Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does The C17 Have A Joystick?  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10367 times:

I have never understood this feature on basically a transport Aircraft with DC10 like weights.


For it's mission a yoke would seem to make more sense.


Anyone know why this set up was chosen ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10355 times:

I would say, it's the same reason the A380 and many other planes have joysticks: fly by wire.


Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1539 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10339 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 1):
fly by wire

That's no reason, the 777 and 787 are FBW as well and still use yokes.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 2):
That's no reason, the 777 and 787 are FBW as well and still use yokes.

Actually it more-or-less is. Yokes and the like were invented to increase the mechanical advantage for pilots as aircraft got bigger. If you have no manual reversion at all, that need goes away, so in a sense FBW makes it possible to use a stick.

Perhaps the real question is why the FBW 777 and 787 have yokes? (Yes, yes, I know: for commonality.)


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10312 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 3):

Perhaps the real question is why the FBW 777 and 787 have yokes? (Yes, yes, I know: for commonality.)

It's a lot more than that. Boeing decided, very wisely that interconnected yokes and back driven autothrottles were and are essential cues for complete Pilot awareness of their Aircraft's state at all times.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
It's a lot more than that. Boeing decided, very wisely that interconnected yokes and back driven autothrottles were and are essential cues for complete Pilot awareness of their Aircraft's state at all times.

You can certainly do back-driven or interconnected sticks, although clearly Airbus did not.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10285 times:

Not really answering the question why Mcd decided to put joysticks in a transport.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7348 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 10257 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
Not really answering the question why Mcd decided to put joysticks in a transport.

Because McD was not Boeing/ anti-Boeing at the time?

More likely, McD was building a lot of stick military fighter type aircraft/ design - and the stick in a military transport isn't a big design concept change from their existing knowledge base.

A friend of mine who had his PPL in small GA aircraft got accepted to the USAF-Res Pilot program (He was a full time USAF-Res SSGT). He did his T-6 training, his T-1 training and his C-17 training. He said the C-17 is the easiest aircraft he has flown due to the stick. Very intuitive and natural - and it leaves him better access to view the displays and use the control panel buttons than a yoke.

This is someone who was firm yoke man until he started T-6 training.

I'll have to ask if the C-17 sticks and throttles are back driven when he returns from the other side of the world.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10184 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Boeing decided, very wisely that interconnected yokes and back driven autothrottles were and are essential cues for complete Pilot awareness of their Aircraft's state at all times.


Well, perhaps for truck drivers. I've never heart of pilots, using joysticks, reporting about problems with the awarness of their aircraft's state.



Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7917 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9856 times:

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
I have never understood this feature on basically a transport Aircraft with DC10 like weights.

As if weight would make a difference.

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
For it's mission a yoke would seem to make more sense.

Why? Pilots find it irrelevant if they have a stick or a yoke. At most it is a matter of taste.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Just a little thread drift here.


No one has really been able to explain why Mcd decided on a joystick rather than a yoke in a transport aircraft.
I'm not criticizing the choice but am still curious as to how they came up with this decision.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1539 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9317 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
but am still curious as to how they came up with this decision.

Could it be that it makes transferring from fighter jets easier? A bit of a longshot, I know  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3884 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9266 times:

[quote=Max Q,reply=19]
I think your question is no different than this one:

Why Do Boeings Have Yokes And Airbus's Joysticks? (by 9V-SPJ Mar 5 2001 in Tech Ops)



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9226 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7):
More likely, McD was building a lot of stick military fighter type aircraft/ design - and the stick in a military transport isn't a big design concept change from their existing knowledge base.

  

This seems most logical. Although at the time how much cross-pollination occurred between the St. Louis folks vs the Long Beach folks?

If you have the design and software already built for fighter and only need tweaking for transport, then why not?

I bet the real reason is probably more mundane . . . how much does a yoke weigh vs a stick (assuming the rest of the fly by wire system remains the same).

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 14):

As if weight would make a difference.

No, not the weight of the aircraft but if you can save 2 lbs going from yokes to sticks without inuring any additional cost, then the decision is easy . . . go with the lighter design. Someone probably got an atta boy for that  

bt

[Edited 2013-02-18 12:04:14]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

Was it a decision by the USAF to require a stick during the procurement process?

