Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blueflag; Rokke
Actually I grew to not prefer the 777 due to intrusive and unpleasant turbine noise on climb-out.

See, that is where we differ. To me, the sound coming from a GE-90 is beautiful, all that kinetic energy barely in check behind the cover, the hum of the blades, I just love it.

All newer aircraft have their FMC variations, but essentially they can take you from N1 to touchdown with very help from me. Sometimes, all I got to do was rotate with the yoke, and then it was switches and dials the rest of the way.

I pinged Rokke because he is new to the modern FMC on his big MD-11, and he is in a better position to describe them.

31 posted on 02/20/2006 9:45:06 AM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Pukin Dog; Blueflag
Wow, this is an interesting thread. A debatable topic that hasn't digressed into a total food fight. With regard to FMC's and flying big airplanes...they take all the fun and risk out of flying. The FMC in the MD-11 is essentially the same as all the others. It will literally fly the airplane from takeoff to fullstop. And it lands it better and a lot more consistently than I do. Especially in a crosswind. But our policy is that we do all the landings unless the weather is down to "I can't see a damn thing". Soooo, my crosswind landings are getting much better. But I still wish they'd give me my HUD back and let me land in a crab. Anyway, the boxes in the back haven't complained yet.

With regard to UAV's...the technology and capability in this area is moving faster than most development programs. But UCAV's are already flying CAS missions and doing it very well. The only thing about CAS that hasn't changed dramatically in the last 10 years is why we do it. In a complete reversal from a few years ago, the most effective environment to execute a CAS mission is at night. The current state of our avionics and the equipment available in the air and on the ground makes CAS in the dark almost a no-brainer. In a brief summary...the forward air controller (on the ground or in the air) defines the coordinates of the target (using laser range finders and GPS these coordinates can be incredibly precise). He transmits those coordinates to the close air support platform (manned or unmanned). Whoever is flying the aircraft directs his infrared equipped targeting pod at those coordinates and verifies he sees what he is supposed to target. To confirm, he zaps it with an infrared laser beam and asks the controller if he is targeted correctly. Then, with approval to drop, he guides a laser guided bomb onto the target that almost guarantees a kill. We've come a long way...and in the process have greatly reduced the need for an actual person to be in the cockpit of the delivery aircraft. This isn't just theory. It is being performed in practice. And new technology is refining the practice on almost a daily basis. Already, we are able to beam imagery from the orbiting platform directly to the guys on the ground, giving them control of what is being looked at. Obviously, the next step is giving them control of dropping the ordnance.

Which takes us back to canceling this (X-45) program. The reason air to air refueling capability wasn't included in the initial specs was because it didn't seem realistic. But then, neither did a UCAV performing CAS. I suspect that much of the X-45 testing program has been overtaken by other programs. That has happened frequently throughout the history of various X-plane programs. You can be sure if we still had questions or strong interest in the capabilities being tested by the X-45's, the program would still be funded.

39 posted on 02/20/2006 1:28:36 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson