3 ms·

The first statement implies that computer testing is so good now that an aircraft can be tested so thoroughly that the maiden voyage of an aircraft could safely

by crikli 12y ago

The first statement implies that computer testing is so good now that an aircraft can be tested so thoroughly that the maiden voyage of an aircraft could safely also be its first "for real" mission. It is true that computer models have definitely reduced the risks for test pilots by helping to define a much greater percentage of the performance envelope of a given system without the need for test flights. When a pilot steps into an untested craft for the first time, the "unknown" area of the envelope is better quantified; in different words, we have a better idea of how much of the performance envelope is unclear. Yet that unknown area still exists and has to be discovered by actual human test pilots because as good as computerized testing is there still isn't 100% coverage. (I'm a pilot and have dealt with experimental aircraft. Not on the level of this project, of course, where the envelopes of technology are being pushed, but on the level of small private aircraft where the technology is in many cases half a century old, well understood, debugged, and still has to be tested. By a human.)

danmaz74 12y ago
I think he meant real-life test, but with the pilot working remotely and not sitting on board.
kashkhan 12y ago
there's a difference between testing the engine, and testing the handling qualities. But not always. For testing the engine which in this case is throttleable and has time constants greater than hundreds of milliseconds the time lag from not having a pilot onboard is acceptable. For flying qualities again the plane is large enough to be slow enough that remote pilot timelag is not significant. There is no part of the envelope of this vehicle where you need a pilot onboard. Most of the development here can be done without pilot onboard. Space has been done from unmanned vehicles since the beginning and what they are doing is only barely rocket science. Putting a pair of pilots in a vehicle with a non-flight-tested rocket engine is just irresponsible. I like Rutan's company. But what they are doing on this program smacks of amateurism. They got engineers killed on the ground and now pilots killed and injured in flight. Both of which were completely preventable by some basic range and flight safety measures. It looks like they are cutting corners by doing too much too soon because of management pressures to cut delays. And people are paying the ultimate price for their hubris.

by crikli 12y ago

danmaz74 12y ago

I think he meant real-life test, but with the pilot working remotely and not sitting on board.

kashkhan 12y ago

there's a difference between testing the engine, and testing the handling qualities. But not always. For testing the engine which in this case is throttleable and has time constants greater than hundreds of milliseconds the time lag from not having a pilot onboard is acceptable. For flying qualities again the plane is large enough to be slow enough that remote pilot timelag is not significant. There is no part of the envelope of this vehicle where you need a pilot onboard. Most of the development here can be done without pilot onboard. Space has been done from unmanned vehicles since the beginning and what they are doing is only barely rocket science. Putting a pair of pilots in a vehicle with a non-flight-tested rocket engine is just irresponsible. I like Rutan's company. But what they are doing on this program smacks of amateurism. They got engineers killed on the ground and now pilots killed and injured in flight. Both of which were completely preventable by some basic range and flight safety measures. It looks like they are cutting corners by doing too much too soon because of management pressures to cut delays. And people are paying the ultimate price for their hubris.