Harrier Down
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good job SEngO is 'experienced in this area' - he's quite right you know, current Tornado pilots take note of his input here - I used to fly the Tornado and I'm certainly guilty of not knowing the IAs for 'Double Engine Failure in the Hover'. I remember that there was a lever but it wiggled the wings about not the (Top Secret) Tornado directional nozzle system.
Nozzle, that's a nice word. Not quite as good as heptopistonic but good all the same.
Yours in their luggage,
Me
Edited cos I think you might actually be AG reborn. If you are AG (or if AG is reading this) do the numbers 54 ** ** 110 ** ** mean anything to you? Or should I say did they mean anything to you? If I did track you down (albeit too late) best of luck fella.
Nozzle, that's a nice word. Not quite as good as heptopistonic but good all the same.
Yours in their luggage,
Me
Edited cos I think you might actually be AG reborn. If you are AG (or if AG is reading this) do the numbers 54 ** ** 110 ** ** mean anything to you? Or should I say did they mean anything to you? If I did track you down (albeit too late) best of luck fella.
Last edited by thermoluminescent; 22nd Aug 2002 at 03:33.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"Any sane pilot who is loosing height in the hover will select nozzles to the rear to try and get out of there without crashing".
I'd like someone to explain this concept more fully to me.
If you're losing height due to loss of thrust because of an engine problem, what effect will rotating the nozzles aft do?
If you're losing lift because the nozzles are already transitioning because of a failure, what effect would moving the lever have?
If you assume the loss of partial thrust, what height would you need to be at to achieve sufficient speed/lift in conventional flight to ovecome the loss and stabilise in height?
Are these the sort of questions engineers ask you on the ground afterwards?
I'd like someone to explain this concept more fully to me.
If you're losing height due to loss of thrust because of an engine problem, what effect will rotating the nozzles aft do?
If you're losing lift because the nozzles are already transitioning because of a failure, what effect would moving the lever have?
If you assume the loss of partial thrust, what height would you need to be at to achieve sufficient speed/lift in conventional flight to ovecome the loss and stabilise in height?
Are these the sort of questions engineers ask you on the ground afterwards?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap62
Have looked long and hard for chips; none found. While looking for the chips I did realise that my post was too brief to convey my point without causing offence and for that I apologise.
So what was my point?
Some one manufactures and then someone else fits the components, which go into the aircraft that we fly. If it’s not normal operating hazard (birds etc) then sadly it will end up at someone’s door.
To go “off piste” for a bit, this is, as has been said many times before, a rumour network. If you want to speculate about this sort of thing you cannot select what is to be called into question. That is if you wish to have a unbiased debate of course.
I seem to remember similar problems with the “SU 27 air show crash” thread when some posters took offence at areas of speculation over matters of taste. There have even been accusations that some posters are considering the mil forum to be RAF centred and are willing to debate failings in other nations aircrew and not RAF aircrew.
This is not a view that I hold however it is not hard to see how people are coming to these conclusions.
Have looked long and hard for chips; none found. While looking for the chips I did realise that my post was too brief to convey my point without causing offence and for that I apologise.
So what was my point?
Some one manufactures and then someone else fits the components, which go into the aircraft that we fly. If it’s not normal operating hazard (birds etc) then sadly it will end up at someone’s door.
To go “off piste” for a bit, this is, as has been said many times before, a rumour network. If you want to speculate about this sort of thing you cannot select what is to be called into question. That is if you wish to have a unbiased debate of course.
I seem to remember similar problems with the “SU 27 air show crash” thread when some posters took offence at areas of speculation over matters of taste. There have even been accusations that some posters are considering the mil forum to be RAF centred and are willing to debate failings in other nations aircrew and not RAF aircrew.
This is not a view that I hold however it is not hard to see how people are coming to these conclusions.
Last edited by Oh I See; 22nd Aug 2002 at 10:52.
Oh I See,
Fairey nuff.
As I said on the SU-27 thread I wholeheartedly agree that almost all topics are fair game for rumour. I would not speculate on accident causes inside the cockpit, not because I think the two winged master race are inviolate, merely because I know Tony.
Next time an F3 stoofs in and the crew get out, I'll be the first to log on and point out how it's obvious that they porked it and that they should have been chopped at Valley !
Fairey nuff.
As I said on the SU-27 thread I wholeheartedly agree that almost all topics are fair game for rumour. I would not speculate on accident causes inside the cockpit, not because I think the two winged master race are inviolate, merely because I know Tony.
Next time an F3 stoofs in and the crew get out, I'll be the first to log on and point out how it's obvious that they porked it and that they should have been chopped at Valley !
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, I'm sure your request for concept clarification was, at least partly, rhetorical but, as we're having fun, I'll stick my neck out even though I'm one of the most out-of-date Harrier Mates in PPRuNe.
If you're losing height at the hover with full throttle, you'll do your utmost with water, Top Temp Limiter and ultimately milking the lever to get some forward speed into wind to get some wing-lift. Slamming the lever forward would be innovative and spectacular. I think SEngO was just making a couple of optimistic assumptions with his second point.
Your next question asks about loss of thrust; if it's total loss of thrust, fiddling with the lever would be wasting time that you should be using to find and pull the handle. If it's partial loss of thrust, it all depends on the degree ...
About uncommanded rapid nozzle movement to full aft, fiddling with the lever would also appear to be wasting time that should be used in finding and ...
Ah, the one about how much height would you need ... This is an essay question; how much is the "partial loss", how heavy are you, are you into wind? And so on.
And the one about questions on the ground; I give up with the excuse that I don't know what fascinates engineers these days.
If you're losing height at the hover with full throttle, you'll do your utmost with water, Top Temp Limiter and ultimately milking the lever to get some forward speed into wind to get some wing-lift. Slamming the lever forward would be innovative and spectacular. I think SEngO was just making a couple of optimistic assumptions with his second point.
Your next question asks about loss of thrust; if it's total loss of thrust, fiddling with the lever would be wasting time that you should be using to find and pull the handle. If it's partial loss of thrust, it all depends on the degree ...
About uncommanded rapid nozzle movement to full aft, fiddling with the lever would also appear to be wasting time that should be used in finding and ...
Ah, the one about how much height would you need ... This is an essay question; how much is the "partial loss", how heavy are you, are you into wind? And so on.
And the one about questions on the ground; I give up with the excuse that I don't know what fascinates engineers these days.
Last edited by fobotcso; 22nd Aug 2002 at 22:41.
