Push a Button, Land on a Carrier 240
sane? writes "Putting an aircraft down on a carrier in bad weather is the stuff of melodramatic Hollywood films. Automated systems for conventional aircraft and big carriers has been done for a while, but getting a hovering Harrier, helicopter, or future JSF to land on a pitching deck of a smaller ship is a different matter. This week QinetiQ demonstrated a complete autoland - a significant step towards making the future JSF work."
Land on a Carrier? (Score:2, Interesting)
Technology for the 'flying car'?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The simplicity of the new system was aptly demonstrated when a pilot with no previous fast jet experience, safely landed a STOVL aircraft unaided - a feat unimaginable before.
That's pretty amazing! Wonder if similar technology will one day pave the way for the 'flying car'. Automatically controlling landing and takeoff for a domestic 'flying car' will go a long way in making it practically feasible...
Re:It doesn't look precise enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Great line recited by Frederick March (Score:2, Interesting)
Canadians got it right (again) (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.readyayeready.com/timeline/1960s/beart
Um... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm. Now that I think about it, I may be wrong. An aircraft's altitude is controlled significantly by its forward speed. (Go faster, you go higher; go slower, you go lower.) Perhaps it is mainly a one-dimensional problem. Still, I don't see how landing a jet is markedly easier than landing a helicopter.
I guess I can summarize this post by saying, "I'm ignorant. Someone with more than a handful of hours of flight time, please enlighten me." (Yes, I have flown single-engine Cessnas, but only the aforementioned handful of hours. Takeoff but not landing, and certainly not on an aircraft carrier. My "knowledge" there is mainly from my father, who was a Navy fighter pilot in the late 1940s, so that "knowledge" doesn't even extend to jets.)
Re:Um... (Score:5, Interesting)
Landing vertically, helicopter or Harrier, you have to match the forward speed of the ship (maybe 10-20 knots), compensate for pitch and roll so the deck doesn't come up and slap your landing gear off, and adjust for your own ground effect as you near the surface of the deck. Also, depending on space and where you're supposed to set down, you may be coming down not in line with the ship, but maybe trying to fly sideways at 15 knots.
It's not necessarily easier or harder, just a different set of conditions that need to be met and compensated for.
My Jock (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the most self assured pilots hate landing (read: controlled crash-landing) on carriers at night in adverse conditions. Scares the crap out of them.
But there would be some resistance. As there are people who are better coders than others there are pilots who are better at landing on an aircraft carrier than others. As a matter of fact naval pilots on a carrier are constantly graded and ranked according to their landing performance. And I can't see the good ones wanting to give up control over the aircraft or wanting to give up their status as a top naval pilot.
RAST (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes, a good ol' fashioned electro-hydraulic system is OK.
[1]Didn't fact-check to discover if any remain in commission.
Re:Um... (Score:5, Interesting)
On a carrier, you're directed to land on one of 5-6 circles called "spots" Spots 1-2 are generally at near the bow, 3-4 (where most HS [the type of squadron deployed on carriers] landings occur are port side aft of the angled deck, and 5-6 are near the stern.
If you miss your spot, the air boss will personally check in to whether your wings should be pulled. ; )
No question about it, it's easier to land a helo on a CV/CVN than a fixed winger. However, I took the comment about smaller ships to imply frigates, destroyers, crusiers, and the like. It is definitely not easy to land on one of those when the deck is pitching all over the place. The RAST systems in use by much of the HSL community helps, but send a non RAST-equipped helo to a small boy in high seas...and the pucker factor is high.
--Mike
The helos are always the first to take off and last to land.
Re:Um... (Score:5, Interesting)
After spending five years aboard a US Navy FFG, I have a lot of respect for the helo crew. Landing on a deck that's pitching up and down over a range of five to ten feet, plus rolling a total of 30 degrees is tough enough - but right in front of the aircraft is a solid wall of metal that would cheerfully shred the rotors. Plus, the ship is moving.
When the SH-60B that we carried landed, the tail extended over the end of the flight deck. It's a big helicopter landing in a very small spot. And I've got to say that the five or six times that I flew, the landing was absolutely terrifying. And these guys were flying several missions a day whenever we were at sea.
Oh, and RAST was broken half of the time, too.
-h-
Photoshopped logo? (Score:5, Interesting)
High-res photo [qinetiq.com] and a zoomed close-up [fury.com]
Pilots are pretty damn good (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say they can get within 10cm no sweat. Navy pilots are damned good.
SNC did it first (Score:3, Interesting)
A variant of this system is autolanding UAV's all over Iraq as we speak.
Russians had automatic landing in 1988 (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran [wikipedia.org]
Canadians have it figured out (Score:3, Interesting)