> Later in the day Sperry demonstrated the device to Commandant
> Joseph Barr s of the French Air Force. This time he showed
> that the plane could take off and land just by autopilot as
> well.
How does that work?
Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but taking
off and especially landing need more inputs to the autopilot
(f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind etc).
On Friday, November 2, 2012 2:26:36 PM UTC-4, Bradipus wrote:
> How does that work?
> Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but taking
> off and especially landing need more inputs to the autopilot
> (f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind etc).
From what I've seen, a pilot could take the aircraft off, set the course, and then bail out (parachutes DID exist) to allow the flying bomb to continue on to its destination. As far as windage is concerned, the Sperry seemed to be able to take that into account.
Bradipus <ahem-a...@never.mind.it> wrote:
>mike, 06:43, venerdģ 2 novembre 2012:
>> Later in the day Sperry demonstrated the device to Commandant
>> Joseph Barrčs of the French Air Force. This time he showed
>> that the plane could take off and land just by autopilot as
>> well.
>How does that work?
>Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task
The problem isn't keeping a fixed course, the problem is ensuring the
fixed course actually intersects the desired endpoint.
>> How does that work?
>> Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but taking
>> off and especially landing need more inputs to the autopilot
>> (f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind etc).
>From what I've seen, a pilot could take the aircraft off, set the course, and then bail out (parachutes DID exist) to allow the flying bomb to continue on to its destination. As far as windage is concerned, the Sperry seemed to be able to take that into account.
It's cheaper to fit bomb release systems and use the airframe more
than once...
On Nov 2, 3:42 pm, The Old Man <Braung...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 2:26:36 PM UTC-4, Bradipus wrote:
> > How does that work?
> > Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but taking
> > off and especially landing need more inputs to the autopilot
> > (f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind etc).
> From what I've seen, a pilot could take the aircraft off, set the course, and then bail out (parachutes DID exist) to allow the flying bomb to continue on to its destination. As far as windage is concerned, the Sperry seemed to be able to take that into account.
IIRC, this idea had been tried by the US Airforce during the WWII.
After the 1st unsuccessful experiment it was abandoned.
On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:04:23 PM UTC-4, Alex Milman wrote:
> IIRC, this idea had been tried by the US Airforce during the WWII.
> After the 1st unsuccessful experiment it was abandoned.
If you're refering to the Joe Kennedy incident, I seem to remember hearing that it was the sixth experimental flight of such a weapon, although it was the first to be actually aimed against an Axis target. The other five were proof-of-concept flights.
>On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:04:23 PM UTC-4, Alex Milman wrote:
>> IIRC, this idea had been tried by the US Airforce during the WWII.
>> After the 1st unsuccessful experiment it was abandoned.
>If you're refering to the Joe Kennedy incident, I seem to remember
>hearing that it was the sixth experimental flight of such a weapon,
>although it was the first to be actually aimed against an Axis >target. The other five were proof-of-concept flights.
On Friday, November 2, 2012 1:26:36 PM UTC-5, Bradipus wrote:
> Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but taking
> off and especially landing need more inputs to the autopilot
> (f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind etc).
F-106 lands itself after pilot ejects from a flat spin
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 1:26:36 PM UTC-5, Bradipus wrote:
>> Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task, but
>> taking off and especially landing need more inputs to the
>> autopilot (f.ex. precision altitude meters, lateral wind
>> etc).
> F-106 lands itself after pilot ejects from a flat spin
>>> Later in the day Sperry demonstrated the device to
>>> Commandant Joseph Barr s of the French Air Force. This time
>>> he showed that the plane could take off and land just by
>>> autopilot as well.
>>How does that work?
>>Keeping fixed course and altitude is not a hard task
> The problem isn't keeping a fixed course, the problem is
> ensuring the fixed course actually intersects the desired
> endpoint.
> D.
I was interested in the autopilot landing operation. Did they have ILS then?
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:29:38 -0700, Tim wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:09:35 PM UTC+13, The Horny Goat wrote:
> I got the impression that it took a very long time for Parisians to be
> fond of the Eiffel Tower. More of tourist thing. Saved from being
> demolished as a temporary structure after the World's Fair by being
> useful as a radio tower (and for advertising in the case of the Citreon
> motor company) - Possibly no great effect on morale at that date.
> Anyway, the Tower may be quite hard to wreck by bombs - the small radar
> towers in the UK stood up to Luftwaffe bombing in World War II
In fact, the thing that ended up saving the Eiffel tower was its use as a
radio tower during WWI.
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:33:54 -0500, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <1m1bg7l5ndl2m$.lsagyvfphrtz$....@40tude.net>, > Solom...@citi.com (SolomonW) wrote:
>> In Albert Speer view, who was responsible for production in the Third >> Reich disagreed with you.
> Speer is not that reliable a source. Everything he is quoted on was > said post war to Allied questioners. He had an incentive to bend fact to > something that would please them. There are actual surviving German > production records.
> Ken Young
The same could be said of many others, for example the US government after
WW2 had a vested interest in proving that bombing did work.
