I say we put terrorists (and the snipers) on a passenger jet controlled by a bunch of abit computers! 
Cheers!
Cheers!
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I say we put terrorists (and the snipers) on a passenger jet controlled by a bunch of abit computers!
Cheers!
wish they had not stopped developing it, rather pomising idea
It was actually an unforseen circumstance (call it a software error or pilot error). They didn't program the plane to make a crash landing with the gear still up. The test pilot forgot to lower the landing gear. The plane kept trying to pull up and the test pilot kept trying to force it to land. So it ocillated up and down above the runway until the pilot finally successfully crashed it.
No, I'm an aeronautical engineer and we studied this when it happened. What really happened is that there was a bug in the flight control software. The landing gear didn't come down, but the plane entered into landing mode which compensates for the drag of the landing gear. Without the drag there, the plane couldn't figure out what was wrong and overcompensated (plus it was still an early version of the flight control software without all the refinements) and it entered into oscillations. Test pilots don't "forget" landing gear and there are enough people monitoring the flight they would have informed him that his gear was up.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: FenrisUlf
It was actually an unforseen circumstance (call it a software error or pilot error). They didn't program the plane to make a crash landing with the gear still up. The test pilot forgot to lower the landing gear. The plane kept trying to pull up and the test pilot kept trying to force it to land. So it ocillated up and down above the runway until the pilot finally successfully crashed it.
No, I'm an aeronautical engineer and we studied this when it happened. What really happened is that there was a bug in the flight control software. The landing gear didn't come down, but the plane entered into landing mode which compensates for the drag of the landing gear. Without the drag there, the plane couldn't figure out what was wrong and overcompensated (plus it was still an early version of the flight control software without all the refinements) and it entered into oscillations. Test pilots don't "forget" landing gear and there are enough people monitoring the flight they would have informed him that his gear was up.
Umm, in the video posted above, you can clearly see that the landing gear was down (as were the flaps) as the pilot was coming down for the landing. Then he pulls up and the gear retracts.
crab
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2001
- 7,330
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: FenrisUlf
It was actually an unforseen circumstance (call it a software error or pilot error). They didn't program the plane to make a crash landing with the gear still up. The test pilot forgot to lower the landing gear. The plane kept trying to pull up and the test pilot kept trying to force it to land. So it ocillated up and down above the runway until the pilot finally successfully crashed it.
No, I'm an aeronautical engineer and we studied this when it happened. What really happened is that there was a bug in the flight control software. The landing gear didn't come down, but the plane entered into landing mode which compensates for the drag of the landing gear. Without the drag there, the plane couldn't figure out what was wrong and overcompensated (plus it was still an early version of the flight control software without all the refinements) and it entered into oscillations. Test pilots don't "forget" landing gear and there are enough people monitoring the flight they would have informed him that his gear was up.
Umm, in the video posted above, you can clearly see that the landing gear was down (as were the flaps) as the pilot was coming down for the landing. Then he pulls up and the gear retracts.
Right, which he was supposed to do, since they were doing the go-around tests.
It was a conflict between flight control modes - the landing and flying mode. The gear came down, went up, and the plane went into landing mode without the gear coming down. As a result, the plane was in an improper configuration for the flight software, resulting in an oscillation which caused the plane to crash. I'm not saying that the gear NEVER came down, just that the flight configuration didn't match the flight control software.
Originally posted by: sharkeeper
I say we put terrorists (and the snipers) on a passenger jet controlled by a bunch of abit computers!
Cheers!
Why waste a good plane when other means are much more effectives.
HA! The French soldiers were about ready to run away en masse before the German onslaught until Petain came along with his historic dictate, "They shall not pass." The French haven't fought well since the Crimean War, which was concluded in 1854.
narzy
Elite Member
- Feb 26, 2000
- 7,006
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, were the British engines using English measurements while the computers were using metric?
Oh, shoot, that was NASA, sorry!
what in the WORLD does that have to do with the sh!tty cheap built POS eurofighter?
we aint proud of those red necks @ nasa.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,406
- 8,585
- 126
the super hornet is pretty darn close. the navy doesn't even really need the JSF, the super hornet does ground pounding as well as pretty much anything else that was ever built (it doesn't rape tanks like the a-10 does but the army would rather its helicopters do that anyway). the only thing the super hornet doesn't have is the stovl or vtol capabilities. not particularly stealthy though i don't think the eurofighter is either.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter