5 ms·

I'm surprised it still looks so much like a "normal" plane. When you remove the need for a person to sit in the aircraft, you'd think it would create the oppor

I'm surprised it still looks so much like a "normal" plane. When you remove the need for a person to sit in the aircraft, you'd think it would create the opportunity to generate entirely new design profiles. But this still looks like most planes.

washedup 3y ago
A big part of the idea is the have a plane the models what humans will eventually use, so that any test results they get can more easily translate to eventual human-carrying flights. It's not a mistake that the speed, weight, and shape closely match what fighter pilots train in.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > what humans will eventually use There is emerging consensus that the F-35 is the last manned fighter America will produce.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Actuators without moving parts would be great to have on civilian airliners, too! Fewer moving parts means fewer chances of something to break, fewer parts to service when landed, less weight to carry, likely cheaper to produce. Wins all around.
  - icegreentea2 3y ago
    Perhaps. But if you look at most UCAVs, they mostly have 'broadly normalish' looking shapes. XQ-58 for example is relatively conventional looking. I think the reality is that there are a lot of advantages of the 'normal' airplane shape that removing the pilot doesn't drastically change. Warplanes are going to have some pretty high mass, kinda bulky thing to manage (especially engines and radar). Keep those close to the center of mass is just... sensible. Since your flying forwards, that biases you towards either a tube with wings or flying wing. Pure flying wings are apparently kinda annoying to deal with - especially when what you're working on is trying to innovate in autonomous systems, maybe you don't want to spend extra effort trying to conquer too unconventional structural layouts.
nine_k 3y ago
A smaller plane maybe could be flatter, not required to accommodate a pilot in a sitting position. But the plane likely still needs to have a shape similar to "normal" planes. One reason would be to experiment with one thing at a time. A classic fuselage + wing + tail arrangement is well-studied and understood; what remains to study is the unusual actuator system. But getting something non-traditional like B2 to fly is a challenge in itself; with experimental actuators, it's even harder. For subsonic planes, the traditional airplane shape is likely close to optimal, since birds, especially gliding birds like eagles, use a very similar arrangement for millions of years.

washedup 3y ago

A big part of the idea is the have a plane the models what humans will eventually use, so that any test results they get can more easily translate to eventual human-carrying flights. It's not a mistake that the speed, weight, and shape closely match what fighter pilots train in.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> what humans will eventually use There is emerging consensus that the F-35 is the last manned fighter America will produce.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Actuators without moving parts would be great to have on civilian airliners, too! Fewer moving parts means fewer chances of something to break, fewer parts to service when landed, less weight to carry, likely cheaper to produce. Wins all around.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  Perhaps. But if you look at most UCAVs, they mostly have 'broadly normalish' looking shapes. XQ-58 for example is relatively conventional looking. I think the reality is that there are a lot of advantages of the 'normal' airplane shape that removing the pilot doesn't drastically change. Warplanes are going to have some pretty high mass, kinda bulky thing to manage (especially engines and radar). Keep those close to the center of mass is just... sensible. Since your flying forwards, that biases you towards either a tube with wings or flying wing. Pure flying wings are apparently kinda annoying to deal with - especially when what you're working on is trying to innovate in autonomous systems, maybe you don't want to spend extra effort trying to conquer too unconventional structural layouts.

nine_k 3y ago

A smaller plane maybe could be flatter, not required to accommodate a pilot in a sitting position. But the plane likely still needs to have a shape similar to "normal" planes. One reason would be to experiment with one thing at a time. A classic fuselage + wing + tail arrangement is well-studied and understood; what remains to study is the unusual actuator system. But getting something non-traditional like B2 to fly is a challenge in itself; with experimental actuators, it's even harder. For subsonic planes, the traditional airplane shape is likely close to optimal, since birds, especially gliding birds like eagles, use a very similar arrangement for millions of years.