Forum: Technology

Okay, so I'm not the first guy to think of an aircraft with no windows (the proposed Lapcat A2 is one such plane: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat_veh.html)

However, I was wondering if a fighter jet's canopy could be done away with by using cameras and viewscreens?

Today, there is an emphasis on good pilot visibility on all sides, including to the rear. This is normally accomplished using the teardrop or bubble canopy (which is featured on the F-22 and F-16). Although this gives good situational awareness, it presents itself as a producer of extra drag on the aircraft. It might also increase the RCS of the plane as well.

Getting rid of the canopy could yield increases in aerodynamic performance. So let's imagine that the cockpit is integrated deep within airframe and no external canopy is present. The pilot would enter the canopy via a pair of stealthy, serrated doors similar to the bomb bay or missile bay doors on the F-22. The pilot gets inside and the doors shut to provide a stealthy, low-drag airframe.

The pilot is not blind, though. Within the cockpit are high pixel-density video screens that present full coverage viewing for the pilot. The cameras that feed the viewing screens are placed wherever they are needed (such as in the nose, at the wing-tips, in the vertical stabilizers, etc.).

Now that we are using video screens, we have another option: The pilot can now be laid flat on his back and still see the outside world via the cameras. I do believe that, by lying on one's back, you are capable of withstanding higher G forces than if you were simply sitting down. The G forces no longer push blood into your feet and more of it stays in your brain. This may be useful during close-range fighting maneuvers.

There are two potential drawbacks (and perhaps more). If the cameras or viewscreens are disabled in flight due to damage or mistakes from the maintenance crew, you could end up truly blind. This risk, however, can be minimized if there is a redundency in the number of cameras or viewscreens.

Another problem might be ejection. Presumably, one would have to eject through the bomb bay-like cockpit doors in order to escape. Perhaps some sort of fast-acting hydraulic mechanism could open the doors when the ejection sequence is implemented? Or perhaps implanted explosives could blow the door off?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

My :twocents: is that a pilot would never go for flying prone on their back. Also, I think your guess on how a cockpit sits in the fuselage of current-gen fighters is off, they're a lot deeper than that. Unless you're thinking of making little person only cockpits? Very Happy

Guysmiley wrote:

My :twocents: is that a pilot would never go for flying prone on their back. Also, I think your guess on how a cockpit sits in the fuselage of current-gen fighters is off, they're a lot deeper than that. Unless you're thinking of making little person only cockpits? Very Happy

Way back in the day, yes they did. Lying on his front though not on his back.

.

I resent your implication that jets only break because of damage or maintenance crews making mistakes, especially the latter part. Things break, it happens; they wear out and give up the ghost. You don't blame your car breaking on your maintenance mistakes do you?

My apologies, Bodizzle. I only meant to use those as examples. I know that things can break for other reasons, too. I never meant to indicate that maintenance crews are prone to such things.

Your middle picture reminds me of the XF-103.

If your going that far, why not put the pilot in a little room with a modified JHMD and call it a day? No cockpit at all, just camera's and you can look anywhere. 15g turns, try to dogfight that! I really think this is where things are going, this will eventually replace fighters. Don't shoot the messenger, it only makes sense. Sorry guys...

Shrug

Quote:

If your going that far, why not put the pilot in a little room with a modified JHMD and call it a day? No cockpit at all, just camera's and you can look anywhere. 15g turns, try to dogfight that! I really think this is where things are going, this will eventually replace fighters. Don't shoot the messenger, it only makes sense. Sorry guys...

I had wondered why that hadn't been done already, myself. Would the problem be getting signals between the plane and the base where the pilot is stationed (which are potentially thousands of miles apart)?

Kryptid wrote:

Quote:

If your going that far, why not put the pilot in a little room with a modified JHMD and call it a day? No cockpit at all, just camera's and you can look anywhere. 15g turns, try to dogfight that! I really think this is where things are going, this will eventually replace fighters. Don't shoot the messenger, it only makes sense. Sorry guys...

I had wondered why that hadn't been done already, myself. Would the problem be getting signals between the plane and the base where the pilot is stationed (which are potentially thousands of miles apart)?

They are called drones . . . .

asiatrails wrote:

They are called drones . . . .

For now... at least in the white world... no A2A dedicated drones. Something tells me politics, and not technology, is responsible for this.

asiatrails wrote:

They are called drones . . . .

What keeps us from flying QF-15s, QF-16s, QF-22s, etc. into A2A combat then? I guess that's what I'm getting at.

Kryptid wrote:

asiatrails wrote:

They are called drones . . . .

What keeps us from flying QF-15s, QF-16s, QF-22s, etc. into A2A combat then? I guess that's what I'm getting at.

For what you are asking, transmission delays and real time bandwidth

asiatrails is right, the bandwidth you would need for a high-resolution 360 view would be pretty impractical. If you could do it, you'd probably want it on the helmet- the F-35 can already to that with IR with the DAS, so that would actually be more realistic if you had it manned. Plus, you can look through yourself, so you have absolutely perfect FOV.

Lying down is tempting, but the orientation would be pretty strange in terms of effects of G- getting used to the differences would probably be enough to make even experienced pilots pretty sick. No matter how you orient a person, there's always going to be a G-weak spot, with lying down like you have, you're limited in how fast you can accelerate forward before the pilot's going to Red-out (relative negative G).

That being said, I'm not sure how hard it would be to get used to flying a jet like that- I mean, just flying regularly in the standard position takes a whole different set of reflexes than walking around anyway. So... maybe. It will be interesting to see. For example, I play enough Halo that now I can instantaneously compute moving my right thumb in order to move my "body," so I have a large degree of faith that you can adapt the human mind to almost anything.

Some notes: I think guy lying down would be better off with sidestick controllers, so his hands are at his side, so he's not struggling to keep his arms up in those 13g turns.

Quote:

Lying down is tempting, but the orientation would be pretty strange in terms of effects of G- getting used to the differences would probably be enough to make even experienced pilots pretty sick.

I thought about that and you're probably right. From what I've heard, motion sickness comes from a mismatch between what you see and what you feel. So the lying down thing is probably a no go.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Kryptid wrote:

Quote:

Lying down is tempting, but the orientation would be pretty strange in terms of effects of G- getting used to the differences would probably be enough to make even experienced pilots pretty sick.

I thought about that and you're probably right. From what I've heard, motion sickness comes from a mismatch between what you see and what you feel. So the lying down thing is probably a no go.

Would increase the odds and intensity of spatial disorientation since there is a missorientation.

Getting sick is not a very big deal compared to spatial disorientation that has a higher occurrence of crashing and dying.

PhillyGuy wrote:

asiatrails wrote:

They are called drones . . . .

For now... at least in the white world... no A2A dedicated drones. Something tells me politics, and not technology, is responsible for this.

I disagree. They are called missiles. Air to air missiles are basically parasitic air to air drones. ( they just usually don’t have TV guidance)

Forum: Technology

Of Cameras and Canopies