Helmet-mounted displays

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pages/prod1.html

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... 35_sfd.png

"STANDBY FLIGHT DISPLAY
3 ATI Indicator
480x480 Pixel Resolution
High Intensity LED Backlight
Integrated Switch Bezel
NVIS Compatible"
_______________

Another LONG story about displays here:

JSF: Integrated Avionics Par Excellence Sep 1, 2003 by Charlotte Adams

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/cover/1067.html

"...Standby 3-by-3-inch active matrix LCD flight displays are provided by Smiths Aerospace...."

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... 35_pcd.png

"PANORAMIC COCKPIT DISPLAY
8x20 Viewing Area
2560x1024 Image Resolution, 1280x1024 Per Slide
Separate Left/Right Video Imaging
Auto Select to DVI or VGA Video Input
< 0.150" Mulion Between Images
Integrated Infra-red Touchscreen with RS 232 Communication
High Intensity LED Backlight, Brightness Range: 0 to ? 200fL
Integrated NVIS Control Panel
Identical Dimension to Future Aircraft PCD"

IF 'GEOGEN' is ever buying one of these then he can get one for me - thanks!

http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... p_side.png
http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... _front.png

" F-35 DESKTOP TRAINER
Multi–Functional ? Low Budget F–35 Trainer
Qualified Panoramic Cockpit Display
Active Stick & Throttle with Control Loading
Flight Grips Built to Aircraft Specification
Completely Portable with Shipping Container
Quick & Easy to Assemble and Dis–assemble
Rugged Aluminum Fabrication
Mounts to any Desktop or Table
High Resolution Monitor and Custom Computers Optional

This would be just too much: http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... utions.jpg

F-35 Throttle (nickname 'CowPie'): http://driven-technologies.com/prod_pic ... rottle.png

southernphantom wrote:

Gums wrote:Salute!

The pilot I talked with last Friday said that the "look thru the floor" mode was most useful for landing the "B" in the VTOL mode.

The other thing of interest was how critical the alignment of the helmet and the sensor that tracks the actual eyes of the pilot was to avoid orientation problems and headaches. Apparently, tracking the basic helmet LOS by the cockpit sensors is not a big deal unless that buffet thing is making itself known. Maybe there's a calibration procedure that lets the pilot to look at something and zero out any mis-alignment.

The symbology of an old HUD was absolutely glued to the airframe line of sight, and even if you couldn't see all the symbology when looking out to the left/right/behind, then BFD. The sucker was not affected by buffet, although the pilot's vision may have been, heh heh.

I am all for a HMD for off-boresight aiming and tgt acquisition.. Simply wonderful. But for basic HUD-type data I have grief. I am thinking about landing in 100 and a fourth or on a boat. So the doofer has a mis-alignment problem and you're back to the 1950's.

Next tour at Eglin I hope to try out the thing and report back, but there are actual 33rd Wing folks looking at these forums and maybe one can sign in and post using a neat, anymouse name.

I do not mean to denigrate anyone in the program, but the USAF/USN/USMC spec seems too "cosmic" to this old curmudgeon. I can't understand why the jet could not have a basic HUD and then use the HMD for neat, new things.

respectfully, Gums sends...

I'm not actually sure that the giant mega-LCD of doom has an airspeed indicator in most configurations, but I agree. It would be good to either have a conventional HUD or steam gauges as backup, or both. A one-giant-screen-and-six-button-style cockpit doesn't sound like a good sign for reliability. Steam gauges and physical switch backups may not be glamorous, but they are proven technology.

Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s.

The PCD is actually two separate 8x10" displays placed side-by-side. They run on two separate channels/display generators. The helmet runs on a third and the backup/standby display (that Spaz' post above illustrates) runs on a fourth.

Previous page on this thread has info and the associated story has more detail on the display redundancy/backup.

Salute!

Be careful, Spaz, about commenting upon our dinosaurs' impressions of new technology and displays/controls.

Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s.

Long before the Bug entered service, we Sluf pukes were flying with the most cosmic displays and the best-integrated nav/bomb system in the world!!! Think OT&E in the 69 - 70 tome frame and operational during 1971. See my article in the FWR about the projected map.

http://sluf.org/misc_pages/fwr_winter_1973.pdf

The HUD took two seconds to love, and I mean LOVE!! Not sure if the late-model Scooters had a great HUD, but all who flew the Sluf off a boat will attest to the warm, comfortable feeling you had when coming off the cat into a dark, moonless night. Could see your flight path vector to crosscheck with the baro gauges/attitude indicator, and the "indexers" were redundant.

The Viper didn't have a simulator in 1979, so the newbies did not have a sim to prepare them as we had in the Sluf back in 1971. Same reaction a few seconds after gear up - " this is really neat".

