Rafale flying slowly
Discussion
I appreciate that without fly by wire the pilot would reduce throttle, pull the stick back to maintain height, and judge it as best they could to have maximum possible angle of attack without stalling. But what does the fly by wire do in this situation? Can the pilot just reduce throttle, pull the stick back all the way and let the fly by wire work out the maximum angle of attack? Could the pilot override it and force a stall if they wanted to?
Wow that is impressive, assuming his engines were already at or near maximum thrust to perform the manoeuvre I'm surprised he was then able to generate any further thrust to gain the forward momentum required after adjusting his flaps and reducing his angle of attack to resume flying as normal.
mike74 said:
Wow that is impressive, assuming his engines were already at or near maximum thrust to perform the manoeuvre I'm surprised he was then able to generate any further thrust to gain the forward momentum required after adjusting his flaps and reducing his angle of attack to resume flying as normal.
That angle of attack would have meant enormous drag so I'd expect plenty of acceleration as soon as the nose came down. But what it looks like is almost going straight into a climb.Dr Jekyll said:
I appreciate that without fly by wire the pilot would reduce throttle, pull the stick back to maintain height, and judge it as best they could to have maximum possible angle of attack without stalling. But what does the fly by wire do in this situation? Can the pilot just reduce throttle, pull the stick back all the way and let the fly by wire work out the maximum angle of attack? Could the pilot override it and force a stall if they wanted to?
At that extreme of the aircraft’s abilities, the aircraft is very unstable. Without fbw it would tip one way or the other, lose lift, and drop. Back in the 80s when I was at Marham, I was sat in a Land Rover waiting for the traffic light to let me pass the end of the runway. Some of the Tornados were practicing landing with wings fully swept, and I could see the tailerons rapidly moving up and down to correct the aircraft’s attitude: no way could a pilot react fast enough, all fbw.
Fighter aircraft need to be inherently unstable as it allows them to manoeuvre much faster.
The pilot entered this manoeuvre from a high drag turn. Stopping the turn and keeping the angle of attack makes it somewhat easier to enter.
Then it is about maintaining the angle and adding more power. The fly by wire makes it a lot easier as you can maintain the angle of attack(courtesy of the fbw) and then concentrate on the power whilst the aircraft is 'looking after itself'.
You can do this is a conventional propeller driven light aircraft - but if or when it goes wrong it will lead to a spin, you need most if not all the power - with a prop that means a lot of torque reaction so if a wing stalls, the resulting departure is pretty violent .
Then it is about maintaining the angle and adding more power. The fly by wire makes it a lot easier as you can maintain the angle of attack(courtesy of the fbw) and then concentrate on the power whilst the aircraft is 'looking after itself'.
You can do this is a conventional propeller driven light aircraft - but if or when it goes wrong it will lead to a spin, you need most if not all the power - with a prop that means a lot of torque reaction so if a wing stalls, the resulting departure is pretty violent .
Dr Jekyll said:
That angle of attack would have meant enormous drag so I'd expect plenty of acceleration as soon as the nose came down. But what it looks like is almost going straight into a climb.
That's what I don't get.. I would have assumed that that initial acceleration would have been very much downward!At least until he'd built up enough airspeed to generate lift.
mike74 said:
That's what I don't get.. I would have assumed that that initial acceleration would have been very much downward!
At least until he'd built up enough airspeed to generate lift.
Think of the engines, at that angle, acting like rocket engines to overcome the weight of the aircraft. At least until he'd built up enough airspeed to generate lift.
Tony1963 said:
High angle of attack and all lift devices deployed, combined with a lot of thrust from those engines overcoming the tendency to drop like a stone.
I doubt it would be possible without fly by wire as the aircraft is right on the edge of stalling.
How much margin for error is there since this is a public display?I doubt it would be possible without fly by wire as the aircraft is right on the edge of stalling.
If it does stall what happens?
saaby93 said:
How much margin for error is there since this is a public display?
If it does stall what happens?
Couple of thousand feet required minimum to recover a stall normally. In this instance pilot ejects and aircraft becomes a smoking burning pile of metal. If it does stall what happens?
Pilot then has a very difficult one way conversation.
mike74 said:
pablo said:
The Russians were doing that in the Mig 29 and SU 27 at Farnborough back in the 90s, along with the tail slide and the “cobra” flick...
I'm guessing they have very advanced thrust vectoring though? Which I don't think the Rafale has?The russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
Teddy Lop said:
Nope, just balencing on thrust. Mig 29s are old buses these days, generation behind the rafale.
The russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
To me, thrust vectoring is a gimmick. If you need to use it in a combat situation, you’ve fThe russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
ked up, big time. Tony1963 said:
Teddy Lop said:
Nope, just balencing on thrust. Mig 29s are old buses these days, generation behind the rafale.
The russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
To me, thrust vectoring is a gimmick. If you need to use it in a combat situation, you’ve fThe russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
ked up, big time. Tony1963 said:
Teddy Lop said:
Nope, just balencing on thrust. Mig 29s are old buses these days, generation behind the rafale.
The russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
To me, thrust vectoring is a gimmick. If you need to use it in a combat situation, you’ve fThe russians liked to brag that their jets were the only ones "capable" of performing the maneuver, but I suspect the truth was more authorisation.
ked up, big time. Tony1963 said:
Think of the engines, at that angle, acting like rocket engines to overcome the weight of the aircraft.
I still don't really get it, rocket engines engines are so powerful in comparison to the weight of the vehicle that they're attached to that the rocket can fly without requiring the lift generated by wings, don't planes require a combination of thrust and lift to remain airborne but this clip seems to contradict that?Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff