Paris Air Show 2019 - Thunders in Europe

[Psychic]

Hi,

This guys is wheels down for at least 18 second after they were supposed to be up at after gaining 30-40 feet off the tarmac---.

And they are down----all the way into the climb and he is bleeding energy while going into the loop and pulls out of it and still the wheels are down----.

May be he is showing a wheel down performance?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

If you look at the first video of the F 18 take off and roll with wheels down----you will see how fast he loses energy and comes down---and has to throttle up to get up---and look at the second F 18 with wheels up at about barely 10 feet off the tarmac and then see it go-----.

 

[Darth Vader]

@Windjammer

The pilot should have had his wheels in at or around 1:14 - 15 -16 sec he lingered on into the climb and the turn till 1:33 - 34 .

Ask you buddies why he did that---to me that looked dangerous---he went into the cimb with wheels down----and he was trying to make the loop and found out he had no power and had to straighten up before he stalled and applied more power and still the wheels were seen hanging--------I think there is a fck up somewhere---.

There was no reason for the pilot to have had his wheels hanging out for another 18 to 20 second extra specially going into a steep climb right after take off-----.

I am pretty sure that he almost missed a major disaster----I am pretty sure that he screwed up in excitement-----.

Email the person you getting the video form or omeone else----don't go into that mindset---" they know better "---- we all fck up at times and to save from being embarrassed we don't want to confront it.

Prove me wrong my boy---prove me wrong---talk to your buddies and find out what happened----

There Could be Many Reason
Yes he could have forgotten in the excitement but it could have been Break Cool Down

 

[gambit]

MK is correct, in my opinion. Something was at least delayed in execution, if not outright forgotten until almost too late.

Airshow fuel loads are not your typical daily training sortie fuel loads. At airshows, jets are usually flown clean configs and just a few minutes at best, so no pilot is going to plan for a full internal load, more likely half, but not full. The pilot that is selected to fly lead, meaning THE ONE in front of the audience, as in global audience, would have been selected months before the air fete, especially if the event is international in scope, and not local like the birthday of a branch of service or sporting event. The lead pilot would have a back up, so if two F-16s are slated for show, there would be four pilots selected to represent the jet and country.

Let us take a normal air refueling training sortie for example. In this case, the F-16 would take off with full internal and full two external wing tanks. Let us give him a full load of MK-106s (dummies) for the range. He would make repeated passes at the range that would use up all the external wings and most of the internal fuel, then he would meet up with the air refueler before heading home.

A pilot could gear up ANY TIME he want, but while that is technically true, it would also be foolish. Retract too soon and if there are any issues such as turbulence, he will not have the gears for a safe landing, so depending on the jet's config, the heavier the load, the longer the take off stage of flight, so the take off for this heavy config would be gradual in pitch attitude and climb rate.

Common sense fact: Retract altitude is affected by the jet's config, as in when the jet will have a positive rate of climb.

Normal Takeoff and Climb – Axenty Aviation

When a positive rate of climb is established the flaps and landing gear (if applicable) may be retracted,...

As a side note, a jet will achieve a positive rate of climb sooner than a prop jobber.

The positive rate of climb with this method comes mainly from aerodynamic forces upon the flight control surfaces.

For our heavy air refuel training config, gear retract would be around 180-200 kts, 30-50 ft altitude, and 10-15 deg AoA. Am playing a bit loose with the figures since we are not taking into consideration factors like air density, elevation, baro, etc. But everyone should get the basic picture.

An airshow flying config is a different beast, especially what the JF-17 was doing.

At timestamp 1:15, the jet was seemingly at very near its maximum capable AOA. Nothing unusual about that. At timestamp 1:16 when the pilot believed his rear cleared the ground, he put the jet into its maximum capable AoA for airshow purposes. I can see the starboard gear tire between the wing and rear stab. Nothing about that either. However, at this point, any gain in altitude comes mainly from engine thrust, and far less from aerodynamic exploitation. Gear retract should have been at timestamp 1:18 when the jet was effectively little different than a rocket in terms of altitude gain. Anything that could send the jet into an 'out of control' condition would be catastrophic and having the gear down would be useless.

Here is where I put on my 'avionics' hat...

Flight control laws are strict in terms of inputs and some inputs are not only dominant but are non-negotiable, meaning as long as that input exist, the rest of the jet must obey the laws that follows. Some inputs, such as speedbrake, can be minimized --negotiable -- by other inputs as computed by the flight control computer. But some inputs are non-negotiable. Landing gear handle is one such input. Weight on wheels (WOW) is another input, or precisely a set of inputs since there would be multiple WOW sensors. External wing stores are another non-negotiable inputs since they limit available g.

