The CCW concept involved the enhancement of the aircraft's lift capabilities through use of the so-called "Coanda" effect on the wing leading edges. The structures actually gave the trailing edges of the wings a circular cross section. To an extent, analysis techniques that aircraft designers use answer some of these questions. After such a long and successful career, there were emotional arguments rockler pro plate 5g for and rockler pro plate 5g returning it to service. It sponsored several studies that concluded that digital computers could indeed be used and that limitations could be overcome. The CCV modifications actually allowed the test aircraft to surpass its design flutter speed.

Author: Steve Markman Bill Holder. People we contacted for information on various aircraft were eager to assist by providing information and pictures, giving us leads to other people, and sometimes even reviewing our rough drafts. Our sincerest thanks and appreciation to everyone who was so eager to help, and also to those who were not so eager, but pitched in nonetheless.

Ball, Calspan Corp A. Finley Barfield, Wright Laboratory, U. Air Force Robert E. Lemble, Wright Laboratory, U. Air Force Duane P. Rubertus, Wright Laboratory, U. Air Force Brian W. Van Vliet, Wright Laboratory, U. Air Force Todd T. Ostgaard for writing the Foreword to this book. For over thirty years, Morry was a fixture at the Wright Laboratory, and was the resident expert in flight control technology - always on the cutting edge of new ideas, and leading the way.

Like many of the aircraft in this book, Morry is unknown outside the industry, but a legend within it. And an extra special thanks to our loving wives, Ruthanne Holder and Helen Markman, who forgave us many times while we were typing feverishly at our computers or frantically reviewing stacks of information, rather than doing other things. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any forms or by any means - graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or information storage and retrieval systems - without written permission from the Rockler Router Plate Template Item20956 Ios copyright holder.

Even before many of the X series aircraft flew, individual elements of these aircraft flew on other research aircraft.

The X series aircraft always captured our enthusiasm, as well as the headlines and book titles. Although known within the aircraft development and test communities, most other research aircraft are less well known by the general public. This book is dedicated to those aircraft. The aircraft in this book made contributions that were no less significant, and their places in history are equally deserved. At long last a book documents their contributions. Unfortunately, this book is not complete.

There are many more research aircraft that have been operated over the years. If you have information about any of them, or you had personal experiences with any of the aircraft already in this book, please feel free to contact either of the authors through the publisher. Certainly, with your help, more volumes of this book can be written.

Aircraft of today probably would still resemble the original Wright Brother's aircraft were it not for the dedicated men and women who developed new concepts for aircraft, and then refined them, and then tested them in actual aircraft.

Many types of aircraft have been leveloped to test new designs. Some were designed and built to demonstrate the feasibility of a specific new technology. Without these aircraft, many new ideas would have remained just that These aircraft demonstrated quantum leaps in technology. Many books have been written to document their contributions. There is a large number of lesser known and seldom recognized test aircraft that also made significant contributions to flight research.

These are the testbeds and in-flight simulators that tested new materials, validated new aerodynamic n a lot of articles was Bill Holder. Bill could make those old aircraft come to life We may very well have passed each other many times over the years without ever knowing it.

Eventually my interests turned elsewhere as I realized I'd never own that Mustang or Thunderbolt. My work eventually led me into the fas'inating business of flight testing Projects often led me to aircraft flight test centers, aircraft factories, and modification centers throughout the country and overseas.

I saw lots of aircraft modified for test programs and met lots of fascinating people throughout the flight test business. I wish I had a dollar for every meeting I attended with some famous test pilot or astronaut. I often browsed through aviation books at the library and book stores. I often thought someone was missing a great opportunity to tell this fascinating story to the world.

Although I enjoyed writing, I felt such an effort was beyond me. Jump ahead a few years to about Late one Friday night I was on a flight home to Dayton from Washington. Trying to get comfortable, I happened to notice the name on the brief case of the man seated next to me Bill Holder. Finally summoning the courage, I asked, "Excuse me, but are you Bill Holder the aviation writer?

We chatted most of the way home, during which time I talked about my book idea. Bill became fascinated with the idea also. By the time the flight ended, we had roughed out an outline and agreed to pursue the idea. The rest, so to say, is history. I J 1 I 6 est aircraft are nothing new - they have been around since the first aircraft flew. Indeed, the first airplane was a test airplane. No one could guarantee lor sure that it would work - someone had to attempt to take it into the air to find out.

The Iirst powered aircraft of the Wright Brothers, and t he gliders of Langley, Lilienthal, and others that preceded the Wrights were test aircraft, testing the ideas of their designers. The modern production aircraft of today, the I'-ISs, s, etc, developed as a result of a sometimes slow, sometimes fast evolution from the first powered aircraft.

An essential part of this volution is the use of test aircraft to develop 'lI1d verify new capabilities. Many excellent books have been written about test aircraft such as the X-I and X-IS that have made great leaps in technology.

These aircraft demonstrated quantum jumps in technology, proving that aircraft 'an go faster than the speed of sound, or take man to the edge of space. They showed that big steps can be taken and paved the way for later production Rockler Pro Plate 2020 aircraft that would incorporate the technology they validated.

