Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Technology

Swedish Flight Simulator Adds G Forces 268

Posted by simoniker from the ultimate-gaming-setup dept.
jonerik writes "According to this article in Aviation Week and Space Technology, Sweden's Dynamic Flight Simulator (DFS) is believed to be the first flight simulator which actually allows fighter pilots to experience G forces under simulated conditions. Designed and built by California-based Wyle Laboratories, the DFS is essentially a flight simulator capsule (in this case for Sweden's JAS 39 Gripen fighter) located at the end of a 30-foot centrifuge arm. 'We wanted to give pilots the ability to "fly" and interact with the environment rather than just be a passive [centrifuge] rider,' said Will Roberts, program manager for Wyle Laboratories' DFS programs. 'We've come a long way in being able to translate the six degrees-of-freedom you get in an aircraft into the three degrees-of-freedom that we can control in a centrifuge. It's not perfect, but we think it's pretty good. There's room for more research to make it even better.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish Flight Simulator Adds G Forces More

Swedish Flight Simulator Adds G Forces

Comments Filter:

  • 1,900-kw Motor (Score:5, Funny)

    by Taboo ( 263223 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:51PM (#7882884)
    ...the use of a smaller drive motor. Wyle chose a 1,900-kw. Westinghouse DC motor originally designed for steel mill applications, connected directly to the centrifuge-arm drive system. It delivers about 7 megawatts of peak power in approximately 100 millisec

    If that's smaller, what was the bigger one??

  • Possible alternative (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:51PM (#7882885) Journal
    They should give this thing [kuka-roboter.de] a try. Looks fun. They brought it to Detroit once and I was going to ride on it until someone puked all over.
    • That thing looks nuts. You'd need a G suit around your neck just to hold down your lunch!

    • Re:Possible alternative (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wonder if the fact that 'Kuka' rhymes with 'puka' is a coincidence...
    • Attention! Runs MS Windows! High crashability!
    • Um, on the page http://www.kuka-roboter.de/robocoaster/english/dat en.html [kuka-roboter.de], it lists the device's features, including:

      "Microsoft Windows operating system"

      Am I the only one that this would worry? I mean, the BSOD could become literal, or to a lesser extreme, a "hang" could get boring / nauseating.
    • Am I the only one who sees a problem with being manhandled by something designed to pick up _CARS_ ???

      While you're at it, why dont you just try to swim with a shark or run with some stampeding elephants
      • Hey, it's all relative. Being manhandled by a car lifter is part of the training system so that you can earn the right to be manhandled by a real jet engine while riding a flying pile of explosives :)
      • My previous job was with a robot manufacturer. We sold mostly to the auto companies around Detroit, MI. I worked on the spot welding robots - twelve foot tall beasts that carried heavy spot guns around and put together car and truck bodies.

        One of the main problems was collision detection. Not just banging into something (which is surprisingly easy to do when 'training' a path) but also, if the welding tips weren't maintained, they could weld themselves to the car body. I didn't see it, but I was told of a

  • Great work, but why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by soluzar22 ( 219097 ) * <soluzar@hotmail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:51PM (#7882888)
    That's a real step forward in a technological sort of a way, but why? Have we had a problem with poor standards in fighter pilot training in recent years? I have to admit that if either the US or anywhere else, including my beloved UK has had this problem I had not heard.
    Seems like a lot of effort for not too much reward to me but what do I know?
    • i imaging that much like sports, practice speed is much slower than game speed. it takes time to get use to game speed once your in the game. anything to lessen the difference and learning time is a good thing, no?

    • Re:Great work, but why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by alexatrit ( 689331 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:03PM (#7883029) Homepage

      No poor standards as far as we know (specifically), but the US has always made a point to make advances in training. Early on there were the T-38 trainers. Eventually the Navy started the whole TOP GUN program. The Air Force has it's advanced facilities out in Dreamland. Much of the military training programs were started to meet a specific goal, but some were simply because the advance was possible.

      If you can effectively train a pilot to handle the effects of G-forces in a cockpit-like environment before sending them up in a multi-million dollar (and potentially classified) plane (with added liability, potential for damage), moreso the better.

      It's also interesting that this is getting investigated from a security perspective, as the possibility of foreign nationals being trained inside our our jets becomes a larger concern. Publicity on longer "grounded" training could discourage moles/spies from enrolling in the programs, knowing in advance that they wouldn't be granted access to real equipment.

