Boeing Hummingbird Drone Crashes In Belize 68
garymortimer writes "Still not reported elsewhere, Flight International reports another crash of the Boeing Hummingbird helicopter UAV. The Hummingbird A160 is in development, but test flights already demonstrate successively greater endurance, higher altitudes, more extensive autonomy, and greater payload. The program has ambitious goals of a 2,500-mile (4,000 km) range, 24-hour endurance, and 30,000 ft (9,100 m) altitude. Flights are largely autonomous, with the aircraft making its own decisions about how to fly itself so as to meet certain objectives, rather than relying on real-time human control. Maximum speeds are over 140 knots. The aircraft is 35 ft (11 m) from nose to tail and has a rotor diameter of 36 ft (11 m).[2] Until recently it was powered by modified Subaru automotive engines, but newer versions fly with the Pratt & Whitney PW207D turboshaft."
Terrain (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
because a stealth submersible conspiracy makes much more sense then incompetent companies that only care about their bottom line and doing the least amount of work as possible..
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "In August 2010 the A160 Hummingbird is undergoing jungle test flights in Belize". So it wasn't just having a joy ride in open skies, it was in a tricky terrain to navigate, for *any* kind of autonomous vehicle.
Aviation Week reported on its blog [aviationweek.com] that that the A160T crashed on approach, close to the landing site.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem (Score:2, Funny)
Until recently it was powered by modified Subaru automotive engines, but newer versions fly with the Pratt & Whitney PW207D turboshaft.
There's your problem. Everyone knows that automotive engines aren't involved in aerial crashes. That's why the previous design was so safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say the same thing, before I refreshed the page to see if anyone else was being a pedantic jackass :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm actually kind of curious what Subaru motor they were using. Wikipedia says the PW207D puts out a max of 572shp, so I imagine the Subaru motor must have been fairly extensively modified because their consumer offerings top out around 320hp in the EJ25. An extra 100 ponies out of an EJ isn't hard, but much more than that gets expensive real fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible the article was wrong and they were using a Mazda rotary engine. These are commonly used for experimental/hobbyist aircraft because of a high power to weight ratio and a simplicity that translates into good reliability. Some of the triple and quad rotor variants can match or better the power output of the turbine they switched to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com], "automotive" doesn't have to mean "car." It could be a truck engine or some other ground vehicle (military?) engine. My guess is that it IS from a car, though. You can readily get over 500 hp from a WRX engine [turbo-kits.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's possible, but I doubt Subaru/Robin makes anything big enough for aircraft. However, the article does state "Subaru automotive" so I don't think another division of Fuji (they do dabble in aerospace, after all) was the source of the engine.
Also, kind sir, I must take the liberty of informing you that UofA drools and Grant Mac rules. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually kind of curious what Subaru motor they were using. Wikipedia says the PW207D puts out a max of 572shp, so I imagine the Subaru motor must have been fairly extensively modified because their consumer offerings top out around 320hp in the EJ25. An extra 100 ponies out of an EJ isn't hard, but much more than that gets expensive real fast.
They are custom modifications... just like 500-hp STIs. Try searching google for "500 HP Subaru engine." Or search for "Subaru aircraft/hovercraft engine."
This almost a bit familiar... (Score:2)
So - when will they declassify a version with small high wing and two large swiveling turbines at its ends?
Re: (Score:1)
"Still not reported elsewhere" (Score:1, Informative)
This was on Flight International's iOS app yesterday.
Flightglobal news has it as 1239 Friday.
Re: (Score:1)
How can parent be modded informative?
Not reading the article is the way to go on /. but not properly reading the intro and then complaining about it should be frowned upon even on /.
Just for you, from the text *up there*: "Still not reported elsewhere, Flight International reports..." actually linking to that Friday news you talk about.
I know my post is just garbage and adds nothing to the subject itself, but rather than modding you down I think it may be more helpful to shove it on your face so you don't
Just ignore (Score:5, Insightful)
but test flights already demonstrate successively greater endurance, higher altitudes, more extensive autonomy, and greater payload.
Don't let the fact that it crashes bother you at all, this is the drone you want!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
but test flights already demonstrate successively greater endurance, higher altitudes, more extensive autonomy, and greater payload.
Don't let the fact that it crashes bother you at all, this is the drone you want!
