Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up. As
far as we can tell, the flight control system responded properly, providing max
lift without stalling. It is not the job of the flight control system to map
trees, but the trees in the flight path interrupted the plan...


I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle them.

Then you have departed from reality.

I see... Now you imply that either the A-320 certification did NOT include slow
flight and approaches to stalls, or that it was certified despite its failure to
demonstrate the required controllability in those regimes.

Anyone have the coordinates of reality? I need to punch them into the FMS-CDU
tomorrow...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system"
supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?

In what way do you believe stalling the wing had anything to do with the late
go-around attempt?

What flight envelope?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:AFp%b.402349$I06.4378804@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system"
supposed
to mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Hmmm... I suspect that when the pilot added go-around power, he commanded
the
airplane to provide maximum lift/minimum sink while the engines spooled
up.

In what wy do you believe that stalling the wing is within the flight
envelope?


how did it stall ?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:j1f%b.60182$4o.83386@attbi_s52...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

According to the ASN Accident Description, "Go-around power was added
at
14.45:35"

The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped
part
of the A-320's flight control system.

What is "an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system" supposed
to
mean?!?

Airbus hadn't programmed their A-320 to do what the operator commanded.

Just prior to the pilot adding go-around power, the airplane was in an
aerodynamic regime that had been encountered many times previously --
airspeed
between stall and Vref, with a slight rate of descent (approx 375 fpm,
from last
datapoint), engines at idle. How could it be that the flight control
system was
"unmapped" in that aerodynamic regime?!?

That is a good question.

I am quite certain that the A-320's certification included slow flight and
approaches to stalls, and that its flight control system is well able to
handle
them.

Then you have departed from reality.

Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power and everyone was
waiting with bated breath for the engines to spool up. Would you
have preferred that the pilot have been able to manhandle the AoA
higher almost certainly stalling the wings?.

Maybe if you were a magician like Marron you could have changed
the Angle of Incidence therefore giving the wings 'more lift'?...
snort
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
news
Then you have departed from reality.

Jesus Christ John, this is ridiculous...I've read a lot about
this accident and agree with the consensus that the a/c did all
any a/c could have done given the parameters this not too bright
bulb asked it to do.

You mean the pilot stalled the wing?

Then you are well advanced from Weiss' understanding.

How in hell could the system have done more than, as JW
explained, hold the AoA at the max lift point just short of stall
while the autothrottle system applied max power

The autothrottle only knows land and go around in the situation we are
discussing and the pilot was beyond the point of either flight mode. The
operator has to follow the POH, as it is part of the type Certificate.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...


The pilot was past the end of the runway by then and into an unmapped part
of the A-320's flight control system.

bwahahahhahahahhahhahahhhahahhahhahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahha

every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of.
-John D. Rockefeller

John Miller wrote in message ...
running with scissors wrote:
every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff

Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold
during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field,
looking straight down at the midpoint...


ahh but in tarverworld past the end the runway is an unmapped part of
the A-320's flight control system.