One of the problems -- outside of the obvious -- with a significantly damaged aircraft is that pilots often overreact and add to the situation. In other words, when a plane gets nailed by something like a missile, the person at the wheel panics.
DARPA and Athena's Damage Tolerance and Autonomous Landing Solution adds a full flight automation and backup system that uses a plane's internal inertial navigation system and GPS systems to land safely by automatically adjusting to the new configuration -- a physics computation that a human is in no condition to deal with during such a crisis. In a recent unmanned flight test, Rockwell Collins showed off the tech with a scaled-model F-18 in which nearly half a wing is blown off and then landing the plane safely. Hit the read link to watch the strangely calming video.
[Thanks, jr]
posted Jun 12th 2008 12:56AM
don't fear the missile
This is all well and good, but how do they fit the pilot in?
100% of the military jets built nowadays are Fly By Wire because they are designed to be unstable by default and therefore need computers to control them - since no human could possibly do so.
Furthermore, aircraft nowadays are built with lifting bodies - with enough thrust, their fuselage can provide the lift that a missing wing cannot.
This situation, where an F15 pilot lost his wing, was resolved by the pilot successfuly landing the aircraft. It turns out that the airflow on the fuselage was able to provide the lift needed to keep the plane flying. The F-18 and the F15 have such large wing surface areas, that even losing one wing shouldn't bring them down if computers counteract the new physics.
Thats just a flesh wound.....
Flashpoint:
You're wrong about the "all fighter planes are unstable by design" thing. The F-16 was, but the F-18 went in the exact opposite direction, and is super-stable. Which gives it some advantages over the F-16: it is more steady during bombing runs, for instance.
It also has a blended wing design that lets it develop lift across the entire fuselage, which makes it a good choice for surviving a wing strike like this.
I'd be curious what this software could do on a model of say, a learjet.
It's not that they are "designed to be unstable", but rather that they are designed for stealth which has the unfortunate side effect of making the plane unstable.
"100% of the military jets built nowadays are Fly By Wire because they are designed to be unstable by default and therefore need computers to control them - since no human could possibly do so."
Flashpoint, stop talking out your ass. Where the hell did you read this? (Since I know you have nothing to do with aircraft in the real world.) I've been an aircraft mechanic (avionics) in the Air Force for nine years; there are only a very small amount of aircraft that are fly-by-wire. Off the top of my head, the B-2, C-17, and the modern fighters are fly-by-wire. EVERYTHING ELSE ISN'T. I know you're one of those self-imposed airplane nerds so really, keep out of this.
"One of the problems -- outside of the obvious -- with a significantly damaged aircraft is that pilots often over-react and add to the situation."
Lol. I wonder what is considered overreacting when your plane is missing a wing and you're about to crash and die.
haha...thats if you notice your aircraft is damaged...watch the f-15 that collided midair, and the pilot didnt even now he lost his wing until he landed
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wHADAKreoPY
After watching that video.. they really told the guy to land a plan that was leaking fuel? Even if they didn't know that the wing was gone, they should have been afraid of an explosion. Lucky guy though.
What kind of black voodoo magic is this?!
I would believe that it's quite possible with current technology and not "magic"... anyway some fighter planes nowadays cannot be reliably flown without computer aid (it's like the computer has to continually adjust some parameters to keep the plane flying straight or something... not sure), but this means that using the "inertial navigation system" to keep the plane flying is not as obscure as it seems.
Absolutely amazing. I'd really be interested in seeing the wing get destroyed, stage-by-stage... 10%... 20%... ..... .60% and see how well it reacts from each status to the next. Also say, %40% to one side and 10% to the other.
I don't know about USAF planes, but I've heard most commercial jets use the wings to store fuel. It's a shame that this tech would be of little use in commercial scenarios. But then again, commercial planes have a negligible history of losing wingage :)
Even with the fuel in the wings, the system could prove handy. The downside would be if there was loss of hydraulics due to wing damage in which case it'd be moot anyway. However, systems like this would likely help in some regards.
