R/C Floppy...whatever next?

#4
Would putting the Electronic sensors and equipment on the helicopter but then just having someone fly it around as it already has seats and controls be slightly too obvious?
 
C

cloudbuster

Guest
#5
Would putting the Electronic sensors and equipment on the helicopter but then just having someone fly it around as it already has seats and controls be slightly too obvious?
H&S. These things are shagged. (OK, they were shagged a long time ago) and it would be safer to fill them with gubbins and lob them into the ogsplosh.
 
#6
H&S. These things are shagged. (OK, they were shagged a long time ago) and it would be safer to fill them with gubbins and lob them into the ogsplosh.
They are either airworthy or they are not. In either case, if they are not airworthy they shouldn't be flying, manned or unmanned.
 
#8
Would putting the Electronic sensors and equipment on the helicopter but then just having someone fly it around as it already has seats and controls be slightly too obvious?
Pilots in the cockpit provide weight... which has to be supported. This is usually acheived by fuel, which means more weight, and more fuel to keep the fuel and the body in the air...

Thus by removing the meat in the seat we've just increased the amount of weight in ordance and electronics that the heli can carry, and of course the fuel used will go further. Bearing in mind by removing the human cargo we've also ridded ourselves of seats, life support emergency rafts* and the like...

And the heli can now be up 24/7 (engine servicing and fuelling not withstanding) because the 'pilot' can be sat in his lazy boy in the bridge, swaping out as needed. Just like the reapers.

The fire scout can stay up for 8 hours, I would assume it could be back in the air quite quicly after a service and refuel, could a pilot be up as quick?

* might be handy to leave rafts and such like on board when you think about it, these aircraft can't pick up survivors (i would think) so dropping liferafts until a manned heli or indeed the ship caught up would be a suggestion.
 
#9
WEll you would save the weight of the pilots and seats but then you have to put in all teh equipment to fly it remotely. This might be a bit lighter but not hugely so.

The endurance of the aircraft will be limited by fuel tankage and AUW rather than how long a pilot can keep flying it without needing a wee. Remote control isn't going to change endurance much.

You need someone to fly it from teh vessel in any csae so you still need a turn around
 
#10
You'd be surprised how light the equipment is, auto pilot with added bits. Think how much is actually just in there for the crew... seats, instruments, ermegecy equipment, refreshments, envirnonmental systems, radios and their ancils.

To replace radios still needed, various servos to control te sytsems.

going for a wee is't an issue. Plastic bags with sealing closures and a little sponge sort that out.

Constant ops and fatigue during flight ops in heavy seas is.
 
#11
I was joking about needing a wee.......

From figures I can find the Gazelle's endurance is about three hours. Doesn't seem a very suitable platform for a UAV at all.
 
#12
I was joking about needing a wee.......

From figures I can find the Gazelle's endurance is about three hours. Doesn't seem a very suitable platform for a UAV at all.
I figured that, but the 3 hour endurance could be longer on a UAV version. Besides, once we've done the Gazelle, we could use the process on another another airframe. R/C Typhoon anyone?
 
#13
I figured that, but the 3 hour endurance could be longer on a UAV version. Besides, once we've done the Gazelle, we could use the process on another another airframe. R/C Typhoon anyone?
Well if it does 3 hours on 350 kg of fuel then perhaps two 100kg pilots (including clothing and kit etc) would allow that to be extended to five hours. No saving on seats etc as the tanks and structure to support them would end up negating the saving. (If it worked in relation to CofG etc)
 
#14
I rather think the whole exercise is one based on QQ thinking

"What can we buy cheap that we can sell to the MOD for a fortune? - Oh did you see all those surplus Gazelles on Top Gear the other week?"
 
#15
I was joking about needing a wee.......

From figures I can find the Gazelle's endurance is about three hours. Doesn't seem a very suitable platform for a UAV at all.
Current Gazelle has a MAUM of 1900kg. Thats total including crew and fuel. Dry weight (no fuel or crew) is typically 1100 kgs. Fuel tank currently holds 340 kgs (about 400 litres). This will typically give you about 2.5 hours endurance. Removal of Seats, instruments and other shit that the soft fleshy things require and you allow yourself 800kgs of spare payload. With that you could either stick in extra fuel tanks or mission payload. To 'R/C' it, you could bet on about 100kgs of wiggly amps and associated stuff. This will still give you approx 700kg of spare payload to either increase fuel or whatever mission kit you want. A cheap alternative if all you want is a ship based UAV. Will be interesting to see if they can overcome an auto take off or landing system as the Gazelle isn't the easiest aircraft to control in the hover on a rolling deck....

2.5 hours still gives you an effective range of over 100 miles from the ship and allows 30 mins in the operating area. Not too bad at all. Double the endurance and it starts to look a viable option.

Look at the MQ 8B Fire scout. Its based around the Schweizer 333.
Empty weight of the MQ8 is 940kgs with a MAUM of 1430kgs and an endurance of 8 hours. (490kgs spare but its empty weight already has mission payload of over 150kgs) so all that 490kgs is what you could use for fuel.
Sch333 Empty weight of 549kgs and a MAUM of 1156kgs (607 spare). Out of that 607kgs, you need to stuff at least one pilot in (90kg) as well as fuel.

Obviously, I'm totally against using helis as UAVs!!!
 
#16
Well if it does 3 hours on 350 kg of fuel then perhaps two 100kg pilots (including clothing and kit etc) would allow that to be extended to five hours. No saving on seats etc as the tanks and structure to support them would end up negating the saving. (If it worked in relation to CofG etc)
If you removed the crew and seats, the aircraft would be outside its fore C of G. Plenty of area in the boot of Gazelle to stick more fuel tanks. Would just need to use the current bulkheads to secure the bladder (Gazelle current tank is a big rubber bag). Still leaves all the cockpit are for payload (which you would need to use due to my previously mentioned C of G issues).
 
#17
What the **** are you talking about. You have an opinion on everything. **** off and come back when you have actually got anything worthwhile to say about aviation you boring bleep ****.
Feeling threatened are we?

Do I have to remind you that this is a chat forum, on which I tend to read te bits that interest me (ie Radio Control) I may not know much about a subject at the start, but I tend to learn a fair bit in the process.

hopefully I may use some fo this for my robotics and the meaning of life thing, or per haps another thing.

Hand in your flight suit, Johny 5 needs it.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Leaving the usual pathetic, juvenile ARRSE ad hominem aside, the USN was into helicopter drones at least 45 years ago with the Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter embarked in DD/FF. This was a small helo to be used as a weapon dropper but the art may have advanced in nearly half a century. I watched a DASH disintegrate once, rather amusing, but the launch/recover thing was otherwise pretty well in hand even then. And auto-hover has been around for ages. The pilot isn't just meat, he is very expensively trained and paid meat.

Afterthiought - are these Gazelles marinised ones? Salt is corrosive and salt air gets everywhere. Plus blade folding. Plus strengthening whatever wheels/skids/whatever - as the cab comes down, maybe the deck is also on its way up.
 
#20
True seaweed but we have a surfeit of pilots at present, already trained. There's got to be a lot of flying hours to be had for the expense of developing a remote control system, just think of the refit the vessels will need to control it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
DozyBint Gaming and Software 7
Shortfinals Aviation 15
TheLordFlasheart Aviation 1

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top