Habsheim
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HN39
How does that differ from the definition of Vs1g?
If Airbus wanted no safety margin they would have set alpha max to alpha stall at 1g and modified their graph accordingly.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Quite different as Vs1g is the stall speed at 1g.
P.S.
The diagram you posted is a schematic illustration that alpha-max is just shy of alpha-CLmax. Alpha-CLmax would define Vs1g for a conventional airplane, but not for a FBW airplane with a flight control system that is designed to prevent achieving and exceeding alpha-CLmax. The difference between alphamax and alpha-CLmax (the safety margin) is the performance penalty that must be paid for having a 'hard' stall protection, and Airbus has never made a secret of that fact.
Conventional aircraft having a stickpusher pay a similar price in performance if the pusher is set to fire before alpha-CLmax.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 21st Apr 2014 at 15:50. Reason: P.S.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HN39
The diagram you posted is a schematic illustration that alpha-max is just shy of alpha-CLmax.
Alpha-CLmax would define Vs1g for a conventional airplane, but not for a FBW airplane with a flight control system that is designed to prevent achieving and exceeding alpha-CLmax.
Nevertheless temporary overshoot could happen due to turbulence but without significant effect.
Also Gordon Corps demonstrated how temporary overshoots seem to actually take place and so without negative effect.
The diagram I posted is from the Airbus documentation and is applicable to their FBW airplanes.
So how would you demonstrate it in normal law in a certification flight test?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the FCS is designed to achieve alpha max without exceeding it.
@roulis : That's not what's being said - the aircraft is protected from stall provided that the required features are operational. Without that, it definitely can stall - no-one on this thread has argued otherwise.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 22nd Apr 2014 at 18:32.
@ Doze
The AF447 was not in the "primary" control laws. And seems that the crew at Habsheim did something to avoid the "primary" laws for their slow, high AoA pass.
It appears that the Habsheim problem was not a flight control computer problem, and the jet did everything it was supposed to do. The AF447 accident showed that the jet can get into a stall if you "do it right". And we learned that in the Viper, after being assured you could not stall the jet. NOT! With a high pitch attitude you could run outta smash and overshoot the progrmmed "protections". Unlike the 'bus, we actually got into a "deep stall".
My feeling is we should let this thread go. It seems obvious that the crew screwed up and crashed a perfectly good jet into the trees.
@roulis : That's not what's being said - the aircraft is protected from stall provided that the required features are operational. Without that, it definitely can stall - no-one on this thread has argued otherwise.
It appears that the Habsheim problem was not a flight control computer problem, and the jet did everything it was supposed to do. The AF447 accident showed that the jet can get into a stall if you "do it right". And we learned that in the Viper, after being assured you could not stall the jet. NOT! With a high pitch attitude you could run outta smash and overshoot the progrmmed "protections". Unlike the 'bus, we actually got into a "deep stall".
My feeling is we should let this thread go. It seems obvious that the crew screwed up and crashed a perfectly good jet into the trees.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
That's based on your assumption that he was in CONF FULL, which is not explicitly confirmed in the video or elsewhere.
You have been unable to counter my argumentation.
But it makes no promises about the rate at which it is achieved.
"This immediately provides maximum lift"
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has been already addressed here.
You have been unable to counter my argumentation.
You have been unable to counter my argumentation.
Actually it is fast enough that the FTCM states :
"This immediately provides maximum lift"
"This immediately provides maximum lift"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
Yes - your inference and assumption that because he specifies 15 degrees, therefore it must be CONF FULL. What I said was that the actual config is not explicitly confirmed in the video or elsewhere - you may be right, but there's no definitive way to tell.
Thank you
Which FCTM, which page? Can you provide more context? HAP mode is described in the FCTM I posted at the beginning of the thread as providing maximum aerodynamic lift, but the word "immediately" is not used.
In case of GPWS/SHEAR:
• Set the thrust levers to TOGA
• Pull the sidestick to full aft (For shear, fly the SRS, until full aft sidestick).
• Initially maintain the wings level
This immediately provides maximum lift/maximum thrust/minimum drag. Therefore, CFIT escape maneuvers will be much more efficient.
• Set the thrust levers to TOGA
• Pull the sidestick to full aft (For shear, fly the SRS, until full aft sidestick).
• Initially maintain the wings level
This immediately provides maximum lift/maximum thrust/minimum drag. Therefore, CFIT escape maneuvers will be much more efficient.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, no it doesn't. It just means that I don't have any way to confirm whether your supposition is in fact correct, and frankly, neither do you.
Given that this thread started largely as a result of your requests, I have to say that regardless of what you think of me or my input, there are a significant number of qualified and knowledgeable people who have taken the time to sift through the data and attempt to provide answers to your technical questions - and I'm frankly staggered at your dismissive attitude towards them if the results don't fit your preconceived notions of what happened.
Got it - and you're playing fast-and-loose with context again.
You're quoting from the "Operational Recommendations" section, which includes the warning:
Not only does the nature of the Habsheim flight fall outside the parameters of normal ops, thus rendering this particular section (which goes on to assume an airspeed of Vapp) somewhat irrelevant - but Asseline's handling of the aircraft after crossing the threshold completely contravenes that warning.
As HN39 has pointed out, in such circumstances "maximum lift" may not initially be a great deal.
Given that this thread started largely as a result of your requests, I have to say that regardless of what you think of me or my input, there are a significant number of qualified and knowledgeable people who have taken the time to sift through the data and attempt to provide answers to your technical questions - and I'm frankly staggered at your dismissive attitude towards them if the results don't fit your preconceived notions of what happened.
FCTM A320 OP-020. P 12/16
You're quoting from the "Operational Recommendations" section, which includes the warning:
The PF must not deliberately fly the aircraft in alpha protection, except for brief periods, when maximum maneuvering speed is required.
As HN39 has pointed out, in such circumstances "maximum lift" may not initially be a great deal.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 23rd Apr 2014 at 17:18.
12h30'20'' - CDB: (...) on fait un passage à cent pieds, train sorti et là, tu me laisses faire. Je t'amène en alpha max, je débraye l'alpha floor et à ce moment là, si je te dis que c'est dur, tu m'aides et tu tiens les gaz à vario zéro. (...)