User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 730 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9045 times:

I may be talking out of my butt since I can't find the reference, but I seem to remember the USAF wanted a stick since in the beginning of the program much of the source pool of pilots were coming from fighters, and it seemed a more natural transition with the stick rather than a yoke.


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
No one has really been able to explain why Mcd decided on a joystick rather than a yoke in a transport aircraft.
I'm not criticizing the choice but am still curious as to how they came up with this decision.

Perhaps they just viewed yokes as no longer necessary (as have Airbus) The question perhaps ought to be why do Boeing persist with this antiquated piece of ironwork when its no longer has any piano wire attached to operate the controls.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8744 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 25):

Perhaps they just viewed yokes as no longer necessary (as have Airbus) The question perhaps ought to be why do Boeing persist with this antiquated piece of ironwork when its no longer has any piano wire attached to operate the controls.

Didn't really want to bet into the Boeing / Airbus thing here or dignify your response but I would say that having an interconnected yoke and back driven autothrottles are a significant asset to mode awareness and a safer arrangement
in general.


I'm sure the C17's sticks are interconnected and that it has moving autothrottles.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8654 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 25):
antiquated piece of ironwork when

I doubt the yoke is iron   Probably aircraft grade aluminum. Or if they got really fancy, graphite epoxy !!!

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8626 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 26):
back driven autothrottles are a significant asset to mode awareness and a safer arrangement
in general.

Back driven autothrottles actually contributed to the Kegworth air crash in 1989, because the throttle levers were linked in the Boeing 737-400 and did not operate independently - the autothrottle adjusted the fuel flow asymmetrically in response to one of hte engines losing thrust, but did not alter the throttle positions as this would adversely affect the other engines fuel flow. Disconnecting the autothrottles to shut down the wrong engine automatically reduced the fuel flow back to the level indicated as required by the position of the throttle - this reduced engine vibration enough to allow the crew to think they had shut down the correct engine.

The crew were led to believe something that was not true, because they thought the throttle position would change - if they did not think this, they would have made other checks to ensure they had infact shut down the correct engine.


User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8495 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 28):

Wow, you are so far off base I don't know where to start. First of all on the 737-400 the thrust levers are in no way physically interconnected, they operate independent of each other. Second the autothrottle clutch pack for each engine is located in the E/E bay in the middle of the body cable run. Any input of the auto throttle will cause the the associated thrust lever to move. By a quick review of the accident report, it appears the #1 autothrottle retarded to a reduced target N1 at the same time the autothrottle was disconnected. This allowed the #1 engine to recover from its stall and gave the crew the incorrect impression that by their retarding the #2 engine to idle the situation had improved.

Whether back driven controls are safer or not is not relevant. All governing bodies throughout the world accept either control philosophy, so each has been determined to be acceptably safe.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 29):

Wow, you are so far off base I don't know where to start. First of all on the 737-400 the thrust levers are in no way physically interconnected, they operate independent of each other. Second the autothrottle clutch pack for each engine is located in the E/E bay in the middle of the body cable run. Any input of the auto throttle will cause the the associated thrust lever to move. By a quick review of the accident report, it appears the #1 autothrottle retarded to a reduced target N1 at the same time the autothrottle was disconnected. This allowed the #1 engine to recover from its stall and gave the crew the incorrect impression that by their retarding the #2 engine to idle the situation had improved.

Well said. One of the factors in the Kegworth accident was the layout of the engine instruments which was asymetric and not intuitive.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8312 times:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 20):

Perhaps you need to read the accident detail and commentary surrounding the crash in more detail, and the reason for my post becomes obvious.

When in auto throttle mode, there is only one motor to adjust both throttle levers on the 737-400 - if the auto throttle has to adjust only one engines throttle, it cannot move just that one engines throttle lever in indication, it has to make the decision to move both or neither.

