Geoff White

Hi,

Came across this article which shows a model of an F18 being used in flight control research.

Anyone know anymore?

[link=http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/12/misplaced-wings-no-sweat-for-darpas-new-aircraft-control-system/]F18 Model[/link]

Just found some more info on it here.

[link=http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page10734.html]Rockwell Collins [/link]

Geoff.

P.S. Don't forget to click on Read link as it shows a video of the wing being blown off.

Rider-60

My Feedback: (17)

Very interesting , it's amazing to see how steady this plane flies. Thanks for the link

Dustin Buescher

Thats Amazing..... Ha Ha

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

That is work done by Athena Controls in Warrenton, VA (recently purchased by Rockwell Collins). The airplane is a BVM/TAM F-18F built by BVM for Athena (hench Dustin's "ha, ha," I think). I believe that BV was the test pilot for the initial flights last year where they blew off the aileron - at least the manually flown parts. I'm sure that BVM was involved in this test, but perhaps Dustin can't say...

Bob

AnthonyW

I thought it may have been from the one (Molds) that NC State did several years ago when testing the Super Hornet, it had TWO SWB monsters in that one, I believe it weighed in a little over 100# with all of the data stuff in it. It makes sense and easier to have gotten one from Bobby.

SJN

nice....now JR/Futaba needs to make a RX with this feature

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

No, that was a custom model built for the Navy by Jeff Foley and flown by Robert Vess. I believe that they only built one of those and it was lost when an aileron, that was damaged during ground handling, departed the aircraft in flight...

Bob

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Well, to make it work, first you need a $7k to $8k inertial navigation system (INS)...

Bob

Geoff White

Another thread on the same subject

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7611037/tm.htm

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

Here is how I believe the test went-

Wing was set to release. Therefore the software already knew what type of parameters to fly most likely from windtunnel and computer simulations on the exact length of wing etc. Great for a promotional investor type video but little fact for real world situations.

Now I'm not saying that down the road this technology won't be useful....It appears to have great uses......but if I was the pilot.....I know the ejection seat works. Its proven. Would I trust the computer to land the plane with battle damage that most likely won't be such a pre-determined clean break? And how do I know the computers program wasn't damaged by the battle damage?

For me this would be the last option......you know when the checklist states-"there are no provisions for manual bailout if the ejection seat fails". Then I would trust this system.

Once you get below 2k ft your chances of surviving the ejection become less.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

According to the Suthsayers, The master plan is to remove the Mark 1 Eyeball Systems and go RPV's ......[]

Semper fi

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Yes, you are correct. The method used to modify the control parameters upon loss of a wing had already been tested and the values verified to be correct for the loss of that wing. In modern fly-by-wire fighters, the flight control system already has some ability to help the pilot compensate for battle damage and the pilot works out the rest (i.e., as in the actual F-15 loss of a wing incident). This system is intended for UAVs (Athena makes UAV autopilots) where the computer needs to 1) identify that an airframe failure occured, 2) categorize the airframe failure, and 3) adapt the flight control laws to compensate for the failure. That is easier to do if you know what type of failure is going to occur, obviously, and easier for a human pilot who knows the aircraft and can actually "think" and experiment (as the F-15 pilot did) to figure out how to make the "new" airplane fly...

I would add though that what Athena is doing does have value. If you can make the UAV flight control system able to compensate for the 4 or 5 most likely system failures or battle damage (one would argue that loss of a wing is probably one of those) then you could significantly increase the chances for the survival of the UAV...

Where the future is heading though is a flight control system that can compensate for unknown and untested failures when they occur and do so fast enough to keep the aircraft from departing controlled flight (if its actually possible to do that - obviously some failures can't be compensated for using any method). This requires that the flight control system be able to develop a new "model" for the aircraft "system" during operation, called "system ID," and then compensate for it. This is being worked on for both UAVs and manned aircraft. The project I'm working on with NASA Langley is looking at techniques to do exactly that for commercial transport aircraft...

Bob

sweetpea01

My Feedback: (10)

Cool..... Sounds great. I'm glad I was partially right and not speculating too much though.

This would be superb for the UAV community in bringing back the bird so it can be used for parts or repaired.


I also see it coming online for what you say...."the most common failures". I know the computer can react faster than the human but the human can also anticipate from experience so a combo of both may be good.