Swedish Flight Simulator Adds G Forces

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.'"

Comments

Great work, but why?

[soluzar22]

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?

Re:Great work, but why?

[PPGMD]

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.

Re:Great work, but why?

[Visigothe]

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.

Re:Great work, but why?

[alexatrit]

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 simulator without giving them access to the raw materials that coat the skin.

Also, these days there is a large backlog of background investigations for clearing personnel. So much that many contractors are being given interim clearances - which are like a benefit-of-the-doubt until the background investigations are completed. Extended sim-training can give investigators more time to complete background investigations before sticking people in the cockpit for real.

Disney World Mission to Space

[Mysteray]

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.

Cost, of course.

[Eevee]

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.

Getting some use, etc

[wiredog]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some countries as hard as this might be to believe for Americans are not blood thirsty war mongers like yourselves.

Re:Enlighten me...

[Rxke]

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...

Looks like an F-16

[mirio]

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:Sweedish suburbs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: "road bases".

The entire Swedish air force hinges around a decentralization doctrine, where the greatest part is carried by road bases. Swedish aircraft from the Viggen onwards are designed to demand extremely short runways for take-offs, so any road in Sweden can in theory be turned into an airbase. The same design methodology appears with their maintenance - the 4th gen Gripen fighter/attack plane for example is designed so that its entire engine can be replaced on the ground by just one technician and two conscripts in one hour...
So to knock out Sweden's air force, the thinking goes, an attacking force would have to bomb every road in Sweden (quite an undertaking!)...

Re:Enlighten me...

[grazzy]

now when the russian threat is over, we have the american threat to care about.

Re:Sweedish suburbs?

[October_30th]

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:I know a bit about this

[CyberDruid]

It was a simple buffer overflow bug in the steering system. The system buffered all the pilots movements and performed them one at a time, but the buffer was too small and could actually overflow and crash the system.

Amazingly, this flaw was known by the american company that manufactured the component and the pilots where instructed not to use the "joystick" too much.

The steering system has since been replaced.

IIRC, even though this is not classified in any way, the true cause for the crashes was never properly reported. I know because I am related to one of the guys who did the error investigation. Perhaps the swedish airforce thought that a simple buffer overflow error was too embarassing to admit...

Re:Possible alternative

[xtermz]

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