In the Kegworth crash, the problem engine (through losing a fan blade) lost power - the auto throttle saw the loss of thrust from the engine and increased thrust demands accordingly but didn't move the thrust lever. The crew expected a change of position of the lever, and as they did not see one they were relying on instrumentation to show which engine failed, and that instrumentation was poor and different to prior variants of the 737.

Wen the crew chose which engine to shut down, they were not aware that one engine had had a throttle increase demand placed on it by the auto throttle.

When they disengaged the auto throttle to shut down the wrong engine, they automatically reduced the damaged engines thrust level to that indicated by the levers position - because it hadn't changed when the auto throttle changed the thrust demands - which had the side effect of reducing the engines vibration issues, leading the crew to believe they had indeed shut down the correct engine.

If they had not been reliant on thrust levers changing positions, and if they had had cause to have to rely on the instruments for that information, it's doubtful that they would have made the assumptions they did.

I never said that the auto throttles caused the crash, nor did I say it was the prime contributor - however, the behaviour of the auto throttles did indeed contribute to the crash as is well documented.


User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 693 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8296 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry to keep this off-topic, but was the A/T designed modified post-Kegworth?


Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 397 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Quoting rwessel (Reply 3):

Perhaps the real question is why the FBW 777 and 787 have yokes? (Yes, yes, I know: for commonality.)


It's a lot more than that. Boeing decided, very wisely that interconnected yokes and back driven autothrottles were and are essential cues for complete Pilot awareness of their Aircraft's state at all times.



In the 5-hour show on how the 777 was built and came to be, they [Boeing] specifically mentioned this... and it is as Max Q states. However, the C-17 was not a part of that as they were created by McDonnell Douglas (later acquired by Boeing) most likely did this as a weight savings option because of it's mission of medium to heavy lift cargo. When making these birds, just like in the commercial world, every ounce/kg/lb counts. And yes, weight of the Yoke isn't just a few pounds, it's actually significant due to the back-driven system needs and added components to put all of the "artificial feel" back into the yokes. I read a long time ago, that was one of the reasons Airbus avoided the yokes altogether (because it was not "needed" with the modern FBW).

135Mech

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:20:49]

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8406 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 24):
And yes, weight of the Yoke isn't just a few pounds, it's actually significant due to the back-driven system needs and added components to put all of the "artificial feel" back into the yokes

   .

Good point. A back driven system with a yoke would be much heavier than the yoke itself. And a back driven system for the yoke would also be much heavier than a back-driven system for the joystick.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8438 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 22):
When in auto throttle mode, there is only one motor to adjust both throttle levers on the 737-400 - if the auto throttle has to adjust only one engines throttle, it cannot move just that one engines throttle lever in indication, it has to make the decision to move both or neither.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. There are two autothrottle servo mechanisms, one for each engine. They are in no way connected to each other. Its been this way on all 737's up until the NG's when they went to FADEC.

I suggest you look at appendix 4, fig. 11. It shows the TLA (throttle lever angle) for both engines during the first event. It graphically illustrates that the two throttle levers were moving independently.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...file=/4-1990%20G-OBME%20Append.pdf

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 23):
Sorry to keep this off-topic, but was the A/T designed modified post-Kegworth?

It's possible that some mods have been done to the system, but the basic architecture remains the same.

Back to the original topic. From looking at C-17 flight deck pictures, it looks like a variation of a old school fighter control stick. It appears to be nothing like the sidestick/joystick that is found on Airbus and modern fighter planes. The elevator input pivots at the floor and the aileron at about two thirds up the column/stick, similar to the F-18.


User currently offlineSeaTran From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7499 times:

I don't know why the engineers decided to put a stick (not a joystick) in the C-17, but I like it much, much, much better than a yoke. I've flown the T-37, T-38, C-141, C-17, 717, and 737. Sticks, to me, are a more natural and more intuitive way to fly airplanes.

In military flying, it is far easier to fly air refueling in particular with a stick vs a yoke. In all flying, I find it significantly easier to make crosswind landings with a stick vs a yoke.

If the engineers were to ask me for my input, there is not even a contest between sticks and yokes. Sticks win.

I've never flown a joystick airplane, but I think I might like the joystick even more than the yoke.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6125 posts, RR: 9
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

The A400M has a sidestick like other Airbus fbw planes. I guess it's fine for tactical landings and stuff like that.

The Beriev be-200 amphibian jet which does pretty impressive maneuvers has a central stick :

http://hfr-rehost.net/http://www.beriev.com/images/DSCN5063.jpg



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7171 times:

Quoting SeaTran (Reply 27):
I've never flown a joystick airplane, but I think I might like the joystick even more than the yoke.

Yes, and all the kids growing up in the previous generation grew up with joy sticks.

Wonder when they are going to introduce the game controller into the cockpit? Maybe they should pass it all together and go directly to the virtual controller so you can program it as a stick or a column 

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 533 posts, RR: 7
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7136 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

To quote from Bill Norton's book "STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17A":

"As the AMST test pilots had requested, the new "electric" STOL airlifter had a stick vice a yoke - although the B-1 bomber was then flying with a stick controllers, making it seem a less radical feature. By that thiem the subject of a sidestick controller for FBW was raised. A center stick was chosen because a the sidestick would not provide the leverage required to fly the aicraft via the C-17's mechanical back-up control system (a mandated safety feature) and because Air Force evaluation pilots universally preferred the centerstick. Only the upper portion of the stick column rotated laterally while the entire column displaced for and aft, ensuring no interference with the pilot's legs. There was an opinion, which went to high levels of the Air Force, that an airplane with a stock ought to be flown with the right hand from either seat and with a separate set of throttles for each. The B-1 bomber was configured as such and this lent weight to the arguments. However, the single set of throttles was a fundamental design feature of the C-17 from the beginning. This was based largely on the need for crew coordination on throttle management during takeoff, as was typical of many military transports and most commercial airliners. Consequently, the single set of throttles mandated a left-handed stick grip for the pilot and right-handed grip for the copilot. Pilots with a fighter background initially found it disconcerting when they first grabbed the pilot stock with their right hand. The logic, derived from the early YC-15 design was that because the pilot in command - in the left seat - operated with a stick, it would be unacceptable that he frequently switch hands on the stick to reach for controls in the overhead or center consoles. On the C-17 the mechanization of joining two sets of throttle and reverser levers so that they moved together, with the hardware going under the pilot seat and up to the center console, was also going to be prohibitively difficult"

On a semi-related note, the engineer responsible for the C-17 high-speed wing aerodynamic design, Preston Henne, is retiring, effective March 31st.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 30):
ITOR

To quote from Bill Norton's book "STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to Large STOL Aircraft and the C-17A":

"As the AMST test pilots had requested, the new "electric" STOL airlifter had a stick vice a yoke - although the B-1 bomber was then flying with a stick controllers, making it seem a less radical feature. By that thiem the subject of a sidestick controller for FBW was raised. A center stick was chosen because a the sidestick would not provide the leverage required to fly the aicraft via the C-17's mechanical back-up control system (a mandated safety feature) and because Air Force evaluation pilots universally preferred the centerstick. Only the upper portion of the stick column rotated laterally while the entire column displaced for and aft, ensuring no interference with the pilot's legs. There was an opinion, which went to high levels of the Air Force, that an airplane with a stock ought to be flown with the right hand from either seat and with a separate set of throttles for each. The B-1 bomber was configured as such and this lent weight to the arguments. However, the single set of throttles was a fundamental design feature of the C-17 from the beginning. This was based largely on the need for crew coordination on throttle management during takeoff, as was typical of many military transports and most commercial airliners. Consequently, the single set of throttles mandated a left-handed stick grip for the pilot and right-handed grip for the copilot. Pilots with a fighter background initially found it disconcerting when they first grabbed the pilot stock with their right hand. The logic, derived from the early YC-15 design was that because the pilot in command - in the left seat - operated with a stick, it would be unacceptable that he frequently switch hands on the stick to reach for controls in the overhead or center consoles. On the C-17 the mechanization of joining two sets of throttle and reverser levers so that they moved together, with the hardware going under the pilot seat and up to the center console, was also going to be prohibitively difficult"

Best information yet, now it all makes sense.


