If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"benjym" wrote:
What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will incorporate innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted with fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle, thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22? When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those circumstances? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Williams wrote in message m... (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message ... In article , John Halliwell wrote: The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology) rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in problems. I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated way of avoiding building a Rotodyne.. Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules! Saw some film a few nights back on the TV of a WWII era jeep with boat tail and rotor a few feet off the ground. Looks like the idea was to tow them in separate during air assaults. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Felger Carbon" wrote:
:When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you :really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If :not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those :circumstances? Well, there is actually some question whether it CAN be landed quickly under ANY circumstances that aren't called a crash. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Felger Carbon wrote: "benjym" wrote: What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will incorporate innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted with fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle, thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22? When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those circumstances? Why not let the computer(s) land it quickly and safely? A trite comment admittedly but if you have a philosophical problem with automation rather than knowledge of the actual technical difficulties then consider that "driver aids" in racing cars allow the drivers to extract considerably more performance from their vehicles and be far more aggressive with them than if they had no help. You are right to allude to training needs. If you're going to automate something then it had better work under all likely circumstances, because otherwise its dominant effect is to adversely impact operator currency for occasions when it really matters. I suspect that in the "hot LZ" situation you describe that you'd want a pilot controlling things, with automation to keep everything within controllable limits. The pilot can then do what humans do well, assess the situation, make decisions and innovate, whilst being spared the jobs we're not so good at, like keeping a variety of little instrument needles out of a variety of red-zones whilst being shot at. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today." That's what they'd say, too. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Fred J. McCall
writes Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with, and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts you. VSTOL JSF has only one engine and is even more mechanically complex. -- John |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 08:11:18 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding one proves up wrong? Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity.... Why was it necessary to take a discussion of facts and turn it into a discussion of rhetoric? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey 2 modifications | Terry Mortimore | Home Built | 5 | October 23rd 04 11:46 PM |
Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II | Greg Milligan | Home Built | 9 | December 29th 03 01:48 AM |