[email removed] (Scott "2G" Kellogg) writes:
> The only aircraft *I* know of with a large production
> that has a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio (hence 1G acceleration)
> is the high performance fighter, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle.
> Therefore, those clunky old 1G Type A Free Traders got a whole
> hullovalot more maneuverability than most people realize!
Don't for get the Harrier! It probably has more in common with
Traveller spacecraft than just about anything else flying today. It
uses a stick, rudder pedals, and throttle just like a conventional
aircraft. The stick and rudder controls are also connected to a
reaction control system, which uses small jets of engine bleed air (high
pressure air from the engine) to control the aircraft at low speeds
where the aerodynamic control surfaces would be ineffective.
The harrier also has a thrust vector control, on the same side as the
throttle, as I remember. Because of this arrangement, you can't change
the thrust vector at the same time as you work the throttle. That's OK,
becaue you usually don't need to (example: you use the vector control to
bring the aircraft to a hover, and then use the throttle to reduce
thrust and lower it to the ground).
Other aircraft with a thrust/weight ration of about 1:1 are: Mirage 2000
almost makes it with an "air combat" load (within 1,000 lbs with the
burner lit). The F-16 is slightly over 1:1 with an AAM load and full
afterburner, as is the F-15 in the same configuration. The MIG-21/bis
with half internal fuel and a "typical" load also makes it. The
Yak-36MP also qualifies (being the Soviet equivalent of a Harrier).
Data extracted from Gunston and Skick's "Modern Air Combat" (Crescent
Books, 1983). By no means an authoritative or exhaustive reference.
> I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet you
> that the Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and the proposed Station Freedom all
> had/have/will have joystick attitude controllers for the rare times
> that the stations need re-alignment.
I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the American vehicles all have pilot
controlled backup or emergency attitude control systems. The presence
of this kind of equipment has saved missions and possibly lives ever
since the original astronaut corps insisted that they be installed early
in the US space program. (If I remember correctly, the first US
rondezvous was completed manually, with one astronaut looking up figures
on a table, because the computer was on the blink).
I'm not so sure about Russian equipment; they tend more towards
automatic or ground controlled spacecraft.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future