owl with no eyes?

[bagmaker]

Thankfully the pilot is OK, but for me, another ship in the skies to avoid is one thing, a glider without a pilot is technology without need. Can someone explain to me the benefit of this weapon?

http://www.reflector-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/10/20/45383b26859e8

Bagmaker

[BT]

Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the "test
pilot" was there as a safety pilot..

There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field.. and
to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out of
harms way.

BT

"bagmaker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thankfully the pilot is OK, but for me, another ship in the skies to
> avoid is one thing, a glider without a pilot is technology without
> need. Can someone explain to me the benefit of this weapon?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yckmho
>
> Bagmaker
>
>
>
>
> --
> bagmaker

[Alistair Wright]

"BT" > wrote in message
news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
> Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
> this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
> Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the "test
> pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
>
> There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
> mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
> and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
> of harms way.
>
I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved with
(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.

Alistair Wright
ex BAE Systems
Scotland

[chipsoars]

Alistair Wright wrote:
> "BT" > wrote in message
> news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
> > Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
> > this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
> > Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the "test
> > pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
> >
> > There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
> > mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
> > and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
> > of harms way.
> >
> I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
> systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
> very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
> used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved with
> (two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.
>
> Alistair Wright
> ex BAE Systems
> Scotland

The 'glider' looks a lot like a Sparrow Hawk to me.

Chip F

[[email protected]]

Alistair Wright wrote:
> "BT" > wrote in message
> news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
> > Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
> > this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial

Actually it is a glider. it is the Windward Performance, Sparrowhawk.
MSU has a program to turn it into a UAV.

I understand the production of the Sparrowhawk is moving from Bend to
MSU.

Robert Mudd
Moriarty, New Mexico

[Andy[_1_]]

The news report suggests that NTSB is not taking much interest. I
imagine Sparrow Hawk owners are more concerned.

Andy

[Vaughn Simon]

"Andy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The news report suggests that NTSB is not taking much interest. I
> imagine Sparrow Hawk owners are more concerned.

My thoughts exactly! Perhaps the NTSB does not realize that the aircraft
was more than a "one off" test airframe, or perhaps they don't care because
there is no N number?

Vaughn

[Ralph Jones]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
> wrote:

>
>"BT" > wrote in message
>news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
>> Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
>> this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
>> Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the "test
>> pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
>>
>> There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
>> mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
>> and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
>> of harms way.
>>
>I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
>systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
>very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
>used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved with
>(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.
>
Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
with a load of explosives aboard.

rj

[Bill Daniels]

There have been hints of interest from DARPA about autonomous UAV's that
utilize soaring techniques. In Iraq and Afganistan there are often good
thermals under bright, dusty skies. A motorglider-like UAV that can sustain
itself by soaring could extend its loiter time significantly.

As for stealth, in gliding mode the UAV would have very low thermal and a
acoustic signatures. Further out is daylight visual stealth - not exactly
an invisibility cloak but pretty darn good. If the airframe could be coated
with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
very difficult to see. A high L/D glide mode would allow it to approach an
area of interest very stealthily.

This is all speculation on my part. I don't know what they are up to.

Bill Daniels


"Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"BT" > wrote in message
>>news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
>>> Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
>>> this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
>>> Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
>>> "test
>>> pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
>>>
>>> There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
>>> mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
>>> and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
>>> of harms way.
>>>
>>I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
>>systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
>>very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
>>used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
>>with
>>(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.
>>
> Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
> fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
> its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
> already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
> with a load of explosives aboard.
>
> rj

[Tom Dukerich]

The caption under the pilot's photo says he ejected, yet the aircraft has
BRS.

[Mike Lindsay]

In article m>,
> writes
>
>Alistair Wright wrote:
>> "BT" > wrote in message
>> news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
>> > Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
>> > this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
>
>Actually it is a glider. it is the Windward Performance, Sparrowhawk.
>MSU has a program to turn it into a UAV.
>
>I understand the production of the Sparrowhawk is moving from Bend to
>MSU.
>
>Robert Mudd
>Moriarty, New Mexico
>
It might make a better UAV if they can fix the little problem of the
wings falling off under operational conditions.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Frank Whiteley]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > The news report suggests that NTSB is not taking much interest. I
> > imagine Sparrow Hawk owners are more concerned.
>
> My thoughts exactly! Perhaps the NTSB does not realize that the aircraft
> was more than a "one off" test airframe, or perhaps they don't care because
> there is no N number?
>
> Vaughn

N401MS actually. See the FAA prelim data.

