The control law it uses is fascinating, almost like all moving wingtip surface is used for yaw rather than roll.
The control law it uses is fascinating, almost like all moving wingtip surface is used for yaw rather than roll.
Why not both yaw and roll?The control law it uses is fascinating, almost like all moving wingtip surface is used for yaw rather than roll.
Is it possible that the fluttering is by design? One way I was thinking to decouple yaw and roll with only the wingtips would be to flutter it so that the roll averages out. You'd still have drag causing the yaw, and you can correct for small roll deviations with the flaps.I suspect that the wingtips fluttering around so much indicates that there is quite a ways to go to smooth out the flight control laws for this design (no duh!) and that there won’t be as much fluttering in the final production version.
That or it’s the pilot purposefully working the rudder pedals during a banked turn to see the responses (it’s also the first time we can confirm it has afterburners on, so maybe testing handling properties in a rather high G turn). The flutter looks just a tad too slow and rhythmic to make me think it’s purely an automated FCS response to sideslip.I suspect that the wingtips fluttering around so much indicates that there is quite a ways to go to smooth out the flight control laws for this design (no duh!) and that there won’t be as much fluttering in the final production version.
I think the width of the nose might be creating that confusion. Damn wide nose.thats a really long nose. the cockpit shape is confusing, i have a hard time reconciling its apparent height in the above video with the low profile we've seen elsewhere.
Big nose for a huge number of T/R modules (perhaps new generation). The 6gen challenge is also one of optimization and efficiency in power use, in Kw.I think the width of the nose might be creating that confusion. Damn wide nose.