FedaykinI know you have cherry picked out of the manual, which as has already been pointed out you have got a few things wrong (bank angle etc) then crafted a whole scenario to defend a very tenuous line of thinking. I have been at pains not to be insulting but I will not hold off when people are spouting nonsense or having a childish temper tantrum because people are not giving him a pat on the back about their rather wild theories.
How do you propose a P-3 or P-8 react in the same scenario without tearing the wings off? Your heroic line “break 90° right ! Nose down to sea level!” doesn’t even make sense. A crewman would just call to break right and to put the nose down. With these kind of platforms the countermeasures are automatic anyway so chaff would be flying. For that matter why would a knowledgeable crew member call for a manoeuvre which is outside the flight envelope?
What you are doing is crafting a story to suit a line of thinking, I know you took time to write it but you must understand that there is a bigger picture here.
FedaykinI already have in post 53, kindly stop being childish.
FedaykinOf course an A320 is not a perfectly designed combat aircraft, neither is a Boeing 737, Lockheed Electra or a BAC Comet. Nevertheless all three of the latter were adapted into credible MPA.
I am not talking about time frames put forward by Alonso, I am talking about your wholly inaccurate statements you are making about the A320 FBW system.
FedaykinI have already explained where the logic of your thinking is faulty in Post no.53 clearly and politely. Whataboutery to save face doesn’t help anybody.
What I can’t ignore is statements about “Fighting the computers” which bare no relation to actual events. Now when it comes to FBW that isn’t to say the engineers are omniscient and can design for all scenarios, the human factor especially in the early years of the A320 program were in some cases overlooked leading to pilots putting the aircraft into situations that are unrecoverable like Air France Flight 296.
An A320 MPA could be perfectly credible in the role even if I think it is redundant in the market.
FedaykinI am which rather disappoints me, as I have already said I think an A320MPA is a waste of time with the P-8 already available in that class but that doesn’t mean I need to invent scenarios based upon faulty logic to argue my case.
FedaykinNo reality TomcatViP, I had assumed you were a mature poster here. Do I need to review that assumption?
That doesn’t change the fact that max bank is 67 degrees, that the control law then eases it off to protect the airframe is entirely sensible. For most pilots 45 degrees would be racy!
It doesn’t change the key issue that you are not in full understanding of what you are talking about and have made numerous assumptions and mistakes about the Airbus A320 FBW and its operation to suit a wholly contrived scenario.
FedaykinBeat me to it, EC 5/25.
TomcatViP rather than act churlishly with silly emoticons why don’t you take it on the chin. You have got things wrong, you were ill informed which is not an entirely unusual state of affairs for a forum.
No reason to waste time making up scenarios to fit a flawed premise.
FedaykinOh and by the by max bank on an A320 is 67 degrees not 30 in normal-law.
FedaykinSorry TomcatViP, that is frankly a whole load of word spaghetti to defend your nonsensical position. The scenario you present is contrived and silly and rather below you, the hard stops within the safe flight envelope for an A320 are pretty racy. The scenario you have put together would be a struggle for a P-3 or a P-8, if you are low and slow within the lethal engagement envelope of a MANPAD than your main hope for defence is the countermeasures and defensive aids installed on the aircraft not some fantasy aerobatics.
Come on you are embarrassing yourself.
FedaykinTomcatViP I hate to say this but what you are saying about the Airbus A320 is utter nonsense more in keeping with the Boeing vs Airbus fanboy arguments back in the day. What you are describing in most cases shows an utter lack of understand of how the flight envelope protection works in the Airbus family. Before you ask I have been eyes on with the A320 flight manual and engineering manuals.
To pick a few things out you are asserting that the FBW system exposes the aircraft to more risk if it is damaged than aircraft that lack that kind of system. The kind of damage you then describe would be flight ending for pretty much anything! Pretty much every new military aircraft have fly by wire systems so argument is rather mute anyway. The FBW in A320 uses dissimilar redundancy via 5 computers and multiple parallel control streams.
