Remote Control Jetliners Possible?

Its hard to ignore the subtle comment made at the end of this video. Is this TPTB just rubbing it in through commercials and other entertainment? That comment rang loud when I heard it.



Some I have talked to say he didnt mean fly it remotely, others feel thats exactly what he meant. Anythoughts?

reply to post by Myendica



To answer the OP......"possible", but extremely difficult to pull off, in terms of an after-the-fact situation...taking a stock airliner, NOT designed originally from the ground up for R/C, and attempting to retro-fit it.

Expensive, time-consuming, and not guaranteed to be successful.

Now, the commercial??? How in on Earth people could READ INTO that ad, in this way, is incomprehensible to me......

Why not? This US Killer Device flys to other continents to kill precisely innocents persons via remote...

reply to post by weedwhacker


you see the part at the end when guy from ge capitol says "wat ya say, wanna take the big one up?" does that not imply "take up remotely?"
To me it does. sorry of thats far fetched to take the occurances as thats what he meant.

reply to post by Myendica

.....does that not imply "take up remotely?"

Not in the least. Two entirely different meanings.

Oh, and that Embraer 190 in the background?? ("Barbie Jet"). Why did they choose to use that piece of junk to backdrop the commercial, instead of the other piece of junk that comprise most of JetBlue's fleet, the Airbus 320??

It really is nothing other than a concept dreamt up by their (or GECapitol's) marketing company...the two R/C models in flight were CG, BTW. Someone who happens to be a hobbyist (whether one of the principle executives in the ad , or someone who works at the ad agency) thought it'd be cool, after seeing that there are commercially available R/C models that have colors similar to the JetBlue paint scheme.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At quick glance, small screen, my first guess was those are models of the full-scale aerobatic design the CAP 232. Besides flying the real thing (airliners, and other airplanes), I've been in the R/C hobby for many decades as well, and that is one (just one of many) favorite. This image is what is often seen, but many different color schemes are also available, commerically in those kits marketed as an "ARF" (Almost Ready to Fly)....basically, the big pieces are already built and covered for you, you just assemble and install equipment.

Other kits can be built (from "scratch"...as a kit, or not), and covered in designs of the builder's choice.

This is one example:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea59c6389771.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by cushycrux


Inane, and unconnected response.

The "Global Hawk" is nothing at all like a commercial airliner. This is the sort of ignorance of aviation and technology that is profoundly apparent, more and more every day.

The USAF, USN and NASA currently operate them. It does not carry armaments, it is designed for surveillance. (Although, its capabilities CAN be used --- I am assuming --- to augment targeting abilities for manned, armed platforms, such as helicopters and jets).

On the International side, there is also a market for the UAV:

NATO
NATO has announced that it expects to have a fleet of up to eight Global Hawks by the year 2012. The aircraft are to be equipped with MP-RTIP radar systems. NATO has budgeted €1 billion for the project, and a letter of intent has been signed, although contracting with Northrop Grumman has not been finalized.

Luftwaffe
The German Luftwaffe has ordered a variant of the RQ-4B equipped with European sensors, dubbed EuroHawk. It combines a normal RQ-4B airframe with an EADS reconnaissance payload.

Also, some possible future customers:

Potential operators

Australia had considered the purchase of a number of Global Hawk aircraft for maritime and land surveillance...... With the current economic situation, and the delivery schedule pushed back to 2015; the Australian government had decided to cancel the order.

Canada is also a potential customer, looking at the Global Hawk for maritime and land surveillance as either a replacement for its fleet of CP-140 Aurora patrol aircraft....

Spain has a similar requirement, and has existing contacts with Northrop Grumman.

Japan is reported to be interested in the purchase of three aircraft in order to spy on North Korea and China.

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) had expressed interest in acquiring at least four RQ-4B and support equipment by 2011 to increase the intelligence capabilities....

New Zealand's Defence Force is keeping a "watching brief" over Global Hawk, which has the range to conduct surveillance in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and in the Pacific Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

Really, there is a wealth of information available to anyone who wishes to conduct actual research, rather than spouting off, half-cocked.

All Unmanned Aerial Vehicles currently in operation, or development, as a class, are designed from the beginning, to be remote controlled. Therefore, there is no correlation to an existing airframe design, such as an airliner, which is NOT designed as such.

What's more, some more research will uncover the immense complexities involved with the command and control of such devices, the numbers of people involved, and the sophisticated equipment needed.

Check this out, don't know if its what your looking for, but the fact this was done all them years ago, i'd say hell yeah to the possibility of remote controlled airliners.....NASA remote crash test .....0:57 secs "pilots via remote"

reply to post by chupa-chups


I am (and most here, by now, are??) pretty well aware of that ONE instance (which, BTW, was a partial failure, in the end).

It took extraordinary amounts of man-hours, and drew great attention (among pilots and other aviation professionals) at the time.

The tests.... required more than 4 years of work before the test occurred.

