Alright, senpaitachi. I asked my dad, who works on Army Aviation

>>32552430
How else do pilots fly in bad weather? It's not too difficult of a concept. In fact, doing away with glass should make the craft even safer for its user.

>>32552430
Hey, it worked in Ace Combat 3.

File: images (55).jpg (24KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 470x313px

Theoretically if the F35 3d helmet works as advertised* they could be seated inside an armoured bubble anywhere in the aircraft.

>*yeah, I know, hence 'theoretically'

Possible? - i dont see why not. The technology is simple enough

Practical? - not at all. What happens if that system goes down? Then the pilot is actually flying blind. There would be no backup to that system that wouldnt render it useless.

>>32552488

Replying to myself here,

but what benefit do you see something like that providing? Its not like the fuselage is armoured with the window being a weak point.

>>32552488
In a situation where on board avionics and electronics are disabled, you are fucked anyways seeing as the F-35 and similar jets are completely fly by wire.

>>32552452
>>32552430
Unless their power is knocked out. Then you NEED your eyes to see around you.

>>32552601

What does that mean? Do you not have any form of steering or throttle control without the avionics? If shit goes real sideways can the pilot not land it at all?

>>32552648

The computer manages all the control surfaces. You'd truly be fucked.

>>32552657

So basically hope you are going slow enough to eject and divorce that whore?

>>32552645
If you don't have electrical power you have very little control anyway

>>32552488
What is IFR?

>>32552430
The only really reliable way to do this sort of thing would be with a cockpit surrounded in (borderless / seamless) monitors, with each monitor or small cluster of monitors having their own individual processors and matching sensor outside. Using a helmet is possible, but to get serious redundancy (processors, data and power cables, projectors or internal monitors, etc) while making a helmet light enough for ejection would be very difficult. Getting 20/20 acuity (resolution) and a 180 degree field of view would be even harder, though obviously tech in that area continues to get better.

>>32552667
Yep, although without active stabilisation from the computers, if you weren't going slow enough already (most seats work under Mach 1), you will be within seconds as the jet starts to tumble.

>>32552680
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but what does aerial refueling have to do with flying blind?

>>32552693
You are such a moron.

>>32552697
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion?

>>32552648
Fly by wire basically takes a nice joystick that you hook up to a computer and play a flight Sim with. Only it takes the signals from the stick to the control surfaces. It's more responsive if I remember than cables and such. I'm not reliable I did my upgrade training some time ago.

>>32552430
With current military spending in all countries the way they are, quite unlikely

Besides if tankers and infantry don't depend (Keyword depend, not use) on live feed optics to sustain effectiveness on the field. What reasons would the air force need them for?

>>32552645
You realize most modern air superiority fighters are designed to be semi-stable systems, right? A human pilot would have a hard time keeping the aircraft under control even in level flight without the minute adjustments to the control surfaces the aircraft computer makes all the time. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure the control surfaces aren't controlled via purely mechanical systems, which means you lose all control without power anyways.

>>32552697
...yes, yes I am; I've been doing too much reading about maritime operations.

>>32552708
Instrument Flight Rules - essentially flying without being able to see outside of the cockpit; it's one of the two core methods of flying and is something you legally have to be competent in to do things like land in wet weather / fog.

>>32552680

Im not sure where you are headed with that question. Flying by instruments would be even more so what the pilot has to do without a window. Unless you mean they already fly using only instruments? But thats not true, the human adds an intellegence to the mix that a computer can't. The pilots vision is still an important part of flying is it not?

>>32552745
Flying itself doesn't require a pilot to look out a window. Engaging in WVR combat does, but if you had an AI handling any forms of dogfighting (while you take a G-LOC nap), you could perform sorties entirely without having to turn your neck at any point.

>>32552710

Oh okay, i know nothing about airplanes, but basically everything is electric over hydraulic (or something like that) where there is no positive physical connection from the control to the machine.

Not like a car where, even if the steering pump goes, you can still strong arm the wheel and control it a bit.

>>32552509
It IS a weak point though, look at all the F-16 pilots who have died to condor strikes. The birds punch right through the canopy.

>>32552782

Sorry, im lumping flying and fighting together here. What you're saying makes sense

>>32552452
>getting rid of canopies would make aircraft safer.

I fail to see how severely limiting a pilots vision would improve safety.

File: Delphinus3.jpg (47KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x600px

Outta my way, General Resources fucking shits

>>32552788
>>32552710
On a fly-by-wire jet, there is indeed no / zero mechanical linkages (there are some aircraft like the F-15 that are semi-exceptions though). It's all just computer data coming out of the cockpit.

Most jets that use fly-by-wire have a couple of hydraulic loops in them that are pressurised and go to all the control surfaces (sometimes only one loop might go to the flaps, etc though). When you want something to move, valves are opened to move the hydraulic fluid around.

On newer airliners and the F-35, they now actually run redundant electrical wiring through the jet, to each of the control surfaces. The electricity powers little self-contained units that have their own little hydraulic pump / loop / valve system.

The reason for fly-by-wire is so that your jet can do things that no human pilot can. That includes being responsive enough to prevent unstable aircraft from flipping, but it also means things like being able to use elevators sometimes as ailerons, ailerons sometimes as flaps or spoilers, rudders as sometimes elevators / airbrakes, etc.

>>32552795
That can be fixed by just using a tougher canopy or having a canopy brace.

File: BAe_P.125.jpg (50KB, 750x300px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 750x300px

>>32552430
It's been a concept that's been seriously considered by the Brits (P.125), and NASA's done a good deal of work on proving it for operational use, as the (failed) HSCT was supposed to use such a system in lieu of a drooping nose like the Concorde.

Theoretically, it's a very good idea. You get rid of structural weak points (no canopy), allow you to place the cockpit in places that wouldn't otherwise be possible, simplifying aerodynamics and structures, and you'd be able to project information onto augmented-reality screens to increase pilot situational awareness.

Unfortunately we're still a long way away from this being reality. As part of the External Vision System program (XVS), NASA tested a system aboard a 737 that supposedly provided pilots with better situational awareness than a standard airliner cockpit would. They went even further in 2009 with a system mounted in the backseat of an F-18 which made use of HD monitors and a canopy with a restricted field of view.

They ran into some problems, however. The F-18's displays had a lower resolution than one would want for a system completely replacing regular vision, and the easiest solution - better displays - may make the concept cost-prohibitive for the time being. Boeing claimed that the XVS would make the HSCT cheaper than if it had a drooping nose, but there's a huge difference in requirements between civil and military aviation. While the HSCT may have been able to get by with relatively low resolution, fighters are going to want far better resolution and much better sensor integration into their displays than the first XVS experiments demonstrated.

We'll get there eventually - the F-35's helmet is a stepping stone to that- but we're a long way away.

>>32552430
At the very least I'd keep some kind of forward-facing limited FOV periscope as a backup.

>>32552795

Its no weaker than the intake ducts is it? Looking at a couple videos, it looks like there are a lot of spots birds shouldnt hit.

Your idea makes a lot more sense to me now though, i didnt know birds had ever gone through jet windshields. Spooky shit.

I guess you would need a wireless helmet, or maybe it could be plugged into the seat since it gets ejected with you. Im sure the monitors and cameras are simple enough to figure out. 3D vr type stuff might be pretty useful for the display. Would it be hard to keep the sensors outside clean enough to be useful? Im thinking water and dust from clouds, rain, that sort of stuff.

>>32552830
Just add a few radar systems to detect any nearby objects, and a few cameras on the body of the craft, (as well as all the instruments needed to fly without looking outside the craft) and you're golden.

>>32552925
>Would it be hard to keep the sensors outside clean enough to be useful? Im thinking water and dust from clouds, rain, that sort of stuff.
Depending on what kinds of sensors you're using, it wouldn't be too difficult. Deicing equipment and similar things already have to keep sensitive instruments like pitot tubes functional in poor conditions, so it wouldn't be too difficult to keep new sensors working. And while things like precipitation may make it harder to see through the sensors, it'd be no more damaging to the pilot than the kinds of visibility reductions they'd get through a conventional canopy.

The added bonus is that you'd be able to project different types of information or switch to different views should the "standard" view not be appropriate for whatever reason. Say a pilot's flying in poor visibility - an augmented display could be used, drawing on radar information to provide the pilot a clearer picture of the area around them (particularly the ground) than they'd normally have. Or they could just switch completely over to FLIR or a radar view.

>>32552927
How does that
>improve safety
compared to normal aircraft.

What are the benefits to this design besides muh ace combat

>>32553074
>Improved sensor info compilation for the pilot
>Cleaner aerodynamics
>Further reclined seating position for added g-resistance