Stuff the ordaniary F-18.... i want the friken miniaturized, scale model one. Didnt know they had those.
Military aircraft store fuel in the wings as well. The cool thing though, they have two wings! There's also fuel stored in the body, do you wouldn't lose all the fuel. You'd also be looking for a spot to land pretty quickly anyway. As for the hydraulics, they have redundant systems, should be okay.
Great....just what we need...
When the robots take over, we won't even be able to shoot them down.
I for one, welcome our robot overlords.
@Harley
Um yeah.... I'll go ahead and take the keys to your Harley now.
You even forgot the comma!
Hell if you're gonna use an old joke, do it right!
I guess you haven't read the book, How To Survive a Robot Uprising: Tips on Defending Yourself Against the Coming Rebellion.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Robot-Uprising-Defending/dp/1582345929/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213277840&sr=8-1
all the fuel for usaf fighters is in the fuselage because the wings are like 8 inches thick
Look ma, no wings!
Yea people dieing thats a real "LOL"
WTF?
Why even have the pilot then if he's not required to fly the bloody plane.
Mostly for their sense of logic and priorities. We don't need them to fly really, just need them to make decisions that would be too complicated for a computer. For instance, let's say a target is crawling with civilians. Do you still fire? How many before you wouldn't fire? Is 1-2 civilians an "acceptable" loss? The human is there to respond to scenarios that the computer isn't programmed or isn't capable of handling. As far as the actual flying part, within a couple decades it will be more of "point the plane in this direction and let the autopilot figure it out", at least for most situations.
Go watch "Stealth" and you'll see why (even though it's a crap movie).
It has Jessica Biel in a bikini, that's all the reason really....
That's a good question. Certainly for passenger planes we no longer need pilots. The planes have been able to take off and land on their own for quite a few years now. And pilots are expensive.
I think the only reason we don't have pilotless commercial flight is because people prefer some faulty human to a perfect machine.
No machine is perfect - it was made by a human, remember? Would you want your life in the hands of your desktop? I think now.
somehow only one line came to my mind after reading this:
"STAY ON TARGET!"
Suddenly I'm hungry for bacon...
Yet another technology that can only be explained by the secret saucer from Area 51.
Did you notice how they blacked out the landing strip? They didn't want you to see it was actually a heavily sedated Grey that was flying it. Robot overlords my ass.
Boeing already has tech similar to this level available in domestic passenger craft. It's part of the 727 and there is demo video out there that I just can't find right now. This isn't new tech but it can't be used because of people's fear factor of having the pilots over-ridden.
Bottom line, if this network had been available and active as a safety back up, 9/11 would never have occurred.
9/11 would have occurred. Maybe not with planes, but when a sophisticated terrorist organization targets one of our buildings, and spends years planning its destruction, the only thing we can do to stop them from destroying is it taking the building down ourselves. You overestimate our capabilities and underestimate the capabilities of the enemy. And that final line is just crap. sorry, but it is. SHUT YO MOUTH, FO!
Wait. if the uber1337godlyness that is DARPA can make a plane with no wings fly, then whats the point of wings? Why cant we just have planes with no wings, DARPA, why?
*tear*
We've already got wings without planes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
Well i figured if we gathered up all the wings in one place, we could, you know, cook em cajun style or something. wings are mighty tasty. especially them cajun wings. ;)
And i think the flying wing is a discomfrabulation, you know a miscontraspiracy. Like the whole JFK abominazationifying incident. Aliens from area 51 basically. Or commies. Either way, you just wait till santa claus conquers the martians, then were gonna be in for it.
PS everything above makes perfect sense. you are not confused at all. not at all. @_@
"a physics computation that a human is in no condition to deal with during such a crisis"
Bull, that Israeli F-15 pilot did this in real life, and not with a scale model either. Key to this situation is to fight instinct and increase power to make up for the loss of lift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15#Notable_accidents_and_incidents
http://www.uss-bennington.org/pics/phz-nowing-f15.jpg
Israeli pilots are really good. This should have read: "a simple, intuitive procedure, that an AMERICAN is in no condition to deal with."