Georgia Tech has flown an H2 powered UAV. Next one is planned to fly
the Atlantic.

Frank Whiteley

[Wayne Paul]

Here is a link to Mississippi State' website.
http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=3329

As stated below, it is registered with the FAA.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=401MS

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>> "Andy" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > The news report suggests that NTSB is not taking much interest. I
>> > imagine Sparrow Hawk owners are more concerned.
>>
>> My thoughts exactly! Perhaps the NTSB does not realize that the
>> aircraft
>> was more than a "one off" test airframe, or perhaps they don't care
>> because
>> there is no N number?
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> N401MS actually. See the FAA prelim data.
>
> Georgia Tech has flown an H2 powered UAV. Next one is planned to fly
> the Atlantic.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

[Alistair Wright]

"Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
> > wrote:
> Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
> fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
> its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
> already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
> with a load of explosives aboard.
>
You don't have to see it visually. The telemetry transmissions from its
imaging kit will give you plenty of information about its position. It all
depends on how sophisticated your opposition is. A bunch of Talebans
probably wouldn't see this thing, or know about it till the big bang, but
an enemy with decent scanning gear could both see it, and turn it around,
and send it right home. I worked on a project like this for DoD twenty years
ago. I think they may just have got it to work by now.

Must be a hairy experience to ride in a plane being flown on RC by some guy
on the ground!!

Alistair W

[Vaughn Simon]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Here is a link to Mississippi State' website.
> http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=3329
>
> As stated below, it is registered with the FAA.
> http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=401MS

I sit corrected.

Vaughn

[Ralph Jones]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:07:19 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
<bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
[snip]

> If the airframe could be coated
>with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
>brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
>very difficult to see.

Sounds as if you remember Project Yehudi...;-)

rj

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Lindsay wrote:
> In article m>,
> > writes
>> Actually it is a glider. it is the Windward Performance, Sparrowhawk.
>> MSU has a program to turn it into a UAV.
>>
>> I understand the production of the Sparrowhawk is moving from Bend to
>> MSU.
>>
>> Robert Mudd
>> Moriarty, New Mexico
>>
> It might make a better UAV if they can fix the little problem of the
> wings falling off under operational conditions.

"Fall off" or "torn off"? Do we know it failed below design limitations?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[BT]

"Alistair Wright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BT" > wrote in message
> news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
>> Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
>> this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
>> Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
>> "test pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
>>
>> There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
>> mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
>> and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
>> of harms way.
>>
> I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
> systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
> very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
> used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
> with (two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot
> down.
>
> Alistair Wright
> ex BAE Systems
> Scotland

I will agree with you on this point.. I forget how many were shot down
during the latest skirmish in Israel.
Some UAVs are used for high level surveillence.. the US Predator flies
around 15K MSL and the Global Hawk is in the upper (very upper) Flight
Levels.

BT
>

[BT]

"chipsoars" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Alistair Wright wrote:
>> "BT" > wrote in message
>> news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
>> > Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
>> > this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
>> > Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
>> > "test
>> > pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
>> >
>> > There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
>> > mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle
>> > field..
>> > and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors
>> > out
>> > of harms way.
>> >
>> I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
>> systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
>> very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are
>> mostly
>> used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
>> with
>> (two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.
>>
>> Alistair Wright
>> ex BAE Systems
>> Scotland
>
> The 'glider' looks a lot like a Sparrow Hawk to me.
>
> Chip F

It is.. a Sparrow Hawk with an engine added, and when he got the contract to
build lot's or "Owls" the commercial customers for his "Sparrow Hawk" were
pushed aside.

