Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

24 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. 1,900-kw Motor by Taboo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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??

    1. Re:1,900-kw Motor by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny
      about 7 megawatts of peak power...If that's smaller, what was the bigger one??

      1.21 jiggawatts at precisely 88mph.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  2. Possible alternative by swordboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should give this thing a try. Looks fun. They brought it to Detroit once and I was going to ride on it until someone puked all over.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:Possible alternative by fezadow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Attention! Runs MS Windows! High crashability!

  3. Great work, but why? by soluzar22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Great work, but why? by alexatrit · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
    2. Re:Great work, but why? by Aumaden · · Score: 3, Informative
      How else do you expose trainees to what they will really experience in the cockpit?

      The majority of fighters are single seaters with no room to bring along an instructor.

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

    3. Re:Great work, but why? by Visigothe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Great work, but why? by alexatrit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Nothing but the finest in meaningless drivel
  4. Sounds very cool, but, by badfrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long before we get an arcade version?

  5. next up! by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Any chance they'll make a sex simulator with a simulated G-spot?

  6. Enlighten me... by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Enlighten me... by wfberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    2. Re:Enlighten me... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    3. Re:Enlighten me... by hpa · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  7. ASDD by SparkMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    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:

    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.

    --

    -- laws are the opinions of politicians --

  8. Sweedish suburbs? by halo8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the link about the plane.. scroll down
    is it just me or is that not a house in the background

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:Sweedish suburbs? by mabu · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a really nice deaf couple that lives there that cannot understand why they got such a great deal on their new property.

    2. Re:Sweedish suburbs? by Rxke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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'

    3. Re:Sweedish suburbs? by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Sweedish suburbs? by grazzy · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 ;)

  9. Bork! Bork! Bork! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Enough about flight. What about the Swedish Chef Simulator?

  10. Re:Looks like an F-16 by d_strand · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  11. Vomit Comet by HalfOfOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.