VMCA787 wrote:

DH106 wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

... but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot.

Interesting, what options does it take away from a pilot? To stall? To fly inverted? To botch a CFIT escape perhaps?

For one, you can't max perform the wing in the event you want everything out of it. On a Boeing, you can. Just remember, max performance on a swept wing is half the wing in a stalled condition and the wing, unlike a straight wing, stalls from the tip inwards.

Swept wings are generally designed so that the inner section will stall first. Otherwise pitch up will increase in a stall, which is unideal. Plus you lose aileron authority if the tips stall first.

To your point about a max performance turn, on an Airbus you simply pull all the way back. This is simple and instinctive, and there is no need to "feel" for the required level of pull. You immediately get max available turning ability. When you're in a terrain avoidance manoeuvre or windshear, you neither want to be cautious and pull too little initially, nor pull too much and actually stall.


What other options, in your mind, does an Airbus take away from the pilot?

VMCA787 wrote:

For one, you can't max perform the wing in the event you want everything out of it. On a Boeing, you can. Just remember, max performance on a swept wing is half the wing in a stalled condition and the wing, unlike a straight wing, stalls from the tip inwards.

That was partly true on the Boeing B-47 prototypes 70 years ago. Therefore Boeing and other designers twisted the wings (washout) to rectify this undesired behavior.

That way the wing root stalls before the tip. It shifts the effective center of lift backwards, initiates a pitch down momemtum, and allows you to maintain aileron function.

If the wing (as you write) stalled from the tip inwards, then any stall not perfectly straight and coordinated and in non-turbulent air would result in a rapid roll into inverted as one tip stalls a fraction of a second before the other, and that way eases the aerodynamic load on the other tip, delaying its stall.

Starlionblue wrote:

[

For one, you can't max perform the wing in the event you want everything out of it. On a Boeing, you can. Just remember, max performance on a swept wing is half the wing in a stalled condition and the wing, unlike a straight wing, stalls from the tip inwards.

Swept wings are generally designed so that the inner section will stall first. Otherwise pitch up will increase in a stall, which is unideal. Plus you lose aileron authority if the tips stall first.

To your point about a max performance turn, on an Airbus you simply pull all the way back. This is simple and instinctive, and there is no need to "feel" for the required level of pull. You immediately get max available turning ability. When you're in a terrain avoidance manoeuvre or windshear, you neither want to be cautious and pull too little initially, nor pull too much and actually stall.


What other options, in your mind, does an Airbus take away from the pilot?

1) Swept wings are NOT designed to stall from the inner section. There are all sorts of aerodynamic devices such as fences that will delay the stall but the actual stall does move from the tip inwards. Having done more than my fair share of delivery flights, one of the tests that is accomplished is to verify the stick shaker speeds +/- 1 knot. Then the test goes into a full stall series. I can assure you the wings on the 747/4, 777,787,757 do stall from the wingtip and the ailerons do lose their effectiveness. The aerodynamic modifications do delay the stall but it is not prevented.

2) On an Airbus, you pull the sidestick all the way back. I agree. However, you are not Max Performing the wing. You are coming close but you're not there. On the Boeings, you are right at the stick shaker. It is not difficult to pull right to the max energy line on the PFD. If you can fly an ILS off the F/D you can do that. It is nothing more than airmanship. In my opinion, Airbus had emphasized that aspect of flying. Airmanship.

prebennorholm wrote:

That was partly true on the Boeing B-47 prototypes 70 years ago. Therefore Boeing and other designers twisted the wings (washout) to rectify this undesired behavior.

That way the wing root stalls before the tip. It shifts the effective center of lift backwards, initiates a pitch down momemtum, and allows you to maintain aileron function.

If the wing (as you write) stalled from the tip inwards, then any stall not perfectly straight and coordinated and in non-turbulent air would result in a rapid roll into inverted as one tip stalls a fraction of a second before the other, and that way eases the aerodynamic load on the other tip, delaying its stall.

See above. Also while the ailerons will be less effective, you also have spoilers operative and mid-span ailerons effective in certain configurations. Having flown the B-52 D/G I am very familiar with what Boeing did. That's why the D had ailerons and spoilers while the G/H has spoilers only. The improvements to the wing only delayed the stall, it didn't change the characteristics, it still stalled from the tip inward.

Quoting "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies, page 119. Emphasis mine.

