http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_Pilotl...ding_580787.htm
Kind of an interesting incident. Wonder if anything similar has happened with other aircraft?
Full Version: F-106 pilotless landing
I read of a DC-3 that "landed" itself after those aboard bailed out. Some small private aircraft (Pipers come to mind) have glided to safe landings after occupants were incapacitated for some reason.
"Trim" as mentioned in the F-106 article basically means that an aircraft can be set to maintain a given airspeed using "trim tabs" on the elevators. There are often trim tabs on other surfaces, which also help control roll and yaw. If a plane looses power, and no other action is taken, it will nose down and increase speed. When it reaches the airspeed it was trimmed for, it will level out until it slows again, then it will nose down, increase speed and level out, in a series of "steps" until something else happens, such as reaching the ground.
If the plane levels out over an open area just as it touches down, it can land relatively undamaged. As you can imagine, several factors have to come together just right for a successful landing to occur. The higher the airplane's performance, the less the likelihood of a successful landing.
"Trim" as mentioned in the F-106 article basically means that an aircraft can be set to maintain a given airspeed using "trim tabs" on the elevators. There are often trim tabs on other surfaces, which also help control roll and yaw. If a plane looses power, and no other action is taken, it will nose down and increase speed. When it reaches the airspeed it was trimmed for, it will level out until it slows again, then it will nose down, increase speed and level out, in a series of "steps" until something else happens, such as reaching the ground.
If the plane levels out over an open area just as it touches down, it can land relatively undamaged. As you can imagine, several factors have to come together just right for a successful landing to occur. The higher the airplane's performance, the less the likelihood of a successful landing.
I know of two books that refer to a B-17 which, having been abandonned by its crew over the Channel, came down intact in England.
While it didn't land intact, here is a interesting story of a B-36 that flew several hours after being abandoned by it's crew over the Pacific:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_British_...mbia_B-36_crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_British_...mbia_B-36_crash
There was also the Lady Be Good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_be_Good_(aircraft)
The aircraft did break in two when landing, however B24's were not known to do much better when piloted in with the gear up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_be_Good_(aircraft)
The aircraft did break in two when landing, however B24's were not known to do much better when piloted in with the gear up.
I've never heard of aircraft landing themselves but I have heard of and watched videotape of aircraft taking off by themselves. 
Danish Hunter on finals, when the engine spools down. Too close to the ground, the pilot ejects and lands safely, blast from the seat restart the engine and the ungrateful planes goes on to execute a perfect wheels up landing.
I have heard of incidents when tractor starts due fire in the barn where tractor was kept, but ejector seat starting a jet engine!!!
What would the problems/advantage /disadvantages of turning existing surplus to requirement air frames in UCAV and simlar unmanned units
Our AF got similar story with an IL-28, electric malfunction or so, plane above clouds, overcast, no radio etc. - crew bailed out, plane landed close to Austrian border
QUOTE(WRW @ Wed 20 May 2009 0435) 
What would the problems/advantage /disadvantages of turning existing surplus to requirement air frames in UCAV and simlar unmanned units
They are widely used (at least in US) for targets and some research. "Q" means "drone" (ex, QF-4, a Phantom converted for unmanned flight).
QUOTE(Dawes @ Sat 2 May 2009 1904)
Wonder if anything similar has happened with other aircraft?
QUOTE(MiG Master: The Story of the F-8 Crusader by Barrett Tillman)
A fresh-caught aviator was making his second familiarization flight in an F-8H. Paced by an instructor pilot in another Crusader, the new sport made touch-and-go landings at his home field. However as a crosswind picked up to 16 knots, the instructor told his student that an arrested landing was advisable. The active runway had arresting cables at both ends as well as long-field arresting gear at 6000 and 7000 feet from the approach end.
On his next landing the new F-8H pilot lowered his hook, touched down 500 feet short of the first arresting gear, and rolled through the cables. But the hook skipped over the wires, and the Crusader added power, lifted off, and went around again. The second attempt resulted in another bolter, and the Hotel lifted off once more. But witnesses thought the new pilot over-rotated, as the F-8 was fish-tailing, nose-high and settling.
Seconds later the pilot radioed, "I got something, this thing's not flying." Immediately he selected afterburner, apparently in an attempt to maintain flying speed, but one second later he ejected at about 20 feet above the runway.
Now on its own, the pilotless Hotel proceeded antoher 600 feet straight ahead, touched down on it's main gear, and snagged the arresting cables. it stopped near the left side of the runway, with moderate damage. Meanwhile, the pilot had parachuted into a lake alongside the runway.
On his next landing the new F-8H pilot lowered his hook, touched down 500 feet short of the first arresting gear, and rolled through the cables. But the hook skipped over the wires, and the Crusader added power, lifted off, and went around again. The second attempt resulted in another bolter, and the Hotel lifted off once more. But witnesses thought the new pilot over-rotated, as the F-8 was fish-tailing, nose-high and settling.
Seconds later the pilot radioed, "I got something, this thing's not flying." Immediately he selected afterburner, apparently in an attempt to maintain flying speed, but one second later he ejected at about 20 feet above the runway.
Now on its own, the pilotless Hotel proceeded antoher 600 feet straight ahead, touched down on it's main gear, and snagged the arresting cables. it stopped near the left side of the runway, with moderate damage. Meanwhile, the pilot had parachuted into a lake alongside the runway.
QUOTE(shep854 @ Wed 20 May 2009 1202)
They are widely used (at least in US) for targets and some research. "Q" means "drone" (ex, QF-4, a Phantom converted for unmanned flight).
This I understand - but why not in combat
What would we do with all those well paid pilots then?
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
QUOTE(JamesG123 @ Fri 22 May 2009 0012)
What would we do with all those well paid pilots then?
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
what about recon ala Predator etc
Recon and light attack in a low EW threat environment are fine (but Predators STILL get lost). But you wouldn't want to bet you ass on it given how tenuous they are in general and how vulnerable they are to jamming/spoofing they would be against any enemy that knows what a transistor is.
Maybe in 10 years, but the technology isn't there yet.
Maybe in 10 years, but the technology isn't there yet.
QUOTE(JamesG123 @ Thu 21 May 2009 1912)
What would we do with all those well paid pilots then?
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
And the data links are not secure and reliable enough yet to rely upon.
It seems to me that all the unmanned aircraft are useful so long someone does not send up an obsolete weather satellite as an ASAT on an obsolete rocket (As the PRC recently demonstrated) and destroy communications with the ground. Net centric warfare I would, think, come to a very rapid halt.
I hope we keep the man in the loop for this and many other reasons for a long time.
Only a problem if you're flying them from the other side of the world by satellite, & can't re-route your comms. If you're controlling them locally, with local relays (e.g. via another UAV) as required, all the anti-satellite weapons in the world won't make any difference to you.
Also, the point of net-centric warfare is that you can re-route around failed or destroyed links. Broken links can mean bandwidth problems on surviving ones, & eventually break the net, but there should be a fair bit of resilience.
So far, they do all have a man in the loop AFAIK, & I see no immediate prospect of that changing.
Also, the point of net-centric warfare is that you can re-route around failed or destroyed links. Broken links can mean bandwidth problems on surviving ones, & eventually break the net, but there should be a fair bit of resilience.
So far, they do all have a man in the loop AFAIK, & I see no immediate prospect of that changing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.