https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svORBbmnZMc
>2:30
What is this pilot doing when he wanks the throttle back and forth? What makes this any more useful than a static throttle setting?
>>30605838
More/less power as he drifts above and below glide slope.
Static thrust isn't good enough to keep you maintained on it in a moving fighter trying to land on a moving ship.
>>30605861
but it seems far too fast for him to be reacting to the glide slope, even if you slowed it down to 0.25 its still too fast for it to be that
i've seen this in other videos, on fighter landings and formation flying
it seems like some sort of technique i'm unaware of
>>30605887
In both formation flying and particularly with the boat, 3 point power corrections are stressed. The magnitude of his look a little high but some guys like to saw wood.
Think of it like a sine wave, every power on correction requires a power correction below the average, then back to average.
>>30605887
>but it seems far too fast for him to be reacting to the glide slope
You realise this video is sped up right?
>>30607759
But how do you judge when to do it and how much?
>>30607841
The video creator said in the comments that its not sped up and that is really how fast he's moving the throttle.
>>30605838
>that throttle wanking
I am erect
>>30608060
Read somewhere that the tapping on the stick hat is controlling the trim, i.e. how much effect movement of the stick actually has on the winglets. Maybe it also controls how much thrust is supplied to the engine, so the violent jerking is really just some very fine trim manuvering.
Or maybe it's just some crazy french technique
I can imagine the pilots face...
>>30605838
Thank you for your service super étendard. You were a good plane.
>>30610350
The trim on the stick has nothing to do with the throttle
>>30608060
the part of the video is definitely sped up
Real answer, that throttle system is fucked and wont keep power at mid range settings. The pilot has to alternate between 'all' or nothing in order compensate.
Always sad when an aircraft (Or any piece of tech) is retired. Especially now as more and more roles are being handled by the same aircraft.
While it may be better for logistics, ability to adapt, etc. it's still a shame to see the specialized and unique aircraft that were built over the last few go away. I just don't have much interest in the newer stuff, not as interesting or pretty.
But the Étendard enjoyed a long life.
>people actually like the Super Etendard
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>30613429
Get fucked you commie scum, go back to China your red faggot.
>>30613429
Oho. Do I sense a bum-blasted Englishman?
Did the Exocet get you upset?
>>30613868
>Did the Exocet get you upset?
No, Dassualt did.
>Anglo-French Jaguar M is going to give Aeronavale a capable new strike fighter
>Dassault realizes there's something afoot that they can fuck up
>Lobbies the French government to instead take the Super Etendard
>Sure the Super Etendard might be massively less capable, but it'll just be a super cheap overhaul of the Etendards!
>France drops the Jaguar M
>Suddenly price of the Super Etendard skyrockets
>ends up being as expensive as the Jaguar M while being massively less capable
>>30613429
Yeah we know it's ugly.
It's the only ugly jet Dassault made.
Meanwhile, everything the brits made has been ugly.
Except for the Jaguar (maybe because they designed it with the french) and the TSR2. Which is why they cancelled it. A plane so beautiful it looked like a french one would have been a liability to the testimony of ugliness the bongs jets manufacturers had to uphold.
>>30614296
None of Dassault's jets that I know of, SE included, are ugly to me.
I actually quite like the Etendard's look.