Flight Control Laws - SKYbrary Aviation Safety

Information from numerous sources including pilot sidesticks and rudder pedals, the Air Data Inertial Reference Units (ADIRUs), the Landing Gear Control Interface Units (LGCIU), the Slat Flap Control Computers (SFCC), the Flight Management Guidance Computers (FMGC) and the accelerometer is sent to the five flight control computers. There, dependent upon the active control law, the aircraft speed, altitude, configuration, attitude, phase of flight and numerous other parameters, the sidestick and rudder pedal or autopilot commands are interpreted and the appropriate control deflection signals are sent to the control actuators. Two Flight Control Data Concentrators (FCDC) also acquire data from the Primary and Secondary Flight Control Computers and send it to the Electronic Instrument System (EIS) to feed pilot displays and to the Central Maintenence Computer (CMC).

AW&ST Articles on YF-22 Crash

The Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics YF-22A advanced tactical fighter prototype that crashed early this year was operating in a condition that was very prone to pilot-induced oscillation (PIO), according to Air Force accident investigators.

When other factors are included, analysis shows the YF-22A became 23-155% more sensitive when the gear handle was raised in the accident go-around, depending upon commanded pitch rate.

However, the control surfaces did not twitch instantly to follow the new gains because of anti-transient logic, called a "sump," located between the flight control laws and the surfaces. The sump adds an opposing bias to the control surface inputs equal to the amount of the transient due to the change in control laws. This bias washes out in 4 sec.

With the stick pressed full forward when the gear handle changed the control laws, the sump added an airplane nose-up bias initially worth about 8 deg./sec. pitch rate to prevent the stabilator from twitching further nose down. The aircraft also had some nose-up trim. When the pilot released the stick 0.2 sec. later, the 6-7-deg./sec. sump bias made the aircraft unexpectedly rotate nose up. That bias is worth more than full aft stick in power approach mode. The pilot countered with 0.3-sec. full down stick with the high-gain control laws freshly in effect, the control surfaces became rate-limited, and the PIO was underway as the pilot briefly tried to maintain a shallow climb-out.

The JF-17 did not retract its gears until timestamp 1:30 when it leveled off some. Whenever the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the entire flight control system operate under a certain set of laws. The assumption is that the jet is either coming in for landing or just took off. All flight control laws are at their maximum sensitivity and gains. But when AOA is at or near the jet's rated maximum, there is a conflict of assumptions. Higher than normal AOA assumes the jet is in combat maneuver mode. Landing gear handle down and no WOW assumes the jet is not in combat maneuver mode. Which is correct ? But if the conflict is unresolvable, one assumption must rule over all and the default assumption favors the landing gear handle status, meaning that if the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the flight control system must operate under high sensitivity and gains in order to give the pilot maximum flight control flexibility so he can land safely.

In flying, or even in ground racing for that matter, errors are numerous and generally unnoticeable by observers. That is why there are recorders, specifically of the machine's physical conditions. Human induced errors are not as easily recorded and we have no choice but to rely upon personal testimonies of what happened, assuming nothing catastrophic occurred so the human can be questioned. Investigators are sensitive to the charge 'pilot error' but they have no choice but to include that possibility.

Landing gear handle down and no WOW but with combat AOA is a high potential for a catastrophic disaster.

Read this particular item in the YF-22 crash report above...

In brief, the report stated the YF-22A was operating in a regime that was susceptible to PIO. The PIO was stimulated by retracting the landing gear during a pulse of full forward stick, which increased aircraft sensitivity. This, along with a nose-up bias from trim and software, started the PIO as Lockheed test pilot Thomas A. Morgenfeld briefly tried to fly a smooth climb-out.

The YF-22's flight control laws tried to resolve a conflict of assumptions. Landing gear handle up assumes or anticipate an altitude gain, then why was there a 'pulse' of full stick forward ? Not a persistent signal, but merely a 'pulse'. The result was as the flight control laws tried to resolve the conflict, a 'pilot induced oscillation' (PIO) occurred and the jet crashed. Thankfully, the pilot survived to give his (human) account of what happened. The YF-22's flight control laws were rewritten to account for conditions that may create some conflict of assumptions.

We do not know how the JF-17's flight control laws are written, but I believed you guys just narrowly missed a Class A mishap in Paris.