No big deal ... they just didn't put enough sugar water in the feeder.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
but test flights already demonstrate successively greater endurance, higher altitudes, more extensive autonomy, and greater payload.
Don't let the fact that it crashes bother you at all, this is the drone you want!
So this is the droid we're looking for!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes... that's all fine but does it speak Bocce?
"A160" (Score:2)
I like the way they used Airbus naming conventions. Is that so that every time a crash makes a headline Joe Sixpack will swear never to fly in a yoorapeean airplane.
No fear (Score:2)
That's probably why it crashed. It wasn't afraid not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well it was flight testing after all. you're gonna lawn-dart a few drones from time to time.
I'd like to have seen more details on the why and how though... good bet it was at landing or takeoff. I've smashed up my model heli numerous times that way. I've only mortared it twice. Flying, meh. Takeoff, not too bad. Landing, can be quite tricky.
And never forget, takeoff is compulsory, but landing is mandatory. ;)
Why Belize? (Score:2)
Re:Why Belize? (Score:5, Insightful)
A great vacation spot for diving, but flight testing?
Most test flights work fine over a desert. Trying it in a jungle is much more elucidative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A great vacation spot for diving, but flight testing?
They were testing the DARPA developed Forester [darpa.mil] foliage-penetrating radar over Belize's [aviationweek.com] dense jungle canopies. They needed a stable platform, so it had to be a rotorcraft. Not sure why they chose a a fairly new unmanned aircraft as the test bed. Aviation Week has been covering the A160T and the testing down there pretty extensively.
Always nice to see the war effort... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
further bankrupt the U.S.
Well, this kind of tech at least has the potential for significant civilian spinoffs. Flying communications drones, for example, are being considered for providing broadband connectivity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Something bad happened (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore we shouldn't develop this weapon any more. After all, one failure means the whole project will never produce a useful tool, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think TFA is saying that. It mentions that "those trials" are coming to an early end. Which is appropriate. Obviously you want to work out the kinks before trashing another multi-million dollar UAV.
Particularly if you only had one actual flying prototype example to work with. I too would like to know more about how and why it crashed - something that size coming down hard is not funny, and I'd rather they got the bugs out of the control systems while they're still testing.
Re: (Score:2)
I was commenting on a general tone which seems to follow failures, not-quite-meets expectations's, and the weird notion that initial expectations of early prototypes is somehow too low.
See past projects plagued with criticism in the way-early stages that was really uncalled-for (and had the potential to stall the project, becoming self-fufilling). For example, the V-22 Osprey, and missile defense systems.
ha (Score:2)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/09/06/1716245/Ryanairs-CEO-Suggests-Eliminating-Co-Pilots [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
They're completely unnecessary -- we've finally developed AIs capable of controlled flight into terrain with no human input!
More seriously, anyone who thinks a crash of an experimental autonomous rotorcraft with an open-ended AI (i.e. generating its own flight profile from requirements) is a valid argument against the feasibility of a fixed-wing transport flying a pre-planned profile semi-autonomously (likely with the ability to transfer control to one of a bank of standby pilots on the ground somewhere), i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're here, taking note. I would want to know what the drone was doing when it crashed, for example are we talking fairly standard fly from A to B stuff, or doing stunts at low altitude? I would also say... I don't think pilots are unnecessary yet, but the days of requiring two pilots in a passenger jet are numbered. Possibly just with really big numbers...
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's keeping co-pilots. The 'plane is the pilot, the human is the co-pilot. There's still two pilots on the aircraft, see?
Yet more copying-for-traffic BS sites (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't the editors just link to the original source rather than sending bucketloads of traffic to these sites?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/10/347201/a160-hummingbird-crashes-during-testing-in-belize.html [flightglobal.com]
Even contains MORE information like how it failed (in this case, something caused it to go into autorotation and basically didn't succeed with the landing).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks (sincerely), that was a nice one - worth reading indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So if I am to understand correctly, these things are on full-time autopilot."
You understood wrongly.
Hey, but don't let that making you to read TFA.
"If it doesn't pick me up on radar or other sensors, BOOM?"
What do you think that happens if you are flying in a colliding trajectory to another human-piloted aircraft and no one of you pick the other on radar or other sensors? Yes: pilot eyes are sensors.
2 of them crashed here (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)