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