3 ms·
> The theory is that you can only be below that during the takeoff roll and in case of a problem you have to abort the takeoff (close both throttles) to maintai
by usrusr 4y ago
> The theory is that you can only be below that during the takeoff roll and in case of a problem you have to abort the takeoff (close both throttles) to maintain control.
During takeoff, or while performing a high alpha/low speed pass showing off the aircraft's unique high-alpha capabilities in an airobatics display. Closing throttles would have been little more than a way to select the area of impact. Considering how close to the central axis the engines are in twin fighter jets going full throttle was probably the least bad attempt to save the plane.
- Sharlin 4y agoCould thrust vectoring have saved the day, could eg. a Su-35S recover from a similar situation?
- usrusr 4y agoPurely speculation, but I had been wondering about this myself before posting: only if the thrust vectoring included considerable yaw authority. And I'd be surprised if typical designs did, because outside of low-speed engine failure situations (or hypothetical "hover on the tail" maneuvers, spacex style) you just never run out of yaw control. While pitch and roll control fall into the category of "more is always better", yaw control has a sufficiency threshold beyond which adding more has little or no use.
- t0mas88 4y agoNot just the area of impact but also the attitude then being an upright “normal” landing attitude as opposed to flying it into the ground upside down. So even for an ejection it would be better to close both throttles to keep the aircraft under control and the seat traveling upwards to give you the best chances.