 

[Jammer]

Hi,

This guys is wheels down for at least 18 second after they were supposed to be up at after gaining 30-40 feet off the tarmac---.

And they are down----all the way into the climb and he is bleeding energy while going into the loop and pulls out of it and still the wheels are down----.

WILCO Mastan. Like I said lets see what he does today.

 

[I.R.A]

Two donkeys and one pushcart says you're Indian. South Indian at that. And a pansy who likes to play pretend Swedish female on a Pakistani defence forum.

You Indians are such cupcakes. You know what will substantiate the content of this post? All the denial which you are going to put forth in your reply. Disproportionate - shameless - denial. All of it.

On topic: Loving the takeoff!

If you are familiar with comments posted by @Heena Qureshi you will know who this lady is.

 

[parkour guy]

check it on facebook page defence.pk The link is on youtube thats why you cant see it. you can use proxy/tor browser

Thank you bro...
I got it...

 

[RAMPAGE]

MK is correct, in my opinion. Something was at least delayed in execution, if not outright forgotten until almost too late.

Airshow fuel loads are not your typical daily training sortie fuel loads. At airshows, jets are usually flown clean configs and just a few minutes at best, so no pilot is going to plan for a full internal load, more likely half, but not full. The pilot that is selected to fly lead, meaning THE ONE in front of the audience, as in global audience, would have been selected months before the air fete, especially if the event is international in scope, and not local like the birthday of a branch of service or sporting event. The lead pilot would have a back up, so if two F-16s are slated for show, there would be four pilots selected to represent the jet and country.

Let us take a normal air refueling training sortie for example. In this case, the F-16 would take off with full internal and full two external wing tanks. Let us give him a full load of MK-106s (dummies) for the range. He would make repeated passes at the range that would use up all the external wings and most of the internal fuel, then he would meet up with the air refueler before heading home.

A pilot could gear up ANY TIME he want, but while that is technically true, it would also be foolish. Retract too soon and if there are any issues such as turbulence, he will not have the gears for a safe landing, so depending on the jet's config, the heavier the load, the longer the take off stage of flight, so the take off for this heavy config would be gradual in pitch attitude and climb rate.

Common sense fact: Retract altitude is affected by the jet's config, as in when the jet will have a positive rate of climb.

Normal Takeoff and Climb – Axenty Aviation

As a side note, a jet will achieve a positive rate of climb sooner than a prop jobber.

The positive rate of climb with this method comes mainly from aerodynamic forces upon the flight control surfaces.

For our heavy air refuel training config, gear retract would be around 180-200 kts, 30-50 ft altitude, and 10-15 deg AoA. Am playing a bit loose with the figures since we are not taking into consideration factors like air density, elevation, baro, etc. But everyone should get the basic picture.

An airshow flying config is a different beast, especially what the JF-17 was doing.

At timestamp 1:15, the jet was seemingly at very near its maximum capable AOA. Nothing unusual about that. At timestamp 1:16 when the pilot believed his rear cleared the ground, he put the jet into its maximum capable AoA for airshow purposes. I can see the starboard gear tire between the wing and rear stab. Nothing about that either. However, at this point, any gain in altitude comes mainly from engine thrust, and far less from aerodynamic exploitation. Gear retract should have been at timestamp 1:18 when the jet was effectively little different than a rocket in terms of altitude gain. Anything that could send the jet into an 'out of control' condition would be catastrophic and having the gear down would be useless.

Here is where I put on my 'avionics' hat...

Flight control laws are strict in terms of inputs and some inputs are not only dominant but are non-negotiable, meaning as long as that input exist, the rest of the jet must obey the laws that follows. Some inputs, such as speedbrake, can be minimized --negotiable -- by other inputs as computed by the flight control computer. But some inputs are non-negotiable. Landing gear handle is one such input. Weight on wheels (WOW) is another input, or precisely a set of inputs since there would be multiple WOW sensors. External wing stores are another non-negotiable inputs since they limit available g.

Flight Control Laws - SKYbrary Aviation Safety


AW&ST Articles on YF-22 Crash


The JF-17 did not retract its gears until timestamp 1:30 when it leveled off some. Whenever the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the entire flight control system operate under a certain set of laws. The assumption is that the jet is either coming in for landing or just took off. All flight control laws are at their maximum sensitivity and gains. But when AOA is at or near the jet's rated maximum, there is a conflict of assumptions. Higher than normal AOA assumes the jet is in combat maneuver mode. Landing gear handle down and no WOW assumes the jet is not in combat maneuver mode. Which is correct ? But if the conflict is unresolvable, one assumption must rule over all and the default assumption favors the landing gear handle status, meaning that if the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the flight control system must operate under high sensitivity and gains in order to give the pilot maximum flight control flexibility so he can land safely.

In flying, or even in ground racing for that matter, errors are numerous and generally unnoticeable by observers. That is why there are recorders, specifically of the machine's physical conditions. Human induced errors are not as easily recorded and we have no choice but to rely upon personal testimonies of what happened, assuming nothing catastrophic occurred so the human can be questioned. Investigators are sensitive to the charge 'pilot error' but they have no choice but to include that possibility.

Landing gear handle down and no WOW but with combat AOA is a high potential for a catastrophic disaster.

Read this particular item in the YF-22 crash report above...


The YF-22's flight control laws tried to resolve a conflict of assumptions. Landing gear handle up assumes or anticipate an altitude gain, then why was there a 'pulse' of full stick forward ? Not a persistent signal, but merely a 'pulse'. The result was as the flight control laws tried to resolve the conflict, a 'pilot induced oscillation' (PIO) occurred and the jet crashed. Thankfully, the pilot survived to give his (human) account of what happened. The YF-22's flight control laws were rewritten to account for conditions that may create some conflict of assumptions.

We do not know how the JF-17's flight control laws are written, but I believed you guys just narrowly missed a Class A mishap in Paris.

Hehehehe thanks alot gambit.

Like i said, 'sab acha hai' is one of our unofficial mottos.

@Oscar @MastanKhan @Windjammer

When Khan saab says something, people should shut up and listen.

 

[Windjammer]

@MastanKhan @gambit @Oscar @RAMPAGE
Gentlemen, there doesn't seems to be anything out of ordinary for the late wheel up issue. As for as JF-17 is concerned, this seems to be the pattern as can be witnessed in this earlier performance as well. The exercise seems to be to ''gear up'' just before it executes the belly turn.

 

[Bratva]

Lets ask our in-house expert @gambit.

Sir, plz watch the video and tell us if you agree with Mastan. Also write a reveiw.


Ah, and since when did we start admitting our failures? Just last november ......

'Sab acha hai' is one of our national mottos.

Sirjee app nay NOTAM kai cancel honay kay waqt say mystery mai dal kr rakha howa hai. It's like Shaheen 3 exploded in Somalia

 

[RAMPAGE]

Sirjee app nay NOTAM kai cancel honay kay waqt say mystery mai dal kr rakha howa hai. It's like Shaheen 3 exploded in Somalia

Neem hakeem khatra e jan neem mullah khatra e emaan

Kahin is mystery ki waja neem info tou nahi?

 

[Bratva]

Neem hakeem khatra e jan neem mullah khatra e emaan

Kahin is mystery ki waja neem info tou nahi?

If it flew after 3 months, it means it was Allah mian who doesnot wanted it to flew on that day

 

[RAMPAGE]

If it flew after 3 months, it means it was Allah mian who doesnot wanted it to flew on that day

Bilkul! isi mai Allah ki maslihat thi.

 

[Windjammer]

Seems JF-17s lined up to give two display performances today for a total 18 minutes of flying.
Wonder why the slots are given one after the other. First for 8 and second for 10 minutes.

 

[Paksanity]

MK is correct, in my opinion. Something was at least delayed in execution, if not outright forgotten until almost too late.

Airshow fuel loads are not your typical daily training sortie fuel loads. At airshows, jets are usually flown clean configs and just a few minutes at best, so no pilot is going to plan for a full internal load, more likely half, but not full. The pilot that is selected to fly lead, meaning THE ONE in front of the audience, as in global audience, would have been selected months before the air fete, especially if the event is international in scope, and not local like the birthday of a branch of service or sporting event. The lead pilot would have a back up, so if two F-16s are slated for show, there would be four pilots selected to represent the jet and country.

Let us take a normal air refueling training sortie for example. In this case, the F-16 would take off with full internal and full two external wing tanks. Let us give him a full load of MK-106s (dummies) for the range. He would make repeated passes at the range that would use up all the external wings and most of the internal fuel, then he would meet up with the air refueler before heading home.

A pilot could gear up ANY TIME he want, but while that is technically true, it would also be foolish. Retract too soon and if there are any issues such as turbulence, he will not have the gears for a safe landing, so depending on the jet's config, the heavier the load, the longer the take off stage of flight, so the take off for this heavy config would be gradual in pitch attitude and climb rate.

Common sense fact: Retract altitude is affected by the jet's config, as in when the jet will have a positive rate of climb.

Normal Takeoff and Climb – Axenty Aviation

As a side note, a jet will achieve a positive rate of climb sooner than a prop jobber.

The positive rate of climb with this method comes mainly from aerodynamic forces upon the flight control surfaces.

For our heavy air refuel training config, gear retract would be around 180-200 kts, 30-50 ft altitude, and 10-15 deg AoA. Am playing a bit loose with the figures since we are not taking into consideration factors like air density, elevation, baro, etc. But everyone should get the basic picture.

An airshow flying config is a different beast, especially what the JF-17 was doing.

At timestamp 1:15, the jet was seemingly at very near its maximum capable AOA. Nothing unusual about that. At timestamp 1:16 when the pilot believed his rear cleared the ground, he put the jet into its maximum capable AoA for airshow purposes. I can see the starboard gear tire between the wing and rear stab. Nothing about that either. However, at this point, any gain in altitude comes mainly from engine thrust, and far less from aerodynamic exploitation. Gear retract should have been at timestamp 1:18 when the jet was effectively little different than a rocket in terms of altitude gain. Anything that could send the jet into an 'out of control' condition would be catastrophic and having the gear down would be useless.

Here is where I put on my 'avionics' hat...

Flight control laws are strict in terms of inputs and some inputs are not only dominant but are non-negotiable, meaning as long as that input exist, the rest of the jet must obey the laws that follows. Some inputs, such as speedbrake, can be minimized --negotiable -- by other inputs as computed by the flight control computer. But some inputs are non-negotiable. Landing gear handle is one such input. Weight on wheels (WOW) is another input, or precisely a set of inputs since there would be multiple WOW sensors. External wing stores are another non-negotiable inputs since they limit available g.

Flight Control Laws - SKYbrary Aviation Safety


AW&ST Articles on YF-22 Crash


The JF-17 did not retract its gears until timestamp 1:30 when it leveled off some. Whenever the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the entire flight control system operate under a certain set of laws. The assumption is that the jet is either coming in for landing or just took off. All flight control laws are at their maximum sensitivity and gains. But when AOA is at or near the jet's rated maximum, there is a conflict of assumptions. Higher than normal AOA assumes the jet is in combat maneuver mode. Landing gear handle down and no WOW assumes the jet is not in combat maneuver mode. Which is correct ? But if the conflict is unresolvable, one assumption must rule over all and the default assumption favors the landing gear handle status, meaning that if the landing gear handle is down and no WOW, the flight control system must operate under high sensitivity and gains in order to give the pilot maximum flight control flexibility so he can land safely.

In flying, or even in ground racing for that matter, errors are numerous and generally unnoticeable by observers. That is why there are recorders, specifically of the machine's physical conditions. Human induced errors are not as easily recorded and we have no choice but to rely upon personal testimonies of what happened, assuming nothing catastrophic occurred so the human can be questioned. Investigators are sensitive to the charge 'pilot error' but they have no choice but to include that possibility.

Landing gear handle down and no WOW but with combat AOA is a high potential for a catastrophic disaster.

Read this particular item in the YF-22 crash report above...


The YF-22's flight control laws tried to resolve a conflict of assumptions. Landing gear handle up assumes or anticipate an altitude gain, then why was there a 'pulse' of full stick forward ? Not a persistent signal, but merely a 'pulse'. The result was as the flight control laws tried to resolve the conflict, a 'pilot induced oscillation' (PIO) occurred and the jet crashed. Thankfully, the pilot survived to give his (human) account of what happened. The YF-22's flight control laws were rewritten to account for conditions that may create some conflict of assumptions.

We do not know how the JF-17's flight control laws are written, but I believed you guys just narrowly missed a Class A mishap in Paris.

Thank you for detailed reply. However if you look at JF-17 airshow in China, it did put a sharp turn after take off with landing wheels extended. That seem to be a thing that they want to show off may be!? If it indeed was a mistake then we got really lucky there as you suggest. Truth will be out there however. In its routines today onwards, we will see and know if it was intentional. Videos will surely be out of real show.

Seems JF-17s lined up to give two display performances today for a total 18 minutes of flying.
Wonder why the slots are given one after the other. First for 8 and second for 10 minutes.

Thanks. I don't see Textron Scorpion in the list. They are not putting up airshow?