      • Re:Great work, but why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Visigothe ( 3176 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:24PM (#7883262) Homepage
        It's also interesting that this is getting investigated from a security perspective, as the possibility of foreign nationals being trained inside our our jets becomes a larger concern. Publicity on longer "grounded" training could discourage moles/spies from enrolling in the programs, knowing in advance that they wouldn't be granted access to real equipment.

        Although isn't the point of a simulator to simulate as closely as possible the real thing? I would assume that the cockpit in the simulator is the same [or fairly close] as the Real Thing.

        Also, training has two parts: Simulation and "real world" trials. Once you are qualified in the sim, the next step is to get time in the actual vehicle. This means that when the "bad guys" get in the real vehicle, they will be that much more comfortable with the situation.

        • As closely as possible, given limiting criteria. There are a lot of reasons why simulators are used instead of the real thing, mostly cost and liability.

          Simulators are vastly different in some ways. In a simulator, things like radar are provided by a computer on the backend - easily tweaked - the real capabilities of the real equipment can be kept secret. You can teach someone how to fly without exposing them to classified components. You can teach someone to fly a Stealth fighter/bomber by way of a simula

    • Cost, of course. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eevee ( 535658 )

      It's cheaper and safer to train a pilot to handle G-induced stresses than in a real plane. Plus, you're saving the aircraft from stress, which extends the lifetime. Finally, it's cheaper to clean up afterwards if there's a problem--much less cash involved in replacing the centrifuge's motor than in replacing a jet, even if it's only a trainer.

      Of course, this is only a suppliment. The pilot will still require in-air training. Just not as much to keep in top shape.

    • How else do you expose trainees to what they will really experience in the cockpit?

      The majority of fighters [fighter-planes.com] are single seaters with no room to bring along an instructor.

      Given the cost [f22-raptor.com] of modern fighter aircraft, I'd much prefer my tax dollars pay for a couple of simulators you can crash again and again.

    • Re:Great work, but why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PPGMD ( 679725 )
      No sim can prepare you for G Forces without experiencing how they happen in the aircraft, and attempting to keep on working though them. Your hand with that heavy watch gets alot heavier as you pull G's, it might take more force for you to hit a switch, all important things to learn before a first time pilot gets in the air.

      The sim sounds interesting but it's only a beginning, I can handle most G forces that I am likely to pull in a Pitts, but the gyroscopic forces are what I have trouble with.

    • Part of learning to pilot any vehicle (including a car) is learning to read the G-forces that the vehicle is giving you.

      For example, it would be impossible to teach someone to recognize excessive speed in icy conditions with "static" simulator. One must calibrate themselves to the g-forces being expressed and when the car starts to give way.

      When you experience it in a simulator, you can look at gauges, but this isn't how people drive/pilot. This is also the reason that "fly by wire" technology is so imp

  • Sounds very cool, but, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by badfrog ( 45310 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:51PM (#7882895)
    How long before we get an arcade version?
    • Never mind that....

      How many G-Forces can you pull? Nothing more rewarding than making yourself black-out from playing video games!

      With a lot of video games posting scores you can post your hi-score ... can't wait to see the competition start!

  • Home use (Score:2, Funny)

    by ajaf ( 672235 )
    Ok, I'm waiting the home version of this capsule, I want to test Flight Simulator with it.

  • next up! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Horny Smurf ( 590916 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:54PM (#7882926) Journal
    Any chance they'll make a sex simulator with a simulated G-spot?
  • ... adding g-forces would be way cooler.

  • Gripen? (Score:3, Funny)

    by asdfasdfasdfasdf ( 211581 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:59PM (#7882992)
    I thought that Gripen was the name for one of those fancy IKEA entertainment centers.

  • Enlighten me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghettoboy22 ( 723339 ) <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:01PM (#7883013) Homepage
    What is it exactly that the Swedish use these fighters for? Don't get me wrong... I think every country should be entitled to a proper defence force, but are these planes simply sitting on the ground, or are they getting some use? It's some pretty impressive technology the Sweeds have, so one would hope they're actually putting it to use. I'm just thinking that I can't recall hearing in recent memory of a Swedish border conflict, or a Swedish peace-keeping force. Is there anyone out there more familiar with Swedish military history that could enlighten us /.'ers?
    • presumably they act as UN peacekeepers all over the place

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:09PM (#7883100)
      What is it exactly that the Swedish use these fighters for? [..] I'm just thinking that I can't recall hearing in recent memory of a Swedish border conflict, or a Swedish peace-keeping force.

      That's because there weren't any. They're that good.

      • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)

        by hpa ( 7948 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:24PM (#7883268) Homepage
        Sweden takes part of peace-keeping missions all the time, mostly under U.N. flag, but they also have troops in Kosovo; I believe in the British sector.

        Although it may not be that recent, Sweden did have a long-standing maritime border conflict with the USSR, during which Soviet MiG fighters would violate Swedish airspace on a regular basis. JAS 39 Gripen was designed in part to make sure that the RSAF would be able to outfly the Soviets. A little obsolete right now, though, especially since those areas are now the Baltic countries with which Sweden has excellent relations.

        The end of the Cold War definitely has put the role of the traditional Swedish military in question. The threat of an invasion is currently zero, and the only realistic way that could change would be a major and very sudden change in Russia. This is also true of NATO; I personally suspect that we'll see a major realignment of the role of NATO, the EU defence force (WEU), and the neutral countries (Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland) within the next decade.
        • Royal Swedish Air Force? No. The only thing that is royal in the swedish defence forces is the royal navy.

    • Getting some use, etc (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wiredog ( 43288 )
      Well, the impressive tech, plus drilling with the equipment, keeps the Swedish military in pretty good condition. Which is why it doesn't see much real use. Looks fierce enough that it doesn't actually have to fight.

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some countries as hard as this might be to believe for Americans are not blood thirsty war mongers like yourselves.
    • IIRC, the Swedish military has focused on drastic technological improvements so that they can become a faster, leaner, more efficient fighting force, making them useful as a member of international military efforts.

      Their military is very small, but they want it to be very very good so that it can be of some use around the world. It's not for border defense (although I'm sure it'd help there too).

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:17PM (#7883196)
      Sweden was a big power back in the 15th-17th centuries, then the rise of Russia stole thier thunder.

      In the Second World War they got really spooked by the Russian invasion of Finland and ramped up thier aviation industry by licensing German designs, then British designs and tossing that in with home-grown technology while making a profit from selling raw materials and arms to both sides.

      In the Cold War Sweden took a slightly pro-western approach but was openly neutral, and thats when thier aerospace industry really took off.

      They had a series of 3 great fighters from the 50s to the 80s with the J35A Draken, J32B Lansen and JA37 Viggen.

      During the Post-War/Cold-War era the Swedes also bought American and British aircraft, araments and technology.

      The current fighter the Swedes are building is the Gripen, there have been foriegn sales - Switzerland and South Africa IIRC and Saab Aerospace has been bought by British Aerospace recently.

      The Gripen is less "home-grown" that previous Swedish fighters

      Flight control system, product series 1, Lear Astronics, USA
      Flight control system, product series 2, Martin Marietta, USA
      Basic engine F404, General Electric, USA
      Air conditioning control, Hymatic Engineering,UK
      Landing gear, AP Precision Hydraulics,UK
      APU and engine start aggregator, Microturbo, France
      Emergency power and transfer, Lucas Aerospace, UK
      Inertia navigation, Honeywell, USA
      Cannon, Mauser-Werke, Germany
      Ejection seat, Martin Baker, UK
      Main generator, Sundstrand, USA
      Hydraulic system and transfer, Dowty, UK
      Brakes, Aircraft Breaking Systems, USA
      Fuel system, Intertechnique, France
      Sidewinder AIM-9 AAM, USA
      AMRAAM AIM-120 AAM, USA

      http://www.sci.fi/~fta/sweden4.htm
      • During the Post-War/Cold-War era the Swedes also bought American and British aircraft, araments and technology
        Sweden also have a very large aircraft/missile test range which they rent out to the large aerospace manufacturers and air forces.

        sPh

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rxke ( 644923 )
      Swedes are 'Neutral' but have a fairly large defence system. Just a "don't mess with us" sign to the outside world. Remember, sweden was close to USSR, and there were numerous problems with Soviet subs in their territories...

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:3, Informative)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) *
      What is it exactly that the Swedish use these fighters for?

      If you believe Saab's advertising, the Gripen was the prototype for their new sports car :-)
    • Sweden participates in almost all major peace keeping missions under the UN and has for a long time -- it is in line with the country's strong beliefs in the UN and international cooperation in general. It even had special forces in Afghanistan, despite the dubious international legality of the invasion.

