donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Just out of curiosity, how difficult is it to fly a UH60 compared to something like a UH-1 or R22?
Pilotless Helo
- Thread starter donjohnston
- Start date
Just out of curiosity, how difficult is it to fly a UH60 compared to something like a UH-1 or R22?
kep5niner
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2018
- Messages
- 324
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete
The Blackhawk has AFCS the makes for an easier ride, reduce pilot workload, and the later M models have fully-coupled autopilots. The Huey didn’t have any of that, and was a “helicopter pilot’s” helicopter. Can’t speak for the Robinson.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,597
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Hard to compare all three because they all have unique flight characteristics. But as stated above, the Black Hawk has the benefit of AFCS and AP (M model) to give it more stability. Those systems at work give it flight handling similar to a fixed wing. The actual act of a simple A to B flight would be less workload in the Black Hawk but the learning curve for systems / mission complexity would be far greater.
They’ve demonstrated pilotless capability with the Black Hawk well over a decade ago. Still hasn’t entered service in that role. Not quite ready to replace having the flexibility of two pilots working together at the helm…yet.
They’ve demonstrated pilotless capability with the Black Hawk well over a decade ago. Still hasn’t entered service in that role. Not quite ready to replace having the flexibility of two pilots working together at the helm…yet.
Last edited:
Lindberg
Final Approach
What makes this different from a reality big DJI drone?
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,506
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
Imagination
Everything. Converting existing manned platforms into unmanned platforms has been the aviation panacea for years. Purpose built DJI, Predator, etc. drones fill a niche. But take a Blackhawk, F-18, 747 and swap out the seats for a couple black boxes and things change from a capability standpoint. On the helicopter side they've been attempting this for quite some time. Kind of takes the old astronaut joke of "feed the monkey" to a whole other level.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
$$$$$$$.??
Lindberg
Final Approach
I really meant from a gee-whiz technology standpoint. Given the proper interface and OTS sensors, what would be the interesting challenges in making an autonomous F-18 or 747? I mean the things that would take real brainpower as opposed to just $$ and time.
To be even remotely feasible, you'd need to develop an interface, sensor, and control law package that would replicate the sensory skills of the organic meat servo it was replacing. While the basic flight control stuff is old-school, the complete AI interface with a manned cockpit design is the problem. All manned system outputs, control "laws", etc terminate at a seat in the cockpit to be processed and acted upon via memory skills, reflex skills, and checklists of a pilot. While it may appear its a simple matter of chopping off the cockpit and re-terminating those outputs to a few circuit boards, chips, and actuators it doesn't cover all the bases as those aircraft systems were not designed for unmanned ops. That is part of the reason you see this Blackhawk flying for 10 years without a pilot but not at the same capabilites as with a manned cockpit. Same with the Grumman Fire Scout which is operational and based on a Bell 407. It does great at autonomously loitering around for its mission but thats about it. Definitely not on the same level as a manned 407. There's more to it than this very general explanation but its one reason they prefer to purpose build for unmanned ops than convert manned into unmanned. If that makes sense.
midwestpa24
Final Approach
If you are still filling the back with passengers, what's the use of removing the pilot.
Really cool from a technological standpoint, but for all the money, technology, trouble, and downfalls, what's the point?
Really cool from a technological standpoint, but for all the money, technology, trouble, and downfalls, what's the point?
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,263
- Location
- Live from the Grill-o-mat
- Display Name
Display name:
Mantis Toboggan, MD
The intent of the ALIAS program is not to develop built-in remote or autonomous capability, it's to develop a module that's transferrable between aircraft, possibly of different types/models that can reduce crew workload or enable remote piloting or autonomy. It is not "just" an unmanned Blackhawk.
Just a reminder for everyone loading their rock salt, this is not intended to be anything close to operational, it's a technology development/maturation program.
Nauga,
lego-ized
Interesting. The little I found on ALIAS sounds pretty interesting. I'd only ever searched for Sikorskys MATRIX technology and never quite saw how it was an improvement over the Lockheed/Kaman development.
For others that are curious:
https://www.darpa.mil/program/aircrew-labor-in-cockpit-automation-system
In some groups its a money saver like Cathay who is trying to go single pilot cockpits on long haul flights in an Airbus 350 by 2025 which is one step closer. In other groups they champion it is safer to have a computer in control. The limited programs I've been involved in were/are cost driven and if any of the current govt hardware/software makes its way into the civilian market I can see a number of helicopter based ops going that route with that basic functionality as supply flights, etc.