Is Automated Aircraft Assembly A Realistic Concept?

The aircraft industry as a whole has consistently led the way in developing high tech solutions to increase overall production and decrease the time needed for production. The latest example can be found by looking at the widespread use of composite materials in aircraft construction. While high strength, low weight composites have been around for many years, it has taken this long to perfect the formula for use in aircraft construction. Since an aircraft is built to such tight tolerances, designers must be absolutely certain that their materials will work in every possible situation. Many people have often questioned why automation has not been utilized more widely within the aircraft manufacturing industry and there are a few logical answers. The main argument that is most logical is that if the automotive industry can figure out how to utilize robotic machinery for assembling cars & trucks, why can’t the aircraft industry do the same. While this may seem like a good comparison on the surface, when you dig a little deeper you see why this is not such a great example. Another likely factor in the whole automation argument is that the companies will face the backlash from workers whose jobs are replaced by robots and other machinery. When you put all of these factors together it becomes a little more clear as to why we have not seen more widespread automation throughout the aircraft manufacturing sector.

One of the biggest challenges of trying to integrate robotic automation systems into the aircraft manufacturing process is the sheer size of the components. When it comes to automotive assembly the biggest component is only several feet long and weighs less than 1,000 pounds. This is compared to full size aircraft which are assembled in sections weighing several tons and spanning distances similar to the length of your home. Not only does the sheer size of the component parts pose a potential problem but the fact remains that aircraft need to adhere to extremely tight tolerances in order to maintain absolutely perfect handling and performance characteristics. While these are certainly a unique set of challenges, they are not insurmountable, just a big project to undertake. It would seem likely that one of the major aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing or Airbus would have developed a solution to increase the automation in factories, but up to this point there have been no sweeping changes in this regard. However, a team of developers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials has put a significant amount of time and effort into developing a system to revolutionize the aircraft manufacturing industry.

Their newly developed system would replace the traditional assembly cell system, which requires extensive renovation and retooling of factory space when switching manufacturing from one model to another. The idea that Fraunhofer has put forth is dubbed as a flexible assembly line model that relies upon robotic grippers attached to a single arm. While this type of system would need to be reconfigured when switching from one model to another, it would take far less time than traditional methods. This system does have some similarities to what is found on automobile assembly lines but this is a truly unique solution catered to the challenges of aircraft manufacturing. They plan to demonstrate some of the capabilities of this system at the upcoming Composites Europe Trade Fair being held in Stuttgart, Germany from September 27-29. It would likely take a great deal of additional testing and research before any manufacturer where to introduce this system into their factories. However, it would not be a great surprise if this system started to see use in the assembly of new aircraft within a few years.

Jet Engine Jet Pack: Bell WR19 Backpack

The jetpack really does exist, and flies longer than 20 seconds. But the reality is that it’s better to stand on your jet pack than strap it on your back, no matter how cool that seems.

China’s J20 Better Than America’s F-22 Raptor?

The J-20 has thrust vectoring and the design probably means it will out turn an F-22 in a dogfight, however…

Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk Images

The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a stealth ground attack aircraft formerly operated by the United States Air Force. The F-117A’s first flight was in 1981, and it achieved initial operating capability status in October 1983. The F-117A was “acknowledged” and revealed to the world in November 1988.

A product of the Skunk Works and a development of the Have Blue technology demonstrator, it became the first operational aircraft initially designed around stealth technology. The F-117A was widely publicized during the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

The Air Force retired the F-117 on 22 April 2008, primarily due to the fielding of the F-22 Raptor and the impending fielding of the F-35 Lightning II.

In 1964, Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev, a Soviet/Russian mathematician, published a seminal paper, “Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction”, in the Journal of the Moscow Institute for Radio Engineering, in which he showed that the strength of a radar return is related to the edge configuration of an object, not its size. Ufimtsev was extending theoretical work published by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. Ufimtsev demonstrated that he could calculate the radar cross-section across a wing’s surface and along its edge. The obvious conclusion was that even a large airplane could be made stealthy by exploiting this principle. However, the airplane’s design would make it aerodynamically unstable, and the state of computer technology in the early 1960s could not provide the kinds of flight computers which allow aircraft such as the F-117, and B-2 Spirit to stay airborne. However, by the 1970s, when a Lockheed analyst reviewing foreign literature found Ufimtsev’s paper, computers and software had advanced significantly, and the stage was set for the development of a stealthy airplane.

Click on the images below to see a larger image

Photos of the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk

Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle Images

The Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle is a proposed upgrade of the F-15E by Boeing using stealth features, such as internal weapons carriage and radar-absorbent material.

The Silent Eagle is aimed at current F-15 users such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea, among others. The F-15SE will reduce its radar cross-section (RCS) by using fifth generation fighter technologies. Distinguishing features of this version are the Conformal Weapons Bays (CWB) that replace the Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) to hold weapons internally and the twin vertical tails canted outward 15 degrees to reduce radar cross section. Weapons storage takes the place of most of each CWB fuel capacity.

Images for the Boeing F-15SE Eagle

United States Deterrence Systems and Strategies at the Beginning of the Cold War

When World War II ended in September 1945, the United States of America was the most powerful economic and military country in the world. Sole possessor of the mighty atom bomb, in possession of the most advance conventional weapon systems in the world and the world power that was the least affected by the destruction of four dramatic years of fighting. The US, confident that peace would reign in the world for at least a decade, started demobilizing its massive armed force apparatus and curtailed the development of new weapon systems. World events changed all this very quickly. The wartime military relationship that existed between America and the Soviet Union promptly soured. In the years that followed the end of the war, the Soviet regime moved to consolidate its hold on the countries of Eastern Europe. They did not stop there. The Soviets wanted to spread communism to all parts of the globe. After Eastern Europe, they planned to move towards Asia. In America, the US armed forces continued their downsizing in 1946 despite the increasing evidence that Red Russia were continuing to build their military forces. During the early years of World War II, the Soviet Union was forced to move most of its industrial base outside their capital, Moscow. As a result, by mid to late 1940s, they possessed a large, albeit crude, military complex. The Soviets started a crash course to develop new weapon systems to increase their already massive land and air forces. Gathering information from espionage activities around the world, their own scientific research data and capture of German scientists, the Soviet Union was by mid 1946 in a full rearmament mode. In the meantime, their leaders were moving promptly in securing their country’s position as an equal to that of the United States. Political and military leaders in the West watched these disturbing developments within their former allied with uneasiness.

In March 1946, former wartime British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, gave a powerful and prophetic speech at Westminster College stating that: “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe”. He was right of course. Tension would increment when on October 23rd, 1947, American intelligence officials noted the existence of a high number of Soviet made Tu-4 “Bull” bombers. The Bull was a textbook case of reverse-engineering a copy of the huge Boeing B-29 bomber. The Soviets got their hands on a few examples of the B-29 when they crash landed on Soviet territory after sustaining damages during bombings runs over Japan late in the war. These bombers gave the Soviet Union for the first time the ability to hit targets in continental America. By the beginning of 1948, all but the essential communication links between the one-time allies had ceased. Then on the morning of April 1st, 1948, the Soviets closed all land access to the divided city of Berlin, deep behind the Soviet Occupation Zone. The land blockade lasted until September 30th, 1949; three days after President Harry Truman informed a stunning nation that the Russians had succeeded in exploding an atom bomb, ending the short-lived United State monopoly on nuclear weapons. All these developments, occurring in such a short times span, prompted concern in the ability of the US armed forces to defend the homeland. Accordingly to the times in 1947, the United States government proceeded to make one of the most overwhelming reorganizations of its political and military structure. The War Department, stabled since the incorporation of the Colonies, was replaced with the new Department of Defense. The Army retained all of its ground forces, the Navy retained their assets, but the air arm of the Army became a separate service, the newly and independent military service was the US Air Force. As soon as the new Air Force enters service, it started to flex its political power. It was often at odds with the Army brass over the control of nuclear weapons systems as well as who should be in control of the country’s air defenses. As the 1940s passed and the 1950s began, US weapons development systems were in constant turmoil because of the inter service rivalry that was forming between the three services. Both the Army and the Air Force fought feverishly for control over the development and deployment of a surface-to-air missile system, and the three services sought to develop independently long range ballistic missile programs.

The outbreak of hostilities in the Korean Peninsula in 1950 put all the squabbling to rest. The US Army de-activated most components of its artillery department and reorganized them in the newly created Army Anti-Aircraft Command (ARAACOM). The ARAACOM was assigned the task to deploy antiaircraft artillery on sixty six key locations inside the United States as a stopgap until a missile defense system were available. About the same time, the US Air Force was assigned control of America’s ballistic missile research and developing program. In the mid 1950s the Air Defense Command (ADC) became the main strategic command, coordinating the defenses of continental United States. With this massive undertaking, the Air Force was awarded a bigger piece of the budgetary pie. Funds were now available for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, new long range heavy bombers and the big prize, the guided long range ballistic missile. The priority of funding went to the research and development of a strategic long range surface-to-surface missile, an offensive missile system. The leaders at the Pentagon envisioned an offensive missile system so powerful that it by itself deterred any possible preemptive nuclear attack by the Soviets. The deployment of these missiles clearly implies the ability of the US to achieve a massive retaliation capability upon the attacker. The role of these missile and that of their ability to lunch a massive un-surviving counterattack would be discussed during most of the years of the Cold War. Military, as well as political leaders would use the leverage that this system gave to them to bargain and to achieve political and military concessions from the Soviets and America.

Because the design and development of an operational guided long range ballistic missile system seems to many in Washington as a more technical plausible weapon platform than the development of a comprehensive strategic missile defense system. The decision was made to pursue the offensive ballistic missile system first. Working on the strategic defense system was put on the back burner. America’s strategic doctrine underwent numerous changes during the course of the Cold War. Then, during the 1950s, the Eisenhower Administration pursued a military doctrine that called for a scale back in conventional force military expending and increasing the nuclear strike force in order to make it clear to the Soviet Union that the United States had the weapons and the means to deliver a massive nuclear blow at the Soviet Union if they decided to launch a first strike campaign. Critics of this new policy, known as New Look, pointed to the administration that there was no assurance that the US arsenal could survive a Soviet nuclear attack. When the new Kennedy Administration took office in 1961, they brought a fresh look at the world strategic situation. Flexible Response was born. This new military doctrine called for a mixture of conventional and nuclear forces, which could be tailor made to threats in a proportionate manner. The success of this new policy would be the backbone of United States Military posture during the next thirty five years.

Flying Home Made Machines

Is flying home made machines safe? Just ask Wilbur and Orville Wright. They tried and failed. Then they tried again and again, finally succeeding in getting man in the air (if only briefly) in 1903. Maybe the most famous aviation explorers in American history this team of brothers didn’t let fear stand in their way of success. Still, their journey towards building the very first airplane didn’t come without a few close calls.

Since that fateful day more than a century ago thousands of other aviation enthusiasts have tried to build their own man-made airplanes. If you are one of them, steadfastly working on your own handmade airplane, flying scooter or even hot air balloon in your garage, then you will need to learn how to make flying home made machines as safe as possible to avoid disaster. Take a few of these tips from the Wright Brothers:

• Never test any aircraft (but especially a homemade one) alone. Always work in a team to keep a disaster at bay.
• Never cold-test any type of flying machine with a human – always test your machine with a robot or even a stuffed animal first.
• Be sure that you know what you are doing. If you are not absolutely certain that your machine will fly, do not climb in!
• Pre-test at low altitudes first. Try testing your aircraft from a low roof or hill before heading toward the closest cliff.
• Use every available caution. Wear a parachute; let local emergency personnel know about your test (better yet, have someone on hand to help out in an emergency); etc.

Building and flying home made machines can be exhilarating, but always be sure that you take safety seriously. After all, you want to be healthy – and in one piece – top enjoy your homemade aircraft for years to come.

Airport Body Imaging

You wouldn’t want to be stripped naked in the middle of an airport for virtually anyone to see, so why, say critics of airport body imaging, would you want a scan of your naked body taken and shown at the security gate? In the light of new security threats at America’s airports, it is no wonder that many people want more intrusive security measures taken to ensure everyone’s safety. The problem, according to the system’s critics, is that airport body imaging leaves the innocent feeling violated.

Allowing security officers to see anything a person may be hiding underneath their clothing, this millimeter technology does not leave much to the imagination to those viewing the scans, say critics. Meanwhile, advocates of the security system claim that privacy issues are being addressed by:

• using a blurrier setting than the device offers to make body parts less noticeable by viewers
• using two security officers; one to scan the passenger in person and the other to view the scan in a separate area without ever seeing the passenger face-to-face
• blurring out the passengers face on the screen
• keeping all viewing screens away from others in the surrounding area
• deleting all images immediately after the scan has been reviewed and the passenger cleared for admittance

Even with these privacy safeguards, many critics worry that airport body imaging technology will only become better and better as it becomes more commonly available, leaving many passengers at the mercy of those viewing their naked body scans.