"A simple swept and tapered wing will tend to stall at the tips first because the high wing loading outboard, due to taper, is aggravated by sweep back. The boundary layer outflow also resulting from sweep reduces the lift capability near the tips and further worsens the situation. This causes a loss of lift outboard (and therefore aft) which produces pitch up. A lot of design sophistication is needed, including the use of camber and twist, leading edge breaker strips, fences, etc., to suppress this raw quality and get an inboard section stalled first so that the initial pitching tendency is nose down."


The 747 wing (pre -8) has the "Sutter Twist", which was included in the design both to change spanwise lift distribution and to ensure the tip stalls last.



http://thefullgull.com/the-sutter-twist/

VMCA787 wrote:

2) On an Airbus, you pull the sidestick all the way back. I agree. However, you are not Max Performing the wing. You are coming close but you're not there. On the Boeings, you are right at the stick shaker. It is not difficult to pull right to the max energy line on the PFD. If you can fly an ILS off the F/D you can do that. It is nothing more than airmanship. In my opinion, Airbus had emphasized that aspect of flying. Airmanship.

I take your point - Airbus applies a small saftey margin on the AOA, but is the performance difference really that great? I suspect not because the alpha vs CL curve will be flattening off at that point as it approaches very close to the point of maximum lift. I suspect the performance difference is minimal.
Secondly, I'm not convinced all line pilots suddenly encountering a GPWS pull-up in the heat of the moment would always have your coolness to expertly plant it on the line and not overreact. The Airbus system removes that burden from the pilot: GPWS? TOGA & Pull, that's it.

VMCA787 wrote:

tb727 wrote:

If you go into it with a build the plane Boeing mentality, you are gonna struggle.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that philosophy is not the "Boeing mentality"! It is more the 727 mentality. Having flown the A320, 727, B757, B747, B744, B777 and B787 I can assure you the 727 checkout was so different than any other aircraft. Completely nuts and bolts.

I have flown the A320 and didn't really care for it. It got the job done, but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot. So, I would take a Boeing any day over an Airbus.

Fair point and to each his own. I should add that the guy I know that squawks the most about it was a classic plane driver, Volpar's, Learjets, MU2, 727, DC-8, DC-9, 747 Classics, all flying freight for a well known man in the cargo world.

Everything I have flown, I have found something I really enjoyed, well except the Learjet

We have the best job in the world.

VMCA787 wrote:

2) On an Airbus, you pull the sidestick all the way back. I agree. However, you are not Max Performing the wing. You are coming close but you're not there. On the Boeings, you are right at the stick shaker. It is not difficult to pull right to the max energy line on the PFD. If you can fly an ILS off the F/D you can do that. It is nothing more than airmanship. In my opinion, Airbus had emphasized that aspect of flying. Airmanship.

Do you have information to show that the Airbus not being at CLmax with full back pressure, while Boeing is being flown to CLmax in the condition you gave? What difference in margin/policy is there between the two?

A (very) quick google indicates that the Airbus Alpha-floor brings a/c to CLmax (see page 11 of https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... FAST06.pdf).

smaragdz wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

2) On an Airbus, you pull the sidestick all the way back. I agree. However, you are not Max Performing the wing. You are coming close but you're not there. On the Boeings, you are right at the stick shaker. It is not difficult to pull right to the max energy line on the PFD. If you can fly an ILS off the F/D you can do that. It is nothing more than airmanship. In my opinion, Airbus had emphasized that aspect of flying. Airmanship.

Do you have information to show that the Airbus not being at CLmax with full back pressure, while Boeing is being flown to CLmax in the condition you gave? What difference in margin/policy is there between the two?

A (very) quick google indicates that the Airbus Alpha-floor brings a/c to CLmax (see page 11 of https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... FAST06.pdf).

If it was at CLmax, there would be a stick shaker. There is none.

VMCA787 wrote:

If it was at CLmax, there would be a stick shaker. There is none.

Well the Boeing 'line' can't be at CLmax either for the same reason.
Common sense and safety would dictate that Boeing would also apply a margin below the absolute CLmax - otherwise the slightest overshoot by the pilot would stall the aircraft.

VMCA787 wrote:

If it was at CLmax, there would be a stick shaker. There is none.

A320s have a stick shaker???

