way of sensing the
Hi Jon,
output laterally, on the pedals, and front/back on the stick. I think that's
why the
control law diagrams I have seen use pilot stick force as the input unit. One
hundred
percent of the control law diagrams I have seen that include pilot inputs use
force.
Once more, do not make general
Hi,
I agree with Norman. As long as control system is of concern, it is much
better to use normalized units.
surface deflections in degrees, and for good reason: it's natural, it's
physical. From the point of view of JSBSim, normalized aerosurface
Degrees are not natural, nor physical. We may
Hi,
Control law block diagrams I have seen take stick input in pounds force (pilot
inputs) and
output in degrees to actuators. I've never seen one that output control
commands to an
aerosurface actuator in a range from 0 to 1. Have you?
I have seen (and I've seen more than few) control law
Hi Jon,
I see you are really mad :)
Look here at the X-15 data and FCS diagram:
http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/X-15Aero.html
The USAF F-16 (Block 40) FCS diagram is the same way: stick force is the
input. Same with Space Shuttle control Law diagrams.
The JSBSim X-15 model simulates the X-15
Hi,
That has nothing at all to do with what I said. We are controlling individual
control surfaces. Period. I don't think we should have subclasses for each
desired action/process. Only each control surface type. Roll control ends up
being intrinsically part of aileron control is it not?