After demonstrating the "great leap" in technology for which they were designed, these aircraft usually were retired and their designers and pilots moved on to ther challenges. These aircraft rightfully earned their places in honored displays in museums and in the pages of history books.

But there are other, lesser known, test aircraft that seldom demonstrate the great leap in technology. They do the day-to-day research, making small gains a little at a time, slowly nibbling away at the envelope, paving the way for new production aircraft or for other test aircraft that - -- The use ofproduction aircraft for simulation and testbed missions has been carried out for many years.

Here, a C assigned to the Air Force Medical Research Laboratory was used in the s for human engineering experiments. USAF Photo will make the "great leap. These aircraft, doing the grunt work but seldom receiving the notoriety of their more famous hangar mates, are the aircraft this book will discuss. The important difference with the aircraft in this book is that these were production aircraft that were modified to serve as test beds, technology demonstrators, or in-flight simulators. They are modified as needed to look at a specific technology improvement, tested, then modified again to perform other research.

Many have been in use for decades. Although seldom written about except in technical journals, the research they perform constitutes much of the data base upon which new aircraft are designed. This book constitutes the first publication aimed at the general public to tell the story of many of these unique research aircraft.

How will it fly? Will it roll just right or be too abrupt or too sluggish? Will it sink too fast as the pilot begins the landing flare? Will it become uncontrollable in turbulence? To an extent, analysis techniques that aircraft designers use answer some of these questions. However, they leave out one very important piece of information Considering the piloted airplane as an entire system, the pilot is the most unpredictable part.

No two pilots are alike, and anyone pilot's response can change depending on aspects such as how long his flight is, the dangers he will face, how much sleep he had the night before, and even whether or not his wife is mad at him. Flight simulators help the aircraft designer to compensate for the different pilots' capabilities by putting the pilot into the design process. In a flight simulator, the pilot sits in a replication of the cockpit, sees the world through a computer generated visual system, and feels the motion of the aircraft through a sophisticated motion system to move the cockpit in response to his control inputs.

The pilot experiences the flight characteristics and evaluates them as good, bad, or in between, just as in the real aircraft. Many new aircraft designs have been evaluated using flight simulators, and untold millions of dollars and probably a few lives have been saved by finding problems before the aircraft was ever built.

But despite all this sophisticated technology to make the pilot feel like he is in a real airplane, flight simulators still cannot do one thing Experience has proven that pilots fly a flight simulator differently because they know they cannot damage an aircraft or get hurt, even if they slam into the runway too hard or collide with another aircraft in flight. Because they know they cannot get hurt, pilots fly flight simulators more relaxed, take more chances, and don't initiate corrective actions until later, as compared to flying a real airplane.

There have been many examples where the real aircraft experienced problems that were completely unpredicted after extensive flight simulation. The reason is that the pilots were too relaxed, and the problems went undetected. The pilot usually has to be very aggressive and abrupt to bring out the more subtle types of flying problems. A very relaxed pilot usually will not discover subtle problems. So, enter the in-flight simulator. What is an in-flight simulator?

It is very special type of research aircraft whose flight characteristics can be changed to match those of another aircraft. Just as with a flight simulator, the in-flight simulator can be made to duplicate the flight characteristics of aircraft that have not yet been built. This aircraft can be either a specific one being designed, or a theoretical "paper design" being evaluated for research purposes only. The in-flight simulator overcomes the three biggest limitations of ground-based flight simulators: first, the pilot sees the real world in three dimensions as he looks out the cockpit rather than looking at a flat computer generated view; second, the motions are real and sustained rather than the limited motion felt on the ground; and third, he now knows he is in a real aircraft, and any mistake can result in a broken aircraft, personal injury, or worse.

Flying an in-flight simulator, the pilot is flying a real aircraft and acts accordingly. In addition, the development of new aircraft is supported by evaluating design concepts early in the design process, before designs are frozen, when changes can be made most easily and cheaply. With these accomplished, the in-flight simulator responds to the pilot's commands the way the aircraft being simulated would respond.

But the changes do not stop there. It is also necessary to configure the cockpit to replicate, to the extent necessary, the cockpit environment and instrument displays. Properly sized control sticks or control wheels can be installed and canopies can be masked to produce the same view out of the cockpit. Most in-flight simulators have at least two pilots: an evaluation pilot who flies the aircraft being simulated, and a safety pilot who flies the in-flight simulator itself and can take control if the simulated aircraft proves too difficult for the evaluation pilot to fly.

When the safety pilot takes control, he is flying the host, not the simulated aircraft. Because of this, new unknown designs, or designs with known problems can be simulated safety. In-flight simulators have been in use since the early s. Nearly all were developed from production aircraft that already had the performance and strength needed and could be modified to incorporate the new capabilities.

Although not well known outside the aircraft design and flight test industries, they have been a valuable tool for designers and will continue to be used for many years to come.

It is safer and cheaper to learn to fly the Space Shuttle using an in-flight simulator made to feel and fly like the Space Shuttle than for the astronaut to have to figure it out for real on his first Shuttle flight. However, in simple terms, the pilot's control stick inputs go to a computer on which the flight characteristics of the simulated air'raft have been programmed.

The computer figures out how the simulated aircraft would respond to the pilot's inputs and moves the in-flight simulator's control surfaces to produce the desired motions. If there are none, then the designers' and test pilots' confidence in the new design increases. If there are problems, fixes can often be designed using the in-flight simulator and tested quickly. The Wright Laboratory was tasked to run the program and began studies that culminated in with the selection of the F A conceptual design was performed to confirm that the needed modifications could be made and that the aircraft could perform the needed mission.

The prime design and production contract was awarded in to General Dynamics Fort Worth Division which was acquired by Lockheed in , with the Calspan Corporation of Buffalo, New York as the sub-contractor to design the variable stability system.

The airframe design was a mix of different features already available from other production versions, including a large dorsal housing, heavy weight landing gear, and digital flight control computer.

The gun, ammunition drum, and many unneeded defensive systems were deleted. A larger capacity hydraulic pump and larger hydraulic lines were installed.

A programmable center stick controlled by its own digital computer was installed in the front seat. The variable stability system design centered around three Rolm Hawk digital computers to determine the motions of the simulated aircraft and the necessary motions of the VISTA control surfaces to produce them. Controls to access the computer, in order to change flight characteristics, and to engage the front seat controls, were installed in the rear seat. Extensive automatic safety monitoring would watch the VISTA's motions and instantly return control to the safety pilot in the back seat if a potentially dangerous situation was being approached.

The Air Force approved the final design in and production began. The NTA's performance was not representative of the latest fighter aircraft in use, nor of those that would be developed soon. Also, the future of the T fleet was uncertain, and operating an aircraft without depot support would be very difficult and expensive it is ironic that the NTA remains in service over twenty five years later.

Several studies were performed in the early s to develop an NTA replacement, one even culminating in the conceptual design of an F-4 in-flight simulator. Unfortunately, limited research and development funds would keep the project dormant another ten years.

From the outside, the aircraft looked about the same, except for the addition of a spin chute and the painting of the MATV logo on the tail. The vectoring nozzle was undistillguishable from a standard one except to the trained eye. Internally, the modifications were more extensive, with most of the VISTA-unique systems removed so that from a functional standpoint, the airframe was essentially a standard FD.

The software in the digital flight control computer was modified so that when the thrust vectoring mode was selected, the nozzle moved with the elevator and rudder. No special commands by the pilot were needed. The first phase of these flights investigated using thrust vectoring to maneuver the aircraft in the "post stall" flight regime.

What this means is that the aircraft is actively maneuvered even through the wing is stalled! Traditionally, aircraft are maneuvered up to the stall, but not beyond because of the possibility of entering a spin. Using thrust vectoring to control the pitch and yaw, the aircraft's nose can still be pointed as desired, even though the wing is stalled and the control surfaces may be ineffective.

Thrust vectoring allows the pilot to point the nose wherever he wants without worrying about losing control. Sounds great in theory, but the combat effectiveness of this capability had to be demonstrated on an aircraft representative of a top-line fighter. Four specific goals of the MATV program were to opment programs, limited funds resulted in a scaled down capability. Keeping these deleted systems in mind, the design was performed such that they 'ould be added later as specific needs and funding became available.

Despite the fact that the aircraft was ready, resplendent in its 'ye-catching red, white, and blue paint scheme, the final flight release was delayed because the paint shop had never signed off that the aircraft had been painted!

After five checkout flights at the Lockheed factory at Fort Worth, Texas, the program was hit with its first major setback. Funds for the remainder of the year and for most of the next year were withdrawn. This was directed from a higher headquarters, so the Wright Laboratory had no choice but to put the program on hold.

But, as fate would have it, another Wright Laboratory program was gearing up which needed an FD for its test vehicle for the identical time period that VISTA would be on hold. General Electric had already developed a nozzle that could deflect the engine thrust up to seventeen degrees off the thrust axis in any direction this could produce up to 4, pounds of force up, down, or sideways on the tail of the aircraft.

It was anticipated that the combination of thrust vectoring and control surface motions could greatly improve the F's maneuverability. It looks like a flat spin, but is completely controllable. This could give the pilot a chance to take a quick degree look around and even fire off weapons. The MATV engine is shown in a test stand demonstrating the extent to which the exhaust can be deflected. When vertical, the pilot makes a degree post stall rotation about the pitch axis, resulting in a vertical, nose down position.

From there, the pilot completes the loop. Development flights were performed at Edwards AFB over the next seven months to check out the operation of the new computer system. This phase was completed in January It already has become a common sight in the skies over western New York state. The VISTA aircraft demonstrated stabilized Illght at 85 degrees angle of attack, pitch and yaw rates up to 50 I'grees per second at low airspeeds where the elevator and rudder 'ere ineffective, and near-flawless engine operation at all attitudes 1Il0 angular rates.

Later in the program, the enhancement of standard combat maneuvers with thrust vectoring was studied. In performing mock aerial engagements, the VISTA demonstrated a significant ombat advantage over standard Fs, both in one-on-one and two-on-one engagements. With the nozzle deflecting the thrust upward, the high angle-of attack ability can be accomplished.

Thus, only the pitch motions of the aircraft could be modified. The evaluation pilot sat in the right seat; these controls were modified with artificial feel in pitch to duplicate any desired characteristics. The safety pilot sat in the left seat, and these controls remained standard. As aircraft entered transonic flight, they displayed abrupt changes in their longitudinal stability characteristics.

Namely, pitch oscillations tended to last longer, not dying out as quickly as at lower speeds. Most attempts by the pilot to control the resulting motion, especially in turbulence, usually resulted in over control.

By the late s, researchers at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory CAL used mathematical analysis techniques to begin understanding this phenomena, and recognized the need for a special variable stability aircraft to perform further research. In , the Air Force's Aeronautical Research Laboratory a predecessor of today's Wright Laboratory , recognized the merit of CAL's ideas and agreed to sponsor the development of such a research vehicle. In fact, it was decided to develop two different aircraft: a B and an F The variable stability system that CAL developed for the B controlled only the elevator.

The difficulty with investigating many types of problems is that as the pilot maneuvers and the aircraft changes flight conditions, most aerodynamic characteristics change. This makes it difficult at best, if not altogether impossible, for a pilot to really understand exactly what is causing a particular problem. Only a variable stability aircraft could perform the type of research needed.

This would allow the problems of r Insonic flight to be investigated and allow designers to determine IYS to maintain desirable flight characteristics. CAL began flying the variable stability B as a research airf 1ft in The results of early tests sponsored by the Air Force howed the importance of short period frequency and damping on pilot's ability to maintain control.

The B performed other valuable research throughout the JlI'iOs. By , funding for research in flying qualities had deIlIlcd. They hit on the idea of using Ihe B to teach handling qualities to new test pilots. Since the II 26 allowed test pilots to sort out the causes of vague differences III flight characteristics, it certainly could enhance the training of 11 'w test pilots by bridging the gap between theory and practice.

CAL pilots and engineers, working with the Naval Test Pilot dlOOI, laid out a curriculum of classroom instruction and training 11Ights that complimented text book work. The program started on a trial basis in and was an immediate success. So successful, in fact, that the Air Force Test Pilot School wanted to incorporate the same curriculum.

The B could not accommodate the additional work, so CAL decided to convert one of the other Bs donated by the Air Force into a second variable stability aircraft. It was also decided to expand the variable stability capability to include the roll and yaw axes in both aircraft the third B was cannibalized for a supply of spare parts.

The Bs continued performing research programs and supporting the two test pilot schools throughout the s and s. In the late s, it was realized that the Bs could not last forever. Two student test pilots and the Calspan pilot were killed, to date the only known fatalities involving a variable stability aircraft.

It was ironic that the aircraft was on its last deployment to the Air Force Test Pilot School before being retired.. The cause of the crash was determined to be a failure of the main wing spar, a problem that had caused the crash of other Bs. After such a long and successful career, there were emotional arguments both for and against returning it to service. Eventually it was decided to donate the aircraft back to the Air Force. It was ferried to Edwards Air Force Base in November and placed in storage for eventual display at Edward's flight test museum.

One of the variable stability Bs as it appeared in later life in Calspan markings. This particular aircraft crashed at Edwards Air Force Base in the early s. The TIFS concept evolved over several years, starting in the late s.

When it was finished in the early s, the TIFS was the most advanced in-flight simulator ever built. After over twenty years of operation and numerous upgrades to its systems, it continues to be the most sophisticated and capable in-flight simulator in the world.

The development and selling of the original TIFS concept is an exciting story by itself. It shows how the persistence of a group of far-sighted engineers at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, coupled with the needs of industry and Government, utilized the best re- sources and capabilities of each partner to turn an idea into reality. The earliest ideas for TIFS were as a training aircraft for pilots learning to fly the first generation of jet airliners.

The first sketches showed a Convair prop airliner with a jet cockpit on top of the fuselage. The flight characteristics of the new jets would be modeled on computers. When the pilot in the jet cockpit moved the controls, they would be directed to the computer, which would then move the control surfaces so that the in-flight simulator's response would exactly match that of the aircraft modeled in the computer.

In addition to matching the flight characteristics, the total cockpit environment would be duplicated.

This idea seemed a natural for the airlines, who were expected to jump at the opportunity to help develop the aircraft. The safety implications and long-term economics of the idea were obvious.

However, several years of marketing the idea to the airlines resulted in no significant interest. Cornell engineers held several meetings with the FAA at this time, marketing the idea not so much as an airline trainer, but as a development tool for the SST. The use of variable stability aircraft for research and development of new aircraft was becoming common, and the proposed in-flight simulator could be designed around the research needs of the SST.

With programs c the C-5 transport and B-1 bomber in early conceptual stages, h II. By this time, the TIFS concept had evolved to an in-flight simu1m with a separate "evaluation" cockpit on the nose. Several noses ulll be built and interchanged quickly as different aircraft were 1I1lulated. To do this, hydraulic luators would be added so the computer could move the elevator,. To produce linear motions, the flap would be nudified into a "direct lift flap", capable of moving up and down at high rate to control lift.

Vertical fins, or side force surfaces, would Il' added on the wings to control the side acceleration. A servo unlrol would be added to the prop governor to make the TIFS pl. With the Air Force I 'lOg the major 'sponsor, the development would be managed by 11ll. Design and construction started promptly.

Much of the nose structure was modified to support the evaluation cockpit and other modifications to the wing were made. This commercially-available modification nearly doubled the available horsepower and brought the basic airframe configuration up to the equivalent of the Convair , with the military designation CH. Other modifications followed in and the newly-completed TIFS made its first flight in June Nearly a year of checkout flights were required to verify operation of all the specially designed systems and to confirm the capabilities of the new aircraft, officially designated NCH the "N" meaning that the aircraft was permanently modified and never to be returned to its original configuration.

The first research project was a simulation of the B-1 in June , to verify the anticipated flight characteristics of the new strategic bomber. Following the B-1's first flight, the test pilots reported that "It flew just like the in-flight simulator Other projects followed rapidly in the first few years.

This was followed in April-july by a simulation of the Concorde The CH TlFS in-flight simulator is one of the most recognizable of the production-turned-research aircraft. The C is highly instrumented and carries a low-mounted front nose.

However, the FAA standards lacked data pertinent to the Concorde's unique characteristics. Thus, the FAA sponsored this simulation to collect data and determine acceptable and unacceptable flight characteristics, especially for landing with failures in the Concorde's stability augmentation.

The first of many "flying laboratory" programs was flown in when a study of cross-wind landings was performed. The side force surfaces were used to demonstrate the value of direct side force control to cancel the effects of cross winds. Two modes were mechanized. In the first, the pilot in the simulation cockpit manually deflected the side force surfaces by means on a thumb switch mounted on the control wheel to cancel the effect of the cross wind. In the other mode, an automatic control system mechanized on the TIFS' computers deflected the side force surfaces in order to track the localizer, allowing the pilot to make a wings-level, no crab, landing in direct cross winds of up to fifteen knots.

Throughout and , NASA again sponsored several additional simulations of the Space Shuttle, especially looking at the final steep approach, the roundout, and the Rockler Router Plate Instructions Epub flare and simulated touchdown. The windscreen in the simulation cockpit was masked to produce the proper out-of-the-cockpit view, and a control stick similar to the Shuttle's was installed.

Duplicating the steep final approach that exceeded both two hundred fifty knots of airspeed and a fifteen degree glideslope required a lot of extra drag. This was done by lowering the landing gear and deflecting the side force surfaces opposite to each other. Simulated touchdowns were made in which the TIFS landing gears did not actually touch the runway.

This was because of the high speed at which the Shuttle would touch down and because the pilot in the Shuttle sat much higher than in TIFS, producing very different visual cues. When the TIFS' computer determined that the Shuttle's main gear should touch the runway, it sent a quick abrupt signal to the direct lift flap to produce a "bump", indicating that the shuttle had landed.

Although the TIFS was still several feet in the air, the pilot was at the correct height above the runway, resulting in the correct visual scene. Other Shuttle simulations were performed in and to help improve Shuttle flight characteristics. The test program demonstrated the ability of the system to track an instrument landing system and land the aircraft safely, including deceleration to a stop on the runway.

In addition, the feasibility of flying the YOMA manually from a ground station was demonstrated. The pilot sat at a control console that had normal flight instruments and flight controls and displayed a television picture sent from a camera mounted in the TIFS' nose. Another "flying laboratory" program was flown in , this time to gather data needed to design better ground-based flight simulators. Motion cues are very important in a flight simulator, and must be harmonized properly with the visual scene presented to the pilot.

Ground-based simulators have one obvious drawback - they have very limited distances over which they can travel. An initial motion cue must be given to the pilot, then very carefully washed out before the simulator reaches the full extent of its travel. Improperly designed motion washouts can result in the simulator producing an improper feel. In this experiment, different tests were performed to determine how the subject pilots perceived different motions.

The subject pilots had no outside vision, and flew the TIFS using instruments while different motion effects were used. Once again, the TIFS was the only aircraft that could have performed such research because of the ability to control all aspects of motion, from none at all up to full and sustained motions.

In , another "generic" flying qualities study was performed to gather data to develop a flying quality specification for very large aircraft. Over the years, the military and airlines developed jumbo jets such as the C-5 and Boeing , and the trend was toward larger, more massive aircraft. However, there was little data defining desirable flight characteristics for an aircraft of this size. The problem with flying such large aircraft is that the pilot is sitting far ahead of the center of rotation.

Even small bank or pitch motions could throw the pilot through large motions that would make controlling the aircraft difficult. The TIFS' computers were programmed with the predicated flight characteristics of several generic one million pound aircraft. The aircraft motions were evaluated by test pilots performing a variety of flying tasks. Developing futuristic cockpit displays to make complicated flight missions easier through the use of graphical displays has long been a goal of human factors engineers.