Either way, so your assertion is based on your own deduction and not on published data? Or have I misunderstood?

smaragdz wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

If it was at CLmax, there would be a stick shaker. There is none.

A320s have a stick shaker???

Either way, so your assertion is based on your own deduction and not on published data? Or have I misunderstood?

They do not have stick shakers since you cannot enter a stall in normal law and have to actively try to stall in alternate law.

smaragdz wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

2) On an Airbus, you pull the sidestick all the way back. I agree. However, you are not Max Performing the wing. You are coming close but you're not there. On the Boeings, you are right at the stick shaker. It is not difficult to pull right to the max energy line on the PFD. If you can fly an ILS off the F/D you can do that. It is nothing more than airmanship. In my opinion, Airbus had emphasized that aspect of flying. Airmanship.

Do you have information to show that the Airbus not being at CLmax with full back pressure, while Boeing is being flown to CLmax in the condition you gave? What difference in margin/policy is there between the two?

A (very) quick google indicates that the Airbus Alpha-floor brings a/c to CLmax (see page 11 of https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... FAST06.pdf).

FAST magazine article notwithstanding, the diagram in the FCOM and other sources show a small margin between Alpha Max (the highest AoA you can pull to) and Alpha CLmax. It also says, "When flying at the alpha max, the PF can make gentle turns, if necessary." Without that margin, entering turns would not be possible without first decreasing AoA. It is not clear how large the margin is.

As DH106 says, a margin makes perfect sense and is presumably also present at the stick shaker on Boeing.

My question on what (other) options are taken away from pilots remains.

Completely different flight control limits when in normal law.

To DH106, not sure you are talking about the same thing. The CLmax or max energy line on the PFD is just what it says. The aircraft does not go from there into a stall. The stall is progressive as you slide down the backside of the lift curve. And if you turn the FD would direct a lower pitch to stay at the CLmax for the g loading.

The stall begins at CLmax by definition, but I take your point about it being progressive.
For that reason, presumably in a Boeing if you fly the max energy line and there are no margins, you'd be in stick shaker?

VMCA787 wrote:

Completely different flight control limits when in normal law.

I don't get the context of this.

I've only talked about Normal Law so far.

What's to understand? Boeing takes a very different approach to Normal Law limits. On the Airbus, if you go to 45 degrees of bank, it automatically returns to 33.5 degrees, IIRC. On the Boeing, if you go to 45 it stays there. The pilot has asked for that for a reason, so the FCC commands that.

I have only talked about Normal Law too!

'Getting more performance out of the wing' has to be the least valid point I've heard when comparing the different flight control philosophies.

Starting with the dubious claim that you'll be closer to max lift when at the limit of stick shaker than you would be with max aft stick.
That may or may not be true, depending on what margin to stall the manufacturer decides to set, but even if it is, the difference would be negligible.

And then the fact that when you need that performance, you'll be having such a bad day that the last thing you'll want is to dedicate the large amount of finesse and concentration required to fly on the edge of the shaker, on a pitch-sensitive transport airplane with powerful hydraulic flight control surfaces and no feedback... Especially if the weather conditions outside said airplane are rough - which they may well be if you're in that situation in the first place - or if you need a bit of lateral maneuvering at the same time in the case of a terrain avoidance scenario.

Flying to the shaker, even in the safe environment of a sim, without the surprise effect and ample mental preparation, is delicate enough, let alone in anger when it comes out of the blue in an overloaded cockpit after a long flight on the back of the clock...
Compare this to the simplicity of just going 'oh sh*t!', yanking a stick full aft and letting the airplane save your bacon while you dedicate the rest of your available brain power to catch up with and monitor the situation (it'll even give you full thrust if you forget), and I know exactly which one I'd choose, even if that last scenario gives you a very hypothetical 1 or 2% less performance... (Which I highly doubt, as in effect the flight control computers will do a better job keeping the AoA exactly where it needs to be than a pilot ever would).

There's a lot to be said about the A vs B flight control philosophies, but the Airbus protections offer a layer of safety you simply don't have with the competition.

Francoflier wrote:

'Getting more performance out of the wing' has to be the least valid point I've heard when comparing the different flight control philosophies.

Starting with the dubious claim that you'll be closer to max lift when at the limit of stick shaker than you would be with max aft stick.
That may or may not be true, depending on what margin to stall the manufacturer decides to set, but even if it is, the difference would be negligible.

