Yes, I know. But, since the displayed image has to come through the transparent mirror, can the mirror adjust the size of the ‘ghost’ image, as well as the distance and angle of the ‘ghost’ image from the pilot?

About the only ‘adjustment’ that can be made is the brightness of the projected data and symbology (and of course what is/is not displayed based upon the mode selected by the pilot)

Total internal reflection. Its not a mirror per se its a glass that allows the image to reflect and yet allows one to see through. Thats what allows the view to either focus on the image being projected or ‘look through’ to whats ahead of them.

Slight comment here…. the HUD presentation is focused at infinity so that the pilot’s ‘focus’ does not have to change. The ‘outside world’ and the data are all at the same focal range. The key, as you say, is that the displayed data has minimal to no adverse impact on seeing the ground, target, etc etc at the same time.

One drawback to HUDs are there ‘relatively’ small field of view (FOV). They are typcially more accurate than helmet mounted displays, but compared to HMDs they offer a very small display ‘area’.

Mark

Usually there are both…. batteries and generators

Typically mounted just below the engine (connected by a power-take-off shaft) is where the main generator and hydraulic power bits-n-pieces are located. There are also backup electrical generators which can be powered by all sorts of methods (ram air turbine, hydrazine, etc etc)

All sorts of batteries as well…. mostly to handle ‘transient’ power needs, pre-start functions or emergency (last ditch) purposes.

Mark

is that mr belenko in USAF flying gear and an adversary aircraft????

coanda

Looks like Miramar Navy Fighter Weapons School (aka Top Gun) to me. Note the Ferris paint scheme on the F-5.

Suspect not very recent…

Mark

This may be the first time I’ve used Google to answer a question from google…

Mark

ps Best I could find was picture with 14…. Saw references to more (including carriage of 40mm), but alas no pictures

For the true air speed they are traveling at, the turn radius is quite large for a given bank angle. So from that VERY limited sense they are not very maneuverable. Thing is these high-speed fliers can be out-turned, but not caught.

Now, what the maximum sustained g-level is at ‘typical’ operating altitudes/speeds…. Beats me. Could be quite low if they are operating at/near maximum altitudes (with little-to-no excess power [Ps]), but that is conjecture on my part.

One needs to also account for the aircraft structural g-limits for various configurations.

Mark

It wasn’t a movie…. but there was a series on British TV in the early 80’s??? that covered a pilot training class as it progressed through the year (kind of like the veterinary series, except using aspiring fighter pilots trying to learn to land vice a vet-to-be with their arm up a cow’s…. well you-know-what)

Long time ago… but it seemed pretty good in that it included some ‘not-so-great’ moments such as trainee’s being given the boot.

Mark

From…

http://www.albany.edu/~fordham/nfmids.pdf

“1966 Dispute involving the Soviet Union, July 15. Data on the level of force used are missing.

The U.S. claimed a Soviet helicopter forced down a U.S. helicopter in West German territory and threatened the crew with their machine guns. West German border police forced the Soviet helicopter to leave. Protests were lodged, but there was no U.S. use of force (NYT 7/16/66). “

And here’s more…

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/BorderOps/ch5.htm

“On 14 July 1966 a Soviet “Hound” helicopter shadowed a 14th ACR CH-34 helicopter conducting a routine patrol along the border, crossed the border and buzzed the US helicopter several times, and finally forced it to land. It hovered above the US helicopter for approximately 15 minutes in an attack position until it was finally driven away when a Zoll border patrol shot flares at it. Subsequent investigation revealed-that the US pilots, who were flying an unarmed helicopter, had been following standard operating procedures — and good sense — when they departed the border and, when followed by the Soviet helicopter, allowed themselves to be forced down. To compound matters, a communications problem had precluded timely assistance by US fighters or other parties. As a consequence of this incident, communications between the armored cavalry regiments and the Flight Coordination Centers were upgraded and, more significantly, a radical change was made in USAREUR border operations procedures.”

Since this is an ‘official’ site and probably used “for public consumption” reports on the incident, I like their use of adverbs/adjectives…

“…allowed themselves to be forced down”

….communications “problem”

and the subsequent “radical change”

Makes one wonder what really happened and whose posterior got ‘booted’??

You owe me a ‘virtual beer’…:)

Mark

Red Flag the “Ultimate” Game comes to mind….

esp the bit about the newly discovered ‘maneuver’ sure to bring any potential adversary to their knees.

At least is was filmed at Nellis to lend some credibility 🙂

Mark