VS773ER From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 279 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 29711 times:
What are the practicalities of planning a stunt like that? Surely the margins must have been tight? The headwind must have been quite something. Would they rely on asi or plan more intricately than that?
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 29167 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 7): After reading all the AF 447 threads and reports I simply have to ask this question: such a maneuver is only possible in alternate law, correct?
No - actually I think they were relying on normal law prots - basically alpha-protection which means you can haul back on the stick and the plane will hold at max angle of attack.
What this reminded me of what the infamous A300 crash - except this was done at an altitude that allowed it to pull before it hit the trees.
One of the main Airbus features: the flight envelope - if engages, the plane is not able to climb too fast or make a turn too fast. Stalling an Airbus should be virtually impossible. (I wonder what happened with AF447 though....)
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 28626 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 4): It's an airshow. They always do low-speed fly-bys at airshows. This time, there happened to be a headwind involved. No big deal, really.
Agreed. It's no different than a bird hovering in a strong wind. The aerodynamic forces involved are no different than when you fly C-150 backwards in a strong headwind. Actually, that demonstration itself shows how airspeed is very different from groundspeed. Do you all think the indicated airspeed was 0 knots?
NZaholic From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 27846 times:
This was at Farnborough, way back, don't recall the year but I was there. I think it was shortly before the 330 entered airline service.
The 333 was at the time, by far the biggest twinjet flying, and did look almost stationary at times during the display.
In reality, minimum airspeed (don't forget, that can be completely different to groundspeed) was probably
around 100kt, and we have all now got used to Airbus doing this type of stuff at airshows with their large aeroplanes.
The other reason I remember this display was that there was an active Cb (with lightning) as a backdrop which added to the drama.
SLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24950 times:
Rolfen hit the nail on the head. Steady state winds work, but the atmosphere is dynamic and continuously changing. It raises a truly interesting question, what would happen in Normal Law if the winds aloft suddenly decreased? I suspect the nose would automatically drop, respecting AOA limits.
Given an empty airplane and a light fuel load, impressive performance is easier to come by, but the margins looked smaller with this flight demo.
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
soon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 24705 times:
Really?...when weather is unstable...LOW fly by's hanging on the power curve in a transport aircraft is suicide as the potential for the backside of a wind gust could result in 20 knot wind speed drop..ie...augured in aircraft with all aboard dead. While Airbus aircraft have the ability to be flown much like C-172's...they are not C-172's and should not be treated like one. Remember Bud Holland, the B-52 pilot out in Fairchild AFB in WA State?...he scared his crews to death while flying at airshows so much so that the best he could get out of them was one airshow before they quit. He wowed the audience by treating the Buff like a high performance aerobatic aircraft which it obviously is not...subsequently he finally crashed and burned while pulling 90 banked turns 200feet off the deck over the base. Sure made for a great video though...