Your assertion that you have to fight the computers on an A320 in an accident situation like in the Hudson crash is VERY wrong, to anybody who understands the control laws and fight envelope protection on an Airbus it would be nonsensical! You don’t fight the computer, the computers provide a safe flight envelope depending on the aircraft configuration. That safe flight envelope is well beyond most pilots anyway. The control laws give you as much control that is safely possible without stalling the aircraft and the A320 can glide perfectly benignly without the engines. Captain Sully himself describes the glide and landing in the Hudson as like ‘landing the aircraft on a runway’, for that matter those who work in Safety Science (yes it is a field, I have a close friend who has a PHD in it) they don’t even class the events on the Hudson as a crash preferring to say it was a safe landing as the systems both human and machine worked to enable the aircraft to land in the River. From the bird strike through to landing on the river the aircraft remained in ‘Normal-law’ giving full control and keeping the flight envelope protection in place, that was primarily due to Sully switching on the APU ensuring electrical power was maintained. If they had lost electrical power then the system start a controlled withdrawal of functions like various cockpit displays to maintain battery power and drop to ‘alternate-law’ that would ironically have dropped the flight envelope protection.
Sorry TomcatViP but you are not in this case presenting a fair or accurate interpretation of the A320 or its FBW systems.
FedaykinI would think for it to be a credible 5G fighter something in a similar size and layout as the FC-31 but with a single WS-15 would really hit a nice sweet-spot for Pakistan.
Ironically that would give them something not unlike an F-35…
FedaykinI just don’t see the P1 ever getting an export sale, it is expensive with an entirely Japanese-centric weapons and systems fit that is not compatible with the majority of weapons on the market without expensive integration.
If a country is in the market for a long range MPA and is friendly with the US the P-8 is the obvious choice, most countries don’t need that and there are plenty of twin engine turbo prop MPA available to buy.
If France and Germany are in the market for that class of MPA then I am hard pressed to see why they shouldn’t just buy the P-8 and be done with it.
FedaykinDon’t be so certain on that, when the Lockheed P-7 LRAACA was cancelled leaving the USN running the P-3 on longer and forcing the UK to seek an alternative replacement for the Nimrod MR2 British Aerospace conducted a study of what would be the most suitable airframe to act as the basis for a new MPA. Their conclusion was the still in early development FLA which would become the A400M. As the the FLA was many years away from service they were forced to seek an alternative leading us down the path to the Nimrod 2000/MRA4 debacle. My personal opinion is they should have partnered with Boeing and put forward a solution based upon the 757, Boeing had already conducted some basic development work for the LRAACA program and the aircraft more than met range and payload requirements.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/september/i_history.html
Anyway all history now, to be honest the P-8a is pretty much becoming the clear choice as a P-3 replacement but if France an Germany really want to go it alone it is a far less risky proposition now. The FITS system is mature and many of the sensors are available off the shelf if you wanted to make an A320 based MPA.
FedaykinI would also add that this contest will more then likely not be based up on the technical evaluation made over ten years ago so why people are still getting so hysterical over the matter is beyond me.
This is a clean sheet contest, any aircraft that is submitted now that was ten years ago has the benefit of a decade in advancements, by the looks of it the Swiss are keen to avoid any of the accusations thrown at them last time. A score based technical evaluation is only one factor in this kind of contest. Cost, logistics and industrial considerations are all open to play with.
Now this is where Rafale has a greater opportunity, it has also benefited from a decade of integrating weapons that are not entirely French in origin and more universally carried by different fighters and if Hornet is being replaced the Swiss might be more open to replacing all their Air to Air weapons with something new.
FedaykinWell all I can see is:
WAAH WAAH WAAH MY JET IS BESTEST WAAH WAAH WAAH!
Grow up, score based technical evaluation are only one part of a contest. That you are all still whining about this so many years later especially as a referendum rendered it null and void is tiresome. Get over it!
Sign In
