http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds_qf16_09_23_13.page (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds_qf16_09_23_13.page)
(http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/unmanned-boeing-f16.jpg)
Presumably these won't be getting shot up, Sp why not throw in a real pilot to gain hours as well?
I dont work on anything like this.... PHall could probably chime in, but I would imagine all the life support systems have probably been removed? Also, I dont think the project is concerned about a pilot getting hours.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 03:11:11 AM
Presumably these won't be getting shot up, Sp why not throw in a real pilot to gain hours as well?
It's intended to be an aerial target.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 03:21:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 03:11:11 AM
Presumably these won't be getting shot up, Sp why not throw in a real pilot to gain hours as well?
It's intended to be an aerial target.
With a pilot on the ground...are they using live arms? That makes them quite expensive...
RTFA?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 03:42:56 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 03:21:48 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 03:11:11 AM
Presumably these won't be getting shot up, Sp why not throw in a real pilot to gain hours as well?
It's intended to be an aerial target.
With a pilot on the ground...are they using live arms? That makes them quite expensive...
Since they've outlived their usefulness as piloted planes, why not use them in an RPV configuration? They can be flown ay higher stress levels without endangering a human occupant.
The QF-16A Aerial Target. They've been cranking these out for a year or two.
They can be flown manned or unmanned. The life support equipment is normally left in the aircraft because it's just too much trouble to remove it for the unmanned flights.
They're normally used for air to air weapons training. They don't usually try to actually shoot them down.
If the missile passes within "lethal" range, it counts as a "kill". The AIMS pod does the scoring.
These are the continuation of the QF-4 and QA-4 Aerial Targets.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 26, 2013, 03:51:29 AM
Since they've outlived their usefulness as piloted planes, why not use them in an RPV configuration? They can be flown ay higher stress levels without endangering a human occupant.
No they can't. G limits are G limits. You exceed the G limits and bad things start to happen like wings folding (on a non-Navy airplane!).
Since the aircraft is designed to be flown manned, the G limits the aircraft is designed to take are G's that humans can endure.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 03:50:06 AM
RTFA?
I did. Didn't address all my questions. Presumably still an $XX million craft...so shooting them with live ammo is expensive.
Quote from: PHall on September 26, 2013, 04:58:43 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on September 26, 2013, 03:51:29 AM
Since they've outlived their usefulness as piloted planes, why not use them in an RPV configuration? They can be flown ay higher stress levels without endangering a human occupant.
No they can't. G limits are G limits. You exceed the G limits and bad things start to happen like wings folding (on a non-Navy airplane!).
Since the aircraft is designed to be flown manned, the G limits the aircraft is designed to take are G's that humans can endure.
It was a significant news item when the F-16 was introduced that the pilot was the limiting factor, not the airframe. According to what I can find on the 'Net, 9g is the design load factor and 13.5g is the ultimate load factor for the F-16. Gravity-induced Loss Of Consciousness (GLOC) occurs at anywhere from +6g or more. By 2007 the US Air Force had lost 12 F-16 pilots and 16 aircraft to GLOC. You can fly an RPV all day at levels that exceed any human capabilities.
While they ultimately shoot them down, they use them for quite a bit before hand. They've been doing this for quite a while, using F-4 airframes. As the F-16's come off of prime use, they are still quite valuable for other roles.
Expensive? It's all relative. Research isn't necessarily cheap. The airframe has well paid for itself, now it's relatively cheap compared to purpose building an aircraft just to blow it up.
http://www.tyndall.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4892 (http://www.tyndall.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4892)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 05:08:56 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2013, 03:50:06 AM
RTFA?
I did. Didn't address all my questions. Presumably still an $XX million craft...so shooting them with live ammo is expensive.
Yes it is expensive. But cheaper then not doing the training.
I just always assumed live ammo wasn't used.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 26, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
I just always assumed live ammo wasn't used.
They aren't used for aerial gunnery training.