owl with no eyes?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
wrote:


"BT" wrote in message
news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the "test
pilot" was there as a safety pilot..

There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
of harms way.

I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved with
(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.

Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
with a load of explosives aboard.

rj

There have been hints of interest from DARPA about autonomous UAV's that
utilize soaring techniques. In Iraq and Afganistan there are often good
thermals under bright, dusty skies. A motorglider-like UAV that can sustain
itself by soaring could extend its loiter time significantly.

As for stealth, in gliding mode the UAV would have very low thermal and a
acoustic signatures. Further out is daylight visual stealth - not exactly
an invisibility cloak but pretty darn good. If the airframe could be coated
with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
very difficult to see. A high L/D glide mode would allow it to approach an
area of interest very stealthily.

This is all speculation on my part. I don't know what they are up to.

Bill Daniels


"Ralph Jones" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
wrote:


"BT" wrote in message
news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
"test
pilot" was there as a safety pilot..

There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
of harms way.

I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
with
(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.

Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
with a load of explosives aboard.

rj

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:07:19 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
[snip]

If the airframe could be coated
with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
very difficult to see.

Sounds as if you remember Project Yehudi...;-)

rj

Bill Daniels wrote:
There have been hints of interest from DARPA about autonomous UAV's that
utilize soaring techniques. In Iraq and Afganistan there are often good
thermals under bright, dusty skies. A motorglider-like UAV that can sustain
itself by soaring could extend its loiter time significantly.

As for stealth, in gliding mode the UAV would have very low thermal and a
acoustic signatures. Further out is daylight visual stealth - not exactly
an invisibility cloak but pretty darn good. If the airframe could be coated
with an OLED film that could make it glow at exactly the same hue and
brightness as a dusty sky as seen from the point of interest, it would be
very difficult to see. A high L/D glide mode would allow it to approach an
area of interest very stealthily.

This is all speculation on my part. I don't know what they are up to.

Bill Daniels


"Ralph Jones" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
wrote:


"BT" wrote in message
news:uIh_g.5973$gM1.2824@fed1read12...
Have you ever been in the battle field and get shot at..?
this is not a "glider", but a test design of a powered Unmanned Arial
Vehicle (UAV) based on a glider design with an engine attached.. the
"test
pilot" was there as a safety pilot..

There are dozen's of UAV designs and sizes, each with their own "combat
mission" and used every day to collect information on the battle field..
and to keep the ground based operator with remote controlled sensors out
of harms way.

I doubt very much the utility of this UAV. As a former designer of weapon
systems and surveillance gear using UAVs I have to say a glider with its
very low speed would not last long over most battlefields. UAVs are mostly
used for low level surveillance AFAIK and the ones I have been involved
with
(two UK types) all flew at quite a high speed to avoid being shot down.

Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
with a load of explosives aboard.

rj

"Ralph Jones" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:19:51 +0100, "Alistair Wright"
wrote:
Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar, and once it gets in close, gets
its pictures and transmits them, who cares if it's shot down? You're
already busted. The next object overhead will be coming in very fast,
with a load of explosives aboard.

You don't have to see it visually. The telemetry transmissions from its
imaging kit will give you plenty of information about its position. It all
depends on how sophisticated your opposition is. A bunch of Talebans
probably wouldn't see this thing, or know about it till the big bang, but
an enemy with decent scanning gear could both see it, and turn it around,
and send it right home. I worked on a project like this for DoD twenty years
ago. I think they may just have got it to work by now.

Must be a hairy experience to ride in a plane being flown on RC by some guy
on the ground!!

Alistair W

Ralph Jones wrote:
Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar,


Ah yes - the saving grace of the Sparrow Hark. Other glass gliders can
be seen on radar because the conrol pushrods have a significant RCS.
The Sparrow Hawk strategically uses string instead.

Andy

Andy wrote:
Ralph Jones wrote:
Before you can shoot it down you have to SEE it. If it's made of
fiberglass, forget seeing it on radar,

It's made of carbon fiber, which I assume makes it more visible than
fiberglass would.


Ah yes - the saving grace of the Sparrow Hark. Other glass gliders can
be seen on radar because the conrol pushrods have a significant RCS.
The Sparrow Hawk strategically uses string instead.

Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!

Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
like Spectra or Dyneema.

Bob K.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
s.com...
Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!

Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
like Spectra or Dyneema.

Bob K.


Interesting. Arimids tend to turn to dust when exposed to UV.

UHMWPE (Spectra/Dyneema) wouldn't make good control cables since it "creeps"
under constant load and loses tension. Maybe Technora?

Bill D

Bill Daniels wrote:
"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
s.com...
Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Actually, aramid fiber cables for the rudder and ailerons; pushrods for
the elevator and spoilers. The only "string" in it is the yaw string!
Aramid? I thought they were of one of the UHMW polyethelene products
like Spectra or Dyneema.

Bob K.


Interesting. Arimids tend to turn to dust when exposed to UV.

UHMWPE (Spectra/Dyneema) wouldn't make good control cables since it "creeps"
under constant load and loses tension. Maybe Technora?

The cable info came from the Windward Performance website. The cables
are internally mounted, of course, so I don't think they get very much
UV. Perhaps the cable has a UV resistant covering - I don't remember the
brand name, though.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org