lol
but I'm thinking a faulty fly-by-wire system that resulted in a crash would mean total loss of control, anyway, I'm no expert
@
gambit .. thoughts ?
Wrong. That happens only in an inherently unstable aircraft like the LCA. Su 30MKI is an aerodynamically stable aircraft.
A fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW-FLCS) is not confined to inherently pitch unstable aircrafts, like the pioneer F-16 and just about every major fighter out there.
NOT confined.
The latest Boeing and Airbus products are FBW-FLCS and airliners are of the stable design, correct ? And we definitely do not want terrified human cargo as their transport is doing 9gs.
If the aircraft is a FBW-FLCS design, and if there is no mechanical back up, any fault in the FLCS, be it from design or from operation, like a bird strike that clogged the air data probe, odds of complete loss of control increases dramatically, and that could lead to a crash.
Pitch instability greatly increases maneuverability, meaning pitch instability make it easier for the aircraft to perform maneuvers more quickly and with greater range of motion. Can we design a pitch stable fighter to perform maneuvers as good as the F-16 ? Absolutely, the FLCS would have extraordinary authority to command the surfaces to move at rates and ranges that are greater than the design that is pitch unstable. But why ? The FLCS mechanical components for this design would have to be extraordinarily strong and physically imposing enough to overcome the aircraft's natural resistant to deviate from stable flight, especially at near Mach speed. So while in theory it is possible to design a pitch stable fighter than can maneuver like the pitch unstable F-16, in practice, it make no sense philosophically and financially.
The Su-30MKI is a FBW-FLCS design. If something happened to the FLCS in flight, it does not matter one whit if the fighter was designed pitch stable or unstable. The severity of the fault will determine the consequences.