It is a movie staple to see an overworked air traffic controller sweating over a radar display. Depending on the movie, they might realize they’ve picked the wrong week to stop some bad habit. But how does the system really work? [J. B. Crawford] has a meticulously detailed post about the origins of the computerized air traffic control system (building on an earlier post which is also interesting).
Like many early computer systems, the FAA started out with the Air Force SAGE defense system. It makes sense. SAGE had to identify and track radar targets. The 1959 SATIN (SAGE Air Traffic Integration) program was the result. Meanwhile, different parts of the air traffic system were installing computers piecemeal.
SAGE and its successors had many parents: MIT, MITRE, RAND, and IBM. When it was time to put together a single national air traffic system the FAA went straight to IBM, who glued together a handful of System 360 computers to form the IBM 9020. The computers had a common memory bus and formed redundant sets of computer elements to process the tremendous amount of data fed to the system. The shared memory devices were practically computers in their own right. Each main computing element had a private area of memory but could also allocate in the large shared pool.
The 9200 ran the skies for quite a while until IBM replaced it with the IBM 3083. The software was mostly the same, as were the display units. But the computer hardware, unsurprisingly, received many updates.
If you’re thinking that there’s no need to read the original post now that you’ve got the highlights from us, we’d urge you to click the link anyway. The post has a tremendous amount of detail and research. We’ve only scratched the surface.
Professional mountain bike racing is a rather bizarre sport. At the highest level, times between podiums will be less than a second, and countless hours of training and engineering go into those fractions of seconds. An all too important tool for the world cup race team is data acquisition systems (DAQ). In the right hands, they can offer an unparalleled suspension tune for a world cup racer. Sadly DAQs can cost thousands of dollars, so [sghctoma] built one using little more then potentiometer and LEGO.
The hardware is a fairly simple task to solve. A simple Raspberry Pi Pico setup is used to capture potentiometer data. By some simple LEGO linkage and mounts, this data is correlated to the bikes’ wheel travel. Finally, everything is logged onto an SD card in a CSV format. Some buttons and a small AMOLED provide a simple user interface wrapped in a 3D printed case.
Analyzing the data is a rather daunting task. The entire analysis framework is neatly wrapped into a web server. The DAQ can automatically sync with the web interface, and provide suspension metrics in conjunction with action camera footage and a GPS track for further analysis.
However, not all is as it seems when it comes to correlating the suspension data into such a nice UI. A key issue is that with four bar, or even six bar, mountain bike linkage designs, the leverage ratio applied to the shock changes through the wheels travel. That means, when measuring shock travel, it needs to be adjusted to find wheel travel according to manufacturer specifications.
You need to be a bit of a suspension wizard to make sense of the charts. Nevertheless, for the mountain biking hackers out there, everything is available on Github, so if you wish to analyze suspension performance, make sure to check it out!
AC induction motors are everywhere, from ceiling fans to vehicles. They’re reliable, simple, and rugged — but there are some disadvantages. It’s difficult to control the speed without complex electronics, and precisely placing the shaft at a given angle is next to impossible. But the core of these common induction machines can be modified and rewired into brushless DC (BLDC) motors, provided you have a few tools on hand as [Austin] demonstrates.
To convert an AC induction motor to a brushless DC electric motor (BLDC), the stator needs to be completely rewired. It also needs a number of poles proportional to the number of phases of the BLDC controller, and in this case the 24-pole motor could accommodate the three phases. [Austin] removed the original stator windings and hand-wound his own in a 16-pole configuration. The rotor needs modification as well, so he turned the rotor on a lathe and then added a set of permanent magnets secured to the rotor with JB Weld. From there it just needs some hall effect sensors, a motor controller and power to get spinning.
At this point the motor could be used for anything a BLDC motor would be used. For this project, [Austin] is putting it on a bicycle. A 3D printed pulley mounts to the fixed gear on the rear wheel, and a motor controller, battery, and some tensioners are all that is left to get this bike under power. His tests show it comfortably drawing around 1.3 kW so you may want to limit this if you’re in Europe but other than that it works extremely well and reminds us of one of our favorite ebike conversions based on a washing machine motor instead of a drill press.
The balance bikes toddlers are rocking these days look like great fun, but not so great in the snow. Rather than see his kid’s favourite toy relegated to shed until spring, [John Boss] added electric power, and an extra wheel to make one fun-looking snow trike. Like a boss, you might say.
Physically, the trike is a delta configuration: two rear wheels and one front, though as you can see the front wheel has been turned into a ski. That’s not the most stable configuration, but by shifting the foot pegs to the front wheel and keeping the electronics down low, [John] is able to maintain a safe center of gravity. He’s also limiting the throttle so kiddo can’t go dangerously fast– indeed, the throttle control is in the rear electronics component. The kid just has a big green “go” button.
Bit-banging the throttle, combined with the weight of the kiddo up front, creates a strong tendency towards wheel-spin, but [John] fixes that with a some cleverly printed TPU paddles zip-tied to the harbor-freight wheels and tires he’s hacked into use. Those wheels are fixed to a solid axle that’s mounted to flat plate [John] had made up to attach to the bike frame. It’s all surprisingly solid, given that [John] is able to demonstrate the safety factor by going for a spin of his own. We would have done the same.
Windsurfing has experienced a major decline in popularity in the last few decades as the sport’s culture failed to cater to beginners at the same time that experienced riders largely shifted to kiteboarding. While it’s sad to see a once-popular and enjoyable sport loose its mass market appeal, it does present a unique opportunity for others as there’s cheap windsurfing gear all over the online classifieds now. [Dane] recently found that some of these old boards are uniquely suited to be modified into electric surfboards.
The key design element of certain windsurfers that makes this possible is the centerboard, a fin mounted on the windsurfer extending down into the water that resists the lateral force of the sail, keeping the board moving forward instead of sideways. [Dane] used this strengthened area of the board to mount a submerged electric motor, with all of the control electronics and a battery on the top of the board. The motor controller did need a way to expel excess heat while being in a sealed waterproof enclosure, but with a hole cut in the case and a heat sink installed on top of it, this was a problem quickly solved.
The operator control consists of a few buttons which correspond to pre-selected speeds on the motor. There’s no separate control input for steering, though; in order to turn this contraption the operator has to lean the board. With some practice it’s possible to stand up on this like any other electric surfboard and scoot around [Dane]’s local lake. For the extreme budget version of this project be sure to check out [Ben Gravy]’s model which involves duct taping two cheap surfboards together instead.
Although the humble propeller and its derivatives still form the primary propulsion method for ships, this doesn’t mean that alternative methods haven’t been tried. One of the more fascinating ones is the magnetohydrodynamic drive (MHDD), which uses the Lorentz force to propel a watercraft through the water. The somewhat conductive seawater is thus the working medium, with no moving parts required.
The end of the MHD thruster from the Yamato-1.
Although simple in nature, only the Japanese Yamato-1 full-scale prototype ever carried humans in 1992. As covered in a recent video by [Sails and Salvos], the prototype spent most of its time languishing at the Kobe Maritime Museum, until it was scrapped in 2016.
There are two types of MHDD, based around either conduction – involving electrodes – or induction, which uses a magnetic field. The thrusters used by the Yamato-1 used the latter type of MHDD, involving liquid helium-cooled, super-conducting coils. The seawater with its ions from the dissolved salts responds to this field by accelerating according to the well-known right-hand rule, thus providing thrust.
The main flaw with an MHDD as used by the Yamato-1 is that it’s not very efficient, with a working efficiency of about 15%, and a top speed of about 15 km/h (8 knots). Although research in MHDDs hasn’t ceased yet, the elemental problem of seawater not really being that great as the fluid without e.g. adding more ions to it has meant that ships like the Yamato-1 are likely to remain an oddity like the Lun-class ekranoplan ground effect vehicle.
Regardless of what your opinion is on cult-classic movies that got mixed-to-negative box office reviews when they were released, you have to admire the ones that went all out on practical effects and full-size constructions rather than CGI and scale models. Case in point the 1976 satirical comedy film The Big Bus that featured an absolutely massive articulated double-decker bus. With 32 wheels and multiple levels you’d think that a scale model would be used since most interior shots were done in the studio, but instead they built a real bus.
In this video by [Timeworn lengends] the genesis and details of the vehicle are covered. At the core of this road-worthy bus are two cabover International trucks, which were temporarily attached with a quick-release mechanism and required a second driver for the rear section who followed radio instructions for steering. In 1976 dollars, the entire bus prop cost between $250,000 and $500,000 USD to construct — making it one of the most expensive props ever made, especially considering the relatively low budget.
A fiberglass shell gave the bus its characteristic design, with the over the top ‘nuclear reactor’ propulsion befitting the comedy satire. Although the bowling alley and swimming pool were not really inside the bus, there was a functional bar installed along with the functional cockpit at the front.
Despite the movie flopping at the box office and critics being very mixed on its merits, it’s hard to deny that this bus prop is very unique and probably has a big part in why the movie has become a cult classic. As for the closest real-life equivalent, there is the articulated, double-decker Neoplan Jumbocruiser, which had its own troubled history.
It’s a cliché in movies that whenever an airplane’s pilots are incapacitated, some distraught crew member queries the self-loading freight if any of them know how to fly a plane. For small airplanes we picture a hapless passenger taking over the controls so that a heroic traffic controller can talk them through the landing procedure and save the day.
Back in reality, there have been zero cases of large airliners being controlled by passengers in this fashion, while it has happened a few times in small craft, but with variable results. And in each of these cases, another person in the two- to six-seater aircraft was present to take over from the pilot, which may not always be the case.
To provide a more reliable backup, a range of automated systems have been proposed and implemented. Recently, the Garmin Emergency Autoland system got its first real use: the Beechcraft B200 Super King Air landed safely with two conscious pilots on board, but they let the Autoland do it’s thing due to the “complexity” of the situation.
Human In The Loop
Throughout the history of aviation, a human pilot has been a crucial component for the longest time for fairly obvious reasons, such as not flying past the destination airport or casually into terrain or rough weather. This changed a few decades ago with the advent of more advanced sensors, fast computing systems and landing assistance systems such as the ILS radio navigation system. It’s now become easier than ever to automate things like take-off and landing, which are generally considered to be the hardest part of any flight.
Meanwhile, the use of an autopilot of some description has become indispensable since the first long-distance flights became a thing by around the 1930s. This was followed by a surge in long-distance aviation and precise bombing runs during World War II, which in turn resulted in a massive boost in R&D on airplane automation.
While the the early gyroscopic autopilots provided basic controls that kept the airplane level and roughly on course, the push remained to increase the level of automation. This resulted in the first fully automatic take-off, flight and landing being performed on September 22, 1947 involving a USAF C-54 Skymaster. As the military version of the venerable DC-4 commercial airplane its main adaptations included extended fuel capacity, which allowed it to safely perform this autonomous flight from Newfoundland to the UK.
In the absence of GNSS satellites, two ships were located along the flight path to relay bearings to the airplane’s board computer via radio communication. As the C-54 approached the airfield at Brise Norton, a radio beacon provided the glide slope and other information necessary for a safe landing. The fact that this feat was performed just over twenty-eight years after the non-stop Atlantic crossing of Alcock and Brown in their Vickers Vimy airplane shows just how fast technology progressed at the time.
Nearly eighty years later, it bears asking the question why we still need human pilots, especially in this age of GNSS navigation, machine vision, and ILS beacons at any decently sized airfield. The other question that comes to mind is why we accept that airplanes effectively fall out of the sky the moment that they run out of functioning human pilots to push buttons, twist dials, and fiddle with sticks.
State of the Art
In the world of aviation, increased automation has become the norm, with Airbus in particular taking the lead. This means that Airbus has also taken the lead in spectacular automation-related mishaps: Flight 296Q in 1988 and Air France Flight 447 in 2009. While some have blamed the 296Q accident on the automation interfering with the pilot’s attempt to increase thrust for a go-around, the official explanation is that the pilots simply failed to notice that they were flying too low and thus tried to blame the automation.
The Helios Airways 737-300, three days before it would become a ghost flight. (Credit: Mila Daniel)
For the AF447 crash the cause was less ambiguous, even if took a few years to recover the flight recorders from the seafloor. Based on the available evidence it was clear by then that the automation had functioned as designed, with the autopilot disengaging at some point due to the unheated pitot tubes freezing up, resulting in inconsistent airspeed readings. Suddenly handed the reins, the pilots took over and reacted incorrectly to the airspeed information, stalled the plane, and crashed into the ocean.
One could perhaps say that AF447 shows that there ought to be either more automation, or better pilot training so that the human element can fly an airplane unassisted by an autopilot. When we then consider the tragic case of Helios Airways Flight 522, the ‘ghost flight’ that flew on autopilot with no conscious souls on board due to hypoxia, we can imagine a dead-man switch that auto-lands the airplane instead of leaving onlookers powerless to do anything but watch the airplane run out of fuel and crash.
