F-106 pilotless landing
#2
Posted 02 May 2009 - 1856 PM
"Trim" as mentioned in the F-106 article basically means that an aircraft can be set to maintain a given airspeed using "trim tabs" on the elevators. There are often trim tabs on other surfaces, which also help control roll and yaw. If a plane looses power, and no other action is taken, it will nose down and increase speed. When it reaches the airspeed it was trimmed for, it will level out until it slows again, then it will nose down, increase speed and level out, in a series of "steps" until something else happens, such as reaching the ground.
If the plane levels out over an open area just as it touches down, it can land relatively undamaged. As you can imagine, several factors have to come together just right for a successful landing to occur. The higher the airplane's performance, the less the likelihood of a successful landing.
#4
Posted 02 May 2009 - 2107 PM
http://en.wikipedia....mbia_B-36_crash
#5
Posted 02 May 2009 - 2212 PM
http://en.wikipedia....Good_(aircraft)
The aircraft did break in two when landing, however B24's were not known to do much better when piloted in with the gear up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/376bg-ladybgood.jpg
This post has been edited by Bob B: 03 May 2009 - 2107 PM
#11
Posted 20 May 2009 - 0702 AM
WRW, on Wed 20 May 2009 0435, said:
They are widely used (at least in US) for targets and some research. "Q" means "drone" (ex, QF-4, a Phantom converted for unmanned flight).
#12
Posted 20 May 2009 - 0737 AM
Dawes, on Sat 2 May 2009 1904, said:
MiG Master: The Story of the F-8 Crusader by Barrett Tillman said:
On his next landing the new F-8H pilot lowered his hook, touched down 500 feet short of the first arresting gear, and rolled through the cables. But the hook skipped over the wires, and the Crusader added power, lifted off, and went around again. The second attempt resulted in another bolter, and the Hotel lifted off once more. But witnesses thought the new pilot over-rotated, as the F-8 was fish-tailing, nose-high and settling.
Seconds later the pilot radioed, "I got something, this thing's not flying." Immediately he selected afterburner, apparently in an attempt to maintain flying speed, but one second later he ejected at about 20 feet above the runway.
Now on its own, the pilotless Hotel proceeded antoher 600 feet straight ahead, touched down on it's main gear, and snagged the arresting cables. it stopped near the left side of the runway, with moderate damage. Meanwhile, the pilot had parachuted into a lake alongside the runway.
This post has been edited by Apocal: 20 May 2009 - 0738 AM
#16
Posted 22 May 2009 - 0907 AM
Maybe in 10 years, but the technology isn't there yet.
#17
Posted 24 May 2009 - 0543 AM
JamesG123, on Thu 21 May 2009 1912, said:
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
It seems to me that all the unmanned aircraft are useful so long someone does not send up an obsolete weather satellite as an ASAT on an obsolete rocket (As the PRC recently demonstrated) and destroy communications with the ground. Net centric warfare I would, think, come to a very rapid halt.
I hope we keep the man in the loop for this and many other reasons for a long time.
#18
Posted 24 May 2009 - 1139 AM
Also, the point of net-centric warfare is that you can re-route around failed or destroyed links. Broken links can mean bandwidth problems on surviving ones, & eventually break the net, but there should be a fair bit of resilience.
So far, they do all have a man in the loop AFAIK, & I see no immediate prospect of that changing.
This post has been edited by swerve: 24 May 2009 - 1139 AM

Sign In
Register
Help

MultiQuote