"Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2017, 22:47
by gta4
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52907

Now we know the "pedal turn", is a high yaw rate maneuver, not a conventional turn. So it is neither sustained turn, nor instantaneous turn. However, since the angular velocity (28 deg/sec) is constant, pedal turn is equivalent to a sustained turn of 28 deg/sec, because it changes its heading at a steady 28deg/sec, and an enemy fighter could not counter it unless it performs a sustained 28deg/sec turn (conventionally or yawing).

Is this understanding correct?

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 01:03
by Dragon029
Yes, but pedal turns aren't as flexible / as versatile as performing a conventional turn - you can't perform them at as fast an airspeed and they're less effective in a vertical axis (because you lose most of your supporting lift).

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 02:07
by collimatrix
The pilot is just stomping on one of the pedals, right? It's not a banked turn. That means that the plane is having to generate the centripetal force more or less just with the vertical surfaces. The tail surfaces are a whole lot smaller than the wings, so the airfoils used to perform this maneuver are going to be very heavily loaded. I would be pretty dubious that it's "sustained" in the sense that the aircraft isn't losing energy.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 02:29
by gta4
Dragon029 wrote:Yes, but pedal turns aren't as flexible / as versatile as performing a conventional turn - you can't perform them at as fast an airspeed


So F-35 could just perform the conventional turn first and let the speed bleed to an appropriate value to execute the pedal turn. The total angle of turning is sufficient for a missile shot?

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 02:32
by gta4
collimatrix wrote:The pilot is just stomping on one of the pedals, right?


Not really. It also involves the proverse yaw effect from the differential deflection of ailerons, and in fact most of the turning torque comes from the aileron, not the rudders:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52503&p=356317&sid=2dd6609c08b03020804a6283d4e6020c#p356317

"At low AOA, rudder is responsible for yaw, while aileron is responsible for roll. Pedal input only causes rudder to deflect."

"But at high AOA it's the other way round. Rudder has more roll authority while aileron has more yaw authority. So at the presence of an abrupt pedal input, modern flight control software will interpret it as a yaw command and deflect both aileron and rudder, where most of the turning (yaw) torque is actually from the aileron. The rudder in this case is a stabilizer that prevent the aircraft from departure."

"F-35 has a very big aileron/wing area ratio. That is probably the reason for which it could generate so much turning torque, and to make that 28 deg/sec turn constant. Rudder can not make that rate sustainable because it loses controllability at high angle of sideslip."

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 02:48
by Dragon029
gta4 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Yes, but pedal turns aren't as flexible / as versatile as performing a conventional turn - you can't perform them at as fast an airspeed


So F-35 could just perform the conventional turn first and let the speed bleed to an appropriate value to execute the pedal turn. The total angle of turning is sufficient for a missile shot.


Potentially, but there's scenarios where they won't get the chance to do that; an F-15 or equivalent might be wary of the F-35's low airspeed manoeuvring capability and decide to immediately go vertical after the merge. If that happens and the F-35 pilot made the mistake of turning level or downward, they won't get the chance to use the pedal turn, not unless the F-15, etc fails to kill the F-35 when it dives back down, at which point the F-35 might be able to give chase down low and put them on the defensive (depending on how far the F-15 can get before it has to pull up and shred energy).

Don't get me wrong, it'll definitely be useful at times and be the decisive manoeuvre in some fights, but if a pilot had a choice between a sustained 28 deg/s pedal turn vs a sustained 28 deg/s pitching turn rate, they'd definitely pick the latter.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 09:16
by collimatrix
gta4 wrote:
collimatrix wrote:The pilot is just stomping on one of the pedals, right?


Not really. It also involves the proverse yaw effect from the differential deflection of ailerons, and in fact most of the turning torque comes from the aileron, not the rudders:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52503&p=356317&sid=2dd6609c08b03020804a6283d4e6020c#p356317

"At low AOA, rudder is responsible for yaw, while aileron is responsible for roll. Pedal input only causes rudder to deflect."

"But at high AOA it's the other way round. Rudder has more roll authority while aileron has more yaw authority. So at the presence of an abrupt pedal input, modern flight control software will interpret it as a yaw command and deflect both aileron and rudder, where most of the turning (yaw) torque is actually from the aileron. The rudder in this case is a stabilizer that prevent the aircraft from departure."

"F-35 has a very big aileron/wing area ratio. That is probably the reason for which it could generate so much turning torque, and to make that 28 deg/sec turn constant. Rudder can not make that rate sustainable because it loses controllability at high angle of sideslip."



Aha, thank you.

So it's a low-speed, high-AOA maneuver?

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2017, 13:26
by gta4
Dragon029 wrote:
gta4 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Yes, but pedal turns aren't as flexible / as versatile as performing a conventional turn - you can't perform them at as fast an airspeed


So F-35 could just perform the conventional turn first and let the speed bleed to an appropriate value to execute the pedal turn. The total angle of turning is sufficient for a missile shot.


Potentially, but there's scenarios where they won't get the chance to do that; an F-15 or equivalent might be wary of the F-35's low airspeed manoeuvring capability and decide to immediately go vertical after the merge. If that happens and the F-35 pilot made the mistake of turning level or downward, they won't get the chance to use the pedal turn, not unless the F-15, etc fails to kill the F-35 when it dives back down, at which point the F-35 might be able to give chase down low and put them on the defensive (depending on how far the F-15 can get before it has to pull up and shred energy).

Don't get me wrong, it'll definitely be useful at times and be the decisive manoeuvre in some fights, but if a pilot had a choice between a sustained 28 deg/s pedal turn vs a sustained 28 deg/s pitching turn rate, they'd definitely pick the latter.


Thanks. That clears it all.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 06:32
by strykerxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW0wKltGGaE

At mark :35 as the F-22 rolls out of a high energy, high banked turn where there is little if any unloading as it pitch, rolls and yaws? I imagine a rolling scissors situation where the F-22/35 could yank on the stick and stomp on the pedal and achieve a quick nose on target maneuver without losing to much energy like we see in the pirouette. The FCS on modern AC should allow the pilot to put the AC into whatever position and the FCS does the rest. So if a pilot wishes to keep his energy up and roll out of a banking turn the AC will let him or if the pilot gets stuck in a low energy nose pointing battle it will do that also.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 11:59
by quicksilver
"So it's a low-speed, high-AOA maneuver?"

Always.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 14:38
by steve2267
Has it been determined / verified / concluded that the pedal turn is another name for a J-turn or Herbst maneuver?

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 15:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
steve2267 wrote:Has it been determined / verified / concluded that the pedal turn is another name for a J-turn or Herbst maneuver?

I honestly think of it more like the helicopter turn the F-22 does, right or wrong. Hit ~45 AoA, stomp pedal, the nose slices around while the flight path is ballistic.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 16:25
by steve2267
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Has it been determined / verified / concluded that the pedal turn is another name for a J-turn or Herbst maneuver?

I honestly think of it more like the helicopter turn the F-22 does, right or wrong. Hit ~45 AoA, stomp pedal, the nose slices around while the flight path is ballistic.


I think we don't know what we don't know, unless PIL pigeonholes another Lightning rider at an airshow, or someone gets to converse with Beasley, Dolby, Mau, Berke or ... and ask them specifics.

In another thread, JohnWill I think it was, commented that at high AoA (e.g. 45°), left/right stick commands roll around the aircraft flight or velocity vector. Such a roll will be a combination of body-axis roll and yaw. Trying to visualize this some more, it is not clear to me if stomping on the left / right rudder pedals at 45° AoA will be a pure body-axis roll as at 0° AoA, but I think it will be. (For example, at 0° AoA, pure body-axis yaw results in no change in angle-of-attack. At 90°, pure body-axis yaw also does not change alpha. That is, (body-axis) yaw 90° left or right at 90° AoA, and you are still at 90°alpha. But I may need to think about this some more.)

So... it seemed to me, if one commanded a large roll at high alpha, and supplemented that roll with a firm push on the accompanying rudder pedal (i.e. left roll + left rudder pedal), you would generate a left roll plus lots of left yaw. And the resulting maneuver would seem to be very similar to illustrations of the Herbst maneuver performed by the X-31 and the NASA F-18. (Since it is high-alpha capable as well, perhaps the F/A-18 can perform a similar maneuver? The F-35 has, after all, been described as an F/A-18 with "four engines" or "with a turbo".)

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 16:44
by steve2267
A new reader to this thread, unfamiliar with the "pedal turn", may do well to read the thread, What is the pedal turn that generates a constant 28deg/sec?.

From my post viewtopic.php?p=356498#p356498 in that thread, if the "pedal turn" is a Herbst maneuver, then these illustrations may help the reader visualize the maneuver, and perhaps give some idea of the tactical significance such a capability provides.

It appears that the Herbst maneuver is also used in an offensive spiral.

Image
Image


The NASA F-18 HARV program in 1983 also seems relevant: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/his ... RV/rd.html


Image
Image
Image

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 16:59
by rheonomic
steve2267 wrote:In another thread, JohnWill I think it was, commented that at high AoA (e.g. 45°), left/right stick commands roll around the aircraft flight or velocity vector. Such a roll will be a combination of body-axis roll and yaw. Trying to visualize this some more, it is not clear to me if stomping on the left / right rudder pedals at 45° AoA will be a pure body-axis roll as at 0° AoA, but I think it will be. (For example, at 0° AoA, pure body-axis yaw results in no change in angle-of-attack. At 90°, pure body-axis yaw also does not change alpha. That is, (body-axis) yaw 90° left or right at 90° AoA, and you are still at 90°alpha. But I may need to think about this some more.)


Usually, roll axis control variable LCV is stability-axis roll rate at normal and high dynamic pressures. Stability axis roll rate is

Ps = Pb * cos(α) + Rb * sin(α)

where Pb and Rb are body-axis roll and yaw rate, respectively. The reason Ps is used as LCV instead of Pb is that at AoA rolling about the body axis converts α to β. E.g., if I roll 90° around the body x-axis at 20° α, I now have 20° β and 0° α. Since we want to maintain the current angle-of-attack and coordinated flight (i.e., β small) we roll about the stability-axis.

At low dynamic pressures, LCV is Pb because at low speeds because it is less desirable to roll around the velocity vector and because at low qbar the incidence angles (α and β) become difficult to measure and can also become undefined.

The yaw control variable NCV is Rb at low qbar and is a mix of Rs = Rb * cos(α) - Pb * sin(α), β feedback, and decoupling terms at high qbar. The goals are to
  1. maintain zero steady-state lateral acceleration with no pedal input (i.e. coordinated flight)
  2. achieve a satisfactory response of sideslip and Rs with pedal input.

Based on AIAA 2002-6020, NCV for the X-35B in non-hover mode is

NCV = Rb * cos(α) - Pb * sin(α) - g/V * sin(φ) * cos(θ).

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2017, 17:16
by gta4
I strongly suspect that J-turn is the so-called "pedal turn" because Lockheed Martin uses J-turn as a sample maneuver that F-35 can perform using high alpha yaw.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 14:21
by collimatrix
Could the formation of asymmetric vortices over the fuselage forebody have something to do with it?

Image

I'm wondering if the pedal turn exploits controlled nose slice.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 14:58
by steve2267
What is the source for your graphic? Book? Periodical? (Because I'd like to read it.)

I believe the graphic depicts a condition that occurs with a cylindrical (or continuously smooth) cross section. E.g. F-15 nose.

However, I believe the existence of nose chines (F-22/F-35) or leading edge root extensions (LERX or strakes - F/A-18, F-16), fix or otherwise control the creation / shedding of the vortices. You may very well get asymmetric vortex shedding at higher angles of attack, but the chine/LERX will fix the location of the vortex attach / shed point. There is a flow constant (the name of which I forget at the moment) that is used to characterize the frequency of vortex shedding. In the case of higher angles of attack, I believe asymmetrical vortex shedding will occur at such a rate that you would get alternating left/right components of the forebody lift force. I believe this is one (prominent) source of buffet. I do not believe you can control it for nose slice as I suspect the shedding frequency is (somewhat) unpredictable and the too high (or too quick).

Nice illustrations.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2017, 18:37
by collimatrix
It's from Ray Whitford's Design for Air Combat.

And it is a really fantastic book.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2017, 02:18
by gta4
I remember seeing similar images in a paper introducing F-18's pirouette maneuver.

Does pirouette and J-turn resemble?

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums ... 53&start=0

Image

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2017, 18:25
by gta4
more pics from technical papers:
J-turn F-35 pedal turn.jpg

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2017, 03:55
by smsgtmac
Just an FYI...JIC.
That first tech paper snippet is from the 2014 AIAA paper "F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing", authored by a Mr. Steve Baer, (Lockheed Martin "Aeronautical Engineer, Flying Qualities" at Edwards AFB), and presented to the Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference held between 16 and 20 June 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a key bit of evidence that debunks the "F-35 losing to a F-16D in a dogfight" meme. The CLAW testing that was mischaracterized in the 2015 faux dogfight story was described a year earlier by Mr. Baer.

J-turns are described by the originator of the 'Herbst Manuever' (and the term supermaneuverability itself) , Dr W.B. Herbst. As I understand it, the difference between the J-Turn and Pedal turn is mostly about the order in which rotations about different axes occur, maybe somewhat to how far into the post-stall environment is important too. As the nose falls during the post-stall rolling, the movement has been described as 'coning'. It appears that the J-Turn primarily involves rolling at the apex of the climb first, and the Pedal turn appears to involve turning about the Yaw axis to bring the nose on point. At the time, Herbst claimed thrust vectoring was required to do a J turn, but who knows with 40K thrust engines, modern flight control laws and big honking control surfaces?

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2017, 20:49
by rheonomic
smsgtmac wrote:J-turns are described by the originator of the 'Herbst Manuever' (and the term supermaneuverability itself) , Dr W.B. Herbst. As I understand it, the difference between the J-Turn and Pedal turn is mostly about the order in which rotations about different axes occur, maybe somewhat to how far into the post-stall environment is important too. As the nose falls during the post-stall rolling, the movement has been described as 'coning'. It appears that the J-Turn primarily involves rolling at the apex of the climb first, and the Pedal turn appears to involve turning about the Yaw axis to bring the nose on point. At the time, Herbst claimed thrust vectoring was required to do a J turn, but who knows with 40K thrust engines, modern flight control laws and big honking control surfaces?


IIRC that was one of these two papers in Journal of Aircraft...

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2017, 00:35
by gta4
smsgtmac wrote:Just an FYI...JIC.
That first tech paper snippet is from the 2014 AIAA paper "F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing", authored by a Mr. Steve Baer, (Lockheed Martin "Aeronautical Engineer, Flying Qualities" at Edwards AFB), and presented to the Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference held between 16 and 20 June 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a key bit of evidence that debunks the "F-35 losing to a F-16D in a dogfight" meme. The CLAW testing that was mischaracterized in the 2015 faux dogfight story was described a year earlier by Mr. Baer.

J-turns are described by the originator of the 'Herbst Manuever' (and the term supermaneuverability itself) , Dr W.B. Herbst. As I understand it, the difference between the J-Turn and Pedal turn is mostly about the order in which rotations about different axes occur, maybe somewhat to how far into the post-stall environment is important too. As the nose falls during the post-stall rolling, the movement has been described as 'coning'. It appears that the J-Turn primarily involves rolling at the apex of the climb first, and the Pedal turn appears to involve turning about the Yaw axis to bring the nose on point. At the time, Herbst claimed thrust vectoring was required to do a J turn, but who knows with 40K thrust engines, modern flight control laws and big honking control surfaces?


Thanks for the explanation. In the past I could not distinguish J-turn from pedal turn and pirouette.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 16:27
by gta4
Finally, the pedal turn.

It is incredible that F-35 has such a high pitch rate, and such a high yaw authority.

I believe this maneuver could dominate all non-thrust-vectored aircrafts, including Typhoon, Gripen, Mig-29 and Su-27.

During the initial backflip, the initial pitch rate is amazing, and the whole 270 deg took less than 8 seconds. Faster than any non-thrust vectored jets.

The 360 pedal turn that followed is much faster than any conventional turns performed by other non-thrust-vectored jets.

Image

This maneuvers allows F-35 to turn inside of any non-thrust-vectored jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkAmQpkrHZc

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 18:45
by castlebravo
gta4 wrote:Finally, the pedal turn.

It is incredible that F-35 has such a high pitch rate, and such a high yaw authority.

I believe this maneuver could dominate all non-thrust-vectored aircrafts, including Typhoon, Gripen, Mig-29 and Su-27.

During the initial backflip, the initial pitch rate is amazing, and the whole 270 deg took less than 8 seconds. Faster than any non-thrust vectored jets.

The 360 pedal turn that followed is much faster than any conventional turns performed by other non-thrust-vectored jets.

Image

This maneuvers allows F-35 to turn inside of any non-thrust-vectored jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkAmQpkrHZc


It's cool to watch, and it's a great demonstration of the F-35's control authority at low speed, but I doubt the utility of that maneuver (or any other post-stall maneuver) in actual combat. All the opponent needs to do is go vertical, avoid stalling alongside the F-35, then come back down on it with guns or a heater. Of course, this is all assuming the mythical 1v1 dogfight where both fighters lack a HOBS missile, otherwise it never gets to this point.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 18:51
by gta4
castlebravo wrote:
gta4 wrote:Finally, the pedal turn.

It is incredible that F-35 has such a high pitch rate, and such a high yaw authority.

I believe this maneuver could dominate all non-thrust-vectored aircrafts, including Typhoon, Gripen, Mig-29 and Su-27.

During the initial backflip, the initial pitch rate is amazing, and the whole 270 deg took less than 8 seconds. Faster than any non-thrust vectored jets.

The 360 pedal turn that followed is much faster than any conventional turns performed by other non-thrust-vectored jets.

Image

This maneuvers allows F-35 to turn inside of any non-thrust-vectored jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkAmQpkrHZc


It's cool to watch, and it's a great demonstration of the F-35's control authority at low speed, but I doubt the utility of that maneuver (or any other post-stall maneuver) in actual combat. All the opponent needs to do is go vertical, avoid stalling alongside the F-35, then come back down on it with guns or a heater. Of course, this is all assuming the mythical 1v1 dogfight where both fighters lack a HOBS missile, otherwise it never gets to this point.