The initial cadre for the bug was similar to our Viper cadre. About half from the Sluf, so we were used to the HUD and other advanced displays. On the Northrop-McAir lawsuit teams, only one pilot went from the F-4 to the Bug( he was on the McAir team). All others had flown the Sluf or Tomcat first. Two of us had flown the Sluf followed by either the Viper or Bug. Yeager ( on my Northrop team) had flown EVERYTHING! Heh heh.

I only flew about 4 or 5 hours in the Bug sim, but 30-40 hours in the F-20 sim. Very easy to become accustomed to, and the Bug had a better map than the Sluf, plus all the hands-on controls like the Viper and two MFD's/up front data entry/mode select on the HUD. It also had the MacIntosh "mouse" feature to select modes and such using the cursor control on the controls. Both had the neat radar feature that changed range scale when you slewed to within 5% of the top or bottom of the screen, so no need to reach up and hit a button.

So even the old dinosaurs had no problems with the new technology.

The HMD is a different breed of cat, and I have yet to run into a pilot that doesn't wish to have a minimal HUD. Not just for that "comfort" feeling, but for no-kidding FUBAR helmet problems and loss of capability to deliver ord except JDAM's.

I hope they get the thing working better, and I guess we have to play the cards we are dealt.

Gums sends...

Gums, as they say in the classics 'twas not me Chief' [making dinosaur comment: "Similar utterances were made when the F-18 arrived in the early 80s. ]. Funnily enough the Kiwi Air force referred to their original A-4Ks as 'dynosoars' when they had converted to the KAHU upgrade. Apparently particularly the new pilots - not having flown the original version - referred to it as such. As for me I have never ever seen a HUD. I thought it was a movie.

Have read stories and been told by e-mail by other HUD users that it is a great feature. Apparently some more recent Hornet pilots in the USN use the HUD exclusively to carrier deck land but are termed 'HUD cripples' when it don't work or when asked to use the AoA Indexer and IFLOLS exclusively. That would be all I know as an A4G pilot for example and it works well. So bear with me - I'm always astonished by all this hi-tech stuff.

Some people want to hold up the early Skyhawk as some paragon of virtue. It tweren't. Quickly it was realised that it needed 'stuff' so a lot of 'shite stuff' was added, which was in effect useless. The radar for one was that as well as the Nav Computer which was just a missile nav system and also useless for anything but 'which country am I in today' reference. And so it goes. I spent more time briefing then walking out and then walking back from U/S [UnServiceable - not flyable] A4Gs because that useless and other tech did not work - so we also got used to flying the aircraft with unserviceabilities that did not affect the flight. Again I'm just amazed by the serviceability record of modern aircraft. But I digress....

Our Oz BeenCounters refused to upgrade our WWII fixed (but depressable) gunsight to a Thomson-Ferranti gyro sight (which I believe was used in some more modern aircraft). So there we were 'iron bombing' and 'air to air' banner bashing with a fixed gunsight for gorsake! It was OK for AIM-9Bs though. Sigh. What was good was the ABBAJABBA (so called) All Attitude Indicator - a modern marvel compared to our earlier aircraft artificial horizons. Onesuch in the dual seat trainer Vampire was affected by gyro precession during the acceleration from nought to flying speed during takeoff which was a fatal hazard if not catered for during night takeoffs. One had to use a slightly higher than usual attitude for takeoff with a five degree left bank to counter what would be a fatal five degree nose low bank to right and into the ground - in our case as students the line of hills to the east of RAAF Pearce. One student did exactly that on his first night solo leaving an ugly burnt scar in these hills as a warning to us all. So having radios that worked and a modicum of night lighting was 'sheer looxury'. Otherwise visual flying was the way to go. Power plus Attitude equals Performance. Meatball Lineup and Airspeed (under one's breath - Optimum Angle of Attack).

Pretty much the A4G otherwise had no fancy doodads whatsoever except perhaps a radar altimeter which was only switched on once in a blue moon. The leading edge wing slats could be a hazard if not looked after but again I digress. The A-4M upgrade must have been astonishing (with HUD). The KAHU upgrade (also with an all singing all dancing HUD) apparently made that Skyhawk into an F-16 like air to air killer with the new radar being excellent by all accounts. However I have not actually seen any of this stuff meself. And Trainers? That was a tandem seat Skyhawk. Otherwise one sat in a cockpit to go through the switchology (of which there were many which could migrate around the cockpit until this practice was stopped for the left/right console switches). And when it was figured out that the radar display should be properly secured for catapults it was all good.

Salute!

Without getting too far off-topic, I feel this is as good as any thread to review the history for the pinball wizards here who have never landed in 100 and an eighth using old attitude indicators that precessed and such. That plus no HUD or radar altimeter or ground map radar to confirm the nav system inputs by inertial or doppler ( GPS was science fiction).