And then the fact that when you need that performance, you'll be having such a bad day that the last thing you'll want is to dedicate the large amount of finesse and concentration required to fly on the edge of the shaker, on a pitch-sensitive transport airplane with powerful hydraulic flight control surfaces and no feedback... Especially if the weather conditions outside said airplane are rough - which they may well be if you're in that situation in the first place - or if you need a bit of lateral maneuvering at the same time in the case of a terrain avoidance scenario.

Flying to the shaker, even in the safe environment of a sim, without the surprise effect and ample mental preparation, is delicate enough, let alone in anger when it comes out of the blue in an overloaded cockpit after a long flight on the back of the clock...
Compare this to the simplicity of just going 'oh sh*t!', yanking a stick full aft and letting the airplane save your bacon while you dedicate the rest of your available brain power to catch up with and monitor the situation (it'll even give you full thrust if you forget), and I know exactly which one I'd choose, even if that last scenario gives you a very hypothetical 1 or 2% less performance... (Which I highly doubt, as in effect the flight control computers will do a better job keeping the AoA exactly where it needs to be than a pilot ever would).

There's a lot to be said about the A vs B flight control philosophies, but the Airbus protections offer a layer of safety you simply don't have with the competition.

This ^^^^
Put much more eloquently than I could.

Thank you for your opinion. We agree to disagree. My guess is the majority of your time if not all is in an Airbus.

Alias1024 wrote:

smaragdz wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

If it was at CLmax, there would be a stick shaker. There is none.

A320s have a stick shaker???

Either way, so your assertion is based on your own deduction and not on published data? Or have I misunderstood?

They do not have stick shakers since you cannot enter a stall in normal law and have to actively try to stall in alternate law.

Airbus do not have stick shakers ?


I remember distinctly reading the accident report on AF 447 that the stick shaker(s) were going off ?!

No stick shaker, no electric trim switches on the side stick. Only the manual trim wheel.

VMCA787 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion. We agree to disagree. My guess is the majority of your time if not all is in an Airbus.

About 60% Boeing, 40% Airbus so far.

Max Q wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

smaragdz wrote:

A320s have a stick shaker???

Either way, so your assertion is based on your own deduction and not on published data? Or have I misunderstood?

They do not have stick shakers since you cannot enter a stall in normal law and have to actively try to stall in alternate law.

Airbus do not have stick shakers ?


I remember distinctly reading the accident report on AF 447 that the stick shaker(s) were going off ?!

There's no feedback in the stick at all beyond an increase in pressure the more you move it from centre. The only other thing is a mechanism that locks it to centre when the autopilot is on.

The stall warning went off during AF447, for over a minute as I recall.

Woodreau wrote:

No stick shaker, no electric trim switches on the side stick. Only the manual trim wheel.

Not even the trim wheels on the A350. Just manual trim switches.

Max Q wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

smaragdz wrote:

A320s have a stick shaker???

Either way, so your assertion is based on your own deduction and not on published data? Or have I misunderstood?

They do not have stick shakers since you cannot enter a stall in normal law and have to actively try to stall in alternate law.

Airbus do not have stick shakers ?


I remember distinctly reading the accident report on AF 447 that the stick shaker(s) were going off ?!

No shakers.

It has a stall warning that consists of flashing red lights in front of your face, and a calm but insistent English gentleman announcing "stall, stall" followed with what sounds like a ringtone that was on my mom's office phone when I was a kid in the 90s.

Alias1024 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

They do not have stick shakers since you cannot enter a stall in normal law and have to actively try to stall in alternate law.

Airbus do not have stick shakers ?


I remember distinctly reading the accident report on AF 447 that the stick shaker(s) were going off ?!

No shakers.

It has a stall warning that consists of flashing red lights in front of your face, and a calm but insistent English gentleman announcing "stall, stall" followed with what sounds like a ringtone that was on my mom's office phone when I was a kid in the 90s.

The stall warning can be heard in the second part of this brief clip. https://youtu.be/RZTGdIwFd_8

Apart from the blinking Master Warning attention-getter light, and the aural warning, you also get a STALL STALL warning in red on the PFD.

It's all pretty hard to miss.


You can actually get a stall warning in Normal Law. In most cases, this would be a spurious warning, e.g. if a bird decided to take issue with one of the AoA vanes during the takeoff run and damaged it. The stall warning is fed directly from the AoA vanes, with no processing.