      In any case, Gripen and previous projects are the result of a desire to maintain a self-sufficient military (although that is probably no longer possible). It was believed that this was important for Swed

    • Re:Enlighten me... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grazzy ( 56382 )
      now when the russian threat is over, we have the american threat to care about.
    • Sweden is bigger than Germany (though smaller than France) but with only a tenth of the population. The country is also long and narrow. This makes the defense difficult and relatively expensive. To cope with this, I think the military is trying to focus on a high-tech defence instead of many soldiers.

      A NATO membership would help, I guess.

      Besides, Gripen is pretty cool (and means more money for Saab and Ericsson). It will probably be the last "swedish" fighter though.
    • You're right, the last armed conflict Sweden took part in was back in 1814.

      Had they known this back then, an enormus amount of money could have been saved in military expenses, but instead they opted for keeping military in case something happened and as a deterrent.

      IMHO, the primary use for a weapon is deterrent, and if you never get to actually fire it that doesn't mean it was wasted money to buy it, but that it has been used perfectly.
    • are they getting some use?

      Yes, we recently completed a deal with some european country (which one escapes at the moment). They were considering Gripen or F-16's and chose the former.

  • JAS Gripen (Score:2, Funny)

    by saunabad ( 664414 )
    Great news, but I hope they have a realistic simulation for ejecting and crashing too. If I remember correctly, the plane was crashed twice by the same pilot while testing it in the '90s. Some things would just be cheaper to simulate. :)
  • I was building one of these simulators in my garage... I was actually aiming to simulate the g-forces of a race car, not a flight sim... but still... I knew I should have patented my prototype... damn it..

  • Mission: SPACE (Score:2, Informative)

    by SkywalkerOS8 ( 398450 )
    Sounds like they took what Disney [disney.com] created for its new ride [space.com] at Epcot and made it interactive.

  • ASDD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SparkMan ( 4115 ) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:04PM (#7883052)
    I used to work for Wyle in San Antonio where they had a forerunner to the DFS called the ASDD (Advanced Spatial Disorientation Demonstrator). It was basically a cockpit the could rotate like a gryoscope and was mounted on a large, rotating motion base arm.

    You can see the cockpit here:
    [af.mil]
    http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/ma rm ag97/mar15.htm

    Look behind the visible screens (which make up the simulated flight control tower). The fun part is inside the round cockpit behind the glass. That part spins around to produce up to about 3 G's. You can't see in this picture but the cockpit rotates around like a 30 foot circle once it gets going, plus it spins around it's own center.

    See also:
    [af.mil]
    http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/ma rm ag97/mar1005.htm

    Older technology, but still cool. In that lab we used to study how different kinds of motion would fool the inner ear. Such as, a pilot who is taking off and who looks over his shoulder at the ground will experience a balance illusion that will throw off his perception of "down". If he is not trained to compensate, and is distracted by other circumstances, this illusion can easy cause him to bank the plane into a crash.

  • Sweedish suburbs? (Score:5, Funny)

    by halo8 ( 445515 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:06PM (#7883070)
    From the link about the plane.. scroll down
    is it just me or is that not a house [canit.se] in the background

    • Re:Sweedish suburbs? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Gripen is, like it's predecessor Viggen, designed to take-off and land on normal country roads. I guess that photo was taken during an exercise.
    • Yes, I believe that the Swedes actually use some streets as possible war-time landing strips, probably for lack of space and/or money to build proper ones. Or wait a second, isn't that the new 9-3 convertible only being released in the EU? It'd look better with some dubs.

    • Re:Sweedish suburbs? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:20PM (#7883230)
      There's a really nice deaf couple that lives there that cannot understand why they got such a great deal on their new property.

    • Re:Sweedish suburbs? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:24PM (#7883264) Homepage
      Part of their (smart) thinking: if the major airstrips get bombed, they have literally thousands of places where they widened stretches of 'normal' roads, so they can land, take off there, there are also numerous hidden hangars and maintenance stuff. Idea is that an enemy would never come around to bomb *all* these stretches, most are 'fake'
    • "Honey, I'm home! Can you pour a drink [northerner.com] for me? You're a luv!"

    • Re:Sweedish suburbs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @03:10PM (#7883683) Homepage Journal
      That's not a mistake.

      Both Finns and Swedes (don't know about the Norwegians) design national highways so that parts of them can be used as runways - improves the dispersion of the planes.

      That was actually one of the quoted reasons why Finland opted for the Navy version of F-18s: it won't break down if you bring it down hard on a short, bumpy runway.