Thanks very much dled.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineGlobalMoose From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6315 times:

So many questions … I’ll try and answer all of them for you!

Stay with me, I’ve got a lot of good info for you, try and avoid the TL;DR!

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

It is a combination of many factors. Yes, the aircraft is fully redundant fly by wire aircraft with an old school fly by wire cable and pulley back up system in case of a full system failure.

A yoke in the jet would just take up space and is not needed! In comparison, I flew a modified BeechJet 400 and that thing was like fighting with a bear! Many times I’d have to use both hands on the yoke to exert the required up or down force (quickly followed by my instructor yelling at me to trim the jet lol!)

The rumor is that the Chief of Staff at the time of procurement was a big fighter jock and wanted everything to be as ‘fighter oriented’ as possible, and thus the stick!

As for personal preference, I’d love to have a side stick in the jet, as long as they are interconnected and back driven. With the amount of paperwork, studying, etc. that we do while at cruise, having that damn stick in the way can be a pain in the rear! It really doesn’t get in the way of the MFDs but I think we’d all love to have a pull out desk much like Airbus.

Another ‘general officer’s preference’ that made its way into the jet are the knobs for the thrust reversers (once again, all rumor). Take a look at the throttle quadrant of the C-17 and you’ll notice 4 small nobs on top of each individual throttle. Unlike BA aircraft where you pull the throttles to idle and then use a separate lever for the TRs (assuming…) the TRs in the -17 operate a bit like an Airbus (assuming…). The throttles are brought to idle and there is a ‘hump,’ you have to lift the throttles up and back over the hump to unlock the TRs (and if the electronic engine computers agree with you lol) and can modulate the reverse thrust by bringing the throttles all the way aft. This can actually be a pretty long ‘throw,’ if you are short you end up doing all types of contortions to keep your hand on the stick and reaching aft and down controlling the TRs. Anyway, there was a general who was involved in the flight testing of the jet and he was short; he was unable to reach back and get the throttles all the way back to max reverse so he had MD put in the little knobs on top of the throttles.

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 30):

Well that checks with pilot rumor!

And yes, continuing with earlier posts, the stick pivots fore and aft at the floor of the aircraft and moves left and right just below the stick grip.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):

Still got piano wire in our jet!

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7):

Regarding pilot training and jet swapping – I went from the T-6 (stick flown with the right hand, throttle (actually called the PCL, power control lever)) to the T-1 initially flown from the left seat (yoke with the left hand and throttles with the right hand) and flew a couple sorties in the right seat (swapping again) and then to the -17 where all pilots are qualified to fly from either seat (you’ll routinely see a new copilot fly from the left seat, great for pilot development to have a 1 Lt in the left seat running the show with a Lt Col in the right seat being a co-pilot). I honestly have no idea why the fighter jocks were complaining about in the initial development of the jet…

An aside – in the C-17 your job is dictated by your crew position, not by where you sit. You will be coded as either the aircraft commander (civilian ‘captain’) or as a senior copilot (acts as the AC when the coded AC is in the rack or otherwise away from the controls) and a junior copilot who is learning the jet and the mission. And yes, copilots are allowed to take off and land the jet, I’ve surprisingly been asked that question before. However, to further complicate the situation to the non-initiated, in the jet checklists are called for by the pilot flying and accomplished by the pilot monitoring which is separate from where you are sitting (either the pilot or copilot seat). In this instance, you will often hear the aircraft commander calling out “copilot” to challenge and response items. Clear as mud?

The throttles are back driven as is the stick (the sticks are also interconnected). +1 for cues for pilot awareness! I love being able to see what the throttles are doing – sometimes I have no idea what the hell George is doing/thinking and have to baby the throttles to get the jet to do as I please (usually unnecessary throttle jockeying during turbulence, etc.) Full disclosure, I have never flown any Airbus jet so far so I only have MD to reference in their flight controls, flight laws, cockpit layout etc so I AM NOT putting down AB and their flight control theory.



When it absolutely positively has to be there ... at some point.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6241 times:

More great info G Moose, thanks for that.


Questions, what is your normal cruise Mach, and Max ?