The first part of the maneuver (the backflip part) is not a post stall maneuver. In fact it is very close to a conventional loop, with a significant smaller radius and higher angular velocity.

If the enemy goes vertical, F-35 could easily pitch up with its amazing initial pitch rate, and follow the enemy with its small loop radius. I believe it could put the enemy in its crosshair throughout the maneuver, even though the enemy may be higher than F35.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 19:58
by castlebravo
That "back flip" leaves the jet with less airspeed than is needed for level flight, and puts it into what would be a spin for most other aircraft. At that point, the jet is falling out of the sky until it gains enough smash to resume normal flight; there is no way it is going to pull into the vertical unless LockMart snuck in a reaction control system and a motor with double the thrust while no one was looking. The 5th-gen trick is a limited ability to maintain control of the nose (at least in the bottom hemisphere) while stalled out and falling like a leaf. This is IMO superior to the near unless ability of some Russian jets to depart controlled flight, and recover with a reasonably predictable attitude.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2017, 23:22
by popcorn
castlebravo wrote:That "back flip" leaves the jet with less airspeed than is needed for level flight, and puts it into what would be a spin for most other aircraft. At that point, the jet is falling out of the sky until it gains enough smash to resume normal flight; there is no way it is going to pull into the vertical unless LockMart snuck in a reaction control system and a motor with double the thrust while no one was looking. The 5th-gen trick is a limited ability to maintain control of the nose (at least in the bottom hemisphere) while stalled out and falling like a leaf. This is IMO superior to the near unless ability of some Russian jets to depart controlled flight, and recover with a reasonably predictable attitude.



This seems to jibe with my understanding that US pilots would never intentionally depart from controlled flight during flight demos.That's test pilot stuff.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 15:58
by steve2267
castlebravo wrote:
It's cool to watch, and it's a great demonstration of the F-35's control authority at low speed, but I doubt the utility of that maneuver (or any other post-stall maneuver) in actual combat. All the opponent needs to do is go vertical, avoid stalling alongside the F-35, then come back down on it with guns or a heater. Of course, this is all assuming the mythical 1v1 dogfight where both fighters lack a HOBS missile, otherwise it never gets to this point.


I disagree. If at the merge, the F-35 goes vertical, but the bogey remains in a (more or less) horizontal turn, this maneuver enables the F-35 to stay at the center of the bogey's turn and point its nose at the bogey with impunity.

If the bogey goes vertical as well, then I think you are set up for vertical, rolling scissors. The F-35 pilot will have to go to Plan B as he probably won't be able to simply pedal turn his nose at the bogey. However, in the Jon Venable article where he interviewed F-35 pilots and asked them to compare the F-35 to their former steed, ALL pilots said the F-35 was (vastly?) superior to their previous aircraft with regard to scissors. So if the bogey also goes vertical, and rolling scissors ensue, the bogey is still playing into the hands of the F-35.

Re: "pedal turn" vs "conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2017, 20:22
by krorvik
Also, I distinctly remember "Dolby" Hanche mention that one of the advantages of the F-35 WVR was nosepointing ability. The F-35 seems to have the power in the vertical too...

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 04:24
by gta4
looks like F35 could use this instead of pedal turn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZilHmXU ... e=youtu.be

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 14:49
by lbk000
gta4 wrote:looks like F35 could use this instead of pedal turn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZilHmXU ... e=youtu.be

Nope, fundamentally different uses. The most important feature of the pedal turn is the offbore flight path -- in a sense it may be the holy grail of energy fighting. Traditional diving slashes have always been able to be stymied by a turn inside by the defender; the pedal turn allows the attacker to track the defender's turn without himself getting suckered into the defender's flight path (and therefore energy state).

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 15:15
by quicksilver
The air show hasn't changed anything but perceptions. The engineers at LM didnt wake up a couple months ago and decide to make the jet maneuverable. BFM hasn't become more relevant overnight; SA is still king, and killing other aircraft at range without them seeing you is still preferred (and likely). There still isnt a jet in the world that can turn as fast as a pilot can turn his or her head, thereby targeting for HOBS missiles.

But, it has dispelled some myths and in the process brought into question the credibility of a wide range of haters. It should also provide a cautionary lesson in modern "journalism." It behooves everyone to become a discerning consumer of information and those who might choose to inform us -- on any topic.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 20:38
by vilters
A pedal turn is always an airshow, low speed, high AOA, crank the nose around the corner thing.

it proves low speed and high AOA controllability during a demo flight.

Combat purpose is on the same level as changing the angle of the Harrier exhausts during combat. => None.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 21:06
by steve2267
vilters wrote:A pedal turn is always an airshow, low speed, high AOA, crank the nose around the corner thing.

it proves low speed and high AOA controllability during a demo flight.

Combat purpose is on the same level as changing the angle of the Harrier exhausts during combat. => None.


Uhh, based on numerous quotes of F-35 pilots in reference to a "pedal turn" as being ( or implied to be) extremely useful during BFM / dogfighting exercises, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 22:14
by basher54321
quicksilver wrote:The air show hasn't changed anything but perceptions. The engineers at LM didnt wake up a couple months ago and decide to make the jet maneuverable. BFM hasn't become more relevant overnight; SA is still king, and killing other aircraft at range without them seeing you is still preferred (and likely). There still isnt a jet in the world that can turn as fast as a pilot can turn his or her head, thereby targeting for HOBS missiles.



this 8)

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 22:30
by vilters
@steve2267

Within visual range, perhaps. But the purpose is not to get in there.
Anyway, you loose so much energy, and end up so slow, that you'd better get a shot from it, or it's game over.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2017, 02:20
by count_to_10
basher54321 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:The air show hasn't changed anything but perceptions. The engineers at LM didnt wake up a couple months ago and decide to make the jet maneuverable. BFM hasn't become more relevant overnight; SA is still king, and killing other aircraft at range without them seeing you is still preferred (and likely). There still isnt a jet in the world that can turn as fast as a pilot can turn his or her head, thereby targeting for HOBS missiles.



this 8)

Still, the whole situation reminds me of the "pit stop" screen near the end of "Cars".

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 17:13
by tailchase
interesting to compare with the turn here at 4:00

https://youtu.be/IgD4QvxhFyU

(pedal turn and extreme "normal" turn). Which one is the most useful in your mind? In what circumstances?

PS Sion is a very specific place for airshows and should fit very well to F-35 demo (mostly in vertical plan). We haven't seen it yet there, but with the reopening of swiss eval, we will soon i hope.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 17:38
by lbk000
I see the pedal turn in the end as an elaboration of the defensive spiral.

In traditional BFM theory the defensive spiral is a suboptimal maneuver because it's a purely energy depleting move with risk outcomes. At the bottom of it you are out of speed and out of altitude and leaves you vulnerable. The winner is whoever comes out of it last, so depending on aircraft characteristics, altitude, and geography the maneuver can be much of a gamble.
However it is a very instinctive maneuver to execute, and while in the maneuver you are relatively safe since gravity is maximizing your rate such that it is difficult to match from a chase aspect. It can be used as a gambit to sucker the other guy down into a low energy state as well if you know you have better low energy performance, or if you want to challenge him to an energy building contest.

The pedal turn is effectively a defensive spiral with minimal radius characteristics. By claiming the inside of the spiral, the pedal turn possesses a positional advantage and mitigates a turning defender's aspect defense.

However there is more than one way to skin a cat -- simpler ways too. The pedal turn is relatively elaborate and an opponent may be reluctant to enter a defensive spiral. The pedal turn is not necessarily a good defensive maneuver either; it's very wasteful from an energy standpoint, like TVC maneuvers. Energy conservative, aerodynamic maneuvers will always be the most desirable maneuvers at the end of the day, it's just that when someone brings the rock against your scissors, you have to pull out the one-off counter for it.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:09
by steve2267
lbk000 wrote:
The pedal turn is simply one more option that can be exploited. Its use cases are specific. You cannot, for example, execute an uphill pedal turn.


Are you sure about that? If the pedal turn is related to the Herbst maneuver, there appear to be several ways to exploit a high alpha yawing maneuver, possibly in combination with a velocity vector roll:

viewtopic.php?p=365629#p365629

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:12
by tailchase
Both lose velocity imho, Rafale before turn, F-35 during. The idea is simply in which situations would you choose to turn a way or another? (sry never did any BFM from my "rallye"). I did not really mean "vs".

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:26
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:
lbk000 wrote:
The pedal turn is simply one more option that can be exploited. Its use cases are specific. You cannot, for example, execute an uphill pedal turn.


Are you sure about that? If the pedal turn is related to the Herbst maneuver, there appear to be several ways to exploit a high alpha yawing maneuver, possibly in combination with a velocity vector roll:

viewtopic.php?p=365629#p365629

Herbst and the Russian "cartwheel" snaproll are in the family of high alpha yaw maneuvers certainly. I've been strictly regarding our pedal turn as the downhill maneuver since that's the only maneuver that actually seems to be adopted by the services.

I rewrote my original post to explain my line of thinking re: application of VVR. In all of this I keep going back to the SEA joint exercise AAR panel and the lessons drawn about over-reliance on TVC. Pedal turn is not as aerodynamically heinous as TVC but I think it can never fundamentally replace aerodynamic maneuvers.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:33
by steve2267
lbk000 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
lbk000 wrote:
The pedal turn is simply one more option that can be exploited. Its use cases are specific. You cannot, for example, execute an uphill pedal turn.


Are you sure about that? If the pedal turn is related to the Herbst maneuver, there appear to be several ways to exploit a high alpha yawing maneuver, possibly in combination with a velocity vector roll:

viewtopic.php?p=365629#p365629

Herbst and the Russian "cartwheel" snaproll are in the family of high alpha yaw maneuvers certainly. I've been strictly regarding our pedal turn as the downhill maneuver since that's the only maneuver that actually seems to be adopted by the services.



In air show demos, you never show your best cards...

lbk000 wrote:
I rewrote my original post to explain my line of thinking re: application of VVR. In all of this I keep going back to the SEA joint exercise AAR panel and the lessons drawn about over-reliance on TVC. Pedal turn is not as aerodynamically heinous as TVC but I think it can never fundamentally replace aerodynamic maneuvers.



You are, of course, free to write and post what you wish. However, I point out that since you edited your post 6 minutes after I quoted you, and your original statement was completely removed, future readers of this thread will likely become confused wondering WTF am I talking about / quoting. If you were to put back your original statement and preface your revised post with an “ETA:” line, readers would have an easier time following the conversation. FWIW.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:37
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:In air show demos, you never show your best cards...

Certainly, but the nature of the "best card" is a good question. F-35's best card may not be a maneuver but rather an electronic attack capability, for example. The most powerful things are rarely flashy.

Aerodynamics is a field that has relatively limited growth potential. The rules are written by powers beyond Human control.
In the area of software, Man is God. We are free to rewrite the rules that we made, and exploit what is effectively a microcosm of our own device.

The physical realm is running out of loopholes to exploit; it's easier and smarter to get everyone to play a new game that is riddled with opportunities.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 18:59
by steve2267
The pilot who told me that ("never show your best cards") is well aware of the F-35's kinetic potential, and his comment was specifically in regards to F-35 and air show routines.

With the possible exception of one forum member here who seems absolutely in love with pedal turns, I do not think anyone is saying the pedal turn is the be-all and end-all of BFM / ACM contests. Most seem to consider it just another tool in the proberbial BFM toolbox, but a very nice tool to have, and it hints at a bunch of other possibilities. I do not recall "Dolbe" Hanche ever going on about the pedal turns (though perhaps they had not been completely worked out at the time of his comment(s)), but he really did like the braking ability of the Lightning... enabling him to much more quickly gain a position of advantage compared to the Viper, and to "stick like glue" onto his opponent.

However, the Bug and Super Bug community has probably developed most of these "tricks" by now, but that is just a guess on my part -- based on the several comments by former Bug drivers: "It's like a Hornet with FOUR MOTORS!"

ETA: I believe quicksilver has already commented that the pedal turn is very similar to (or the same thing) as the Hornet's pirouette. The problem for the Bug driver is he really is out of energy post-pirouette, whereas the Lightning driver has the smash to quickly regain energy.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 19:29
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:ETA: I believe quicksilver has already commented that the pedal turn is very similar to (or the same thing) as the Hornet's pirouette. The problem for the Bug driver is he really is out of energy post-pirouette, whereas the Lightning driver has the smash to quickly regain energy.


Yes, pedal turn is the Pirouette. In the manuals it is referred to as [FCS] Pirouette Logic.

I think no aircraft embodies the saying of "The Devil is in the details" more than the F-35. What is important isn't the F-35's top end speed, or its bottom end speed, but in how dynamic its energy state can be inside its performance envelope. Similarly, for maneuvers, the magic may not so much in any one specific maneuver, but in how well or quickly it can transition between them.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 19:34
by steve2267
tailchase wrote:interesting to compare with the turn here at 4:00

https://youtu.be/IgD4QvxhFyU

(pedal turn and extreme "normal" turn). Which one is the most useful in your mind? In what circumstances?

PS Sion is a very specific place for airshows and should fit very well to F-35 demo (mostly in vertical plan). We haven't seen it yet there, but with the reopening of swiss eval, we will soon i hope.


Which one is most useful? The answer, as almost always is, it depends...

If the following illustration depicts the pedal turn or pirouette, it can be extremely useful to counter or defeat a turning adversary:
Image

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 19:34
by spazsinbad
tailchase wrote:interesting to compare with the turn here at 4:00 https://youtu.be/IgD4QvxhFyU (pedal turn and extreme "normal" turn). Which one is the most useful in your mind? In what circumstances?
PS Sion is a very specific place for airshows and should fit very well to F-35 demo (mostly in vertical plan). We haven't seen it yet there, but with the reopening of swiss eval, we will soon i hope.

Does SION get this high (spectators require oxygen) & 'don't show best stuff'? Keep those LOONY LENZ strapped on TIGHT!

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... 72a5_o.jpg

Image

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 19:42
by steve2267
The graphic I just linked to above may be found here:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/his ... RV/rd.html

I had previously posted several of these images earlier in this thread.

Interestingly, the above image is referred to as an offensive spiral as opposed to a defensive spiral.

Pirouette, Herbst maneuver, J-turn, Pedal turn all seem to be related and within the family of high alpha, post-stall maneuvers. Some may be more yaw driven (pedal turn?), whereas others such as the J-turn or Herbst maneuver, appear to be more related to velocity vector (or flight path vector) rolls.

These maneuvers are fun to watch and discuss, and they may very well have a certain place in the Lightning driver's BFM / ACM toolbox... but given the frighteningly awesome demonstrated performance of IIR HOBS missiles like the AIM-9X and helmet mounted sighting systems... until DIRCM or some other DEW demonstrates extremely high defeat ability of IIR missiles... I don't think I'd want to engage WVR.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 20:30
by quicksilver
It appears you guys are in somewhat violent agreement.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 20:39
by quicksilver
lbk000 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:In air show demos, you never show your best cards...

Certainly, but the nature of the "best card" is a good question. F-35's best card may not be a maneuver but rather an electronic attack capability, for example. The most powerful things are rarely flashy.

Aerodynamics is a field that has relatively limited growth potential. The rules are written by powers beyond Human control.
In the area of software, Man is God. We are free to rewrite the rules that we made, and exploit what is effectively a microcosm of our own device.

The physical realm is running out of loopholes to exploit; it's easier and smarter to get everyone to play a new game that is riddled with opportunities.


An astute observation.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2019, 23:55
by lbk000
steve2267 wrote:Interestingly, the above image is referred to as an offensive spiral as opposed to a defensive spiral.

The "offensive spiral" refers to the blue aircraft executing the pirouette maneuver.
The red defending aircraft is executing the classical defensive spiral.

Pirouette is an inherently offensive move. It has relatively poor defensive potential, as it is about converting as much motion into angle as possible. The most defensive thing about the pirouette is that it quickly resolves the defensive spiral, which as a delaying tactic may otherwise afford the defender enough time for help to intercede.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 00:30
by steve2267
I must confess, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage. In your (re-written) post from 9:38am MST this morning, you state
lbk000 wrote:The pedal turn is effectively a defensive spiral with minimal radius characteristics. By claiming the inside of the spiral, the pedal turn possesses a positional advantage and mitigates a turning defender's aspect defense.

However there is more than one way to skin a cat -- simpler ways too. The pedal turn is relatively elaborate and an opponent may be reluctant to enter a defensive spiral. The pedal turn is not necessarily a good defensive maneuver either; it's very wasteful from an energy standpoint, like TVC maneuvers. Energy conservative, aerodynamic maneuvers will always be the most desirable maneuvers at the end of the day, it's just that when someone brings the rock against your scissors, you have to pull out the one-off counter for it.


But here you state

lbk000 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Interestingly, the above image is referred to as an offensive spiral as opposed to a defensive spiral.

The "offensive spiral" refers to the blue aircraft executing the pirouette maneuver.
The red defending aircraft is executing the classical defensive spiral.

Pirouette is an inherently offensive move, it has relatively poor defensive potential against third party attackers. Two aircraft locked in the classical defensive spiral are essentially at a stalemate as neither will be able to gain a significant angular advantage for a kill shot. The pirouette/pedal turn is sort of an all-in move to break that stalemate by sacrificing even more energy than the other aircraft in order to rapidly achieve a shot solution. It's expensive, but still cheaper than letting the spiral play out all the way down to the deck.


whereas the blue aircraft appears all the world to me to be performing a pedal turn as demonstrated by Billie Flynn in Paris circa June 2017.

I am no BFM / ACM expert, so I claim no expertise in stating whether a pedal turn is better used as an offensive or defensive maneuver. However, I can imagine it being used in both circumstances. Specifically in an offensive situation, if somehow finding oneself in a WVR merge, I could see a Lightning driver executing any number of tactics, from a climbing, high alpha bat turn we have seen into recent demos, to immediately going vertical, keeping eyes on the bandit, and pulling over the top into a descending, high alpha pedal turn to quickly go for a HOBS Aim-9x shot. I also don't see how this is terribly elaborate, especially given how pilots have all claimed how easy it is to fly / control the Lightning.

Perhaps you can clarify whether the pedal turn is an offensive or defensive "spiral."

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 00:51
by steve2267
As for the pedal turn being an energy depleting, descending maneuver, I'm not sure I buy that either. Certainly, we have only seen it performed to date in a descending manner, but unless a Lightning driver coughs out the details (i.e. control inputs) of how to perform the pedal turn, the words "pedal" + "turn" used to describe the maneuver sure seem to suggest stomping on the rudder pedals enough to generate the required yaw rotational rate. I would imagine the only pre-requisites are that the aircraft be at a certain post-stall, high alpha flight condition with airspeed (or Q) below certain parameters... then stomp away to slew your nose as desired.

From an ACM perspective, how hard is it to imagine
Image
a pilot entering that maneuver, and then at [4] or [5] converting from a post-stall velocity vector roll (pirouette?) to a pedal turn, as necessary to slew his nose around for a HOBS Aim-9x snapshot? In such a scenario, high alpha & low dynamic pressure, a pedal turn may be very viable in an ASCENDING situation. No?

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 01:18
by quicksilver
Is it offensive or defensive? I’ve seen it used in both circumstances and/or for both ends. Depends on the circumstance.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 01:27
by steve2267
QS, this may be a naive question, but can you shed some light on the Hornet pirouette? Is it principally a velocity vector roll primarily performed with lateral stick? Or is it a pedals-only maneuver? At what angles of attack is it initiated or performed and at what indicated airspeeds? Of course, feel free to tell me to pound sand.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 01:31
by lbk000
Sorry, it must be confusing for you because there's a bit of a perspective shift going on between the concept of "defensive spiral" and "offensive spiral".

The Defensive Spiral is so named because it's a passive, defensive move initiated by a defending aircraft to deny an attack.
The Pirouette is an Offensive Spiral, because it's generally a move initiated by an attacker to exploit the defender's maneuver.

Pedal Turn = Pirouette = Offensive Spiral
These are all synonyms.

The Hornet has Pirouette Logic. It's commanded by simultaneous lateral stick and rudder inputs.
Here, this will probably be better than a written explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2wTpXGhiWE

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 01:34
by spazsinbad
Wot a shame 'dannyboyo' Dan Canin was not able to tell us more - it is a real shame that CODE ONE has now coded.
Semper Lightning: F-35 Flight Control System
09 Dec 2015 Dan “Dog” Canin [LM F-35 Test Pilot]

"...turn coordination in FBW airplanes can be very sophisticated. Generally, the F-35 tries to keep sideslip near zero, but in some cases it intentionally creates adverse or proverse yaw as necessary to control roll and yaw rates. We’ll talk about the use of pedals at high AOA in a later article, [AFAIK he NEVER DID] but, for general flying around, the best coordination we’ll get is with our feet on the floor...."

Footnote 2: "[2] The Wright brothers incorporated automatic rudder coordination because they had no choice. Laying prone and controlling the aircraft’s roll with their hips, there was no practical way to control the rudder independently, so they linked the rudder wires to the wing-warp hip cradle. Interestingly, the Wrights deleted the interconnect in their later models, preferring to have direct control of sideslip and to rely on pilot skill for coordination. It was decades before airplanes incorporated both: automatic coordination with roll, with additional yaw command available via the pedals."


Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=187

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 01:53
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:QS, this may be a naive question, but can you shed some light on the Hornet pirouette? Is it principally a velocity vector roll primarily performed with lateral stick? Or is it a pedals-only maneuver? At what angles of attack is it initiated or performed and at what indicated airspeeds? Of course, feel free to tell me to pound sand.


It is largely a vv roll, but don’t look for absolutes. It depends...on the flight conditions at which one initiates the maneuver and how the fight geometry is progressing (ie what your adversary is doing and where he is positionally). It is not a set-piece action. The most impressive one I ever saw (in a fight) was executed from a relatively shallow climb — not more than ~20 degrees nose high, and he didn’t have to dump the nose on the backside; he went from clearly defensive to neutral/slightly offensive.

One is making the jet yaw very rapidly and thus there are q limits.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 02:33
by spazsinbad
More clues:
How F-35 Experience Could Reduce Hurdles To Developing Fighters
08 Sep 2018 Graham Warwick

"...The F-35 has to be able to use all the maneuverability it has. The program office called for air-to-air tracking up to stall AOA, or alpha, followed by predictable and controllable post-stall handling. “The aircraft has to be departure-resistant in any normal tactical maneuver and recover with minimal pilot input,” he says.

“At high AOA, the [aerodynamic] model is very challenging to build, so there is some augmentation outside the model to correct for errors,” says Canin, adding: “High-alpha control is all about allocation of horizontal tail power for yaw and pitch.”…" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54424&p=401317&hilit=Canin#p401317 from 'krieger22':

Source: article 2: http://now.eloqua.com/es.asp?s=96691307 ... Id=13994#1

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 03:24
by steve2267
QS, copy “it depends...” & thanks for description. Can you say max IAS or IAS envelope in which it can be performed?

Spaz, thanks for link to that article. Ties a lot of topics together.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 05:35
by quicksilver
No, sorry.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2019, 06:43
by steve2267
No worries. Thx for your insights & experiences.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 10:40
by gta4
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p011127.pdf

This article shows how pirouette is used in actual ACM. (operational test and evaluation of super hornet)

Super hornet needs to use its superb pitch authority to acquire offensive position first, then use pirouette to score follow-on gun attacks.

This maneuver is frequently used by test pilots. It offers high effective turn rate (similar to peak instaneous turn rate).

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 11:06
by gta4
So if my understanding is correct, pirouette could be used to help you maintain offensive, or help you convert from defensive to neutual, but it cannot be used as the first move when you enter the merge in neutual.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 13:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
IMO if you enter the merge at pirouette speeds, you already lost.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 14:16
by spazsinbad
gta4 wrote:http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p011127.pdf This article shows how pirouette is used in actual ACM. (operational test and evaluation of super hornet) Super hornet needs to use its superb pitch authority to acquire offensive position first, then use pirouette to score follow-on gun attacks. This maneuver is frequently used by test pilots. It offers high effective turn rate (similar to peak instaneous turn rate).

Thanks for that. Copy attached has been made 'text readable' & cropped with the blank page deleted to make 12 pages.

Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process 2000

Scary moment lightning strikes a F-18 fighter jet cockpit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mbC3w-os0s


Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:06
by tailchase
HAving any trick in your bag can be useful (pirouette).

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:15
by quicksilver
gta4 wrote:So if my understanding is correct, pirouette could be used to help you maintain offensive


Yep.

gta4 wrote:...or help you convert from defensive to neutral


Yep.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:16
by quicksilver
tailchase wrote:HAving any trick in your bag can be useful (pirouette).


x2

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:27
by quicksilver
FYSA. Notably, one of the authors of the linked-to pdf was “Decoy” Dunaway, later to become “VADM” and AIR-00 at NAVAIR.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:42
by gta4
My takeaway:

1) horizontal pirouette = pedal turn.

2) vertical pirouette = J turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQv5IZqndTY

Haha never though super bug could reverse heading that fast.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 15:52
by gta4
F18 J turn 270.gif

F18 j turn 270 en.jpg

Smooth and tight, like a ballet dancer

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 16:05
by quicksilver
gta4 wrote:My takeaway:

1) horizontal pirouette = pedal turn.

2) vertical pirouette = J turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQv5IZqndTY

Haha never though super bug could reverse heading that fast.


:roll:

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2019, 21:10
by spazsinbad
Just some quotes wot I picked out however there are many more but youse can find them ye-selves I think. Thanks to OP.

Super Hornet Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process 2000 p011127 pp12.pdf (1.5Mb)

download/file.php?id=29246 (PDF 1.5Mb)
Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process
8-11 May 2000 Mr. Robert J. Hanley; Commander David A. Dunaway [USN]; Mr. Kenneth P. Lawson

"...OPERATIONAL EVALUATION (OPEVAL)…
...In addition to the impressive pitch pointing and departure resistance of the Super Hornet, there are several performance characteristics at high AOA that will allow the Super Hornet to dominate the engaged maneuvering environment. During early operational tests, the inability to generate yaw rates at angles of attack above 25 degrees was identified as a major limitation to air to air combat. At that time, the use of sideslip and sideslip rate feedback to prevent departures had also limited the maneuverability of the airplane to an unacceptable level. Through an aggressive process of design and close interface with the operational community, the flight control logic was modified to allow proverse sideslip within a specific AOA and airspeed range. This change did not decrease departure resistance but significantly improved the ability of the Super Hornet to rapidly reposition the nose from a nose high to a nose low position. In addition to impressive pitch pointing, the Super Hornet has the combined roll/yaw axis to use in quickening the transition from nose high to nose low conditions. This maneuver is akin to the pirouette maneuver performed by the heritage Hornet with the notable exception of precise control. In the case of the heritage Hornet, the pirouette is essentially a controlled departure that quickly transitions the aircraft from nose high to nose low. Once the maneuver is initiated, the pilot is essentially along for the ride. By contrast, in the Super Hornet, the maneuver can be performed with good control throughout. In fact, the F/A-18E/F is easily transitioned from a pirouette to a precise guns tracking solution at virtually any point in the maneuver. A precipitous byproduct of the Super Hornet pirouette maneuver is an impressive horizontal plane maneuver that generates tum rates similar to maximum instantaneous tum rates but at airspeeds less than 150 knots. The maneuver is performed at full aft stick stall by invoking the pirouette maneuver for 2-3 seconds from a tum or level flight. Once initiated, the aircraft roll/yaws through 40-60 degrees of tum at which point the pirouette control inputs are removed and the aircraft is recovered back to level flight. This maneuver can be repeated in sequence to create an impressive "effective" instantaneous tum rate. This maneuver is frequently used as a secondary threatening maneuver after the pilot has used the impressive pitch pointing for a first shot advantage.

In summary, there is no single maneuvering characteristic that makes the F/A-18E/F an effective maneuvering platform. It is the synergy enjoyed by combining the effective pitch rate, pilot confidence that comes from departure resistance, high AOA maneuverability, pirouette, and deck transition. Although Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) is usually avoided as much as possible and only used as a last resort, it is an excellent benchmark of maneuverability. The Super Hornet has proven to be an impressive ACM platform. Pilots have found that the Super Hornet is most effective when using an aggressive position fight. The pitch pointing provides the first shot capability, the departure resistance and high AOA maneuvering allows the Super Hornet to maintain the threatening position and lastly, the pirouette/deck transition allow the Super Hornet to achieve quick follow up shots. For a conventionally designed aircraft with relatively low thrust to weight ratio, the Super Hornet is one of the premier ACM aircraft available today....

...LESSONS LEARNED
Some important lessons learned from the Super Hornet development include:...

...5. Wing design is still an art. Prediction of "wing drop" like phenomenon is still a "black art". Hopefully, the National AWS program will shed new light on this topic.

6. As more aircraft are able to exploit the high AOA region, new tactics will have to be developed. These tactics must be analyzed to determine exactly what kind of rates are necessary to be lethal in this environment without undue penalty to the airplane design in other areas (again, everything is a trade). To date, even with HANG and HAIRRY, it has been difficult to pin down critical design guidelines for high AOA tactical utility.

7. Regardless of how sophisticated, a FCS can do nothing without control power.

8. Designer engineers must realize that what they think is important is not always what a pilot thinks is important. Case in point, if the engineers think it is a great idea to design an airplane to be flown with "reckless" abandon by providing superior departure resistance in the flight control system automatically, they may actually (and probably will be) taking away some of the tactical utility of the aircraft. There was (and is) a lot of truth to the fighter pilots view of the world that you have to fly "to the edge of the envelope", the point just prior to a departure, in order to maximize the effectiveness of your aircraft in combat. As shown in the F/A-18E/F and the initial inability to perform a pirouette maneuver, too much artificial departure resistance inhibits the pilot from tapping into the maximum capability of the aircraft. There comes a point where you have to let the pilot judge where and how to use the edge of the envelope vice the engineer and the DepRes type system.

9. And lastly, the team wanted to eliminate the time consuming process of modifying flight control laws, which plagued the F/A-18A/B development. This was done by incorporating a "dial-a-gain" function in the test aircraft that would allow for limited changes to control laws in order to optimize the existing OFP more efficiently rather than having to produce a new OFP every time a small gain change had to be made. The F/A-18A/B had over 110 OFP changes, over 70 of which flew on the test aircraft. In contrast, the F/A- 18E/F had less than 10 OFP changes."

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p011127.pdf [attached 'text readable' PDF on previous page & above]

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 05:20
by strykerxo
https://youtu.be/Nf5A13atLHQ

Just in case you all were thinking only the SH could pull off spectacular maneuvers. I saw this video last year and was floored, never have I seen such maneuverability from a legacy Hornet. I've seen many shows and F-18 demos and it is nearly as spectacular as the SH. I was able to chat with a legacy F-18 pilot and was informed Hornets have flown like this from the beginning. Asked why we in the states were not privileged to see this demo, the Brass, made that call.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 06:26
by boilermaker
gta4 wrote:http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52907

Now we know the "pedal turn", is a high yaw rate maneuver, not a conventional turn. So it is neither sustained turn, nor instantaneous turn. However, since the angular velocity (28 deg/sec) is constant, pedal turn is equivalent to a sustained turn of 28 deg/sec, because it changes its heading at a steady 28deg/sec, and an enemy fighter could not counter it unless it performs a sustained 28deg/sec turn (conventionally or yawing).

Is this understanding correct?


It was a feature of the F16 AFTI and also that the reversed arrow of the X29 could provide given that yaw on the latter would mean the wing inside the turn would get all the lift and flex upward also. Not sure why neither were further pursued, maybe too advanced.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 07:22
by spazsinbad
strykerxo wrote:https://youtu.be/Nf5A13atLHQ

Just in case you all were thinking only the SH could pull off spectacular maneuvers. I saw this video last year and was floored, never have I seen such maneuverability from a legacy Hornet. I've seen many shows and F-18 demos and it is nearly as spectacular as the SH. I was able to chat with a legacy F-18 pilot and was informed Hornets have flown like this from the beginning. Asked why we in the states were not privileged to see this demo, the Brass, made that call.

:doh: it is not Asif we have not seen THIS Video before - search the forum using the string Nf5A13atLHQ and yous'll get 12 hits not counting this one above today. Jeepers we get it - the SWISS Hornet is YOU BEAUTEH - we remember SION 2017.

search.php?keywords=Nf5A13atLHQ&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 08:17
by hornetfinn
strykerxo wrote:https://youtu.be/Nf5A13atLHQ

Just in case you all were thinking only the SH could pull off spectacular maneuvers. I saw this video last year and was floored, never have I seen such maneuverability from a legacy Hornet. I've seen many shows and F-18 demos and it is nearly as spectacular as the SH. I was able to chat with a legacy F-18 pilot and was informed Hornets have flown like this from the beginning. Asked why we in the states were not privileged to see this demo, the Brass, made that call.


Actually legacy Hornet flight control software has been upgraded about 15 years ago to allow many of the same maneuvers that SH could pull off. Interestingly this whole upgrade was proposed that exact same year that the "Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process" Spaz posted earlier was released. Probably someone realized that the same things could be done with legacy Hornets by simply upgrading software. Pretty damn impressive that all this could be done with only improving FCC software!

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics ... _brief.pdf

Need to upgrade the FCC software
– Mishap Prevention
• Suppress out of control flight modes
• Improve departure resistance
– Improve maneuverability at high AOA
• Improve roll performance above 30° AOA
• Implement “Pirouette” Feature


Some other intresting files like more detailed info about Hornet flight control software development can be found in the same directory:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics ... ure-notes/

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 09:40
by boilermaker
hornetfinn wrote:
strykerxo wrote:https://youtu.be/Nf5A13atLHQ

Just in case you all were thinking only the SH could pull off spectacular maneuvers. I saw this video last year and was floored, never have I seen such maneuverability from a legacy Hornet. I've seen many shows and F-18 demos and it is nearly as spectacular as the SH. I was able to chat with a legacy F-18 pilot and was informed Hornets have flown like this from the beginning. Asked why we in the states were not privileged to see this demo, the Brass, made that call.


Actually legacy Hornet flight control software has been upgraded about 15 years ago to allow many of the same maneuvers that SH could pull off. Interestingly this whole upgrade was proposed that exact same year that the "Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process" Spaz posted earlier was released. Probably someone realized that the same things could be done with legacy Hornets by simply upgrading software. Pretty damn impressive that all this could be done with only improving FCC software!

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics ... _brief.pdf

Need to upgrade the FCC software
– Mishap Prevention
• Suppress out of control flight modes
• Improve departure resistance
– Improve maneuverability at high AOA
• Improve roll performance above 30° AOA
• Implement “Pirouette” Feature


Some other intresting files like more detailed info about Hornet flight control software development can be found in the same directory:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics ... ure-notes/


I think it was in hushkit or foxtrot alpha, the Navy pilot explaining that the legacy Hornet being smaller and lighter is a bit more nimble than the super hornet, with greater sustained rate of turns

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 10:34
by hornetfinn
boilermaker wrote:I think it was in hushkit or foxtrot alpha, the Navy pilot explaining that the legacy Hornet being smaller and lighter is a bit more nimble than the super hornet, with greater sustained rate of turns


I agree with this and the big motor legacy Hornet (like the Swiss one in the video) also has better T/W ratio especially when lightly loaded. I think big motor legacy Hornet (C/D) is very underrated fighter aircraft that actually had and still has (for 4th gen fighter) very good all-around performance with the latest software and updates.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 14:05
by lbk000
gta4 wrote:However, since the angular velocity (28 deg/sec) is constant, pedal turn is equivalent to a sustained turn of 28 deg/sec, because it changes its heading at a steady 28deg/sec, and an enemy fighter could not counter it unless it performs a sustained 28deg/sec turn (conventionally or yawing).

Is this understanding correct?

I'm not gonna (again) explain why, but I want to object that this is patently not how it works.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 15:31
by gta4
lbk000 wrote:
gta4 wrote:However, since the angular velocity (28 deg/sec) is constant, pedal turn is equivalent to a sustained turn of 28 deg/sec, because it changes its heading at a steady 28deg/sec, and an enemy fighter could not counter it unless it performs a sustained 28deg/sec turn (conventionally or yawing).