    • Re:Sweedish suburbs? (Score:4, Informative)

      by grazzy ( 56382 ) <grazzyNO@SPAMquake.swe.net> on Monday January 05, 2004 @03:11PM (#7883690) Homepage Journal
      actually, if you go traveling in the woods of smaland you'll notice that everyone km or soo there is a flat space out in the wood.. thats because when they land the aircraft in the middle of nowhere they use those flats to park the plane one..

      i guess ill have to watch out for the swedish security police for revealing this now ;)

  • Has anyone else tried the new Mission to Space ride at Disney World? It's also an articulated cetrifuge ride.

    It was the most incredible ride I've ever been on. It will definately make your inner ears confused and it seems to mess with your brain in other ways. It made me feel sick for the rest of the day.

    People seem revere pilots and astronauts for their bravery and reflexes. I'm most impressed by their ability to tolerate motion sickness.

  • No RIGHT turn (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    .. how do they turn right? AS long as they fly LEFT turns theyre ok :D other wise that would blow the realism.
  • I know there is something to do with Coriolis Force (or was it Centripetal effect?) and moving your head to one side in a centrifuge - the force uloads if you move your head inwards (towards the centre of rotation) and loads up if you move it outwards. BTW: I didn't take Physics ;)

    This tends to have the wierd effect of the 'pilot' being able to lighten or increase the percieved load of his head upon his shoulders.

    They do mention tilting the seat to avoid disorientation when the arm accelerates but nothi
  • http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/vms/vms.html

  • Bork! Bork! Bork! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:11PM (#7883135)
    Enough about flight. What about the Swedish Chef Simulator?

  • Looks like an F-16 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mirio ( 225059 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:18PM (#7883216)
    Is it just me or does this JAS 39 Gripen fighter look a lot like an F-16? It appears to play the same role as the F-16 (a light fighter/ground attack aircraft). I know that many countries (especially NATO members) use F-16s. Does anyone know if that's what this plane actually is?

    • Re:Looks like an F-16 (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rower ( 140698 )
      It is roughly the same as an F-16(multi-role) but from what I've heard, its faster especially at sea-level. I've heard that the F-16 is only good for about 550 knots at sealevel fully loaded. The grippen was built for climbing and acceleration. Also, with its front canards (sp?) it lands at a steep angle (like its landing on a carrier) as opposed to a "flare" landing.

    • Re:Looks like an F-16 (Score:3, Informative)

      by d_strand ( 674412 )
      Well, maybe it looks a bit like an f16 because it's single-engine.

      It's supposed to be able to do all 3 traditional airplane roles (Fighter, Attack, Reconnaissance), but the emphasis is on air superiority.
      It's light, quick and very modern (actualy the most advanced aircraft in service anywhere in the world right now, since the F-22 and EF2000 are not in service yet).

      • Re:Looks like an F-16 (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jesrad ( 716567 )
        actualy the most advanced aircraft in service anywhere in the world right now, since the F-22 and EF2000 are not in service yet

        I thought that spot was taken by the Rafale...
    • It's just you. The aircraft are of a similar size, but not, not even close. Notice the delta wing, the canards, the twin intakes.
    • You don't even need to RTFA. There's a very useful link in the article summary [canit.se]. It also explains why they rejected the F16 (essentially, at the time they were drawing up the specs, the F16 had a 3-minute start-up time whereas they wanted a maximum delay of 1 minute).

  • ... cranks it up to 200G..

    Ouch!
  • An unamed hi-tech company in Asia today announced a 1/4 newton inertial dampener device suitable for fighter plane use.

    The specs list an ability to counteract up to 8 g's for a human body weighing up to 100 kilos.

    The company has also recently been awarded contracts for their pilotless drone attack fighters. Film at eleven.

  • Acceleration is not a force, nor does its name begin with the letter G.

    The force whose name begins with the letter G is, er, gravity.

    • Hm, I always thought that "G-force" was just a way of measuring the force created by the acceleration (something about f = ma) by comparing it to gravity. So a force equal to twice that of gravity would give you 2 G's - what exactly is the problem?

    • Re:Pet peeve: "G-forces" (Score:2, Informative)

      by mgg4 ( 704335 )

      Acceleration is not a force...

      You are right, acceleration is not a force. It is what happens to an object when it is acted upon by some force. However for simplicity's sake, the term "One Gee" is used to describe the force of Gravity on earth. The apparent "Force" encountered when acceleration meets inertia is also described using these same units of measurement.