What is the range of the latest C17's



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineGlobalMoose From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6020 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 33):

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/c17_overview.pdf

Cruise Mach .74-.77

160,000 lb payload range - 2420 nm
40,000 lb payload range - 5610 nm

Unlimited with aerial refueling, limited only by crew endurance.



When it absolutely positively has to be there ... at some point.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 19
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

Thanks G Moose, good stuff.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 483 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
Wonder when they are going to introduce the game controller into the cockpit? Maybe they should pass it all together and go directly to the virtual controller so you can program it as a stick or a column

May not be as far off as you think. On reason that's accelerated the development of touch screens in the cockpit is because they've become such a huge presence in consumer electronics. I've been told more than once by higher management that the next generation of pilots will expect these in their flight decks, though engineering isn't really convinced   Similar logic is being advanced for all sorts of new technologies being researched and developed. I did have an interesting experience once when I took a touch screen MFD prototype to some newbie pilots (21-22 years old) to test it with them. It was a resistive touch screen capable of single touch only, and the first thing they tried to do was the pinch gesture to zoom the map. Maybe they do expect it after all, but I'm sick of trying to solve problems using them in turbulence  



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 36):

May not be as far off as you think. On reason that's accelerated the development of touch screens in the cockpit is because they've become such a huge presence in consumer electronics. I've been told more than once by higher management that the next generation of pilots will expect these in their flight decks, though engineering isn't really convinced Similar logic is being advanced for all sorts of new technologies being researched and developed. I did have an interesting experience once when I took a touch screen MFD prototype to some newbie pilots (21-22 years old) to test it with them. It was a resistive touch screen capable of single touch only, and the first thing they tried to do was the pinch gesture to zoom the map. Maybe they do expect it after all, but I'm sick of trying to solve problems using them in turbulence

Indeed; the first touch screen cockpits have already appeared:
http://images.wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Lockheed-Martins-F-35-Lightning-II-most-advanced-cockpit-2.jpg

This is one from the F-35; it's two 8x10-inch displays, completely multi-touch screen. F-35 has dispensed with analog gauges and everything is displayed on the screen. The pilot can customize the information that appears on the screen to display what he wants. This is the first production fighter to use touch screen displays; F-22 in the prototype had similar technology, but it was never implemented in production. Below is a quick video from a news program where a simulator demonstrates how easy it is to use the touch screen displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk

On the civilian stage, Rockwell Collins is working on a similar touch screen avionics system; their first target is for the Hawker Beechcraft King Air. AgustaWestland’s W609 is also getting a similar fit from Rockwell Collins. I also believe Garmin and other avionics manufacturers are working on similar technology as well.


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 483 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4865 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 37):
Indeed; the first touch screen cockpits have already appeared:

The difference on the business/general aviation side is that they're taking a slightly different approach. In most cases that I'm aware of, the MCDU is being replaced by a touch screen controller. The Garmin G5000 is one such example, and I believe it'll be the first to the market on the Citation Ten. Certification seems to be a major hurdle - a lot of standards are being defined in parallel with the development.



'What's it doing now?'
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Does The C17 Have A Joystick?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does The Luftwaffe Keep The F-4's Around? posted Fri May 7 2010 15:45:39 by LHCVG
Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10? posted Sat May 7 2005 01:59:49 by LHMARK
Why Does AF1 Have A Refueling Port? posted Tue Jun 1 2010 15:19:21 by c5load
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
Does The USN Still Have That 736? posted Sat Jun 5 2004 02:18:06 by FlagshipAZ
Why Did The US Navy Retire The S3B? posted Mon Jul 16 2012 19:15:09 by Max Q
What Is All The 'equipment' Inside The C17 Walls? posted Fri Apr 8 2011 21:56:18 by Max Q
Does The RAF Still Fly Dakotas? posted Sun Apr 25 2010 09:19:35 by DIJKKIJK
Why Did The Usaf Pick The 742 Over The 743? posted Tue Mar 30 2010 14:31:04 by overloaduk
What Plane Does The First Lady Use? posted Fri Oct 2 2009 06:10:26 by Wahdadli

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format