Aviation Auto Pilots Options

[SanderO]

I am familiar with marine recreational auto pilots and how they work. Marine navigation is a 2 navigational problem and considers the curve of the globe as flat for short distances. Long distance will require constant change of compass heading and trace a great circle as opposed to a rhumb line course. I understand how the heading to waypoint is calculated and updated and corrections applied to the rudder. Lots of number crunching and feedback.

Aviation however introduces a third axis - elevation. This is controlled by flaps and so forth, but not being a pilot I am not familiar with how this all works. I do understand that if you change the airfoil shape on one wing and not the other the plane will turn or the tail flap is moved to make a turn. I don't need a flying lesson but I can see the complexity in 3D autopilot control with so many means to control turns and climbs or descent.

My question is when did these auto pilot systems go operational for large planes?

Did this come after the DOD turned off selective availability of GPS or was it accurate enough with the SA on? Did / Do aviation GPS use DGPS or land stations for increased accuracy? Do the land based signals provide 2 D or 3 D data?

How are aviation auto pilots used? Are the navigation from waypoint to waypoint set by the pilot? Does this include altitude as well? Or are the waypoints established by ground based beacons?

Do pilots program headings or waypoints into their APs?

When were APs certified for landing commercial airliners?

[aerohead]

Im sure most of you have seen this but im gonna post it anyway.
1984 NASA 720 Remote Control Crash Test. But as stated in this thread,
AutoPilot and Remote Control have been alive for a very long time.
Btw guys, didnt Hitler toy around with it ?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain........"




And i cant help but wonder if this next "test" wasnt a dry run to see how
much evidence would be left after a 500 mph crash into a concrete/steel building.
Pretty obvious if you ask me. F-4's have long been a favorite of the old school gang.
And there in lies the "why" for the excessive speeds that day, imo.




And dont forget the chiefs little Northwoods plan of 1962 to remote fly
a plane over Cuban airspace and detonate it, claiming it was shot down
by a Cuban MIG, after a mid-air plane swap near Eglin, where the passenger
plane (carrying CIA operatives posing as college students) would land and the
remote controlled drone would take off and continue the illusion. This plan was
WRITTEN AND APPROVED by the Chiefs of Staff and appoved by the Chairman of the JCS- Lemnitzer.
The only obstacle was McNamara, JFK's Secretary of Defense.

Clicky- If you can handle the truth about how far the Machine
will go


This post has been edited by aerohead: Jan 29 2011, 05:31 PM

[IslandPilot]

Im sure most of you have seen this but im gonna post it anyway.
<snipped out NASA remote control test>

And i cant help but wonder if this next "test" wasnt a dry run to see how
much evidence would be left after a 500 mph crash into a concrete/steel building.
Pretty obvious if you ask me. F-4's have long been a favorite of the old school gang.
And there in lies the "why" for the excessive speeds that day, imo.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/--_RGM4Abv8" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<snipped out "Northwoods" reference>

Aerohead;
You consistently have very good posts on this site. Your knowledge and info are beyond "common knowledge" when it comes to AIRPLANES;... how they're built and maintained; their capabilities; and what they "can", and "cannot" do.

Basically, I "like" your stuff.
But, I "don't like" that F4 video...

It is "interesting", because it seems to show a "dustification" of both the concrete wall and the F4. You "offer" this video to better inform us what "might" have happened when TWO "alledged" aircraft struck the twin towers;... Why they "needed" to be going so fast.... and Why they seemed to "disappear" into the side of the buildings.

At first, the F4 video, is compelling. It causes me to realize there is a "force of impact"... or a "velocity of impact" that seemingly "vaporizes" everything at the "point of impact"; and it doesn't matter if it's aluminum, steel, or concrete.... real stuff seems to "disappear" into dust, or "vaporize".

This didn't seem "right" at first; but I realized it may be "true"... under certain conditions. If an A10 Warthog fires its cannon @umpteen thousand DU rounds/minute at a similar target... the "target" explodes into a dust cloud and the "bullets" disappear; just like that F4.

I also understand if a meteorite crashes into the earth, it is equivalent to a Nuclear blast... which would release tons of dust into the atmosphere, similar to a volcano.

And, if it IS posible for a "critical Velocity of impact" to cause such a "vaporizing dustifacation"... it MAY be POSSIBLE to achieve a similar result from very high "COMPRESSIVE FORCES" in the WTC buildings, AFTER the collapse is initiated in some other manner,... and a large upper part of the building has started "falling" toward the ground.

I don't want to "admit" that such "dustification/vaporization" due to high speeds, or loads, occurred at the WTC on 911, but it MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE!

HOWEVER:
The "DUSTIFICATION" (if you will?) of everything at the WTC, doesn't bear any similarity to your F4 video, when the aircraft "impacts" the building. The "DUSTIFICATION" at the WTC doesn't occurr until the towers start collapsing, over an hour later.

Then, it is amazing how similar the "DUSTIFICATION" process seems to be between the F4 and the WTC.

ALSO:
The f4 Test doesn't really "show" or "prove" anything "valid" enough scientifically, to compare it to the 911WTC attacks:
The F4 and a B-757 or B-767 are not very "similar".
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/varoom.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilot.gif)
The F4 has a wing leading edge that is damn near "bullet proof". A bird can put a nasty dent in just about any Airliner's wing.
An airliner's nose is built like an aluminum "beer can";
an F4's nose is very much stronger, and "more pointy".
What was in the F4's nose for that test? Was it packed with Depleated Uranium?
How much FUEL was in the F4 for the "test"? It looks like "NONE",... I didn't see any "flash" or fire.
Was the F4 powered by its own engine... or was it "rocket" powered?

AND LAST:
What was the PURPOSE of the F4 test, in the first place?
The video made some statement about the "adequacy" of "CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSELS" at our Nuclear Power Plants, to withstand such an attack.
And I say that's BULLSHIT! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bullshit.gif)
If I'm a Muslim/Israeli Terrorist, and if I watch that video...
I will have to remind my "contacts" at the DOD/CIA/Blackwater/? to Please send (2) two specially equiped F4s for "each" Nuke Plant attack, I may be planning.
The video documents how EFFECTIVE ONE F4 can be, to REMOVE the CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSEL.... so that "another" F4 about 30seconds later; can then destroy the "NUCLEAR REACTOR".

Looks like a pretty DUMB TEST to me. But, what else can you expect from MILITARY INTELLIGENCE? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[aerohead]

Aerohead;
You consistently have very good posts on this site. Your knowledge and info are beyond "common knowledge" when it comes to AIRPLANES;... how they're built and maintained; their capabilities; and what they "can", and "cannot" do.
Thanks IP, i like what ive read from you also




Basically, I "like" your stuff.
But, I "don't like" that F4 video...
I dont either, its a test that (to me) may tell a tale. The intent of the test



It is "interesting", because it seems to show a "dustification" of both the concrete wall and the F4. You "offer" this video to better inform us what "might" have happened when TWO "alledged" aircraft struck the twin towers;... Why they "needed" to be going so fast.... and Why they seemed to "disappear" into the side of the buildings.

At first, the F4 video, is compelling. It causes me to realize there is a "force of impact"... or a "velocity of impact" that seemingly "vaporizes" everything at the "point of impact"; and it doesn't matter if it's aluminum, steel, or concrete.... real stuff seems to "disappear" into dust, or "vaporize". well a real f-4 has alot of aluminim, titanium, engines and landing gear of course, but i dont
know if THIS one did. The exhaust doesnt look "right" for the engines to me. And yes the momentum would be tremendous
as seen at the WTC, as the plane exploded through the other sides of the buildings.



This didn't seem "right" at first; but I realized it may be "true"... under certain conditions. If an A10 Warthog fires its cannon @umpteen thousand DU rounds/minute at a similar target... the "target" explodes into a dust cloud and the "bullets" disappear; just like that F4.

I also understand if a meteorite crashes into the earth, it is equivalent to a Nuclear blast... which would release tons of dust into the atmosphere, similar to a volcano.

And, if it IS posible for a "critical Velocity of impact" to cause such a "vaporizing dustifacation"... it MAY be POSSIBLE to achieve a similar result from very high "COMPRESSIVE FORCES" in the WTC buildings, AFTER the collapse is initiated in some other manner,... and a large upper part of the building has started "falling" toward the ground. My issue with the WTC is that gravity is no doubt a force and can be
used to help a collapse, but it cannot over come more than its force. I do not believe gravity was enough to achieve the massive
crushing, pyroclastic flow of material we saw. It was enormous and not logical to me.



I don't want to "admit" that such "dustification/vaporization" due to high speeds, or loads, occurred at the WTC on 911, but it MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE! Cant say i agree with you here, due to eyewitness testimony, and evidence in the debis

HOWEVER:
The "DUSTIFICATION" (if you will?) of everything at the WTC, doesn't bear any similarity to your F4 video, when the aircraft "impacts" the building. The "DUSTIFICATION" at the WTC doesn't occurr until the towers start collapsing, over an hour later.

Then, it is amazing how similar the "DUSTIFICATION" process seems to be between the F4 and the WTC.

ALSO:
The f4 Test doesn't really "show" or "prove" anything "valid" enough scientifically, to compare it to the 911WTC attacks:
What it proves to me is that someone was testing aircraft to see what a 500 mph impact would do.
The F4 and a B-757 or B-767 are not very "similar". Well, they are both stout, rigid built planes. The
materials are similar, F-4 would be tougher no doubt
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/varoom.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilot.gif)
The F4 has a wing leading edge that is damn near "bullet proof". A bird can put a nasty dent in just about any Airliner's wing.
An airliner's nose is built like an aluminum "beer can"; Both noses are not rigid, both (if i remember correctly) are
composite, they arent made for impact, only aerodynamics and to house the radar dishes
an F4's nose is very much stronger, and "more pointy". More pointy yes, stronger- dont think so. If so not
by much
What was in the F4's nose for that test? Was it packed with Depleated Uranium?
Thats my question too, Why ? And dont forget that some claim the pentagon was
reinforced in the very section that was hit. Was this why ? Dunno

How much FUEL was in the F4 for the "test"? It looks like "NONE",... I didn't see any "flash" or fire.
Was the F4 powered by its own engine... or was it "rocket" powered?
Rocket powered, cant see if the engines were installed but i doubt it. And i dont think
there was fuel on board either, no fireball.

AND LAST:
What was the PURPOSE of the F4 test, in the first place? Yes, what was the purpose
The video made some statement about the "adequacy" of "CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSELS" at our Nuclear Power Plants, to withstand such an attack.
And I say that's BULLSHIT! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bullshit.gif)
If I'm a Muslim/Israeli Terrorist, and if I watch that video...
I will have to remind my "contacts" at the DOD/CIA/Blackwater/? to Please send (2) two specially equiped F4s for "each" Nuke Plant attack, I may be planning.
The video documents how EFFECTIVE ONE F4 can be, to REMOVE the CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSEL.... so that "another" F4 about 30seconds later; can then destroy the "NUCLEAR REACTOR".

Looks like a pretty DUMB TEST to me. But, what else can you expect from MILITARY INTELLIGENCE? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Ya i agree, but to me it could be a test to see waht would be left if a beefed up 757/767 drone was smashed
at 500 mph into a building. What would be left? "Would there be enough left to identify it and put
our asses in the gallows" ? Dunno But i find it interesting that this test was done at all. But i do
know that the old school guys (myself included even tho im not that old) love te F-4 and there were
a massive amount of them made and sitting in the bone-yard. One with my name on the canopy.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 10 2011, 08:22 PM