PS I love America, but sometimes its just so easy to poke fun at our astounding level of intelligence (or lack thereof).
Jimmy - Im sure a good deal of luck as well as skill was required to land that plane! why are you complaining about something which will save lives? It also bugs me that your taking such a cheap shot at Americans and Im not even one!
Keith - "Key to this situation is to fight instinct and increase power to make up for the loss of lift." Thats very easy for you to say with the benefit of hindsight and the comfort of your chair. Its not so easy to establish what has gone wrong with the plane when your sat in it and cant actually see most it, let alone figure out how to correct it within a split second.
Soon you will be seeing an fighter landing without Wings... Amazing!!!!
What do you mean 'soon'?
Watch the movie 'Hot Shots' and you will see Charlie Sheen land one on the deck of his Aircrat Carrier
They land all the time without wings, just not where they intended, or right side up......
Why can't they get a camera that automatically tracks the plane for all that money.. that camera work is crap.
Keep in mind that scaling up does not always work. A 60-foot tall person does not have enough skin area to cool themselves; the chitin in the legs of a giant preying mantis would collapse due to the weight.
So I wonder if the materials in a full-size jet can withstand the shear forces?
I can see what you are trying to say, and in principle, scaled down versions of anything do not necessarily predict the behaviour of true scale versions.
A slight clarification on the second sentence: The materials themselves will fail with a given load whether it is small or large scale. It will fail at the point of max shear, whether it is 30mm or 3m long.
What I was referring to maybe wasn't shear, but some other way of evaluating the strength of a component compared to the size of the full object. As an example, a honeybee's wing - if the bee was scaled up to VW Beetle (the old 'real' one) size - would simply break or splinter of trying to life the bee's body.
If the scale model is made larger, doubling the thickness of say a carbon fiber skin does not double the strength of said skin. Doubling the size of an object usually is 4X the mass. So if we double the size of this model we have less than 2X the strength in the remaining fuselage with roughly 4X the weight.
It reminds me of the old joke about a four engined passenger plane.
The pilot announces that they lost an engine and will be half an hour late. A short while later he announces that a second engine is out and they will be an hour late. Finally the pilot informs the passengers that they lost a third engine and will be even later. At that point one of the passengers comments, "any more of this and we'll be up here all day!".
Remember folks, the last engine will get us to the crash site at least a half hour ahead of the rescue vehicles.
Wonder if they can use this for commercial use.
Mr Blurrycam, meet Mr Shakycam.
How bout using a real Plane and have a missile hit the wing, blowing it off......lets see how well it holds up then...
I'd think that if you had catostrophic wing failure from enemy munitions, you'd still be engaged by said enemy. An autonomous system lazily (pardon the vernacular) bringing the pilot home might need to be a little more, shall we say, proactive in avoiding any further incoming enemy fire. Though, if he/she sees incoming fire after the automated system takes over, ejection is still an option. So, I think this could work for the instances of 'fire and forget' from long range where the plane structurally survived the initial impact.
The point of the system is not to bring the pilot home but to allow him to fly the plane almost like normal, even if a wing is blown off.
Man, instead of, HOLY CRAP! MY WING JUST GOT BLOWN OFF MAYDAY MAYDAY!
I wanna hear, SHIELDS DOWN TO 35%! SHE'S PACKING QUITE A WHALLOP!!!!
You have no idea how much I wish shields for the later star trek show and movies existed! Not those Undiscovered Country's Enterprise shields which still put holes all over the damn ship!
Can anyone explain why the older star treks allowed ship to be physically damaged even though the shields were still up? Just a change in tech I suppose, bless you Gene!
If the rockets uses heatseeking to track its target, the missile will hit the engine,
How about landing an F18 without engine capability?
Well, they did this with a 5th scale Hornet but nowhere did I see a 5th scale tanker to gas her up after takeoff...
Seriously, useful technology, both on maned and unmanned assets, once it matures.