Try and model this one!
 

I saw this on the news and wondered whether an aircraft like this could be successfully modeled? The real one would probaly be highly unstable and require many flight control computers, just to fly.

http://www.politicalforum.com/warfar...anned-jet.html

RE: Try and model this one!
 

I thin if you watch the movie "Skyline", I am sure I saw them modeled there. They looked like RC models to me.

RE: Try and model this one!
 

you will get radio lockout, as the radio waves will just bounce off the stealthy airframe :)

RE: Try and model this one!
 

Skyline doesn't deserve to be watched though... Not even to see the planes
That was truly ahttp://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f.../msn/52_52.gifmovie

RE: Try and model this one!
 

The J-UCAS..........we did a lot of hydraulics and ECS for that beast, before NGC kicked us out and decided to take the whole pie by themselves. :D

I hope everybody understands the concept of Autonomous and the possible consequences on R/C. I see it fairly simple, Autonomous and R/C cannot co-exist. With conventional UAV's, we can stretch it out, but once these Terminators start coming out...................it's going to suck! But I think we still have a good 10 years before we start hearing about it.

Not even the FAA has the slightest idea of how manned traffic will be affected. I've heard that synchronizing flight tests with the FAA has been a real challenge to say the least, even over non-populated areas.

BTW, J-UCAS is military, but I guarantee you that there will be a long line of commercial and government costumers that will want this technology for an endless list of applications.

RE: Try and model this one!
 

You are familiar with the FAA's rulemaking effort for SUAS, right? The FAA's answer to all UAV's in the NAS right now is simply - no, except for certain circumstances which they have to explicitly approve (said approval taking 6-12 months...)

Now if you are talking about autonomous flying vehicles that make their own decisions as to how/where to fly, we're a *long* *long* way from that - and when we get there, for military applications first, as always, I'm willing to bet that the FAA's stance will be to have it take place in restricted areas and nowhere else. UAV's in the NAS will have to fully comply with ATC procedures and controls and I would be willing to bet that we will not see that change in our lifetimes. There simply is no political will, money, or driving need to mix manned aircraft and fully autonomous (i.e., "Terminators") flying in the same airspace - its simply not going to happen. If RC can successfully weather the coming storm with the sUAS rules, that will be the status quo for a long time...

As far as how "advanced" and full-proof autonomous military technology is, one only has to read about the Navy's Firescout - state-of-the-art and just *now* entering the beginning of military service, so see where that is...


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38857999
http://www.suasnews.com/2010/09/1501...lying-at-yuma/
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4759558

Bob

RE: Try and model this one!
 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense

timely. surprised they havent come up with an island somewhere to do some of this work from.

RE: Try and model this one!
 

That is really cool. Its going to save lives. Well past time they introduced it.

RE: Try and model this one!
 

I'm afraid we are already there and I understand if you think differently, and the big problem is that testing these autonomous ships on isolated areas does not contribute much to product development, therefore the military has relied on "alternate" testing sites (see Beast of Khandahar). The things can fly on their own, that's is not the issue. The issue is incorporating flight testing into a real traffic environment, where these things are supposed to operate, so you can attract costumers.

The language for autonomous flying is very different than UAV's, but no I haven't read it, but I don't have in order to understand what it implies. And yes so far FAA's answer has been no, perhaps the reason you don't see them overflying Burbank right now. But for how long do you think that will stand? Put Boeing, NGC, LM and NAVSEA together......BIG names, BIG think tanks. I say 10 years or so. Betcha a warm pot of Chilli.

RE: Try and model this one!
 

Here's a link to a very interesting article. Enjoy.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...stealth-drone/

RE: Try and model this one!
 

looks strangely familiar to the x-47b

RE: Try and model this one!
 

Yes Pat, there are several that look alike. They look like a P 20 size B2

RE: Try and model this one!
 

Oh, I'd take that bet. All of those names plus a bunch of others pale in comparison to the number of commercial aviation operations in one day in this country, not to mention that they would be sharing the same sky as all of our friendly politicians in DC on their way home to kiss some babies. Then there's the fact that the FAA is probably the most powerfully entrenched bureaucracy this side of the IRS - they've held everyone off so far to work on their schedule with not so much as a whimper in the public domain...

You *may* see some number of "autonomous" aircraft flying in the NAS on a routine basis in the mid-term future, but they will be under direct ground control and limited to highly planned routes. "Thinking" machines flying around on their own cognition are still the stuff of dreams - both in the eyes of technologists, and in the eyes of retired commercial airline pilots like my Dad who remember a day when that was actually a description of them...

Bob

RE: Try and model this one!
 

see it flying.. nice plane, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnvxNdez84

RE: Try and model this one!
 

I believe a R/C version of the AWESOME X-47B will be out soon. After all, there are R/C F-117's and B-2's. An 80 to 90 inch wingspan would be nice. ;)