BT

[bikensoar]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> There have been hints of interest from DARPA about autonomous UAV's that
> utilize soaring techniques. In Iraq and Afganistan there are often good
> thermals under bright, dusty skies. A motorglider-like UAV that can sustain
> itself by soaring could extend its loiter time significantly.
>
> As for stealth, in gliding mode the UAV would have very low thermal and a
> acoustic signatures. Further out is daylight visual stealth - not exactly
> an invisibility cloak but pretty darn good. If the airframe could be coated
> with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
> brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
> very difficult to see. A high L/D glide mode would allow it to approach an
> area of interest very stealthily.
>
> This is all speculation on my part. I don't know what they are up to.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
> "Ralph Jones" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"BT" > wrote in message
> >>news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
> >>> Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
> >>> this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
> >>> Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
> >>> "test
> >>> pilot" was there as a safety pilot..
> >>>
> >>> There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
> >>> mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
> >>> and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
> >>> of harms way.
> >>>
> >>I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
> >>systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
> >>very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
> >>used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
> >>with
> >>(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.
> >>
> > Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
> > fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
> > its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
> > already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
> > with a load of explosives aboard.
> >
> > rj

[Andy[_1_]]

Ralph Jones wrote:
> Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
> fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar,


Ah yes - the saving grace of the Sparrow Hark. Other glass gliders can
be seen on radar because the conrol pushrods have a significant RCS.
The Sparrow Hawk strategically uses string instead.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:
> Ralph Jones wrote:
>> Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
>> fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar,

It's made of carbon fiber, which I assume makes it more visible than
fiberglass would.

>
> Ah yes - the saving grace of the Sparrow Hark. Other glass gliders can
> be seen on radar because the conrol pushrods have a significant RCS.
> The Sparrow Hawk strategically uses string instead.

Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
> the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!

Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
like Spectra or Dyneema.

Bob K.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
>> the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!
>
> Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
> like Spectra or Dyneema.
>
> Bob K.
>

Interesting. Arimids tend to turn to dust when exposed to UV.

UHMWPE (Spectra/Dyneema) wouldn't make good control cables since it "creeps"
under constant load and loses tension. Maybe Technora?

Bill D

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>> Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
>>> the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!
>> Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
>> like Spectra or Dyneema.
>>
>> Bob K.
>>
>
> Interesting. Arimids tend to turn to dust when exposed to UV.
>
> UHMWPE (Spectra/Dyneema) wouldn't make good control cables since it "creeps"
> under constant load and loses tension. Maybe Technora?

The cable info came from the Windward Performance website. The cables
are internally mounted, of course, so I don't think they get very much
UV. Perhaps the cable has a UV resistant covering - I don't remember the
brand name, though.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

bagmaker wrote:
> Can someone explain to me the benefit of this weapon?

See http://quietaircraft.org/ for some historical context on this
topic.

-bob

[bagmaker]

Thanks, Bob and all, interesting info and links.

I was originally concerned that another aircraft was sharing MY airspace that would not be able to tell the difference between me and a large bird. Can you imagine the remote pilot's screen? "microshaft has detected a fault in the forward motion of your aircraft. send/dont send report?"

Now that I understand it is a military weapon, probably armed to dispatch other aircraft not sqauwking its tune, I feel a WHOLE lot better, thanks!

Knowing also that its developement is overseen by the cretins running the US military -with a well documented history of public aviator abuse, lack of airspace boundary understanding and total lack of accountability has me curling into the foetal position.

Bagmaker, getting bored anyway.
(flame suit on)

[Brad]

But don't you see, this is to make use safer.........and to ensure our
freedoms!
If we don't send owls with no eyes to all the places in the world that
hate us, how can we ever feel safe in our homes again?

Brad



bagmaker wrote:
> Thanks, Bob and all, interesting info and links.
>
> I was originally concerned that another aircraft was sharing MY
> airspace that would not be able to tell the difference between me and a
> large bird. Can you imagine the remote pilot's screen? "microshaft has
> detected a fault in the forward motion of your aircraft. send/dont send
> report?"
>
> Now that I understand it is a military weapon, probably armed to
> dispatch other aircraft not sqauwking its tune, I feel a WHOLE lot
> better, thanks!
>
> Knowing also that its developement is overseen by the cretins running
> the US military -with a well documented history of public aviator
> abuse, lack of airspace boundary understanding and total lack of
> accountability has me curling into the foetal position.
>
> Bagmaker, getting bored anyway.
> (flame suit on)
>
>
>
>
> --
> bagmaker