Helmet-mounted displays

Cockpit, radar, helmet-mounted display, and other avionics
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 16:26

Screenshot from the 'halloweene'/'SWP' video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faxuDFHJ3NY I don't think the changes were explained from HMDS II to HMDS III - but someone here may know the difference.
Attachments
F-35genIItoGenIIIimprovements.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 16:39

Here are the relative locations of the "Fixed Camera Assembly" and the Helmet Cam.

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 16:41

Good illustration 'SWP' - thanks.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 17:43

One difference from HMDS Gen II to Gen III was the change of the ISIE-10 camera to the ISIE-11, which increased resolution from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 (and probably brought some other minor improvements to sensitivity, etc). FCAM was either added late during Gen II testing or just with the addition of Gen III (I assume it was added starting with LRIP 7 or something). The HCAM module (not just the ISIE-11 that's inside it) also changed, with at least one additional aperture being added (maybe a conventional smartphone-style flight recorder camera, maybe an IR LED light, maybe a light intensity sensor, etc).

Also:

IFR:
vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h29m42s780.png

vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h29m34s064.png

vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h29m56s116.png


Landing during a super moon:
vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h32m47s246.png

vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h33m45s950.png


Landing on a pitch-black night:
vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h34m16s474.png

vlcsnap-2017-07-11-02h36m55s719.png
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 18:09

Here is the Gen2 helmet cam

Image

Here is the Gen3 Helmet cam

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

zhangmdev

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 18:49

What is the purpose of the forward-looking Fixed Camera Assembly? To look through the canopy frame? Isn't that already covered by DAS imagery? What is auto-boresighting? Just for gun?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 18:59

IIRC the FCAM has much better resolution which is essential for night landing at sea.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 19:10

It's primarily for auto-boresighting, which is about making sure that the helmet's idea of 'forward' doesn't drift over time. The helmet is tracked with a combination of digital gyroscopes, accelerometers and in particular magnetometers (compasses). Generally they'll be good good at sensing helmet orientation, but gyros drift, accelerometers drift and magnetometers can also drift as the plane flies around and other magnetic fields / electro-magnetic interference affects it.

Another solution for tracking that doesn't require boresighting is using cameras to track markers on the helmet (the EF Typhoon's helmet does this), but it has trade-offs as well depending on how it's implemented; if you use the camera system as a primary means of tracking and not just for gradually correcting INS drift then you can get slower response rates / the symbology can lag. There's also potential weight (tens of grams matter with helmets) and helmet durability concerns (on the BAE Striker the LED markers stick out; how does that affect the canopy and helmet material when bumped hard against the canopy?) whereas the F-35 HMDS method uses a sensor that was going to be in the helmet regardless.

@Spudman; the chart states that both the FCAM and HCAM use the ISIE-11 sensor.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 20:01

Dragon029 wrote:@Spudman; the chart states that both the FCAM and HCAM use the ISIE-11 sensor.


Sorry that I was not clear.. I meant better resolution when compared to EODAS.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2017, 22:34

Again, many thanks for all the info and screenshots 'SWP' & 'Dragon029'. Next question: what are the extra bits on top of the usual bits on the GenIII helmet compared to the GenII?
Attachments
HMDSIIIchange.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jul 2017, 02:18

There are two orphan threads about 'green glow fix' but I decided to plonk this old 'comprehensive' info here - just becuz.
Navy, F-35 JPO to test green-glow, catapult ride quality at sea this summer
30 May 2017 Lee Hudson

"The Navy and the F-35 joint program office plan to conduct an at-sea test for the Joint Strike Fighter carrier variant in September, assessing fixes for the helmet's green-glow problems and catapult ride quality, according to an official.

James Ruocco, F-35 chief engineer, told Inside the Navy during a May 26 interview at his office in Arlington, VA, his team performed an assessment two weeks ago at Naval Air Station Patuxent, MD, of the Gen III helmet's green-glow problem. Green-glow typically occurs when it is dark at night and makes it difficult for the pilots to see certain objects.

As part of the assessment, the program set up a room at Pax to emulate the nighttime environment, Ruocco said. Testers compared the visibility of the current helmet and a helmet outfitted with organic LED technology and compared their visibility. "The difference being the advanced matrix CD lets light leak in around the symbology. That's how you get the green-glow," Ruocco said. "The other one does not."

Because Ruocco's team developed the modified helmet so quickly, it hasn't received the necessary airworthiness certifications to fly. He said the program is working to qualify it. "We've got to make that prototype airworthy and then we can put it into a cockpit and fly it. We're hoping to do that within a month," Ruocco said.

After the team gathers sufficient data from flying an airworthy, modified helmet, it can be tested at sea, he said, noting the test will likely occur in late September. "What we really want to do is get out to ship, to have that representative environment, very dark conditions, etc., and ensure that we're on the right path with the solution," Ruocco said.

The last time the Navy tested green-glow fixes at sea was aboard the George Washington (CVN-73) in August 2016. Green-glow was first identified as a problem during Developmental Test-1. Adjustments were made to the helmet but the equipment was not proven suitable during DT-2 or DT-3...."

Source: https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.as ... d=17307701
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Jul 2017, 10:07

This F-35 HMDS III video from the auspices of 'Dragon029' with the main video as indicated elsewhere on this forum. Original 'SWP' MAIN video & bits: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24622&p=371352&hilit=faxuDFHJ3NY#p371352

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 365
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 20:52

Don't feel like its really worth a dedicated thread so I figured I'll ask it here:

Anyone know motivations for the F-35 having a canopy bow? I've never heard complaint about the F-16 canopy for lack of one, and the F-22 went even further with the completely frameless canopy.
Possibly a Navy requirement for cat shots and possibly a BFM convenience when you spend a lot of time trying to look backwards?
Slightly even more off the tangent is that the J-20 started off with an F-22-like frameless canopy yet later on inserted a canopy bow much like the F-35's. What motivations would they have?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25931
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 21:42

There has been a discussion about this but why ask on this thread? Anyway I'll find discussion..... Here is one link from 2004 however I recall something just a few years back with the detail provided by 'Engines' from a PPRUNE thread:
'ERAUgrad' 14 Jun 2004 "The split canopy is needed to provide protection against high speed birdstrikes at low altitudes while also permitting ejection through the canopy. If power or control was lost during a low altitude hover, the pilot/ system would not have enough time to react, wait for for the jettisoned canopy to clear the path of the seat, and eject. The only option is to blast right through the canopy. Because of these two requirements, the windscreen needs to be thicker than the overhead canopy. The internal bowframe eases manufacturing as well as eliminates the impacts to visual perception caused by the change in refracation that would be quite noticeable between the two thicknesses of transparency." viewtopic.php?f=60&t=847&p=13758&hilit=canopy+ow%2A+bow%2A#p13758

ADDITION: I see 'SWP' has provided the 'JW' birdstrike comment which I was going to look for as well. This was the crux of the 'Engines' comment that "protection from birdstrike at low level" (I think he said "UK") was a requirement hence the canopy bow as both other commenters attest. I'll continue to look to see what I can see (from under the canopy bow).....

Then of course there is the 'home delivered [thawed/unthawed?] frozen chicken' which event should be much better when drones are in the sky. OMG! I just realized that aircraft will have to survive low level delivery drone canopy strikes now!

Last edited by spazsinbad on 17 Jul 2017, 22:08, edited 4 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Jul 2017, 21:54

lbk000 wrote:Anyone know motivations for the F-35 having a canopy bow?


johnwill wrote:The bow frame is really helpful in surviving bird strikes. To survive bird strikes, the F-16 frameless canopy is very thick and heavy.
viewtopic.php?p=341043#p341043
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests