Power outta a stall? Speed versus AoA?
Thanks, BOAC. ANd speed is a huge part of the lift equation, like a "squared" component.
So if I hold the same gee ( read lift you can feel in wings level flight), and I increase speed, then I can use a lower AoA for the same amount of lift.
Lowering AoA is the faster solution - get outta the part of the Cl curve that shows less lift and you also reduce induced drag. And for those jets with the underslung motors, adding power is not a good idea in some cases due to the nose up pitch moment.
For the swept wing jets the induced drag is a lot more evident that in the straight wings. The deltas were the worse ( or most low aspect ratio wings), then the good wings we developed in the 70's and 80's had much more gentle stall entries and less buffet and better directional control at high AoA. This is an insidious feature of the better wing designs we now have that may have contributed to the AF447 crew's failure to recognize their state and take appropriate corrective action. The lack of a good AoA indication also comes into play. That string taped to the side of the cockpit window would have been more helpful than the ambiguous stall warnings and such that the crew dealt with.
After talking with several folks here offline, I am suspecting a management influence on all the "laws" and "protections" and Otto functions versus "neat" features that the pilots demanded. The jet appears to be very well designed and easy to fly even with all the "old" mechanical/hydraulic control systems. And that is what bugs many of we old dinosaurs. I can't speak for all of us, but I would guess we would all like a very clear control system implementation we could hang our hats on when all the Otto functions and bank angle limits and pitch angle limits and such go away.
If we, the SLF, wish to have "systems managers" up front versus folks that can fly the jet with little "help", than I'll cease to be SLF. Scares the hell outta me.