To aid, or not to aid...
Hi Stein,
Tongue in Cheek here, but just the same. One ought not lead potential customers to make decisions on information that isn't directly relevant.
Accepted as tongue in cheek...
![Smile :) :)]()
... but I you will allow me...
The intension was to provide a (different?) perspective on the merit of aiding. I think it is only fair to inform the uninformed that there is a world out there that makes use of aiding. Successfully.
Like Rob (if I may) I agree that aiding is not all bad. That was my only point with this post. And I am sticking to it.
I mean, Missles only need to work ONCE, and if UAV's crash nobody dies. If that's the equivalency level for a set of specs you'd like to reference your products to - well then.....you know what I'm getting at.
Yes: missiles need to work once... but when you are flying along at Mach 2 trying to hit a 3x3m target, you only have one shot at it!
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
You need to get is perfect first time.
that the Sensor packages that Xbow makes for Missles and Torpedos are quite a bit different than the packages they have produced for military and civilian aircraft.
Exactly my point! In SPITE of the sensors being so much better, aid IS used. My point: aiding is NOT just used in designs using low cost /"bad" sensors. Aiding is NOT just used if you can't get the job done because you are using bad sensors. The reasoning could also be to obtain even better results from good sensors!
Missles are normally guided by a number of things other than it's AHRS alone,
Yes and no. True: terminal guidance is typically based on something other than AHRS/INS (laser, IR, visual, etc). But prior to lock-on (in for example long range missiles), it is common to fly on INS only! If you don't keep things tightly under control prior to the terminal phase, there will be no terminal phase. You have wasted millions! (and could die for doing so!)
Neither have passengers on board...
Yes. But in both cases people could get killed. We have UAVs flying in commercial airspace in RSA! If a 280kg UAV flying along at 150 kts with 50 litres of fuel comes crashing down onto a building...
... neither of them are installed into a product built by a guy in a garage, and neither of them are controlled by people who do it for a hobby ...
VERY good point.
Can I say it again: VERY good point.
But does that imply we should lose out on the potential benefits that aiding offers because we don't know how to install these things? I guess in some case (sadly) it does!
But maybe one of the complicating factors is a lack of knowledge then, and not just the technique? And maybe we can solve this?
Missles are normally guided by a number of things other than it's AHRS alone, as are UAV's.
Well, if there is a pilot in the loop, then yes... But (in my experience) during autopilot flight (which is most of the time) it is common to fly on a system that is making use of huge filter that calculates attitude, velocity, position from range-bearing radar, gyros, accelerometers, static and dynamic pressure, GPS... That is one serious amount of aiding!
My point is that it's like Apples and Onions again.
And my point is: let's not claim that aiding is all bad. That aiding is just used if you have sensors that can't do the job. That aiding can't add value... There are professionals out there putting it to good use.
Remember, I also still hold the opinion: a bad design is always bad! (And the same goes for a bad installation! And man: I am losing sleep because I am seeing too many BAD installations lately!)
Best Regards,
Nicol.
PS: Only had a look at the other posts after having submitted mine... Thanks guys. No harm intended!!! Knowledge sharing intended!
PS2:
Ex-Guidance and Control systems engineer... But NOT a navigation expert - or claiming to be one!
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()