Is this understanding correct?

I'm not gonna (again) explain why, but I want to object that this is patently not how it works.


Well this was my old post and now I know why, especially after I read about how F-15/16 defeated X-31 in Sep 1994. That was an epic battle. X-31 already had helmet mounted sight in its inventory, but F-15/16 had enormous energy in the vertical and created an altitude sanctuary (source: X-31 flying beyond the stall. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... _Stall.pdf). The mighty X-31 used to own USN F-14D/18C with serious exchange ratio advantage, however after pitting against F-15/16, X-31 found a tough counter.

Honestly X-31 is a lot more maneuverable than Su-27 and Mig-29s (variants of 1990s era), I guess that is why Russian 4th Gen did not cause big panic in western world, as opposed to Russian propaganda.

This is why I am interested in climb rate and acceleration, in addition to nose pointing capability. I think F/A-18E/F a good ACM platform not only for its nose authority, but also for its good subsonic acceleration (slightly better than Su-27SK below 550 kts). If you check my previous post there was an estimation of F-35A's acceleration.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 17:19
by lbk000
Yeah sorry I did go back to see the timestamp for the quoted text. Figures that's what happens when I check forums right after I wake up.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 20:02
by crosshairs
One of my instructors taught me how to fly using nothing more than pedal turns and elevator trim tab.

From take off to lining up for final, I have flown entire sorties (except for landing) with nothing but pedals and trim tab.

Once you hit the pedal, the difference in wing speed causes one wing to lose lift, the other to gain lift, and then you are in a banked turn. Don't ask me about if it's coordinated or not because I don't ever recall looking at gauges.

I recommend any pilots here on this forum to give it a shot. Of course we're talking about a trainer and not a Tomcat but I bet the Tomcat would have been a blast for that.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2019, 20:15
by quicksilver
"Well this was my old post and now I know why, especially after I read about how F-15/16 defeated X-31 in Sep 1994. That was an epic battle." (my emphasis added)

Use of the currently popular term 'epic' suggests a drama that, apart from an IFE, largely does not exist in flight test. The quote below from the NASA doc is germane.

"Evaluating handling qualities during close-in combat is particularly challenging because it is a very dynamic environment where angle of attack is constantly (and considerably) changing. X-31 testers therefore sought a more structured type of flight test to validate the subjective judgments of good handling qualities that were reached during the close-in-combat tests."

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 00:18
by lbk000
crosshairs wrote:One of my instructors taught me how to fly using nothing more than pedal turns and elevator trim tab.

From take off to lining up for final, I have flown entire sorties (except for landing) with nothing but pedals and trim tab.

Once you hit the pedal, the difference in wing speed causes one wing to lose lift, the other to gain lift, and then you are in a banked turn.

Well yes, it is completely possible to fly with only the rudder in gentle flight regimes. Simple rudder-only R/C model aircraft have existed for a long time... the pedal turn relevant to this conversation is a leap beyond the rudder turn you're talking about. Since the effect of the rudder changes from yaw to roll as AoA increases, the "trick" here is just the opposite to what allows your rudder turn to work; at high AoA, the control laws need to prevent the rudder from rolling the aircraft and instead generate pure yaw authority.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 06:44
by strykerxo
hornetfinn wrote:
boilermaker wrote:I think it was in hushkit or foxtrot alpha, the Navy pilot explaining that the legacy Hornet being smaller and lighter is a bit more nimble than the super hornet, with greater sustained rate of turns


I agree with this and the big motor legacy Hornet (like the Swiss one in the video) also has better T/W ratio especially when lightly loaded. I think big motor legacy Hornet (C/D) is very underrated fighter aircraft that actually had and still has (for 4th gen fighter) very good all-around performance with the latest software and updates.


Thanks Hornetfinn, makes me wonder how the YF-17 or F-18L might have handled, had the FCS been available at the time since they were several thousands of pounds lighter without the carrier requirement.

With handling like that, short of TV, the Hornet would be hard to outclass WVR. It also explains why the Western fighters have not pursued TV and the Russians use it as there only selling point. Does the F-16 have similar characteristics that we haven't seen?

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 13:08
by quicksilver
Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 14:42
by ricnunes
quicksilver wrote:Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.


Agreed.
It's not by "random chance" that when LM designed the F-35 it terms of agility, the goal was to obtain the combination of the Hornet's agility (High AoA) with the F-16 agility (Energy), a goal which was clearly achieved.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2019, 19:57
by quicksilver
From para 8 of the document passage that spaz cut and pasted above, a key element of the process of designing, building, and testing/delivering ‘capability’ to the warfighters — “Design engineers must realize that what they think is important is not always what a pilot thinks is important. Case in point, if the engineers think it is a great idea to design an airplane to be flown with "reckless" abandon by providing superior departure resistance in the flight control system automatically, they may actually (and probably will be) taking away some of the tactical utility of the aircraft. There was (and is) a lot of truth to the fighter pilots view of the world that you have to fly "to the edge of the envelope", the point just prior to a departure, in order to maximize the effectiveness of your aircraft in combat.”

There is an F-35 video from a few years ago that was produced during hi-alpha testing at EDW. I think it’s called ‘F-35 Hi-AOA Testing’. Contained in it are on-camera quotes from a test pilot (Doc Nelson) and an engineer that (unintentionally) illustrate this point. The pilot talks about a desire to go right to the edge of the envelope/limits— and if exceeded — let there be ease of recovery; the engineer talks about ‘not letting the aircraft exceed the limits.’ (or something to that effect). It is the essence of the constructive friction that helps get us a jet that flies like F-35. I’ll see if I can find it.

Here it is — https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2019, 02:31
by crosshairs
Why are the weapons doors open during the maneuvers? Seems like a rather drag inducing thing to do while maneuvering. Not to mention what it does to rcs.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2019, 02:38
by spazsinbad
These are test flights. All kinds of weird things are 'tested' in test flights. Seen F-35B STOVL Mode 4 - wheels up - in flight?

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2019, 02:50
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:These are test flights. All kinds of weird things are 'tested' in test flights. Seen F-35B STOVL Mode 4 - wheels up - in flight?


x2

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 13:18
by hornetfinn
quicksilver wrote:Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.


It definitely has been, agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that there seems to be the pretty widespread misconseption among the public that Hornet has poor performance. I think it's mostly because older models using F404-GE-400 had fairly low T/W ratio and thus had some performance issues.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2019, 16:12
by mixelflick
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.


It definitely has been, agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that there seems to be the pretty widespread misconseption among the public that Hornet has poor performance. I think it's mostly because older models using F404-GE-400 had fairly low T/W ratio and thus had some performance issues.


Are all legacy USN/Marine Hornets now flying with the uprated F-404 motors?

I'm one who always lamented the fact it was underpowered. Would feel better knowing all (or at least most) legacy Hornets had the extra "umph" afforded by more powerful engines... :)

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 00:10
by strykerxo
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.


It definitely has been, agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that there seems to be the pretty widespread misconseption among the public that Hornet has poor performance. I think it's mostly because older models using F404-GE-400 had fairly low T/W ratio and thus had some performance issues.


My main point, knowing the legacy F-18 had great handling at AOA, was that I / we have rarely seen the preformance that was on display by the Swiss at Sion. For decades in the US, the F-18 demos were conservative, even the Canadians CF-18 demo is mild comparatively. Upgraded FCS and engines are typical, US demo and Swiss demo are night and day, like an entirely different plane. Makes me wonder what else is out there, that we don't know.

Pedal turn vs. conventional turn is all about getting your nose on the target. Spherical SA and missile coverage do not negate energy maneuvers, only adds to the lethality of the combat aircraft. Combined with stealth, speed and altitude make for a total package, and if adversarial AC are lacking better create themselves a no fly zone.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 04:28
by quicksilver
My main point, knowing the legacy F-18 had great handling at AOA, was that I / we have rarely seen the preformance that was on display by the Swiss at Sion.“

So you say. In the real world where bfm training goes on every day, Hornets have demonstrated this ability for decades.

Makes me wonder what else is out there, that we don't know.”

Air shows are about perception (image) and entertainment, not combat.

Pedal turn vs. conventional turn is all about getting your nose on the target.

Sometimes.

Spherical SA and missile coverage do not negate energy maneuvers.

Actually they do, just not automatically nor always.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 04:55
by strykerxo
quicksilver wrote:My main point, knowing the legacy F-18 had great handling at AOA, was that I / we have rarely seen the preformance that was on display by the Swiss at Sion.“

So you say. In the real world where bfm training goes on every day, Hornets have demonstrated this ability for decades.

Makes me wonder what else is out there, that we don't know.”

Air shows are about perception (image) and entertainment, not combat.

Pedal turn vs. conventional turn is all about getting your nose on the target.

Sometimes.

Spherical SA and missile coverage do not negate energy maneuvers.

Actually they do, just not automatically nor always.


Right, airshows are for public consumption and though the anouncers say "the routines are representative of BFM in the military". F-22/35 and SH are flying high alpha post-stall maneuvers but say we don't want to get low and slow, speed is life. That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?