If you recall (or maybe not) the primary purpose, there, was to test a fuel additive that (it was hoped) would act to suppress the volatility, and flame potential, of the fuel in certain types of "controlled" accidents, such as landing and "CFIT" (Controlled Flight Into Terrain).

IN this case, it simulated a "typical" CFIT scenario....gear retracted, flaps at a mid-range or "maneuvering' setting, as would be used while lining up for final approach. The airplane was supposed to impact flat, and level and straight ahead (like flat on its belly) just prior to the large, jagged thingies designed to tear open the wings, to simulate obstructions on the ground, to cause such damage, and let loose the fuel, for ignition.

As you see, the remote "pilot" began to lose control, near the end....the wings oscillating like that wasn't "planned". Nor was hitting the ground in that "Chinese Posture"....( old joke...."one wing low" )....
It demonstrates that, even at the relatively slow speeds of, say, 150-170 knots, a person's hand/eye coordination, simply SEEING, and attempting to react and maintain control, is handicapped by the lack of presence IN the cockpit, and those additional sensory perceptions.

Anyone who has ever flown an R/C model, or even driven an R/C car, can tell you that it's taxing, at times...and not always successful (I have the crashed airplane models to prove it!).

Higher the speeds, faster things react, and faster things can go wrong.

Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level, with the throttles set to idle, and exactly on the center-line during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway (called "Rhinos" due to the shape of the "horns" welded onto the posts). The Boeing 720 landed askew. One of the Rhinos sliced through the number 3 engine, behind the burner can, leaving the engine on the wing pylon (which does not typically happen in an impact of this type). The same rhino then sliced through the fuselage, causing a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage. The cutting of the number 3 engine and the full throttle situation was significant as this was outside the test envelope. The number 3 engine continued to operate, degrading the fuel and igniting it after impact, providing a significant heat source. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish. The CID impact was spectacular with a large fireball created by the number 3 engine on the right side, enveloping and burning the 720 aircraft. From the standpoint of AMK the test was a major set-back. For NASA Langley, the data collected on crash-worthiness was deemed successful and just as important.

en.wikipedia.org...

Still, not a total loss. Since the crash-test dummies provided some valuable information, at least......

Weedwhacker thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, thats some good points you put forward.
The way I see it, and I aint no expert, is that they could fly a commercial airliner remotely....26 years ago, ok it may not have been perfect, but I bet they are a lot better at it now.

Remote capability has been around for decades. In fact, Op. Northwoods planned to fly a jet remotely and have it shot down.

As for reading into the video, it can be taken either way. I wouldn't say it's anything to get excited about.

reply to post by chupa-chups


Well, given enough determination --- meaning time and money and manpower.

Still, consider what many don't seem to ponder....unless the "remote pilot" actually sees the machine himself, from the outside, then there has to be a camera mounted onboard, and a visual display to refer to as well

ALL "possible"....still without the peripheral vision one has in real life, the limitations remain. (I can compare to the technology of full-motion flight simulators, and the visual displays they had, 30 years ago, compared to the much better ones today. For our purposes, essentially a CRT TV monitor was mounted, screen pointed down, and refracted through a lens to "look" like a view out the front cockpit window. As long as our seats (and eyes) were positioned properly. Step up, and out of the seat, and the illusion vanished.

Mostly, only "night" was possible, recreated with dots and lines. For Instrument flying practice, to show runway lights and approach lights and stuff, at night....worked well enough, since visibility is limited to the sides, anyway. It kept getting better, wider fields-of-view, so "VFR" (night) for visual approaches and circling approaches worked...kinda-sorta. (Still, limiting/handicapped by no side window views). Nowadays, the "wrap-around" visuals in modern sims (day and night) are better....still, they're computer-generated, NOT "real-time" visual of the real world, as required IF you wanted to imagine some full-immersion device).


I can imagine, certainly....something built to fully immerse the pilot, even giving him certain tactile cues, besides sight alone. I'm betting the military has such technology...it's been postulated in many different Science Fiction concepts, already. Even in "just-over-the-horizon" type speculations. But, this isn't off-the-shelf stuff, just sitting around, waiting to be used.

SO, "like" a sort of video-game....the game Wii is interactive, to a point....but this would have to be much, much, much more complex. AND incredibly expensive. "Possible", again , if time and money were no object. A great deal of modifications to the airplane, besides some sort of visual system, would be required, because there are a lot of things to operate besides just the flight controls, IF you want complete authority over all functions.

Certain aspects have a bit of autonomous capability, software can be written for that. But to have a range of REAL control, as if you were actually in the cockpit, sacrifices will have to be made...or else, the "pilot" could be a team of two or more, each tasked with certain things to do and watch over....

...anyway, fun to speculate, and to wonder how far such things may go someday, in practical use.

But, if this is about the four airliners of 9/11? It's simply beyond any plausibility, for that scenario. ONCE? "maybe".....FOUR?? When you consider the sheer numbers of people involved, ALL of the various subcontractors to build these specialized components, and to operate the ground support systems...to program the software, etc, etc. This is not something that would be very secret, nor able to be kept covered up, at all.....