h a l f b a k e r yAmbivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Flight simulators are useful tools, enabling pilots to be
trained and evaluated in a safe environment. However,
during a bout of recent insomnia, I watched a couple of
those air-crash disaster documentaries. It became
obvious to me that a garden-variety simulator, with the
hydraulic jacks
and whatnot, may be able to provide a
realistic feeling when the "aircraft" is mooching about in a
sedate manner. They cannot do a convincing facsimile of
stalling at 30,000ft and plummeting ground-ward while
hurling everyone around with spiraling g forces.
When I did training on light aircraft, there was no
substitute for getting out of a nasty stall/spin/whatever,
than for a competent pilot to take you up, CREATE the
conditions and then for you to recognize and the try and
solve the problem.
This might be a touch expensive to do in an A380. So,
take a normal simulator and mount it just behind the
cockpit of a much smaller, more robust aircraft with
superior aerobatic performance. Then, wire up the
simulator to the physical aircraft controls with a computer
interface. The interface modifies the control inputs from
the simulator to achieve the results that would be seen on
the aircraft that is being simulated. Chiefly, you would
slow down the roll/pitch/climb rate, perhaps the engines
would spool up slower to simulate massive ones...
whatever, it should be possible to make a small jet behave
like a large one.
In the real cockpit, you've got a couple of pilots with
master controls and access to the full flight envelope who
can save the aircraft from the incompetent fool in the
simulator.
When pilots train in this simulator, they get all the real
sensations and g-forces, perhaps real depressurization etc.
It should provide an ideal addition to the end of training.
Total In-Flight Simulator
http://en.wikipedia...IFS_lifting_off.jpg
Convair did this many years ago. [Freefall, Jul 03 2013]
Kinda like this
http://en.wikipedia...e_Training_Aircraft
The Space Shuttle's landing envelope wrapped inside a Grumman Gulfstream - after a few mods [lurch, Jul 03 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Baked by Convair in 1970 as a modification of a 1955 C-131. See link. |
|
| |
This is an excellent idea! |
|
| |
I'll agree that both those links are close, but not
quite what I'm saying here. Those are effectively
"model" aircraft. What I'm describing is an industry
standard electronic simulator with snazzy
computer interface. The advantage being that it
should be more capable, for example: perhaps the
rudder failure could be simulated, perhaps the trim
controls fail to respond properly.... all these things
can be fed in directly by an instructor. Also, you
can simulate night during the day, fog during fine
weather etc. All the benefits of an electronic
simulator with all the sensation of a real aircraft. |
|
| |
Additionally, you should be able to swap the
simulator at will, so your aircraft can be a Boeing
777 one week and an A380 the next. |
|
| |
// for example: perhaps the rudder failure could be
simulated, perhaps the trim controls fail to respond
properly.... all these things can be fed in directly by
an instructor.// I would imagine that those things
are possible in the Gulfstream shuttle simulator. |
|
| |
// you should be able to swap the simulator at
will,// But the instrument configurations would be
all wrong. |
|
| |
//who can save the aircraft from the incompetent fool in the simulator. |
|
| |
Ahh, taking all the fun out of it..boo! |
|
| |
You still won't be be able to simulate a lot of
conditions. Since the handling of the plane will be
different than the simulated plane, it won't be able
to produce all the same responses. |
|
| |
This also has issues with response time in a stall,
dive, or spin situation, with the override pilots not
realizing or being able to react in time. |
|
| |
//You still won't be be able to simulate a lot of
conditions. Since the handling of the plane will be
different than the simulated plane, it won't be
able to produce all the same responses.// |
|
| |
I think that point was addressed in the first part of
the third paragraph of the idea. As long as the
simulator plane is nippy, it will be able to
simulate the actions of a larger, more lumbering
plane. In any event, the Gulfstream simulator
seems to work fine as a shuttle, and I am pretty
sure it could handle all the behaviour of a large
passenger jet. |
|
| |
As for the override pilots not reacting in time -
the simulator means that a landing approach can
be carried out at 10,000ft, giving enough time for
a competent pilot in a nippy aircraft to recover
from most situations, I'd have thought. |
|
| |
Depends. If the simulation pilot does something
to cause the plane to enter a flat spin, the
override pilots won't be able to correct. That's
also part of what worries me about the handling.
What's the correct behavior to break a large plane
out of a dangerous situation might not be for a
smaller one with different handling characteristics. |
|
| |
Maybe a small fast plane can duplicate everything a
large plane would do, but I would expect the
handling to be different enough to make it hard. |
|
| |
//What's the correct behavior to break a large
plane out of a dangerous situation might not be
for a smaller one with different handling
characteristics.// |
|
| |
Yes, true; but if the simulation is happening
10,000ft above the true altitude, then the
simulator "crashes", leaving the "real" pilot time
to recover. |
|
| |
I'm thinking, in extremis, of some of the modern
fly-by-wire fighters which can use an excess of raw
power to fly at impossible angles. |
|
| |
I guess it might break down in the most extreme
circumstances, but 99.9% of a commercial pilot's
training is probably how to avoid getting into
those circumstances, rather than getting the
plane the right way up again. |
|
| |
//But the instrument configurations would be all
wrong.// Yes, but it's getting to be less of a problem,
with the increase in "glass cockpit" aircraft. |
|
| |
//But the instrument configurations would be all
wrong.// |
|
| |
No, take an actual flight simulator, put THAT in the
plane and hook up the appropriate computer
interface. Then you can swap out the ENTIRE
simulator for another one. If you make the
plane/interface right, you have access to the whole
stock of existing flight simulators. |
|
| |
^ Except that most high level flight simulators are
effectively custom built and /very/ expensive. Most
of them are "one-offs" and they all have wildly
different hardware interfaces (all custom made),
power requirements and software. We're talking
hand soldered circuit boards behind the panels.
They require near daily maintenance from a certified
mechanic to keep them operable. So the idea of
just stuffing an off the shelf sim into a specially
equipped airplane is - halfbaked. |
|
| |