4 ms·
So if the engine shuts down you lose control of the plane? Hope they will install ejection seats if it is to be used in an airliner...
by cm2187 3y ago
So if the engine shuts down you lose control of the plane? Hope they will install ejection seats if it is to be used in an airliner...
- foota 3y agoIt's DARPA, its probably intended for a drone.
- cm2187 3y agoNot sure, it says "...help us better understand how AFC could revolutionize both military and commercial craft in the future"
- wiz21c 3y agoI'd venture to say that most of the airline transport is goods, not people. So an unmanned plane would be OK...
- cm2187 3y agoEven if it's cargo and unmanned, you can't let massive objects full of fuel that become uncontrollable if the engine fails fly over populated areas.
- bbor 3y agoShouldn’t*. We let massive objects full of fuel that become uncontrollable if the engine fails drive through populated areas, and by the common clay of the west no less! Economics trumps safety, it’s all about the trade off our society is willing to make. And our society is willing to make some pretty huge ones. I for one would not be worried about a slightly higher possibility of getting hit by a falling plane, unless this system was provably very unreliable or something.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- LargeTomato 3y agoWhy?
- foota 3y agoDrones are sort of viewed as the future of military aerospace, or at least a large part of it, and are less well defined (hence needing DARPA research). Also, they probably get more research funding.
- justin66 3y agoBecause the world is just full of airliners with ejection seats. It's a technology demonstrator. They are testing a technology. For the reading challenged: The X-65 will be built with two sets of control actuators – traditional flaps and rudders as well as AFC effectors embedded across all the lifting surfaces. This will both minimize risk and maximize the program’s insight into control effectiveness. The plane’s performance with traditional control surfaces will serve as a baseline; successive tests will selectively lock down moving surfaces, using AFC effectors instead.
- cm2187 3y agoThat’s for testing purposes. For those reading challenged “Eliminating external moving parts is expected to reduce weight and complexity and to improve performance.”
- justin66 3y agoNext step: airliner full of ejection seats!
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoIt would make dealing with unruly passengers easier.
- cm2187 3y agoCreates an interesting game theory case if every passager can action every other passenger’s. The equilibrium will either be an empty plane or a quiet plane.
- actionfromafar 3y agoNot exactly empty, one would remain.
- Someone 3y ago> So if the engine shuts down you lose control of the plane? Maybe. It may eventually have a RAM air turbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine) to generate electricity (possibly also to directly get compressed air) They may also only use such a device to compress air, and power the controls with a relatively small emergency battery. I think none of those will be ideal, but modern fighters already are unstable in flight, so this doesn’t look like completely new territory to me.
- londons_explore 3y agoMost planes have at least 2 engines. With careful design you could make either produce sufficient air for full control.
- vineyardlabs 3y agoThis isn't new. Any large aircraft is going to have hydraulically driven control surfaces. Where do you think the hydraulic power comes from? Large aircraft have APUs and/or battery backups so that they can still be controlled if the engine(s) die.
- Toutouxc 3y agoAirliners, even if they lose the big engines under the wings, still have a small one in the back, called an APU, that can provide power and bleed air (!) for all kinds of critical systems. A hypothetical airliner from the future relying on active flow control would absolutely have several redundant systems to ensure controllability.