Iran Moves 35 Years Ahead by Reverse Engineering US RQ-170

[SOHEIL]

USA and French led NEURON UCAV with partnership members Italy, Greece, Sweden, Spain and Switzerland.

Exactly ... because these things need advanced computer & softwares for fly !

Is 500 really a girl, and that too in that avatar?

I'm in love....... AGAIN.......

@500 ... new lovers !

 

[Archdemon]

Exactly ... because these things need advanced computer & softwares for fly !


@500 ... new lovers !

Northrop N-1M first flight 3 July 1941

.
.
.
Northrop YB-49 first flight 21 October 1947

Back then computers were in their diapers.

 

[Hack-Hook]

and both of those planes had vertical Stabilizers

 

[SQ8]

and both of those planes had vertical Stabilizers

This one did not.

 

[Hack-Hook]

This one did not.

the Famous Horten Ho 229
did it fly ? as I recall the V1 was an un-powered glider that crashed , the V2 had perfect record of 2 crash out of 3 flight and the v3 only an airframe found and confiscated by US Army and they could not find an engine to fit in it

by the way that picture is a mockup built in 2008

 

[SQ8]

the Famous Horten Ho 229
did it fly ? as I recall the V1 was an un-powered glider that crashed , the V2 had perfect record of 2 crash out of 3 flight and the v3 only an airframe found and confiscated by US Army and they could not find an engine to fit in it

by the way that picture is a mockup built in 2008

It did, aerodynamically(which is the focus of the post) and the V2 crashed once(there was only one) due to engine trouble and not aerodynamic faults.

And Yes, that is a mockup .. the picture is an exemplar and not a focal point.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It did, aerodynamically(which is the focus of the post) and the V2 crashed once(there was only one) due to engine trouble and not aerodynamic faults.

And Yes, that is a mockup .. the picture is an exemplar and not a focal point.

no it crashed twice once while landing in the first flight the landing gear could not tolerate the unstable plane and broke , in the third flight an engine failure caused the plane to get totaled

 

[Archdemon]

and both of those planes had vertical Stabilizers

Northrop N-1M dont have vertical stabilizer, and even if Northrop YB-49 have them it doesnt change the that they are flying wings.

 

[SQ8]

no it crashed twice once while landing in the first flight the landing gear could not tolerate the unstable plane and broke , in the third flight an engine failure caused the plane to get totaled

Wrong again, the second flight had the landing gear mishap because of early chute deployment by the test pilot..
Read this
http://www.aerodesign.ufsc.br/ipa/03_design/aeronaves/The%20Horten%20Flying%20Wing%20in%20World%20War%20II.pdf

There is NO such thing as landing gear not being able to tolerate an unstable plane!
How does a landing gear, on which the mass of the plane rests on the ground and as such absorbs shocks from ground contact have anything to do with aerodynamics when retracted.. or aerodynamics effects its tensile strengths. I have no idea where that theory came from in anything related to knowledge of aerodynamics.

 

[gambit]

well first when u make a theory , u should have enough evidence to prove it!! when i say iran landed the drone , i give u 2 logical evidence for it:

1- the drone was full of explosives in order to destroy the tech inside if necessary and

2- the drone has clearly landed down , and the "coming down like a leaf" is nothing but BS!! how can something come down like a leaf from 15km above intact?

now if u say iran didnt hack into it , give us some evidence !! enlighten us

Here is why your 'logical evidence' is not logical...

If I was going to install explosives to destroy whatever technology inside the aircraft, I must have provisions in the event the aircraft is no longer under my control. The system must recognize certain constant variables that became missing AND/OR below a certain threshold. This self destruct system must recognize when the aircraft is autonomous and when it is directed. Autonomy does not mean a loss of control. Autonomy is beyond something like cruise control in your car. Autonomy mean the vehicle is able to make decisions based upon programmed instructions. If my self destruct system cannot recognize this, every time my vehicle is allowed to be autonomous, the vehicle will self destruct. What would be the point of that?

So how can I make the self destruct system 'smart' enough so it would not destroy my aircraft? I can have a constant communication link between base and aircraft that does nothing but to show the link is a valid one. But what happens if there are atmospheric interference? Or if my aircraft is in high traffic? How long can I have this link severed or degraded before the system determines that the aircraft is no longer under my control and self destruct? This falls under those variables that either must exists, or cannot degrade below certain thresholds, or both.

If I design the aircraft to be highly autonomous, as in being completely out of communication with home and still be able to accomplish its mission, the self destruct system must recognize certain evidences that indicate the aircraft is being 'taken over' by someone else other than me. So now the problem is authentication. Are the new orders legitimate? New orders does not automatically mean the new authority is a hostile one. Situations arises that may need the aircraft to relocate itself to new missions. Autonomy is highly problematic for self destruct mechanisms simply because of the sheer possibilities of when the vehicle is re-directed then allowed autonomy. Over and over for as long as fuel holds out. The order can be as short and simple as: 'Go to coordinate X and Y and loiter for further instructions.' Then the comm link is silenced. But is it severed? Silence does not mean disconnect. But what if for security purposes, I want complete disconnect?

Finally, regarding this self destruct using explosives...

What is the level of destruction are we talking about here? Fire is good for destroying, or at least severely damages, things at the molecular level. Conventional explosives, as much as we can play with the word 'conventional', usually uses shattering force to break apart, or 'destroy', things at the structural level. Breaking or shattering apart a wooden structure is not the same as burning the structure. So what kind of 'explosives' do I need to destroy this aircraft? Fire (incendiaries) to destroy electronics? Shattering force for aircraft structures? How complex will this system be? How dangerous for when the aircraft is in friendly hands for something as simple as refueling?

You say Iran 'hacked' the American drone? Then the burden of proof rests upon you. Not US.

 

[haman10]

@gambit

the biggest proof is the intact drone bro !!

u said that there is a different between silence and severed com.

i gotta tell u , cant we have a constant communication but without any specific order ??

so whenever the com. is severed , the drone knows that the new orders are not authentic and comes back to the previously ordered airport

in this case afghanistan .........

about the level of needed explosives , u dont have to blow up the whole drone , plus ur explosives are planted inside the drone so they dont have to bypass drone's protective armor !!

so just an small amount of fire as u mentioned to damage the highly advanced electronic devices ...

 

[gambit]

RQ-170 is a flying wing which is inherently as unstable as it get , you cut the power and it'll dive nose down and there will be no flying leaf
another flying wing is B2 that need 3 different computer work with each other just for stabilizing it , you cant compare these planes with glider like planes like what you showed

The flying wing design is no less stable than 'conventional' designs. People plays fast and loose with the words 'stability' and 'instabiblity'. The main issue with the flying wing is not stability but DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLABILIT in the yaw axis.

Conventional designs have control mechanisms in all three axes of pitch, roll, and yaw. Main wings are mainly for lift purposes. Horizontal stabilators for directional control in both straight and level flight and in maneuvers. Vertical stabilators and fins are for the yaw axis.

The flying wing does not have a distinct mechanism for the yaw axis. So how can we maintain control in the yaw axis? Installing vertical stabs does not make the flying wing any less of a flying wing. It is called that because the machine IS a wing. It does not have a distinct fuselage as how we usually see on other aircrafts. Another method (keyword search) is 'split ailerons'. Basically, the wing tips have ailerons on top and bottom of the wing.

Deceleron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A deceleron, or split aileron, was developed in the late 1940s by Northrop originally for use on the F-89 Scorpion fighter aircraft. It is a two-part aileron that can be deflected as a unit to provide roll control, or split open to act as an air brake. Decelerons are also used on the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, the A-6 Intruder and the Northrop B-2 Spirit flying wing. In differential use they impart yaw moment, potentially obviating the rudder and vertical stabilizer control surface, although requiring active flight control.

The reason why the B-2 uses this method is because we wanted to remove any major structures that would contribute to total RCS and the vertical stabs like on the old designs would not do. Computer controlled FLCS offers the most precise displacement of the ailerons in both execution of maneuvers and minimizing RCS contributorship when the ailerons are activated.

@gambit

the biggest proof is the intact drone bro !!

u said that there is a different between silence and severed com.

i gotta tell u , cant we have a constant communication but without any specific order ??

so whenever the com. is severed , the drone knows that the new orders are not authentic and comes back to the previously ordered airport

in this case afghanistan .........

about the level of needed explosives , u dont have to blow up the whole drone , plus ur explosives are planted inside the drone so they dont have to bypass drone's protective armor !!

so just an small amount of fire as u mentioned to damage the highly advanced electronic devices ...

I can tell from your response that everything I said about the explosive self destruct mechanism is beyond your reasoning skills.

 

[gambit]

Its not just that, unless they intend to use it within line of sight they need to really invest in the technology required for CnC. Otherwise you're just cutting up a drone and replicating its broad outline while it remains a hollow system sans the real details (where the devil lurks). If one of our Iranian friends would be good enough to provide a picture of a ground exploitation cum CnC station then even a cursory look at it should make things clearer.

You got that right.

This article is a joke. Airframe wise, there is nothing spectacular about the RQ's flying wing design and Iranian aviation engineers know this. Heck, even radio control (RC) scale modelers know this.

 

[haman10]

I can tell from your response that everything I said about the explosive self destruct mechanism is beyond your reasoning skills.

hmm yeah at last , ur the professional !! lol

you see , ur nationalism is making u runaway whenever you encounter someone opposing your "us is the best in the world" theory !

you runaway by sentences like : u donno much , we are stronger that u no matter what and etc.

U DONT KNOW MORE THAT ANYONE BRAH !! keep that in mind

i enjoyed talking to u anyway

 

[Esc8781]

Not over Iran !

If you think so. If this aircraft survived in Pakistan's contested airspace, well that foreshadows how survivable it is in other countries' airspace.