No more CQs?

[Brett327]

Very true. But I think a guy that has vertigo, is dog tired, or has shitty weather at the boat, simply wants SOMETHING to help him make it to midrat sliders. An old fashioned Mode 1 may not be magic, but it works pretty darn well and has saved lots of assses over the years. Can a Hummer even latch up a Mode 1 today? Couldn't in my day. I was flying a night in NORPAC when we took two other Hoovers and two Intruders to Adak. The E-2's options were land or bail out in February arctic waters. Finally flew a manual pass into zero zero at the biggest deck in the BG. I bet he wished he had Mode 1. E-2 pilots always had a rep for a steady hand behind the boat. They are being set up for unique bragging rights in TACAIR.

I don't disagree, but that's not the point of the thread, or the change in how our pilots train for the boat. Is it inherently any less safe to CQ for the first time in an E-2 vs. T-45? I don't know, but CNAF and CNATRA think the cost savings wrought by PLM and no VT CQ are worth the risk.

 

[DanMa1156]

FWIW, an automatic approach (ACLS Mode 1) =/= PLM. Completely different animal. Among other things, PLM is continually varying the amount of lift the wings produce by moving LEF/TEF. This would be hard to pull off with a non-living wing.

Maybe it's because I'm a rotorhead or still on my disassociated tour and sadly shedding aerodynamic knowledge, but what's LEF/TEF, what's the "living wing," about?

 

[squorch2]

leading edge flap
trailing edge flap

PLM uses them as spoilers to adjust wing aerodynamics during approach:

When Magic Carpet is switched on, the pilot no longer directly controls the flaps, throttle, and so on. Instead, he or she chooses a path and the computer makes the fine adjustments to get and stay on it. Affecting one aspect of flight — angle, speed, alignment, and so on — still affects the others, but the pilot can focus on one at a time while the computer keeps the others under control. The pilot remains a crucial part of the system.

ETA: link to quote: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/magic-carpet-will-make-landing-on-a-carrier-so-much-eas-1793618342

 

[OscarMyers]

Maybe it's because I'm a rotorhead or still on my disassociated tour and sadly shedding aerodynamic knowledge, but what's LEF/TEF, what's the "living wing," about?

Leading edge flap and trailing edge flaps changing the shape of the airfoil and either increasing or decreasing lift to maintain the aircraft on glideslope.

 

[squorch2]

Also, I kinda wish Precision Landing Mode would have been Precision Flight Mode, but I'm sure that got nixed somewhere.

 

[Gatordev]

As with any jet thread, a helo threadjack is in order...

Maybe not that system precisely, and I might be completely wrong on this, but I could've sworn that I've seen contractors advertising fully automatic approaches and landings for the 60 and I think there are some version of Army helos that actually do have that system. 60s are not fly by wire. I would think if a helicopter could have it where there are far many more flight control variations, a non-fly-by-wire aircraft could too.

Maybe I'm missing your point entirely.

You're conflating a couple of different systems. Sikorsky does a FBW -60, but that's different than what Pags already mentioned, which is a digital AFCS and a coupler. The Army (I think it's their Mikes) have a coupler slaved to their avionics, so the digital AFCS receives input from the nav needles and imparts an outer-loop control command to the mechanical controls. This is the same idea as the R/S coupled approach, it's just comparing the data against a table rather than a nav signal. The helo I fly now has a 2-axis coupler as well, and makes flying an approach super-easy, which is the whole point under SPIFR flying.

But, as was said earlier, that's all different than with PLM, which is changing the shape of the wing mechanically via FBW control input being fed from the brain. Although I guess you could say a helo does it's thing by always changing the shape its "wing," but it's doing that with power, as well.

 

[pilot_man]

The best thing this change will bring us is hopefully more Pri-A CAT 1s, which we need desperately.

 

[Python]

Maybe not that system precisely, and I might be completely wrong on this, but I could've sworn that I've seen contractors advertising fully automatic approaches and landings for the 60 and I think there are some version of Army helos that actually do have that system. 60s are not fly by wire. I would think if a helicopter could have it where there are far many more flight control variations, a non-fly-by-wire aircraft could too.

Maybe I'm missing your point entirely.

Many airline aircraft are not fly-by-wire and have autoland systems. It would seem to me that it could be done without fly-by-wire if the Navy wanted to spend the time and money to develop a system for the E-2. Might mean new autopilots and flight computers.

It can be done for mechanical flight controls, it's just more expensive and harder. 60 automatic approach is an example of what can be done with mechanical controls and I'm sure you could do something higher fidelity with an AFCS. Of course USN 60s are already set up with inner loop type inputs. Not sure what the E-2 has. With an infinite budget it could certainly happen on an E-2; but there probably isn't the same incentive that there is for hornets (life cycle management is my guess).

This is not auto land. This requires fly by wire. As FBW doesn’t mean control input -> control surface movement. FBW means control input -> aerodynamic command.
PLM is manual flying.

This is not auto land. This requires fly by wire. As FBW doesn’t mean control input -> control surface movement. FBW means control input -> aerodynamic command. Comparing this to a 60 is a nonstarter.
PLM is manually flying, as in hand flying. An ACLS Mode 1, is autoland, and completely unrelated to PLM. ACLS is a datalink with between the ship and aircraft. In the future, JPALS will take over this role, but in a different way (again, completely divorced from PLM).

 

[DanMa1156]

As with any jet thread, a helo threadjack is in order...



You're conflating a couple of different systems. Sikorsky does a FBW -60, but that's different than what Pags already mentioned, which is a digital AFCS and a coupler. The Army (I think it's their Mikes) have a coupler slaved to their avionics, so the digital AFCS receives input from the nav needles and imparts an outer-loop control command to the mechanical controls. This is the same idea as the R/S coupled approach, it's just comparing the data against a table rather than a nav signal. The helo I fly now has a 2-axis coupler as well, and makes flying an approach super-easy, which is the whole point under SPIFR flying.

But, as was said earlier, that's all different than with PLM, which is changing the shape of the wing mechanically via FBW control input being fed from the brain. Although I guess you could say a helo does it's thing by always changing the shape its "wing," but it's doing that with power, as well.

Yeah, I recognize it will be different across different platforms; what I was suggesting isn't PLM for the E-2, but the idea of an automatic, precision approach for a non-fly by wire aircraft can't be an insurmountable challenge. Yes, the M is the one I was referencing (I think!) where you can slave it to a Nav signal to fly a precision approach to a landing spot. Also, I know the USCG J's (and I'm sure their follow on) have the option to fly an automatic approach to a designated spot (something the R/S lacks, like when we put in a survivor waypoint). But, as others have said, I realize now it's less of a technical challenge than it is a financial one it seems like.

leading edge flap
trailing edge flap

PLM uses them as spoilers to adjust wing aerodynamics during approach:



ETA: link to quote: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/magic-carpet-will-make-landing-on-a-carrier-so-much-eas-1793618342

Leading edge flap and trailing edge flaps changing the shape of the airfoil and either increasing or decreasing lift to maintain the aircraft on glideslope.

Thanks guys. Figured it had to be something like that in the context of the conversation, just couldn't pinpoint the acronym.

 

[DanMa1156]

This is not auto land. This requires fly by wire. As FBW doesn’t mean control input -> control surface movement. FBW means control input -> aerodynamic command.
PLM is manual flying.

This is not auto land. This requires fly by wire. As FBW doesn’t mean control input -> control surface movement. FBW means control input -> aerodynamic command. Comparing this to a 60 is a nonstarter.
PLM is manually flying, as in hand flying. An ACLS Mode 1, is autoland, and completely unrelated to PLM. ACLS is a datalink with between the ship and aircraft. In the future, JPALS will take over this role, but in a different way (again, completely divorced from PLM).

Just when I thought I was getting it... I realize how much more I need to read.

 

[Python]

Just when I thought I was getting it... I realize how much more I need to read.

That’s what this thread is for!

 

[jollygreen07]

After reading about how difficult the E-2 is behind the boat, is anyone else interested to see all the shenanigans that will ensue when the CHICOMS start trying to bring their E-2 clone aboard their first big carrier?

 

[OscarMyers]

Yeah, I recognize it will be different across different platforms; what I was suggesting isn't PLM for the E-2, but the idea of an automatic, precision approach for a non-fly by wire aircraft can't be an insurmountable challenge. Yes, the M is the one I was referencing (I think!) where you can slave it to a Nav signal to fly a precision approach to a landing spot. Also, I know the USCG J's (and I'm sure their follow on) have the option to fly an automatic approach to a designated spot (something the R/S lacks, like when we put in a survivor waypoint). But, as others have said, I realize now it's less of a technical challenge than it is a financial one it seems like.





Thanks guys. Figured it had to be something like that in the context of the conversation, just couldn't pinpoint the acronym.

The FBW system is pretty crazy compared to conventional flight controls. I spent the better part of a decade working on legacy fcs systems and learning about fcs control logic and Alpha v G-control at TPS blew my mind. And adding another flight surface configuration like PLM just makes things that much more "unconventional." When you realize a rhino pilot just suggests to the airplane what it should do then you can start understanding FWB. ?

 

[DanMa1156]

After reading about how difficult the E-2 is behind the boat, is anyone else interested to see all the shenanigans that will ensue when the CHICOMS start trying to bring their E-2 clone aboard their first big carrier?

Slight threadjack... who the hell calls them CHICOMS anymore? What is this, 1951?

 

[nittany03]

FWIW, an automatic approach (ACLS Mode 1) =/= PLM. Completely different animal. Among other things, PLM is continually varying the amount of lift the wings produce by moving LEF/TEF. This would be hard to pull off with a non-living wing.

Was monkeying with the flaps to that degree always in the Hornet/Rhino/Growler flight control laws, or was that part of PLM?