Otherwise visual flying was the way to go. Power plus Attitude equals Performance. Meatball Lineup and Airspeed (under one's breath - Optimum Angle of Attack)

Until the late 80's, USAF official policy was that the HUD was not to be considered a "primary" flight instrument. If you couldn't hack it using the steam gauges, you weren't worth sh%$#. However, from 1969 or so, our ADI was run by the inertial units we had, and were not self-contained units. So we didn't have gimbal lock at 87 degrees of pitch, or precession on takeoff roll going down the deck, and the suckers showed heading ( or track when available from nav system). That, plus steering commands to get you on to the landing approach angle/track. Somehow, they didn't think about that.

The ILS steering, and I assume the carrier approaches had super displays in the Bug to keep you on the desired path, but not the AoA. Flying an ILS in the Sluf and Viper were so good that it felt like cheating. Trust me, I was weaned in the T-33 and three other steam gauge jets before getting to the Sluf. Think J-8 atttude indicator.

As with the Scooter, the A-37 had a fixed, depressed sight and we bombed using TLBAR ( that looks about right). No nav system other than TACAN and ADF. We did just fine for most missions in those days, but only thing that saved us was approach speeds at 120 knots and great maneuverability. about 1400 hours in that neat little jet, 300+ combat missions.

For Spaz and others, go hunt my series of posts about the Sluf being ahead of its time.

Believe it or not, even some of the dinosaurs in the first Shutttle group did not like the HUD when first introduced. My roomie took over the effort during the Challenger stand down and got a "real" HUD for the beast, and the old farts recanted. Simple solution. He let them see the Sluf and Jaguar HUDs in action. The NASA computer folks were using crappy time constants, external processing for all the symbology position, slow update rates, etc. The display jumped about, as it was not properly synched with everything, filters and time lags were FUBAR, and the beat goes on.

The point about HUD cripples is my very point.

The F-35 does not have a reliable, simple back-up when the HMD goes to lala lala land and the flat screens are fried by an electrical mal that didn't affect the back-up stuff, etc. Sad part is that there are many self-contained instruments that didn't need a nickel of R&D $$$ to use, and the cockpit space would have allowed them.

Good thread.

Gums sends...

Gums, as indicated on another thread... There is a concern about 'backups' such as an AoA Indexer for 'hud uncripple' ('HUD Cripple' not my term - just repeating what is said a lot by USN LSOs etc.) F-35C carrier landings using the IFLOLS (mirror) only.

On the 'shuttle' topic. I saw an online video 'through their HUD' of an actual landing. Mighty impressive glideslope. Similar I guess to any delta wing (such as A-4) HPA (High Precautionary Approach) with a dead engine. Perhaps used not a lot in real life but fun to practice!

The F-35 Standby Flight Display is fine for 'head down' instrument flying but for carrier landings it is 'heads out' MLA (meatball, lineup and airspeed etc.). Perhaps the JPALS precision instrument approach will suffice for loss of the main display. I'll have to read the NATOPS.

And Gums, yes I recall reading your posts about SLUF over the last several years and good ones they were also. Thanks for your insights into all this tech from your 'olde worlde' perspective. Sometimes the olden tymes were not so excellent as newbies imagine - as long as the new stuff works reliably - which it seems to do.

There are good stories in USN APPROACH Safety Magazine about 'no HUD' Hornet carrier approaches or similar caused by 'smoke in cockpit' or simple malfunctions. Always good to be able to fly with the basics.

FWIW here is an HUD view of RW 26 at NAS Nowra in FSX Acceleration with the KAHU upgrade - this HUD is said to be accurate (in limitations of the flightsim of course). & a WickedPedia reference about KAHU upgrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Kahu

Approach / March, 2003

No-HUD nugget - head up display - troubleshooting instead of flying by Dan Cochran

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 100172332/
_________________________________

Approach / Jan, 2002
No HUD and counting on the paddles upgrade! I noticed my heads up display began to flicker before eventually kicking off-line - HUD - F-18 flight mission, Iraq
by Joe Alden

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _84090767/

spazsinbad wrote:... Perhaps the JPALS precision instrument approach will suffice for loss of the main display. I'll have to read the NATOPS.
...There are good stories in USN APPROACH Safety Magazine about 'no HUD' Hornet carrier approaches or similar caused by 'smoke in cockpit' or simple malfunctions. Always good to be able to fly with the basics.

http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy- ... rrier-ops/

On July 2, the F/A-18 (shown above) performed dozens of arrested landings without any input from the pilot in the Atlantic Ocean off the Virginia Capes.
.. this jet simply received a command from the carrier’s air traffic control to enter the landing pattern and executed the landing all on its own; the same way a piloted jet would.... “Once he’s on his approach, we actually take (automatic) control of the aircraft via the systems we have installed (on the a/c) as part of the demo and actually the aircraft is controlled by flight [rules] we put in place, all the way down to trap,”... “There is no remote control of the aircraft, there is no pilot control of the aircraft; we’ve given it instructions and it executes those instructions.” NO HUD, no displays, no steam gauges, ....no hope!!