Ok, understood

I am not a Commercial Pilot but my friend from Flight School did his CPL from Australia and briefly flew for an Australian airline. After burning out flying A320s Commercial, he now flies a mix of Tecnam 8 seaters and Cessna C206 aircraft for a Missionary Service posted at different times in Africa or Indonesia. As many as 10 Takeoffs an Landings and very short hops on some days.

Much more exciting lifestyle and supposedly he saves much more. Also gets 2 months back in the US each year for R&R. PS: His work photos on Facebook are Kickass!

Very Jealous!

Starlionblue wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Someone already said the one that pays the most so I’ll add the one that takes me to the nicest hotels. The older I get the more important those two things become and the less important the aircraft type becomes.

In a previous life I flew the A320. Wonderful aircraft. It’s funny, seems pilots who have the most vocal disdain for it have never flown it.

I have found the same about pilots who haven't flown the 'bus. They sometimes seem almost scared of it. You hear comments like "it's so complicated" and "it doesn't let me fly" and "it scares me that I might have to learn it".

I think it does take a bit of time to fully internalise the Airbus design philosophy. And it can be a bit of a daunting prospect.

I was sat in the Marriot, Wuhan lounge about 6 years ago and an American corporate jet captain and his female Indonesian crew turned up and were having a knees up (I knew this because they were rather loud talking about it all - including American, corporate - despite being on the other side of the room). The captain declared loudly that he would never fly an Airbus because “you are not directly connected to the flying surfaces” or something along those lines, and that Boeing made “real” planes. As I sat there trying not to cringe while the crew pretended to suck it all up, I really, really wanted to go ask him about the 777 and 787 connection to the ailerons etc and his understanding of how that worked, but he and his crew had apparently just finished their leg and were their own group (despite involving everyone in the room!). Not sure what they flew in on.. obviously not an Airbus (!) but would’ve been great if he’d mentioned they flew a “corporate” that turned out to be fbw. Suspect is was a BBJ or similar.

I happened to get in the lift with two of the very nice cabin crew and had a quick chat... but only about my time living in Indonesia... not about planes

chimborazo wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Someone already said the one that pays the most so I’ll add the one that takes me to the nicest hotels. The older I get the more important those two things become and the less important the aircraft type becomes.

In a previous life I flew the A320. Wonderful aircraft. It’s funny, seems pilots who have the most vocal disdain for it have never flown it.

I have found the same about pilots who haven't flown the 'bus. They sometimes seem almost scared of it. You hear comments like "it's so complicated" and "it doesn't let me fly" and "it scares me that I might have to learn it".

I think it does take a bit of time to fully internalise the Airbus design philosophy. And it can be a bit of a daunting prospect.

I was sat in the Marriot, Wuhan lounge about 6 years ago and an American corporate jet captain and his female Indonesian crew turned up and were having a knees up (I knew this because they were rather loud talking about it all - including American, corporate - despite being on the other side of the room). The captain declared loudly that he would never fly an Airbus because “you are not directly connected to the flying surfaces” or something along those lines, and that Boeing made “real” planes. As I sat there trying not to cringe while the crew pretended to suck it all up, I really, really wanted to go ask him about the 777 and 787 connection to the ailerons etc and his understanding of how that worked, but he and his crew had apparently just finished their leg and were their own group (despite involving everyone in the room!). Not sure what they flew in on.. obviously not an Airbus (!) but would’ve been great if he’d mentioned they flew a “corporate” that turned out to be fbw. Suspect is was a BBJ or similar.

I happened to get in the lift with two of the very nice cabin crew and had a quick chat... but only about my time living in Indonesia... not about planes

As Chimborazo said, those with the most vocal disdain tend to never have flown the type.

Aaron747 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

Thank you for your opinion. We agree to disagree. My guess is the majority of your time if not all is in an Airbus.

About 60% Boeing, 40% Airbus so far.

If memory serves, you were quite fond of flying the B744 in all aspects other than climb performance.

Sorry, missed that reply earlier.
I don't really remember mentioning that tbh... I only was on it relatively briefly and a while ago now, but I can't really remember it wanting for performance, other than the lower climb rate after take off compared to twins, which happens by design on quads. No slouch otherwise.

Flying an early swept wing plane was a great “school of hard knocks” degree. The “Hun” taught me more in 500 hours than thousands on other types. Nothing like being suddenly upside down in a scissors, wondering where the other guy went.

Having later been involved in flying bizjets, it’s amazing how many “grass stripers” are astounded at not having back up controls, thru cables, in modern jets or completely agog at AC electrics. The height of design being a Gulfstream or B737 BBJ. “They have back up controls, just in case”.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Flying an early swept wing plane was a great “school of hard knocks” degree. The “Hun” taught me more in 500 hours than thousands on other types. Nothing like being suddenly upside down in a scissors, wondering where the other guy went.

Having later been involved in flying bizjets, it’s amazing how many “grass stripers” are astounded at not having back up controls, thru cables, in modern jets or completely agog at AC electrics. The height of design being a Gulfstream or B737 BBJ. “They have back up controls, just in case”.

Ha yes. "There is always still a cable connection... Just in case the electronics stop working..."

We on those newfangled (as of thirty-five years ago) Nintendo jets also have backup controls. They're just not mechanical.



My other favourite: "What? Your backup instruments are on a screen?!? What if it breaks?" Much less likely to break than a mechanical ADI, altimeter and ASI, my friend...

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Flying an early swept wing plane was a great “school of hard knocks” degree. The “Hun” taught me more in 500 hours than thousands on other types. Nothing like being suddenly upside down in a scissors, wondering where the other guy went.

Having later been involved in flying bizjets, it’s amazing how many “grass stripers” are astounded at not having back up controls, thru cables, in modern jets or completely agog at AC electrics. The height of design being a Gulfstream or B737 BBJ. “They have back up controls, just in case”.

The F-100 is infamous in Japan. I had known almost nothing of its history till I was living there and a grizzled old guy at an air show spotted my Moffett/NASA Ames cap and proceeded to tell me he had been against US force presence since a Super Sabre crash into an Okinawan elementary school that maimed hundreds. Boy, that was an arrogant conversation...but I was in his country, so, just listened and moved on. They ended up making a movie about it a few years back.

Maybe a first, but not the last one. D-M flew Phantoms until one crashed into downtown Tucson. Politics dictated a change, so it became an A-7 training base, until when I was there, an A7 crashed into the campus and killed 4, pilot got out putt okay. A-10s haven’t extended the trend, fortunately.

2200 were built, about 400 were retired. A good friend lost 4 classmates before the class graduated.

Starlionblue wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Flying an early swept wing plane was a great “school of hard knocks” degree. The “Hun” taught me more in 500 hours than thousands on other types. Nothing like being suddenly upside down in a scissors, wondering where the other guy went.

Having later been involved in flying bizjets, it’s amazing how many “grass stripers” are astounded at not having back up controls, thru cables, in modern jets or completely agog at AC electrics. The height of design being a Gulfstream or B737 BBJ. “They have back up controls, just in case”.

Ha yes. "There is always still a cable connection... Just in case the electronics stop working..."

We on those newfangled (as of thirty-five years ago) Nintendo jets also have backup controls. They're just not mechanical.



My other favourite: "What? Your backup instruments are on a screen?!? What if it breaks?" Much less likely to break than a mechanical ADI, altimeter and ASI, my friend...

Yeah, I was in the USAF and a mate said the screens were fine but what if it died. He was surprised that reversion existed.

It was tough to fly and lot of its mysteries, mostly due to being underpowered and prone to adverse yaw at high AoA, weren’t understood. It was fairly easy to get in over your head. By the 70s things got a lot better, but combat took a lot. Another problem was rushing pilots into it—Vietnam War needed pilots. I know two who were killed on it, both in continuation training, one in a LOC, another hit the ground on a bomb pass. But, I also know five killed in the A-10, all combat experienced guys.

Deeply learned hand flying skills in all attitudes and speeds. Formation is also teaches a lot—you have to hand fly without conscious thought. You have to just put you over there and bring the plane along. Bombing and strafe was similar—think like a projectile. I had about 2,500 hours before I flew a plane with an autopilot. Landing at TEB at night in cloud, fierce tailwind was causing the autopilot to overshoot the LOC. Clicked off the A/P, rolled into enough bank to intercept the ILS almost automatically. HUD helped, too. Overlearned skill.

An old fighter pilot over on PPRUNE called a LT flying a non-precision approach in a Cat E fighter “a Darwinian flying experience”.