It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Passenger jets with no cockpit!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Nasa is working on a project for future American supersonic jets that would have no windowed cocpit but instead it would have a simulator type of panels like the ones in fighter jet simulators that would display the video from outside and offer the pilots more view. It might be a good idea but imagine flying at 1500mph with no window to see outside if youre the pilot. What do you think?

Imagine flying a supersonic passenger jet (like the Concorde) at 1,500 mph with no front windows in the cockpit it may one day be a reality. NASA engineers are working to develop the technology that would replace the forward cockpit windows in future supersonic passenger jets with large sensor displays. These displays would use images, enhanced by computer-generated graphics, to take the place of the view out the front windows.

The envisioned eXternal Vision System (XVS) would guide pilots to an airport, warn them of other aircraft near their flight path, and provide additional visual aides for airport approaches, landings and takeoffs.

Currently, supersonic transports like the Anglo-French Concorde droop the front of the jet (the "nose") downward to allow the pilots to see forward during takeoffs and landings. By enhancing the pilots' vision with high-resolution displays, future supersonic transport designers could eliminate the heavy and expensive, mechanically-drooped nose.


oea.larc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 6-7-2004 by WestPoint23]




posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Sounds intresting but i wonder who you would steer the thing if you had a power failure, that of being that it can glide and steer with out power. As a passenger i dont think i would all that keen on it knowing the pilots had been issued with realy sharp tin openers to cut windows if the case the power goes out.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Pilots have been making night landings with heavy weather for years, it is called flying with instruments.

This study is highly interesting, because problems of supersonic flight may demand such technological operations due to the velocities. Yes the Space Shuttle has a windshield but goes 17k MPH, but who knows.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
my main worry would be if the external sensors dveloped a glitch, whether it was a tech error or human error...

this has been the cause of 2 commercial flight crashes where the pilots had no clue as to how high they were or how fast they were going!!(im trying to remember the flight numbers from the crash, but i cant recal them right now... anyone else remember?)

and even worse, because the glitch effected every instrument system, if they had no windows for visual confimation.....

well, you can guess the end result!!



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Like dwho said better pack a very sharp supply of knives and can openers
but this is only a study so who know how it will turn out and yeah the space shuttle uses a windshield but that's only cuz it has rockets and doesn't need the extra aerodynamics this offers


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Like dwho said better pack a very sharp supply of knives and can openers
but this is only a study so who know how it will turn out and yeah the space shuttle uses a windshield but that's only cuz it has rockets and doesn't need the extra aerodynamics this offers

Actually windows are tructurally weak spots.

That why SpaceShipOne has many small, round windows instead of couple bigger rectangular windows.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Pilots have been making night landings with heavy weather for years, it is called flying with instruments.


yeah, but they still need to be able to see the runway before they can land. instrument landings are hardly ever lined up with the runway. usually you're off by a couple hundred feet. of course, this is me flying in my cessna 150... it's probably different in an airliner of course though.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It's definitely different on an airliner equipped with ILS. ILS will line an aircraft up on the glideslope and the runway centerline, with a margin of feet. Not enough to worry about, in any case. So, it is very possible to land an aircraft with little to no external visibility. It's usually not done that way, but it is possible.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ouizel
It's definitely different on an airliner equipped with ILS. ILS will line an aircraft up on the glideslope and the runway centerline, with a margin of feet. Not enough to worry about, in any case. So, it is very possible to land an aircraft with little to no external visibility. It's usually not done that way, but it is possible.


i was talking about using the ILS. the point i was making is that you have to have some visibility of the ground, at least 500 feet, in order to make sure you'll be landing where you need to land. if an airfield has no ground visibility, in the acse of fog for instance, the field is shut down and planes are diverted or put into a holding pattern until there is ground visibility.

in short: ground visibility is needed to land ANY aircraft.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
It's interesting, but I dont want to see it anytime soon. I dont believe in technology, too many things can go wrong, and when a computer is controlling a ship with people on it, the risk is big. Plus, computers can always be hacked, and we would have some serious terrorism issues.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well this would not cut out your visibility you would just have cameras on the nose and on the belly and then screens on where the windshield would be to sow the pilot many different angles and positions so he can still se out side unless a power failure occurs then you a goner.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
It's interesting, but I dont want to see it anytime soon. I dont believe in technology, too many things can go wrong, and when a computer is controlling a ship with people on it, the risk is big. Plus, computers can always be hacked, and we would have some serious terrorism issues.


Exactly what i was thinking.........looking at a nice landing at JFK airport yet heading for a city block.
The risk of terrorists hacking the visual display and instruments is just not acceptable.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You may have heard me say this before but I don't trust computers with my money or my life. And what if microsoft makes the system. Heres what would happen.
Pilot: "The window is frozen up!"
Co-Pilot: "Theres too many D@MN buttons, I cant find Ctrl-Alt-Delete!"



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well I would not be the first to buy tickets for this plane I would let other people go on it first so if it has any problems ill just wait till they fix them but not with me onboard



[edit on 6-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well this would not cut out your visibility you would just have cameras on the nose and on the belly and then screens on where the windshield would be to sow the pilot many different angles and positions so he can still se out side unless a power failure occurs then you a goner.


it wouldn't matter how many angles of cameras there are, if you can't see the ground you can't see the ground. there's no way around that part of it.



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Even with dual-backups, many flight managment (liquid displays) systems go down - and the backup attitude gyro actually comes in handy. So what is the backup when the video display goes down and there is no window.

I've talked to old LC-130 pilots who would fly in zero zero weather in antarctica - they relied on a radar calls from the navigator until touchdown - talk about faith in your navigator. In that respect its possible.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I actually like this, there no need for pilot windows when theres no cockpit.
Air Force UAV's like the predator can taxi onto the airport take off and fly around and land on the runway and taxi to the same hanger it left in with a total of 3 clicks of a mouse.

and as for the person who said what if the sensors are wrong, cameras can see more and better than our eyes, with infrared or use lasers or GPS.

Simply put its time to take the people out of the cockpit and make faster aircraft.



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
oea.larc.nasa.gov...


This link you've found is quite old and out-of-date. NASA was working on this system as part of the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) study in the mid-1990s. The goal of HSCT was to develop technologies to build a new supersonic transport that could replace the Concorde. These new technologies were supposed to make supersonic travel more cost effective so that such a plane could better compete with more traditional airliners.

One of these new technologies was computerized displays to replace cockpit windows. The idea was that such a system could improve pilot visibility and eliminate the need for the "drooping nose" used on Concorde. My friend worked on a demonstrator of this system at NASA Langley. A second mock-up cockpit was placed in the cabin of a 737 equipped with nothing but computerized displays. The aircraft was successfully flown and landed by pilots in this second cockpit without the help of any actual windows to see outside the plane.

However, Boeing had no interest in using NASA's research because supersonic aircraft are still too expensive for airlines to operate. As a result, the HSCT project was cancelled around 2000.

In any event, the effort to integrate computerized displays into the cockpit is one of the few HSCT technologies that might make it into future aircraft. At the very least, it's likely that external camera systems, both visual and infrared, will be used to supplement conventional windows and give pilots a more complete picture of their surroundings. These cameras could be used to improve visibility at night or in poor weather as well as give pilots the ability to see places that would normally be blocked.

For example, the US Navy is interested in using this technology to improve pilot visibility during carrier landings. Carrier-based planes often have very steep descent angles making it difficult for the pilot to see the ship. The views from external cameras may be integrated into the pilot's helmet allowing him to "see" through the nose of the plane and get a better view of the carrier deck.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Well I did not see a date on this article but than for the info but how would the navy pilots fly when they are not landing they would still have no windows when they are doing mission or did I misunderstand?



posted on Jul, 7 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
There's a great big red banner across the top of the page saying:

"*** NOTE: The NASA High-Speed Research (HSR) Program was phased out in fiscal year 1999 ***"

Also, the date at the top of the page says it was written in September 1998.

As for the Navy version, it would not replace the cockpit canopy. The idea is to use cameras on the underside of the plane to allow the pilot to see regions he normally wouldn't be able to. The views from these cameras would probably be fed into his helmet visor.

This kind of application is the most likely for the technology--combining conventional windows with computerized displays. I doubt we'll see any planes that completely eliminate windows and replace them with computers any time soon.

In theory, you could put cameras all over the exterior of a plane and allow the pilot to see in any direction. The advantage of this capability is that the pilot would be able to see places like the wings, tail, and landing gear. If something were to go wrong on the aircraft, the pilot could then get a better view of what the problem might be.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join