Many promising displays were developed using ground-based simulators. The problem with most was that the size and weight of the computer needed to perform all the computations and generate the picture precluded their being installed in an aircraft.

The display essentially drew a path between navigation fixes, thus giving the pilot a pictorial of the route he was to fly. An aircraft symbol, representing his aircraft, was shown several hundred feet ahead. All the pilot had to do was fly a loose formation with the aircraft on the display. This test program showed by actual flight testing the effectiveness of this type of display, and paved the way for many cockpit displays used today.

Throughout the s, many other programs were flown, including development support for the X research aircraft, B-2 stealth bomber, and YF tactical fighter prototype. Other research programs were also flown supporting research in flying qualities and flight control system designs, and evaluating protective drugs for pilots to take prior to entering chemical warfare areas.

Simulations were performed of an advanced Boeing jet aircraft, called the which was eventually canceled , and the Douglas MD, a new wide-body airliner currently in preliminary design.

Also in the mids, another unique use for TIFS was started. Most test pilots never get the opportunity to fly a new prototype aircraft on its first flight. Rather, they spend their testing careers verifying capabilities of aircraft and testing new systems developed for existing aircraft. The test pilot schools developed this system as a tool to train new test pilots who were already experienced pilots to test avionics systems.

The simulation nose was removed and replaced with a large radome. Calspan Photo 'ra, an inertial navigation system, a student work station from which til operate the systems and view the displays, and a computer sysI 'm that could read and record internal signals from each of the ,Ivionics pieces.

Over the years several additional systems were intailed, including the seeker head from a television-guided MaverI 'k missile, a Global Positioning System receiver and displays, and. Other system upgrades over the years have increased TIFS' 'upabilities and supportability beyond its original design. Most of the analog circuitry in the variable stability system has been replaced with modern airborne quality digital computers, and the re'ording system sports state-of-the-art digital data recorders.

A color multi-function display, Head-Up Display, and other high-resolution lraphics systems in the evaluation cockpit can be programmed as needed for individual simulation programs. A variety of control sticks and control wheels that were developed over the years for other programs are kept at hand and can be reinstalled as needed.

The engines have been replaced with more powerful Allison D22G engines and the original Aeroproducts props replaced with Hamilton Standard props, identical to those on the latest Cs. Although the TIFS airframe is forty years old, it remains a valuable research tool with no plans for retirement. Although the Air Force has retired all other Cs and provides no depot support, many Convair airliners remain in commercial use throughout the world.

The TIFS will likely remain operational as long as commercial support is available because the airframe, unique airframe modifications, and basic design of the variable stability system still provide a viable capability for future needs. The Air Force is studying system upgrades and structural improvements that will keep the Total In-Flight Simulator performing valuable research well into the next century.

The longevity and variety of uses never envisioned in the TIFS' original design stand as a tribute to the visions of forward-looking people who conceived the TIFS over thirty years ago. It is also one of the toughest assignments. The Space Shuttle is not an easy aircraft to fly.

It is the world's biggest, heaviest, and fastest glider. It has to be landed on the first try by a pilot who has become unadjusted to the effects of gravity.

When the Shuttle was being developed, training the pilots was recognized as one of the major challenges. The solution was to develop an in-flight simulator that would fly just like the Space Shuttle. The astronaut-pilot flies from the left seat with a safety pilot seated next to him. Two were delivered in , a third in , and a fourth in The Gulfstream II was selected for the STA mission because its speed and altitude capabilities allowed it to match the Shuttle's final approach from about 35, feet until landing.

Each astronaut-pilot flies twenty STA flights over a six month period while in basic training. Once completing basic training and awaiting assignment to a specific flight, each astronaut-pilot receives two STA flights per month to maintain flight proficiency. Mission-specific training is performed once the astronaut-pilot receives a mission assignment. In this phase, approaches under conditions that are relevant to that flight are flown.

These conditions include day or night approaches as appropriate with the flight characteristics adjusted for the actual weight and center of gravity for the mission.

Practice approaches are performed at both the primary and backup landing sites. About ten flights are flown over a nine-month period to prepare the astronaut-pilot for the specific mission. By the time an astronaut is ready for his first flight in the shuttle, he will have performed about approaches and simulated landings in one of the STAs. The STAs are also used for various types of mission support, such as flying approaches at the landing site just prior to an actual Shuttle landing to evaluate atmospheric conditions that the Shuttle will encounter.

The STAs fly an exhausting schedule, about missions per year for about to flight hours each. When not flying, they can be connected to ground-based computers and "flown" on the ground as a fixed-base flight simulator. He then intercepts the navigation I 'nal from the instrument landing system, flies the steep approach Ihat is virtually identical to the Shuttle's, and finally performs a 1I11ulated landing. Thus the STA's wheels do not actually touch the ground.

