Fly Away Simulation
SearchSearch 

Supersonic Aeronautics Control Reversal???

Guest

G-day

Help!

I heard about this theory on control reversal of an aircraft after it breaks the sound barrior. Is this true? if so what are the reasons behind it?

I've searched on google and only recieve info about "flutter" which i don't think has anything to do with it. Then thought the next best place would be a fight forums of some saught.

For my mental healths sake please tell me it's not true but if it is I'd really appritiate it if i knew why in depth.

Thanks

Pro Member Chief Captain
CRJCapt Chief Captain
Guest

Thanks for the reply.

This article explained the human error and problems we've had in the past through out the constuction of certain aircraft causing control reversal. It only briefly touched on supersonic speeds and didn't "get to the point" which is the frustrating thing for me. i have since found a few websites which i'll post later which kind of explains it in a little more depth.

This is really kicking me in the head.

thanks for the reply again

Guest

just talked to an FA/18 pilot on the weekend and proved that there infact no control reversal at transonic and supersonic altitudes. There is a slit stream effect which defys beouli's law where by the 2 air particles do not meet up on the triling edge on the aerofoil. This causes a low pressure around the trailing edge of the aerofoil making the controls become completely useless. To counter-act this problem they actulally make the "whole tip" (leading edge to the trailing edge) of the wings a combination of ailerons and elevators and they use the same concept for the rudder.

What was experienced by most soud barrior breaking pilots in the early days was something called the mach tuck where by the lift over the aerofoil caused by the sheer speed of the air over it, was so great that they had to fly with their nose down to keep it's altitude. This usually resulted the the plane being obliterated because force is not ment to be exerted on the top face of the aircraft.

*The only way to get control reversal is from human/maintenance error*

Myth Busted

Chuck Jager's movie is incorrect where he elegitly says that there is a control reversal at transonic/supersonic.

Stall, Spin, Crash, Burn then Die

Thanks for the help anyway.

Pro Member Captain
ARD-DC Captain

Anonymous wrote:

just talked to an FA/18 pilot on the weekend and proved that there infact no control reversal at transonic and supersonic altitudes. There is a slit stream effect which defys beouli's law where by the 2 air particles do not meet up on the triling edge on the aerofoil. This causes a low pressure around the trailing edge of the aerofoil making the controls become completely useless. To counter-act this problem they actulally make the "whole tip" (leading edge to the trailing edge) of the wings a combination of ailerons and elevators and they use the same concept for the rudder.

What was experienced by most soud barrior breaking pilots in the early days was something called the mach tuck where by the lift over the aerofoil caused by the sheer speed of the air over it, was so great that they had to fly with their nose down to keep it's altitude. This usually resulted the the plane being obliterated because force is not ment to be exerted on the top face of the aircraft.

*The only way to get control reversal is from human/maintenance error*

Myth Busted

Chuck Jager's movie is incorrect where he elegitly says that there is a control reversal at transonic/supersonic.

Stall, Spin, Crash, Burn then Die

Thanks for the help anyway.

Where's the factual evidence, or at least, a theory that adds up, in your attempt to prove the wiki article wrong?

"supersonic altitude"?
"the 2 air particles "?
Come on, get your terminology right of you're trying to prove an "encyclopaedic" (that's probably not how it's spelled - sorry) article wrong.

I found this part, for example, much more believable than that what I just read.

the problem occurs when the amount of airflow over the wing becomes great enough that the force generated by the ailerons is enough to twist the wing itself, due to insufficient torsional stiffness of the wing structure. For instance when the aileron is deflected upwards in order to make that wing move down, the wing twists in the opposite direction. The net result is that the airflow is directed down instead of up and the wing moves upward, opposite of what was expected.

And since an F/A 18 most likely is not constructed to suffer from this effect, I wonder how a pilot could dismiss a theory (let's cal it a theory for the moment) like this so easily. What arguments did he give you?

Pro Member First Officer
Tartanaviation First Officer

I agree with ARD-DC. There is such an element known.

You can get elevator reversal. It is cause when the load/forces on the elevator are large enough to cause a twisting moment on the deflected elevator surface. It causes a reverse in the aircrafts pitch attitude.

You can also get a similar effect on the aileron. It goes without saying that this and the above can only happen when the aircraft is moving fast which would lead to the high forces/loading.

Pro Member Chief Captain
Cheeks Chief Captain

Tartanaviation wrote:

I agree with ARD-DC. There is such an element known.

You can get elevator reversal. It is cause when the load/forces on the elevator are large enough to cause a twisting moment on the deflected elevator surface. It causes a reverse in the aircrafts pitch attitude.

You can also get a similar effect on the aileron. It goes without saying that this and the above can only happen when the aircraft is moving fast which would lead to the high forces/loading.

The date dude........ Rolling Eyes

Pro Member First Officer
Tartanaviation First Officer

Delete



Last edited by Tartanaviation on Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total
Pro Member Chief Captain
Cheeks Chief Captain

I highly doubt it, whats the chances, people haven't responded to this for ages and it was past page 1, I don't think many people look past that.

But whatever Rolling Eyes

Pro Member First Officer
Tartanaviation First Officer

Delete



Last edited by Tartanaviation on Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total
Pro Member Chief Captain
Cheeks Chief Captain

Well, know im not interested to know, I've seen this before and I have an extreme passion for aviation and have my PPL's. Im just merely saying this is a worthless and outdated topic not worth replying to.

I refuse to post in this topic any further

All times are GMT Page 1 of 1

Related Questions