Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!pbear!peterb
From: peterb@pbear.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2@pbear.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 04:58:01 EST
Article-I.D.: pbear.2
Posted: Wed Jan 16 04:58:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 10:35:44 EST
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:lanl:-1910000:pbear:8500001:177600:1225
Nf-From: pbear!peterb    Jan 11 12:02:00 1985

/* Written 12:15 am  Jan 11, 1985 by hplabsc!dsmith in pbear:net.aviation */
>So why is the X-29 any worse than the F-16?  The F-16 uses a force
>stick to electronically signal desired control surface movements.
>(Actually, it's a little fancier than that.  I read that horizontal
>stick force does not signal aileron deflection, but roll rate.)
>
>And if a hydraulically actuated B-52 lost its electronics to EMP,
>how would it navigate home?
>
>I don't know how susceptible our planes are to EMP, but the Air
>Force does test them for it.

	In order to increase roll rate, aileron/spoiler deflection MUST
increase. therefore horizontal stick force does signal aileron deflection.

	If a B-52 lost its electonics, the crew would pull out their
equivilant of the world Jeppesen manuals and fly by the compass an gyro
compass. So they may be off by 30 - 40 miles by the time they get back, but
at least they would be in the ball park.

	The airforce may test for EMP, but I don't think that they can mimic
the incredible potentials that would exist from and actual EMP, so the
testing can't make it perfect or guarentee it, but just give an accurate
probability of survival/failure.

						Peter Barada
						ima!pbear!peterb