These plOper-eyeheight "landings" are performed because the pilot has to h' al the same height above the runway as he would be in the Shuttle III have the correct visual scene. Ten to twelve such approaches are twn on each mission. The STAs are used in three different ways to train pilot astron. During basic Shuttle training, the new astronaut-pilot becomes Shuttle Training Aircraft performing a shuttle-type steep approach.

Note the side-force generator located under the fuselage which was eventually removed. They demonstrated that. Simpler, ecoIIomical aircraft often can do the job. The Navions were developed by Princeton University Flight f. Both are late s vintage aircraft, one built by North I11crican and the other by Ryan. Some of the research projects performed on these aircraft included Illvcstigation of: I Using in-flight simulators to train new test pilots has been well-established in the United States and England for many years.

Just as the U. Air Force and U. Flight characteristics can be changed quickly to make the aircraft responsive, sluggish, or anywhere in between. Stick characteristics and head-up display formats can also be changed. The Bassett has been in service for over twenty years and flies at speeds of knots.

Cranfield then was awarded the follow-on contract for the design, modification, and flight testing. The Hawk was chosen for several reasons: 1 it was currently in the RAF inventory and would remain so for the foreseeable future, 2 its flight envelope was representative of modern tactical combat aircraft, 3 the ETPS already had three other Hawks in its fleet, and 4 early studies showed that the Hawk could be modified to perform this new role.

Limitations in cockpit size, rudder design, and some stability characteristics in the basic Hawk configuration were overcome to make the ASTRA Hawk a very successful and versatile training tool.

In being converted into an in-flight simulator, the ASTRA Hawk's front controls were disconnected from the flight control system. Other pilot-in-command functions were also moved to the rear seat to allow solo flight to be performed by the safety pilot, if necessary. Rotary hydraulic actuators were connected to the push rods of all three control surfaces so that the computer could move each one as needed.

The front cockpit features a HUD, center stick, side stick, and rudder pedals. Except for the side stick, all characteristics can be programmed and changed in flight.

The side stick cannot be adjusted in flight as on many other in-flight simulators, but can be adjusted on the ground to produce the stick characteris- Empire Test Pilot School s variable stability ASTRA Hawk, with the older variable stability Basset in the background. The number "1" on the vertical tail is just about the only external feature distinguishing this aircraft from the school's other Hawk aircraft. The rear cockpit has all controls needed to engage, disengage, and monitor the operation of the variable stability system.

With the variable stability system engaged, the ASTRA Hawk can obtain up to 14 degrees angle of attack which coincides with stall buffet onset , speed as great as. This envelope allows flight test techniques to be taught for maneuvers representative of most tactical aircraft.

Rigid British concerns for safety precluded actual landings while flying from the front seat. However, as ETPS gains experience with the aircraft and the regulatory agency builds confidence in its reliability, this limitation should eventually be lifted.

It is interesting to note the difference in American and British philosophies regarding reliability of the electronic systems versus human operators. The computer systems used on in-flight simulators are typically single channel. This means that only one set of computations are performed and if the system fails, it disengages and the safety pilot must take over. American in-flight simulators routinely operate to touch down because the safety pilot is considered the ultimate authority.

The British philosophy is that the safety pilot may not be able to respond quickly enough close to the ground, and thus the computer system must demonstrate that it is reliable enough to remain in control. In a typical year, the aircraft flies about one hundred hours and is used to train about fifteen new test pilots. They can double as wing spoilers for extra drag either in flight or on the ground. The evaluation pilot sits on the left and the safety pilot on the right.

The landing gear is bolted in the down position. N55UT was built in by Ryan. It is the more extensively modified of the two Navions. The evaluation pilot sits on the right and safety pilot sits on the left, opposite of N66UT. It also features side force surfaces mounted on the wings, giving N55UT full six degree-of-freedom capability.

It has a larger hydraulic pump so that all control surfaces and the landing gear can operate at the same time. The vertical tail and rudder are larger than standard to compensate for the loss of directional stability caused by the side force surfaces. By the early s, the research projects for the Navions decreased sharply.

UTSI restored the aircraft to full capability, and uses them in graduate engineering courses and in other specialty short courses. They remain available for a wide range of aviation research and specialized training applications. Note the wing-mounted angle-aI-attack and side slip sensors. Note the tuffs of yarn on the starboard side-force surface to study airflow. As do most other larger countries, the Japanese government performs flight research.

The actual modifications to the aircraft were made by Kawasaki during and the aircraft made its first flight in December at Gifu Air Base. It was used to evaluate the effectiveness of direct lift and direct side force control in the overall operation of the aircraft.

It was retired during the s. It is an in-flight simulator that iln duplicate a wide variety of helicopter dynamics, control techniques, instrument displays, and cockpit visibilities.

The LHX helicopter, whose development SHADOW was deigned to support, was to be a single pilot combat helicopter that would perform most of its flight at very low altitude and often at night or in poor visibility. This type of mission requires the pilot to keep his head out of the cockpit most of the time, yet still absorb and analyze large amounts of information - a scenario that would keep any pilot extremely busy.

For this type of extremely high pilot workload, ground-based simulators alone would not be an adequate development tool because of their inherent limitations of vision, motion, and "pucker factor. The fifth prototype was selected as the airframe to be modified. It had supported early S development and had been unused for several years. The central keel-beam support structure could be extended to support the weight of the evaluation cockpit.

The internal volume was adequate to allow for two safety pilots, a flight test engineer, and an observer. Last, the avionics and baggage areas were large enough to house all the computers, recording equipment, and experimental black boxes that would need to be carried.

The engines were also modified to produce additional power that would allow single engine hover at mission gross weight and at moderate density altitudes.

The aircraft performed airborne simulation and research. Japan Defense Agency Photo 24 The extra cockpit allows the Shadow in-flight simulator to study single-cockpit helicopter operations.

New types of cockpit controls and control mechanizations can be tested safely because they are electronically connected to the SHADOW's computers, rather than connected directly to the mechanical controls. Specific characteristics of the controls can be varied to duplicate almost any desired set of characteristics, either existing or theoretical.

These are all integrated through the navigation computer so that various new mechanizations using any of the data can be tested. The system monitors itself and notifies the safety pilots of any approaching system limits, malfunctions, or potentially dangerous situations. These capabilities are similar to those found in many other in-flight simulators. At any time they can take control of the aircraft either by disengaging the evaluation pilot's control or pulling on the stick hard enough to override the evaluation pilot's commands.

By having two safety pilots, actual low-level night missions can be flown. The flight test engineer monitors the operation of all systems, can change models being evaluated, and can change specific parameters within the model.

A forth seat can be occupied by an observer. All crew members can monitor the evaluation pilot's performance by watching the computer-generated displays and the over-the-shoulder video sent from the evaluation cockpit. The Shadow in-flight simulator is shown in a typical low-altitude mission profile. These include helicopter related research in the following areas: flexibility for investigating single-pilot operations during a low altitude combat mission.

It has a large glass area to allow the maximum viewing area possible. For specific tests, the glass can be masked as needed to duplicate a proposed viewing area. A modular instrument panel allows flight instruments and controls to be changed or rearranged easily. The standard instrument display consists of two cathode ray tubes and one liquid crystal display. These can be replaced by mechanical flight instruments as needed.

Other hardware, such as experimental control sticks can be installed quickly. United Technologies Photo require two hands and two feet: the right hand for pitch and roll control, the left hand for throttle, cyclic, and collective control, and two feet for yaw control. Studies looked at alternate mechanizations, such as a right hand four-axis controller that controls pitch and roll as normal, but twists for yaw and moves vertically for collective control.

The purpose of such investigations is to look at ways to decrease pilot workload by making the controls more intuitive and natural feeling. An aircraft with good flight characteristics can feel bad to the pilot if the stick is not correct. A good stick design can give the helicopter a good feel and made it easier to fly. Plastic canopies and windows are heavy and add little strength. Thus, the less window the better. The exact amount of visibility that must be provided becomes a major design tradeoff and the design of the canopy lines is not an arbitrary decision.

The lines must be carefully selected to allow the required distortion-free visibility yet keep the glass to a minimum to decrease weight. It can be programmed easily to generate virtually any display for the evaluation pilot to test. The pictures can then be projected on either multi-function displays, liquid crystal displays, or helmet-mounted displays in the evaluation cockpit. In addition, they can be displayed elsewhere in the aircraft and monitored by the crew.

This allows him to keep his eyes completely out of the cockpit. Due to the limited amount of weight the pilot can support on his head, the equipment must be kept as small and light as possible. However, weight tends to increase in proportion to the resolution and field of view. The larger nose was needed to house all the recording equipment and analog computers needed to create the variable stability responses and produce the control stick feel characteristics.

This was needed to duplicate the simulated aircraft's feel characteristics and to direct the front seat pilot's stick inputs to the computer the rear seat pilot's controls remained attached directly to the control surfaces as on a normal T The NTA surely holds the record as being the longest continuously-operated test aircraft in history, as well as being the most productive in-flight simulator ever.

Having been operated as an in-flight simulator since , it has been used to support the development of aircraft from the X up to the YF In addition, it supported a large amount of aeronautical research and was used to train most U. Navy test pilots since the mids. With a tail number, it has been the oldest flying aircraft in the Air Force since the mids. These are controlled by the computers to make the aircraft respond in the desired manner. These controls are similar to the volume controls on a television or radio and are connected directly to the variable stability computer.

You can get the table, fence and mounting plate, plus a router lift. You can get the table, fence and mounting plate, plus a stand or cabinet.

Or you can get everything in one package — the table, fence and mounting plate, plus a router lift and a stand or cabinet. Here's a quick overview of your options:. It provides great visibility and is strong enough to support even the largest routers.

Great for the hobbyist or small professional shop. Add Rockler's Router Lift FX and Steel Stand for a complete package that's perfect for the serious amateur and the professional woodworker alike. Bench Dog cast iron table: This is the alpha dog of router tables.

Used Jet 14 Bandsaw For Sale Germany Marking Knife Types Kit Build Your Own Rat Rod Frame Queen Soft Close Shelf Slides Example