      To the average person, there need not be any difference. To physicists, maybe; but not for "Joe Six-pack".

  • Not Truly the first... (Score:3, Informative)

    by sysadmn ( 29788 ) <sysadmn AT gmail DOT com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:49PM (#7883510) Homepage
    This appears to be the first Digital simulator with hi-g capability, but it's not really the first such device. Google for 'LAMARS' [google.com], which had a 20ft arm, but had analog scene generation (believe it or not, a small camera 'flew' over a terrain board!).
    USAF Tech Report [google.com]
    Large Amplitude Multi-mode Aerospace Research Simulator (LAMARS) The LAMARS is a specialty research device located at the Air Force Wright Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. A very similar device is located at Northrop at Hawthorne, California. Both the LAMARS and the device at Northrop were developed by Northrop at the Hawthorne facility and consist of a very large and long beam to which the simulator cab is mounted at one end. The beam is mounted to a vertical column at the other end. The beam can move both vertically and horizontally. The cab is gimbaled so that it can pitch, roll, and yaw with respect to the beam. The cab has a total displacement of 20 feet vertically (heave) and 20 feet laterally (sway). The system is capable of a peak vertical acceleration of 3.6 g's and a sway or lateral acceleration of 1.6 g's. The LAMARS could provide a very good motion capability for a fighter aircraft; however, considering the cost goals for current fighter flight trainers, the cost of acquisition and facility impact for such devices would be far greater than could be justified.

  • VR game (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Metryq ( 716104 )
    Many years ago a traveling VR "arcade" visited my city. (This was easily 10 years ago, but I can't recall the exact date.) One of the rides that stood out in my mind was a fighter plane sim with G-forces. The player sat in a spherical pod at the end of a centrifuge arm. The game screen remained black while the carousel built up to speed. The default orientation of the pod kept the G-forces "eyes down" through the seat of the pants. In other words, the player would feel a bit heavier than normal as the game

  • Vomit Comet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HalfOfOne ( 738150 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @03:19PM (#7883757)
    I'd like to preface this post by saying that I know very little about the mechanics of simulators such as these. I do however know quite a lot about sensory and perception in regards to flight studies. The problem with attempting to simulate motion, let alone G-forces, is that humans are very good at detecting aberrations from realistic movement. The "detection" usually results in headaches or blowing bannana chunks all over the cockpit, but it's a detection nonetheless. [1] In short, if the simulator display indicates a slight oscilation or elevation due to a thermal, and the force feedback doesn't mimic it just right, and then that happens repeatedly inbetween bouts of actually successfully fooling your sensory and perception system, we get the aforementioned chunks being blown. Millions of dollars of research have been thrown at this problem, only to find one very clear thing. By the time you can get the system finely tuned enough that you can always fool the human, it's cost prohibitive. The benefit and coolness factor of feeling the actual motion isn't significant enough of a boost to the learning process to justify the cost. [1] Bannanas are the #1 meal suggestion before FAM (familiarization) flights in new figthers, since they taste roughly the same coming up as they do going down.
  • I toured the NAWC in Willow Grove 11 years ago as part of an Engineer class. They were researching reclined seating for pilots at the time, and on the end of the centrifuge arm that had strapped a complete mockup of an aircraft cockpit. It was my understanding that the test pilots could control the simulator in the manner in which this article describes.

    Maybe I'm half remembering the facts. Any slashdotters out there who worked in the G-LOC (Gravity-induced Loss of Conciousness) research program know bett

    • In 1990 I interviewed for an aerospace engineering job with the then-named Naval Air Development Center (NADC) in Warminster, PA. I stood right outside the centrifuge they were using to train Navy pilots for high-g flight, and was told about this exact kind of capability. Later during the interview, I heard the loud WhooooSH-WhoooSH-WhoooSH as the thing whirled away right beneath the office we were using.

      In the NADC centrifuge, as in the Swedish model, the pilot controls the g-forces by maneuvering the "a

  • Use Artificial Gravity. Duh. (Score:3, Funny)

    by SlipJig ( 184130 ) on Monday January 05, 2004 @03:34PM (#7883945) Homepage
    I mean, they can do it on Star Trek, right? Artificial gravity would be the perfect tech for this purpose... putting a simulator capsule on a centrifuge is so, like, stone age. ;)

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?

Close