Some questions regarding Panavia Tornado parts including CSAS control unit
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
Well, I followed what GR4techie said and guess what? it worked! so now I can put them into the max reheat position, combat is another matter, the same technique does not seem to work but I am not to bothered about that, I am happy to have it in max reheat.
Thank you GR4techie for that most helpful info!
I am still curious about those other controls on the throttles though!
Thank you GR4techie for that most helpful info!
I am still curious about those other controls on the throttles though!
Thread Starter
What would you need to see in the photo? in regards to the CSAS being standard it does look different to all the other images i have found of CSAS units, as it just has black square switch lights compared to the rectangular indicators with readable data on them, as was suggested this is probably a slightly different design for use with night vision goggles but i would like to find other images which are of the same type as mine.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Between Chippenham and Wooton Bassett
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I followed what GR4techie said and guess what? it worked! so now I can put them into the max reheat position, combat is another matter, the same technique does not seem to work but I am not to bothered about that, I am happy to have it in max reheat.
Thank you GR4techie for that most helpful info!
I am still curious about those other controls on the throttles though!
Thank you GR4techie for that most helpful info!
I am still curious about those other controls on the throttles though!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the GR1/4. Leon mentioned rocking a switch on the end of the throttles to select which radio, but that wasn't the case with the GR, the sector is on the stick.
The red button on the stick top when fitted to the GR was (is) the bomb release button.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember back in my early engineering days studying the Tornado's CSAS, It's an analog fly by wire system with mechanical reversion in the pitch plane. It was a marvel of analog engineering with a lot of fail tolerant/graceful degradation and analog voting to eliminate transients and nuisance warnings. Douglas had a similar but not nearly as elegant system they called Stability and Control Augmentation System which was used on the YC-15 prototype and was the baseline for the C-17 design before they switched to a digital quadruplex fly-by-wire system during the middle of the C-17's development.
And you might try lifting the throttle handles to move them to the "combat" position.
And you might try lifting the throttle handles to move them to the "combat" position.
KenV
The Tonka was a joy! FBW and fully integrated TFR Nav/Attack.
A strange thing with the T.Birds is that they seem to have a different pitch response from the rear seat control input. Certainly, I found that circuit work from the back seat of the T.Bird required a greater degree of finesse to avoid a stable PIO.
A regular thing was the combination of degraded system approaches for training. A back seat, 67 wing, mech-mode, PAR was a good one!
Of course, rollers (touch and go) from the rear are fun with no forward visibilty, as is demo dive/strafe, in the old jets with no forward sighting!
OAP
The Tonka was a joy! FBW and fully integrated TFR Nav/Attack.
A strange thing with the T.Birds is that they seem to have a different pitch response from the rear seat control input. Certainly, I found that circuit work from the back seat of the T.Bird required a greater degree of finesse to avoid a stable PIO.
A regular thing was the combination of degraded system approaches for training. A back seat, 67 wing, mech-mode, PAR was a good one! Of course, rollers (touch and go) from the rear are fun with no forward visibilty, as is demo dive/strafe, in the old jets with no forward sighting!OAP
Timelord
As I recall, the "training" entry into mech mode allowed the full up and running CSAS system to provide the mech mode system functionality, while keeping the CSAS system still powered but not contributing anything more than mech mode. This allowed the CSAS to remain effectively undisturbed although, as I understood it, giving mech mode function. I do not recall a "not as bad as" factor? Can you refresh me?
OAP
As I recall, the "training" entry into mech mode allowed the full up and running CSAS system to provide the mech mode system functionality, while keeping the CSAS system still powered but not contributing anything more than mech mode. This allowed the CSAS to remain effectively undisturbed although, as I understood it, giving mech mode function. I do not recall a "not as bad as" factor? Can you refresh me?
OAP
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused by some of the later posts on "mech mode". I never flew a Tornado but my understanding of the system was that only the pitch plane had mechanical reversion. Is "mech mode" something different?
Mech mode is mechanical control rods (complete with disconnects and crushable strut) between the stick and the tailerons, so providing roll and pitch. Normally the roll axis is augmented by spoilers so the reversion to mech mode looses some roll authority well as the rudder.
Great replies Guys. I always thought the CSAS was a very good system. Apart from BITE failures, it was very reliable. I think I only had one or two minor in-flight degrades in nearly 1500 hours.
OAP
I always thought the CSAS was a very good system. Apart from BITE failures, it was very reliable. I think I only had one or two minor in-flight degrades in nearly 1500 hours. OAP
Speaking as someone who spent many hours rigging the mechanical run, can anyone tell me if there was there ever a consideration to make Tornado fully FBW? Given the reliability of the quadruplex system, was it an opportunity missed to remove all mechanical runs?