The pilot I talked to said this:
"That Sion demo was awesome! To answer your questions, the F18 has always had the ability to fly like this. Thrust vectoring is defiantly an advantage in a close BFM fight, however there is a weight penalty for it. The Hornet is excellent at post stall AOA maneuvering. We actually never teach any kind of stall recovery when learning to fly it like you would in a traditional airplane. The Mig and SU are capable fighters, the pilot makes the biggest difference in any engagement. The Legacy demo in the US was controlled by the Navy. Naval leadership sets the guidelines to what types of maneuvers and the routine that the demo pilots will fly."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zamyPclcyZ4&t=256s

point on the energy maneuvering it is all useful, Stealth, speed, altitude etc. negates maneuvering too but who wants to fly without them.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 05:02
by gta4
mixelflick wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:Where have you guys been for the last 30+ years? The Hornet has always been a formidable bfm machine — in fact, game changing when it first showed up — and progressively upgraded over time.


It definitely has been, agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wanted to point out that there seems to be the pretty widespread misconseption among the public that Hornet has poor performance. I think it's mostly because older models using F404-GE-400 had fairly low T/W ratio and thus had some performance issues.


Are all legacy USN/Marine Hornets now flying with the uprated F-404 motors?

I'm one who always lamented the fact it was underpowered. Would feel better knowing all (or at least most) legacy Hornets had the extra "umph" afforded by more powerful engines... :)


I think you mean F404-GE402

All exported C/D hornets are using 402. US navy started implementing 402 engine since 1992 but I don't know how many have been installed

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 05:52
by gta4
And my personal opinion, USAF and USN lack good airshow "directors". They seldom use smokers which could make trajectory more noticeable. They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much but could cover the dumb level flight (this is frequently used in Rafale or EF2K demos).

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:04
by tailchase
gta4 wrote:And my personal opinion, USAF and USN lack good airshow "directors". They seldom use smokers which could make trajectory more noticeable. They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much but could cover the dumb level flight (this is frequently used in Rafale or EF2K demos).


Heh, i know a Rafale demonstrator pilot then coach that juste resigned (Cne Ruet). :P

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:12
by quicksilver
"That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?"

Because the juice is not worth the squeeze. Apart from interweb warriors and people who are trying to sell/buy aircraft, few really care about something that a jet does at an airshow.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 15:53
by quicksilver
"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 16:51
by quicksilver
In the US services (particularly the USAF), air show routines are conceived, reviewed, tested, reviewed again and approved in a very detailed process through multiple levels of command. Pilot selection is similarly rigorous consistent with the demands of the routine. Ultimately, the degree of difficulty/risk assumed in the routine will boil down to what effort (time/cost/risk) will it take for what benefit versus other priorities. Bleeding edge performance is not what one will see in the public domain due to the proximity of the viewing public -- not for classification but rather for safety.

There isn't much more to be explored aerodynamically that might be -- safely -- demonstrated in a public display.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:11
by strykerxo
quicksilver wrote:"That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?"

Because the juice is not worth the squeeze. Apart from interweb warriors and people who are trying to sell/buy aircraft, few really care about something that a jet does at an airshow.


If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 18:31
by f-16adf
Here is a superb CF-18 demo, 1986 at Abbotsford, Maj. Bob Wade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgO6rhyA2FA




The lighter early lot "A" model Hornets (and in this case a "CF") were obviously no slouch-

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 07:01
by gta4
quicksilver wrote:"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.


Well I mean unloaded roll. I know loaded roll is an major energy eater but unloaded roll is not.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 16:30
by quicksilver
gta4 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"They don't know they could roll the aircraft during energy recovery which does not affect acceleration that much..."

Give 'em your contact info. I'm sure they would be charmed by your insights.


Well I mean unloaded roll. I know loaded roll is an major energy eater but unloaded roll is not.


What got my attention was the "They don't know..." part. I can gurantee you that they DO know those kind of things.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2019, 16:57
by quicksilver
strykerxo wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"That being said if the legacy hornet can fly like the SH why haven't we been able to witness it at a show?"

Because the juice is not worth the squeeze. Apart from interweb warriors and people who are trying to sell/buy aircraft, few really care about something that a jet does at an airshow.


If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?


Once again, the risk was judged not worth the reward. If you bothered to read the doc by Dunaway et al linked by a poster above re: the effort to 'uninhibit' (my word) SH hi-aoa handling, you might have noticed that Hornet didnt get similar handling until the SH work had been achieved. Thus, while capable of such maneuvers, until that time Hornet was either very near, or in oocf in order to do so. That changes the 'risk' part of the equation for air show decision-makers because an air show puts the jet in close proximity to the ground, where there are people and things that people own/value, and where the probability and consequence of getting something even a little bit wrong (for a host of reasons) is very high. In training, these kinds of maneuvers generally happen well above 10K' and are performed for the purpose of preparation for combat.

Some elements of the early SH demos were far more aggressive but were subsequently altered for similar risk/reward judgements. If a SH, Raptor of F-35 are doing something in an air show, it has been deemed low risk for departure/oocf.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2019, 04:36
by gta4
Well that reminds me of the "vertical pirouette" thing which was canceled in 2011. SH used to do that maneuver a lot before 2011 and that maneuver was very fun to watch (I think that is the navy equivalent of Herbst or J-turn). however one SH crashed when performing that maneuver and that maneuver was removed from then on.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2019, 17:16
by quicksilver
A SH demo at Andrews AFB in the early 2000s featured a takeoff, low transition, vertical pull to a half cuban eight, and a sudden pull-up coming down the back side of the HC8 to what looked to be a 'cobra'-like maneuver; my first thought was that the pilot departed controlled flight and I was about to be one of a couple hundred thousand witnesses to a mishap; didnt turn out that way. Not long thereafter, during the now-standard hi-alpha pass, the jet started doing a series of velocity vector rolls -- below roughly 2000' AGL; it was breathtaking. Havent seen anything near that 'edgy' since.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 04:13
by gta4
strykerxo wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
boilermaker wrote:I think it was in hushkit or foxtrot alpha, the Navy pilot explaining that the legacy Hornet being smaller and lighter is a bit more nimble than the super hornet, with greater sustained rate of turns


I agree with this and the big motor legacy Hornet (like the Swiss one in the video) also has better T/W ratio especially when lightly loaded. I think big motor legacy Hornet (C/D) is very underrated fighter aircraft that actually had and still has (for 4th gen fighter) very good all-around performance with the latest software and updates.


Thanks Hornetfinn, makes me wonder how the YF-17 or F-18L might have handled, had the FCS been available at the time since they were several thousands of pounds lighter without the carrier requirement.

With handling like that, short of TV, the Hornet would be hard to outclass WVR. It also explains why the Western fighters have not pursued TV and the Russians use it as there only selling point. Does the F-16 have similar characteristics that we haven't seen?


When pulled abruptly F-16 may exceed FCS limits and fly in a ballistic way. similar to Sukhoi stunts. The difference is that F-16 has higher nose pointing rate (almost 120 deg /sec) in this situation, due to smaller inertia of rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo
Not useful because it is out of control.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2019, 04:38
by gta4
An old article about how FCS fix boosted its agility:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-188096/

An interesting remark at the very end of the article. It makes an analogy between SH and X-31's "helicopter gun attack maneuver"

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2019, 03:14
by gta4

This video shows how pedal turn works against conventional turn.
I think the actual usage is to minimize enemy's horizontal maneuvering options and force it to go vertical.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 06:00
by garrya
Do anyone have the file where this cut came from
J-turn F-35 pedal turn.jpg

I want some more ammunition to shut down a troll :mrgreen:

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 06:18
by popcorn
strykerxo wrote:L

If that is true than why do the SH, F-22/35 routines involve post stall maneuvering, airshow crowds want to see what these AC are capable of, we can't see stealth, SA, but we can see maneuvering. The F-18 has had this capability long before this new generation of aircraft, why hide it?



IMO the significance e post-stall maneuvers is probably lost on 99.99% of attendees, maybe even more. As long as the jets fly , maneuver and make noise they're happy.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 07:19
by SpudmanWP
garrya wrote:Do anyone have the file where this cut came from
J-turn F-35 pedal turn.jpg

I want some more ammunition to shut down a troll :mrgreen:

IIRC that come from the F-35 CLAWS test. You know, the one where "journalists" ignored the purpose of the test and instead tried to frame it as a Combat BFM test.

I found it quoted on Elements of Power's site.:
https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/20 ... -2015.html

It seems that the direct quote was from a December 2014 doc that described the upcoming CLAWESs test. It may aslo be from this AIAA doc:
F-35A High Angle of Attack Testing
Steven Baer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference Atlanta, GA
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-2057


Here is the Claws Test
https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... euvers.pdf

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 07:40
by garrya
SpudmanWP wrote: It may aslo be from this AIAA doc:
F-35A High Angle of Attack Testing
Steven Baer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference Atlanta, GA
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-2057

I suspect it came from this doc as well, unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.

Re: "Pedal turn" versus "Conventional turn"

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 16:28
by gta4
The download link is here:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52907
However, I strongly suggest do not use the full article to argue against trolls, because trolls will claim that since the figure illustrates a X-31, it is X-31 that performs the J-turn, not the F-35.

This is why I think the cropped text is enough.