Be Reasonable
Although there are still a significant number of people who would not dare to step a foot on an airliner that doesn’t have at least two full-blooded, breathing human pilots on board, there is definitely a solid case to be made for emergency landing systems to become a feature on airplanes, starting small. Much like the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) – a whole-airplane parachute system that has saved many lives as well as airframes – the Garmin Autoland feature targets smaller airplanes.
The Garmin Autoland system communicates with ATC and nearby traffic and lands unassisted. (Credit: Garmin)
After a recent successful test with a HondaJet, this recent unscheduled event with the Beechcraft B200 Super King Air twin-prop airplane turned out to be effectively another test. As the two pilots in this airplane were flying between airports for a repositioning flight, the cabin suddenly lost pressurization. Although both pilots were able to don their oxygen masks, the Autoland system engaged due to the dangerous cabin conditions. They then did not disengage the system as they didn’t know the full extent of the situation.
This effectively kept both pilots ready to take full control of the airplane should the need have arisen to interfere, but with the automated system making a textbook descent, approach and landing, it’s clear that even if their airplane had turned into another ghost flight, they would have woken up groggy but whole on the airstrip, surrounded by emergency personnel.
Considering how many small airplanes fly each year in the US alone, systems like CAPS and Autoland stand to save many lives both in the air and on the ground the coming years. Combine this with increased ATC automation at towers and elsewhere such as the FAA’s STARS and Saab’s I-ATS, and a picture begins to form of increased automation that takes the human element out of the loop as much as possible.
Although we’re still a long way off from the world imagined in 1947 where ‘electronic brains’ would unerringly fly all airplanes and more for us, it’s clear that we are moving in that direction, with such technology even within the reach of the average owner of an airplane of some description.
An old joke in physics is that of the “spherical cow”, poking fun at some of the assumptions physicists make when tackling a new problem. Making the problem simple like this can help make its fundamentals easier to understand, but when applying these assumptions to real-world problems these assumptions are quickly challenged. Which is what happened when [Seth] from Berm Peakattempted to tow a huge trailer with a bicycle — while in theory the bike just needs a big enough gear ratio he quickly found other problems with this setup that had to be solved.
[Seth] decided on a tandem bike for this build. Not only does the second rider add power, but the longer wheelbase makes it less likely that the tongue weight of the trailer will lift the front wheel off the ground. It was modified with a Class 3 trailer hitch, as well as a battery to activate the electric trailer brakes in case of an emergency. But after hooking the trailer up the first time the problems started cropping up. At such a high gear ratio the bike is very slow and hard to keep on a straight line. Some large, custom training wheels were added between the riders to keep it stable, but even then the huge weight still caused problems with the chain and even damaged the bike’s freehub at one point.
Eventually, though, [Berm Peak] was able to flat tow a Ford F-150 Lightning pulling a trailer a few yards up a hill, at least demonstrating this proof of concept. It might be the absolute most a bicycle can tow without help from an electric motor, although real-world applications for something like this are likely a bit limited. He’s been doing some other bicycle-based projects with more utility lately, including a few where he brings abandoned rental e-bikes back to life by removing proprietary components.
Out of all 49 beautiful US states (plus New Jersey), the one you’d probably least want to camp outside in during the winter is arguably Alaska. If you were to spend a night camping out in the Alaskan winter, your first choice of shelter almost certainly wouldn’t be a USPS electric cargo trike, but over on YouTube [Matt Spears] shows that it’s not that hard to make a lovely little camper out of the mail bike.
We’re not sure how much use these sorts of cargo trikes get in Alaska, but [Matt] seems to have acquired this one surplus after an entirely-predictable crash took one of the mirrors off. A delta configuration trike — single wheel in front — is tippy at the best of times, but the high center of gravity you’d get from a loading the rear with mail just makes it worse. That evidently did not deter the United States Postal Service, and it didn’t deter [Matt] either.
His conversion is rather minimal: to turn the cargo compartment into a camper, he only adds a few lights, a latch on the inside of the rear door, and a wood-burning stove for heat. Rather than have heavy insulation shrink the already-small cargo compartment, [Matt] opts to insulate himself with a pile of warm sleeping bags. Some zip-tie tire chains even let him get the bike moving (slowly) in a winter storm that he claims got his truck stuck.
While it might not be a practical winter vehicle, at least on un-plowed mountain roads, starting with an electric-assist cargo trike Uncle Sam already paid for represented a huge cost and time savings vs starting from scratch like this teardrop bike camper we featured a while back. While not as luxurious, it seems more practical for off-roading than another electric RV we’ve seen.
Login
