![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Elsewhere I've read that the Tomcat flies "units" of AoA, not degrees, with
its AoA range of -10 to +40 degrees being converted to units in the 0 to +30 range. That would mean the formula for converting units to degrees in that plane is [UnitsAoA = .6 * DegreesAoA + 6]. I've also read that approach AoA for the F-14 is 15 units, which would be... 15 degrees! Holy crap. Is that correct? That seems awfully high (too far nose up) to me, especially given the Hornet's ideal 8.1degrees. Can anyone confirm or correct these values? Or is there something weird going on with wing angle of incidence (or something else) that throws a spoke in my assumption that 15 degrees AoA means 12 degrees nose up on approach. (15, minus 3 for the glideslope.) Any help appreciated. Thanks! Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:45:19 -0400, "sttp"
wrote: Elsewhere I've read that the Tomcat flies "units" of AoA, not degrees, with its AoA range of -10 to +40 degrees being converted to units in the 0 to +30 range. That would mean the formula for converting units to degrees in that plane is [UnitsAoA = .6 * DegreesAoA + 6]. I've also read that approach AoA for the F-14 is 15 units, which would be... 15 degrees! Holy crap. Is that correct? That seems awfully high (too far nose up) to me, especially given the Hornet's ideal 8.1degrees. Can anyone confirm or correct these values? Or is there something weird going on with wing angle of incidence (or something else) that throws a spoke in my assumption that 15 degrees AoA means 12 degrees nose up on approach. (15, minus 3 for the glideslope.) Any help appreciated. Thanks! Scott Start by disregarding your initial assumption that the AoA "units" equate to anything other than an index for the driver to use regarding performance. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
... On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:45:19 -0400, "sttp" wrote: Elsewhere I've read that the Tomcat flies "units" of AoA, not degrees, with its AoA range of -10 to +40 degrees being converted to units in the 0 to +30 range. That would mean the formula for converting units to degrees in that plane is [UnitsAoA = .6 * DegreesAoA + 6]. I've also read that approach AoA for the F-14 is 15 units, which would be... 15 degrees! Holy crap. Is that correct? That seems awfully high (too far nose up) to me, especially given the Hornet's ideal 8.1degrees. Can anyone confirm or correct these values? Or is there something weird going on with wing angle of incidence (or something else) that throws a spoke in my assumption that 15 degrees AoA means 12 degrees nose up on approach. (15, minus 3 for the glideslope.) Any help appreciated. Thanks! Scott Start by disregarding your initial assumption that the AoA "units" equate to anything other than an index for the driver to use regarding performance. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com With all due respect Ed, that doesn't really help me. ;-) That AoA is an "index for the driver to use regarding performance" is patently obvious to anyone who's ever piloted, whether that value is measured in degrees or some arbitrary "unit". My question is basically this: what is the Tomcat's optimal approach AoA in DEGREES? (I know it's 15 units.) Is the conversion from degrees to units linear in this particular aircraft (which helps with the first question, if the answer is not explicitly known)? Do you have any idea? Thanks. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Scott,
Just to add fuel to the fire, the slatted F-4E's approach AOA is at 19.2 units, and the F-15E's is at 22 units. No idea what those numbers equate to in actual degrees. Kirk |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sttp" wrote in message ... Elsewhere I've read that the Tomcat flies "units" of AoA, not degrees, with its AoA range of -10 to +40 degrees being converted to units in the 0 to +30 range. That would mean the formula for converting units to degrees in that plane is [UnitsAoA = .6 * DegreesAoA + 6]. I've also read that approach AoA for the F-14 is 15 units, which would be... 15 degrees! Holy crap. Is that correct? That seems awfully high (too far nose up) to me, especially given the Hornet's ideal 8.1degrees. Can anyone confirm or correct these values? Or is there something weird going on with wing angle of incidence (or something else) that throws a spoke in my assumption that 15 degrees AoA means 12 degrees nose up on approach. (15, minus 3 for the glideslope.) Any help appreciated. Thanks! Scott A complex question. Units are, of course, not degrees. Issue, exactly what equates to "zero" in the calculation? Usually the armament datum line, waterline, or whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it. In the case of the Turkey, the aircraft's envelope exceeds the AOA display limits ... you can be flying at pegged AOA, well sort of flying. Adverse yaw could bite you pretty hard if you had a heavy hand. For that matter, the old Phantom could be there too ... but not for very long. The point, your assumption that the gauge equates to the envelope is faulty. IIRC, aircraft attitude (as reflected on the VDI attitude indicator and mirrored on the HUD) was about 11 degrees nose high in level flight at optimum AOA, somewhere around 8 degrees on a 3 degree glideslope (anybody with more recent time in the jet ... feel free to chime in with corrections). The airplane had a pretty pronounced cocked-up attitude on speed, but not necessarily more so than the Phantom. It also had a large hook/eye value (which affected lens setting for the target crossdeck pendant). The Hornet (and its bigger friend, the Rhino) are the only USN aircraft I know that actually display AOA in pure and simple degrees as opposed to the artificial "units." Of course it's capable of sustaining prodigious AOA, on the order of 55 degrees with the current control programming. Approach speed for a carrier aircraft is a brew of several objectives. You want to be as slow as is practical. Attitude on touchdown is critical. You want to be comfortably faster than L/D max. You need to preserve good visibility over the nose (a big driver in the F-8J in which the engineers came up with one number and after a few T&E passes at the ship had it lowered slightly for pilot vis). R / John |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Carrier" wrote in message
. .. A complex question. Units are, of course, not degrees. Issue, exactly what equates to "zero" in the calculation? Usually the armament datum line, waterline, or whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it. In the case of the Turkey, the aircraft's envelope exceeds the AOA display limits ... you can be flying at pegged AOA, well sort of flying. Adverse yaw could bite you pretty hard if you had a heavy hand. For that matter, the old Phantom could be there too ... but not for very long. The point, your assumption that the gauge equates to the envelope is faulty. IIRC, aircraft attitude (as reflected on the VDI attitude indicator and mirrored on the HUD) was about 11 degrees nose high in level flight at optimum AOA, somewhere around 8 degrees on a 3 degree glideslope (anybody with more recent time in the jet ... feel free to chime in with corrections). The airplane had a pretty pronounced cocked-up attitude on speed, but not necessarily more so than the Phantom. It also had a large hook/eye value (which affected lens setting for the target crossdeck pendant). The Hornet (and its bigger friend, the Rhino) are the only USN aircraft I know that actually display AOA in pure and simple degrees as opposed to the artificial "units." Of course it's capable of sustaining prodigious AOA, on the order of 55 degrees with the current control programming. Approach speed for a carrier aircraft is a brew of several objectives. You want to be as slow as is practical. Attitude on touchdown is critical. You want to be comfortably faster than L/D max. You need to preserve good visibility over the nose (a big driver in the F-8J in which the engineers came up with one number and after a few T&E passes at the ship had it lowered slightly for pilot vis). R / John Thank you John. Part of my confusion stems from this post, from rec.aviation.military: **************** "Units are the arbitrary form used to express angle of attack on some systems. For example, the F14 flies a typical approach at 51 thousand pounds more or less at 130kts at 15 units AOA. The T38 flies a typical approach at 9200lbs.at 155kts plus 1kt per each 100lbs fuel remaining 1000lbs. with the indexer on speed ( Indexer shows green donut at .6 units AOA in the Talon.) Basically, units are expressed as a decimal on the T38 between 0 and 1. (.6 is optimum for approach ). The F14 uses aoa units from 0 to 30. This is roughly equivalent to a range from - 10 degrees to +40 degrees of rotation of the aoa probe. The on speed indexer in the Turkey is amber instead of green like the 38. Hope this helps, Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/Certificated Flight Instructor Retired **************** This implies (or mayb I inferred ;-) a linear relationship between units and degrees, but I suppose there's no reason that would be mandatory... (and it looks like it's not linear after all). I just thought 12 degrees nose up on approach seemed... well, wrong. Even the F-16 comes in at "only" 13 degrees AoA. I know the F-15E uses units as well, and comes in more nose-up than most, but I have no idea how many degrees that is either. The rationale for unist vs. degrees... who the hell knows. (I suppose it would have something to do with precision and/or the need for a non-linear scale?) I appreciate the info though about attitude on approach.. Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Each manufacturer used his own scale for AOA 'units'. The 104's read
from 0 to 5. At 5 the auto stick kicker kicked. I never looked at the AOA gauge in the F4 on approach - I used the 'bullseye' indicator and if the runway was wet it ws the bullseye plus the slow chevron together. FWIW the F102 with its 60 degree swept delta wing did make its approach at roughly 15 degrees which happily coincided with the tip of the pitot boom on the horizon. (Same AOA for rotation and liftoff.) At 18 degrees you could drag the tailpipe (and P/O maintenance!) I'd be surprised if an F14 in standard landing config reached 15 degrees AOA. Walt BJ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey Scott,
For the F-14 approach alpha, true degrees is 10.8 which is published in various sources. Julian. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " wrote in message oups.com... Hey Scott, For the F-14 approach alpha, true degrees is 10.8 which is published in various sources. Julian. That would make my 20 year old memory (11 degrees) pretty good. R / John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP? | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | April 16th 04 12:41 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |