backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Aug 4 at 2:22 AM


The Boeing Phantom Eye  (Source: Boeing)
Boeing's new UAV technology is a green aircraft able to offer several key improvements than today's generation of aircraft

Boeing's newest unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has several significant advantages over unmanned aircraft currently in use today.

Research is led by the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center located at Edwards Air Force Base -- and ground tests are expected to begin this September.  Boeing hopes to have early test flights starting immediately in 2011.  

The Boeing Phantom Eye hydrogen-powered UAV is a propeller-driven aircraft able to fly for up to 10 days while conducting intelligence gathering or attack missions.  The aircraft uses two 2.3 liter, four-cylinder engines capable of pushing 300 horsepower total.

The company hopes Phantom Eye can conduct "persistent intelligence and surveillance."  

"The really nice thing about that vehicle is that you can pretty much run operations within the continental U.S.,” said Drew Mallow, Boeing official responsible for monitoring aircraft development.  "You wouldn’t need many bases for this vehicle and have global reach so you could do [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and other operations from a single base.”

The Phantom Eye holds a smaller payload and is slower than the RQ-4 Global Hawk used by the US Air Force, but the new UAV can also conduct surveillance missions up to 65,000 feet above the target.  More importantly, the Boeing Phantom Eye can stay up to 10 times longer near a target than the RQ-4 and other UAVs.

The model currently in development can fly up to 96 hours before needing to land, and has a 150-foot wingspan and 450-pound payload.  Boeing hopes to release a new model in 2014 that can fly up to 240 hours without landing.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cool, but title misleading...
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2010 9:33:19 AM , Rating: 1
You contradict yourself in the article, Michael. In the first half of it, you talk of their UAV being able to do 10 days in the air without landing. Later on though, at the very end you say the following:

quote:
The model currently in development can fly up to 96 hours before needing to land , and has a 150-foot wingspan and 450-pound payload. Boeing hopes to release a new model in 2014 that can fly up to 240 hours without landing .


Which is it?

The 10 day figure is quite appealing to me if they can ever reach it. This thing is HUGE though... 150-foot wingspan and it only needs 300 horsepower to get to 65,000 feet--that is pretty impressive. If they could somehow figure out how to put a nice power source in it to power a high-wattage laser... Loiter and destroy. ;)

Maybe mount a giant magnifying glass on it so it can focus and burn terrorists (or whoever) like ants.




RE: Cool, but title misleading...
By Fracture on 8/3/2010 9:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
Not really a contradiction, just different models of the same aircraft. The model they're working on NOW can only do 96 hours, but they aim to improve (the same aircraft) to 240 hours, as the title claims.

10 days is the goal, not the actual right now. Its not Michael's fault that Boeing hasn't done it yet.


By Steve1981 on 8/3/2010 9:45:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Its not Michael's fault that Boeing hasn't done it yet.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. My people on the inside are all pointing their fingers at him.


RE: Cool, but title misleading...
By bigdawg1988 on 8/3/2010 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 5
Not to be the grammar police, but the heading says that it can fly for 10 days, It doesn't say future models will fly for ten days. A little bit misleading, but 96 hours is still a good long time, and probably with not much fuel.
I guess 4 days isn't as impressive as 10 days though. :)


RE: Cool, but title misleading...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 11:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. "Can" or "able" implies that it's real, and working, and doing it as we speak.

But I'm happy with "just" 4 days. That's pretty awesome.


By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 11:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
yeah cause you figure whats the longest flight from America like 25 to 30 hours. So you figure maybe at most a day and a half to fly to the target. Hover for a day and then a day and a half back thats still 24 hours worth of data from sending it from America so thats still not to bad


RE: Cool, but title misleading...
By MrFord on 8/3/2010 11:28:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I guess 4 days isn't as impressive as 10 days though. :)


It already can hover a lot longer than my phone can even standby :/


By AntDX316 on 8/3/2010 10:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
than ur phone can standby nice lol


RE: Cool, but title misleading...
By wired00 on 8/3/2010 11:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
seriously every article i read, instead of reading presumably educated forum posts with SCIENTIFIC views on the article i'm constantly seeing blastman BS'ing about grammar. please go away.


By MrBlastman on 8/3/2010 11:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
I _rarely_ BS about grammar. This is one case though, where the title is truly misleading. It says the aircraft is able to fly 10 days nonstop, yet, later in the article it says it is only able to do 96 hours now, and is planned to be able to do 10 days by 2014.

It can't fly 10 days nonstop right now, hence, the title is misleading. I think it is valid to mention that. Also, if you fully read my post, you would see that after that I began dreaming about technologies that could be used with the aircraft.


Testing not Research,
By KillerNoodle on 8/3/2010 9:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The propeller-driven Phantom Eye is headed to the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., for ground tests in September before a test flight in early 2011

Testing is being done at NASA not research... :-/




RE: Testing not Research,
By Quadrillity on 8/3/2010 9:29:06 AM , Rating: 3
Is testing not a form of research?


RE: Testing not Research,
By KillerNoodle on 8/3/2010 9:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
The way I see it is that testing is a part of the validation process of research. So to call something research would be to include all steps including problem analysis, design, alternative designs, and construction.

And with a quasi-public institution like NASA if it was pure research the results would normally be available to the public. Since they are only testing a private company's design the data will not be available to the public. Especially since this will more than likely be put into military service.


RE: Testing not Research,
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Research is led by the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center located at Edwards Air Force Base -- and ground tests are expected to begin this September.


He is saying the research was done at the NASA Dryden Flight Research and that the testing will be later in September. Those are two different statements one being past tense and one future which should not have been used in the same sentence but I do not think he is saying the testing is research. I would chalk that up to bad grammer


RE: Testing not Research,
By KillerNoodle on 8/3/2010 1:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you mean.

BTW the article from AirForceTimes says that ground tests will begin at Dryden in September [2010].


RE: Testing not Research,
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 1:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think that should be interesting to see this happen. Soon this things will do more then just spy. Soon they will all be used for actually fighting.


RE: Testing not Research,
By KillerNoodle on 8/3/2010 8:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yup that is exactly why current military UAV's have weapons....

They got time sensitive intel...and by the time they could have man power on the ground or even en route via air the situation changed to make that intel useless.

Give it time.


No Loitering
By Spookster on 8/3/2010 1:08:16 PM , Rating: 3
And the enemy can easily defeat this UAV by putting up "No Loitering" signs everywhere.




RE: No Loitering
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 1:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nice, I like that.


Using truck engines!
By Basilisk on 8/3/2010 12:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
A promo clip on youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97lvvSrgkiY




Using truck engines!
By Basilisk on 8/3/2010 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
A promo clip on youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97lvvSrgkiY




I had to click the picture...
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 2:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
for some reason I expected it to say "NewEgg" on the side of the egg. Oops, I mean plane.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki