NASA Technical

Memorandum

86755

USAAVSCOM

Technical

Report

85-A-11

A Simulation Investigation of Scout/Attack Helicopter Directional Control Requirements for Hover and Low-Speed Tasks
Courtland C. Bivens and Joseph G. Guercio
N87-2 1961

(_ASA-TM-86755} J SIMI]LATICN I_iVESTIGATZON C_ SCGI]_/&_TACK B_LICCPTER DIS_6._IZONAL Ct_T_CL BEQUI__TS FCR HGYEI_ I_D LOW-SPEED 'I&SKS (NASA) 299 p Avail: _IS HC AI3/MP A01 CSCL 01C

HI/08

Unclas 007q2 17

March 1987

N/ A
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

SYSTEMS
AVIATION TECHNOLOGY

COMMAND
RESEARCH ACTIVITY AND

NASA

Technical

Memorandum

86755

USAAVSCOM

Technical

Report

85-A-11

A Simulation Investigation of Scout/Attack Helicopter Directional Control Requirements for Hover and Low-Speed Tasks
Courtland C. Bivens, Aeroflightdynamics Research Center, Joseph G. Guercio, Ames Moffett Directorate, Activity, Field, Center, California Moffett Field, California U.S. Army Ames Aviation Research and Technology

Research

March

1987

NASA
National Aeronautics Space Administration and
SYSTEMS AVIATION MOFFETT COMMAND RESEARCH AND

Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035

TECHNOLOGY

ACTIVITY

FIELD, CA 94305-1099

TABLE

OF CONTENTS Page

SYMBOLS
m a

............................................................................ ................................................................... . ............. Helicgpter and VTOL Aircraft .....................................................

v I 2 .6 8 10 10 11 11 11 14 22 26 26 26 26 29 29 31 32 34 36 39 42 57 60 106 139

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION. Current Requirements for Yaw Weathercock Stability Control Response Task Requirements Flightpath EXPERIMENTAL

Characteristcs ............................................. and Environrental Factors .................................. . ...... ; ................

Management DESIGN

...............................................................

Yawing Equations of Motion and Experimental Variables ........................ Mathematical Model ................................................... ........ CONDUCT OF THE EXPERIMENT ..........................

Facility and Cockpit Configuration ........................................... Data Acquisition .............. ............................................... RESULTS ...........................................................................

Analysis of Experimental Pilot Rating Data ................................... Effect of Learning on Pilot Ratings .......................................... Analysis of Correlation Variance .................................. of Individual Pilot Ratings with the ....................... Average Ratings .............

Damping and Yaw Gust Sensitivity ............................................. Yaw Control Response ......................................................... Response to Turbulence ....................................................... Loss of Tail Rotor Control Effectiveness ..................................... Bandwidth CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX Analysis ...........................................................

....................................................................... A ........................................................................ B ....................................................................... C ........................ ...................

APPENDIX

........................

...............................................

143

APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

F ..........

................

..............................

..............

148 157 225 228

G .............

_ .........................................................

H ....................................................................... I .......................................................................

iii _E, CE0tNG PAGE _' '_""

ilAG_i___|N,TEN

TtGNALL_

APPENDIX APPENDIX REFERENCES

J ....................................................................... K ....................................................................... .......................................................................

241 280 289

iv

SYMBOLS

AHIP
a

Army rotor

helicopter blade

improvement

program curve

slope-of-the-lift

Cg

torque-to-power main rotor

turbine, of

ft-lb thrust

coefficient

CT s CGI C-H f FOV computer generated imagery

Cooper-Harper

pilot

ratings

fuselage field of view

g HUD h

acceleration

due

to gravity,

ft/sec 2

head-up

display

height combined

above power

the

ground,

ft inertia, slug-ft 2

IE+R IGE

turbine/rotor

in-ground-effect airframe transfer functions

Kc

Kf Kp

Munk

correction

factor

pilot

transfer

functions

Kz L

spanwise

station,

fraction

of

semispan

length, scale

ft lengths for u,v,w, respectively, ft

Lu,Lv,Lw LHX

light main

helicopter rotor

family

mr

Ng Nr

gas

generator rate

speed, damping

percent in yaw, I/sec

angular

Nv
N_p NOE

weathercock directional

stability, control

rad/sec 2 ft/sec rad/sec 2

sensitivity,

in.

nap

of the

Earth

OGE

out

of ground visual

effect cues

OVC PMD

outside

panel-mounted

display

PR

pilot torque

rating required, ft-l_

Qr

Qs
R

torque main

supplied, rotor radius,

ft-lk ft

rms

root

mean

square per minute

rpm S

revolutions area, ft 2

Laplace tail

operator

tr

rotor

U,V,W

airspeed

components

along

body

x,y,z

axes,

respectively,

ft/sec

Ug,Vg,Wg Uo

disturbance

velocity

along

the

x,y,z

axes,

respectively,

ft/sec

simulated volume

wind

speed

knots,

ft/sec

coefficient

V vt W

steady vertical

wind

speed,

ft

sec

tail

maximum

gross

weight,

ib

g2
Yr

mean

square

side

force

due

to yaw

velocity

I/m,

sec-

vi

Yv

side

force

per

unit

lateral

velocity

I/m,

ft/(rad-sec)

cL

level

of

significance

small

change

from

trim

condition

controller

positions, pedal,

longitudinal respectively,

cyclic, in.

lateral

cyclic,

collective

tip

speed

ratio

damping main

ratio solidity r, tio

rotor

aT

rms

aircraft

heading

_'esponse

to

turbulence

with

no

pilot

inputs

_U,_V,_W

rms

intensity

of

Ug,_:g,Wg ft/sec 2 rad/sec rad

turbulence _,e,_ Euler roll,

spectrum pitch,

for yaw

Ug,Vg,Wg, angles,

respectively,

_o

aircraft

heading

out

of

the wind

direction,

deg

yaw
..

rate,

rad/sec rad/sec 2

yaw

acceleration,

w S

velocity

along

tail

rotor

shaft

axis

vii

A SIMULATION INVESTIGATION OF SCOUT/ATTACK HELICOPTER DIRECTIONAL CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FORHOVER ANDLOW-SPEED TASKS Courtland C. Bivens Aeroflightdynamics Directorate U.S. Army Aviation Research and Technology Activity AmesResearch Center and Joseph G. Guercio AmesResearchCenter SUMMARY

A piloted
handling by a Scout/Attack Also, of that

simulator
(SCAT) of

experiment for

was

conducted (_40 in

to

investigatedirectional and hover tasks were

axis performed the direcconfig-

qualities

requirements

low-speed Included

knots) the

helicopter. various focused aircraft, the loss

investigation family main/tail yaw-axis were single

tional tions. urations effects of of yaw

characteristics the the

candidate

light

helicopter

configurarotor dynamic Two types

experiment series to

on conventional where of tail the

0H-58

first-order control were

contributed and

rotor

modeled. one a yaw

stability yaw

control

augmentation and Five shaped pilots quality

systems control flew 22

implemented: the other

consisting rate wind

washed-out

rate

feedback system.

input,

command, conditions. of merit

heading-hold

configurations were used as

under the

various

Cooper-Harper of each only

handling

ratings performance the

primary used as

measure backup disThe

configuration. since it was to

Piloting observed

measures

were that

information played results

during for

experiment

each

pilot

a remarkable of the

ability

compensate that

degraded

handling

qualities. with to high-

experiment sensitivity qualities both in yaw

indicate require during damping the damping

rotorcraft minimum

configurations yaw (NOE) are damping flying

directional factory determined ties The the tail with pilot date ting shift

gust

greater

maintain It

satiswas also

handling that

nap-of-the-Earth and control

tasks.

response target values at low

critical and

handling tracking

qualitask.

parameters lack of

performing yaw of

air-to-air and larger control

acquisition of gust

substantial of loss

sensitivity for the

increased single main/

possibility rotor

directional Task

airspeeds do have The

configurations'. to in task evaluating to of and a wide vehicle attention

performance but such handling

measures qualities.

a predictive as pilot tends to

validity for accommopermitby a

reference ratings his of output effort

success,

measures

cannot

be used

a substitute

vehicle range to

of variations This !he control

in control task.

parameters

without

degradation

performance.

accommodation

is accomplished

INTRODUCTION

To reduce the possibility of detection and engagementfrom sophisticated enemy weaponsystems, future battlefield nap-of-the-Earth (NOE)helicopter operations will involve extremely agile flightpath control at very low altitudes (below treetop level where possible) to take maximum advantage of the cover afforded by trees and the terrain features. To accomplish this more demandingoperational scenario, new piloting techniques and vehicle flight control requirements have been rapidly evolving over the past few years. The _.nticipated role of the AdvancedScout/Attack (SCAT)helicopter has been expandec to include the use of sophisticated on-board systems such as Target Acquisition and Display (TADS), multipurpose missile systems, holographic sighting, speech-command auditory/display systems, advanced digital and optical control systems, and multifunctional displays. The advanced SCAThelicopter operating out of unprepared landing zones will provide close combat support, reconnaissance, security, target acquisition/designation, fire support, command,and control (along with self-defense) under day, night, and adverse weather conditions and in all intensities of warfare (fig. I). To be effective in the high-threat combat environment it is necessary that the advanced SCAThelicopter be exceptionally agile and possess excellent handling qualities to perform the required NOE

Figure _.- SCATcombat operations.

mission. Excellent HOEhandling qualities will allow the pilot to concentrate on aspects outside the cockpit or engage in battlefield management tasks, The pilot's workload in this flight regime is very high and the effect of the helicopter's handling qualities on performance will be significant (ref. I). General NOEflight does not in itself impose the need for stringent yaw control requirements (refs. 2-4). Good response characteristics are desirable to enable the pilot, who is quite busy, to devote less attention to yaw control. Whenthe aircraft is used to aim weaponsor sights, yaw control becomesvery important. Each type of weapon/sight and tactical situation, however, will require different maneuvers which may result in differing requirements for each situation. No analysis of various weaponsand maneuverswas available in reference 2, but, by using common maneuvers, some tentative requirements were set up (42/sec for maximum yaw rates in conducting rapid pedal reversals with a response time-constant <0.25 sec). High control power is required, but this alone is not enough. Precision of yaw control also requires ample damping (ref. 5). Sufficiently high control power, as indicated by a specified heading change within a certain time interval, will provide the capability for achieving the desired result. However, if the rate-response timeconstant is long, the pilot will use an excessive number of control motions with a resulting over-and-under shooting as he "hunts" for the desired heading. It can also be seen that a pilot's evaluation of the yaw control characteristics of the helicopter will not only dependon the maneuverwhich he must perform with the machine, but also on the severity of the wind and the gust sensitivity of the helicopter. In reference 6, it was concluded that the existing wind conditions, to a major extent, dictated the results of the evaluation. Wind levels and the gust sensitivity of the vehicle must be considered in the definition of acceptable control characteristics and the interpretation of related test data. If a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft has high-yaw gust sensitivity, which is the case for a single main rotor helicopter, then precision flight during gusty wind conditions would be difficult. It would be desirable to increase the damping and thereby reduce the pilot effort; however, if the inherent damping is increased by changing the dimensional characteristics of the tail rotor, the gust sensitivity would also be increased and there would be no reduction in pilot effort. A machine with no tail rotor and with low "weathercock" stability, for instance, will not require the large yaw control momentsto execute high-speed sideward flight or to maneuver during high-wind conditions. Also, that machine will not be subjected to large yaw disturbances caused by wind gusts. Reference 4 concludes that the definition of yaw control criteria, and the interpretation of related test results, must involve considerations of the gust sensitivity of the aircraft and the operational wind condition. The latest generation of rotary wing aircraft has a wide range of inherent gust sensitivity. The XH-59Aadvancing blade concept (ABC) develops yaw control through differential collective of the two rotor systems. The XV-15 Tilt Rotor develops yaw control via differential cyclic inputs; the HughesNo Tail Rotor (NOTAR)concept uses a circular control tail boom, a direct jet thruster, and a cambered vertical fin to provide anti-torque and directional control forces (fig. 2). These

v)

E W

I -

! i

LL

I I -

z 0 I -

a
+
U

I
v)

2 z
W

F 0
er

W 3

a +
CT

J -

2 +

0 I 0
U

2
CT
W

a
E
a
0
I -

a 0
+

I >
W

O a

W
W

a
I -

I
&

4
v)

LL LL
v)

2
a 0
W

0 0 I 3

I a

>
LL

m U
I -

0
v)

z
0
II

0
I -

3 >

z >

m CT
I -

J m
I -

z
0
II

0
A

L
a z
o
W J

I -

z E

a I-

0
U 0

F 0
a

>

configurations are (LHX). References determine varied that in the effect

all 7-9 of

possible suggest vehicle

contenders for that additional mission Some was a and data

the Army's light helicopter analysis and data are needed control requirements 6

family to for showing (conducted

directional were of a

helicopter minimum

configurations. damping simulated rms ratios rating

obtained N v. The

in reference investigation turbulence distinct (N v) for Also

acceptable of 8.9 6-I/2 of the a

function wind and

the

presence to minimum and

15-knot gust and

simulated a very 3). was

signal variation flight was at that

equivalent between the the 3-I/2

ft/sec pilot

intensity) weathercock boundaries simulated

shows (see

linear hover

damping

stability fig.

concluded

inclusion

controlled,

turbulence

extremely

important.

3 LEGEND HOVER _7 3 O 6

=6.10

_- = -N r N r = 3.85 2 2V/'-U0 N v U 0 -- 15 knots 25.6 ft/sec

z E _; <{ a

-.05

.01

.02

.03 N v , 1/ft/sec

.04

.05

I .06

Figure

3.-

Minimum

damping

ratio

versus

N v.

Current Requirements for Helicopter

and VTOLAircraft

There has been considerable dLsagreement with respect to minimumacceptable yaw dampingand sensitivity levels in _1over. Figures 4 and 5 indicate someof these requirements including somecurrent aircraft values. It can readily be seen that these requirements are not dependent upon aircraft configuration (other than gross weight) or mission task. MIL-F,83300 and MIL-H-8501A do address environmental factors but again their overall coerelation to aircraft configuration and maneuvering task is absent. MIL-F-83300 s_ates "that with the wind from the most critical -6

BASIC

AIRFRAME ADDED

AUGMENTATION

-5
M I L-H-8501-A U H-60 ADOCS

%-4
z z AH-64 AH IP AGARD E3 -3 I-<{ D: ._1 <_ z O I-. 0-2
LU

/ AND MIL-H-8501A MIN. DAMPING

/
I I I I I
-1 M IL- F-83300

nra

I I I ABC_
CH-53 I .5 DIRECTIONAL UH.60, MIL-F-83300 MIN. DAMPING OHo6 OH-58

II

I/xv-15 II I
I/ I

NOTAR

/ /

J" /AH-1G i 1.0 CONTROL

//
0

I 1.5 SENSITIVITY, NBp criteria

I 2.0 ;rad/sec2 m various

I 2.5

Figure

4.-

Comparison

of

handling

qualities

and

aircraft

configurations.

MIL-Ho8501A (VFR AND AGARD 408 (NORMAL)

IFR)

AGARD SINGLE

408 FAILURE) PRESENT LEVEL UH-1H 1

PRESENT

LEVEL

2 AH-1G CH-53 LEVEL

I

UH-60

0
I I I I I I

PRESENT
I I

3
I I I I _ i _ i

2,000

5,000

I0,000 OF INTERTIA, Izz,

50,000 slug-It 2

I00,000

YAW MOMENT

Figure

5.-

Directional

damping

requirements

in hover.

directionsrelative neous abrupt

to

the

aircraft, of yaw

control

remaining at

shall

be

such

that within

simultaone this the cridis-

applications from

control

produce (refs. on

least

6 degrees

second." terion, turbances

Data but the

previous power and states time

experiments also depends

10-12) the type

help of

substantiate system,

control

control

encountered, also and

the

particular while

maneuvers. hovering not at zero airspeed, 1.0 a a sec (for the yaw mode I). The

MIL-F-83300 shall be stable

that

the

constant

shall

exceed to be stating

Level

choice of minimum acceptable yaw damping appears at this time there is no satisfactory manner of mutual (refs. complete overload at least sufficient comparability 13-15). turn gross 35 of gust response (ref. and control

function of requirement

Nv, although to ensure

response it shall a given of

characteristics be possible at the to execute a

MIL-H-8501A in each weight To

16) states hovering power (in

"That over and of

direction or at

while

spot

maximum in a wind wind, of

takeoff at

out

ground during

effect) these to

knots. control

ensure remain

adequate

margin

control

maneuvers, the

shall

the most

critical

azimuth

relative angle, results in the

in order that, cation of full sponding Also the yaw

when starting at zero yawing velocity at this directional control in the critical direction of be at least 110/3FW + 1000 degrees yaw

the rapid appliin a correfirst second." is of I in.

displacement shall the

sensitivity than 50 in

considered second

excessive a

if the sudden

displacement displacement This low

greater from

first at

following normal but

pedal

trim

while

hovering for

the

lightest over

service it does

loading. not address

specification speed yaw

is very

definitive

hovering

a spot

requirements for maneuverssuch as: quick stop and turn into wind (refs. 3 and 4); rapid pedal reversals for area fire (ref. 2); and acquisition and tracking of air targets. It does seemto provide maximum and minimum limits for the overall controllability of the vehicle. YawWeathercock Stability The directional stability Nv is a measure of the tendency of the vehicle to align itself in sideslip, like a weathercock, with the relative wind. The problem that evolves for helicopter designers is that the aircraft must operate in both hovering and forward flight regimes. A compromise between providing adequate forward flight directional stability and ensuring low gust sensitivity in hover is required. The principal contributions are from the tail rotor, fuselage, and vertical tail. Using slender body theory, the Munk correction factor (Kf) defined in reference 17, and a volume coefficient based on an equivalent (inside view) body of revolution, reference 17 estimates the fuselage contribution as:
-g AfNv - flR(2C T /ao) s KfVf R(K z contribution lends a by: /R) 2 2u amr

(I)

where Vf volume coefficient = volf/_R 3. It is generally an unstable that is more or less proportional to forward speed. The vertical tail stable contribution that, according to reference 17, may be evaluated

g bvtN v = flR(2CTs/aO )

(atR/2)Vvt R(Kz/R) 2

2u amr c

(2)

where SvtLvt Vvt

_R 3

It

is

very

much

proportional

to

forward

speed.

The

major

contribution the in tail

to rotor.

direcIts

tional

stability

for conventional moment due

configurations to sideslip

comes

from

contribution

to yawing

is estimated

reference

17 as:

g AtrN v _R(2CTs)/ao

Vtr(Ltr/R) R(Kz/R)2 MR a_s Jtr

(3)

where tr_trR_r Vtr onR 3

The

tail

rotor speed.

term The

is, sum

of of

course, these

stabilizing components

and (eqs.

approximately (I)-(3)} becomes

independent the total

of direc-

forward tional

stability

Nv (There the are other factors such as

= AfNv

AvtNv

+ AtrN v Depending or neglected.) observed changes in on their By importance inspecting the tail along higher travel quad-

(4) in each

rotorshaft can

tilt.

aircraft at

configuration, a hover and low

they

be included it can be any

component rotor tail steady into a hover rant), lence

airspeed,

readily small

that

effect rotor state the

is extremely shaft axis, the

dominant. entire factor at directly

And with moment helps into is

inflow At of

the

correspondingly since but

affected. the direction may wind

airspeeds wind. (not can on

this But only

stability, in turbulence, wind, effect the the This

is

relative position

a hover

when with

one the

wish

to maintain

in any

this (refs.

factor based 10-12).

cause

problems. workload

manifests disturbances

itself caused

in pilots' by the turbu-

objections

increased

due

to

In surveying

various

configurations,

it

is

readily

apparent

that

most

single N v (due which do

main rotor helicopters of conventional configuration have higher values of to the tail rotor contribution) in hover and low speed than configurations not depend on a tail rotor for directional stability and control (table I).

TABLE

I.-

VALUES OF FOR VARIOUS

N V (V < 30 AIRCRAFT

KNOTS)

Conventional helicopters (data extracted

Other

VTOL

configurations from ref. 18)

OH6 BO-I05 AHIG UHIH

: 0.O251 : : = .O166 .0119 .O211

X-22A XC-142A X-19 XV-5A XV-15 NOTAR ABC CH-47

= 0.005 = = = = = = = .00037 .0O05 .002 .OO17 .003 .002 .0025

CH53
UH60 AHIP AH-64

:
: = =

.0103
.012 .022 .O17

With

increasing

airspeed, of

the the

stable fuselage

vertical increase

fin for

contribution both

and

the

generally nonconven-

unstable tional

contribution configurations.

conventional

and

Control

Response

Characteristics

In addition qualities sensitivity is also can

to vehicle influenced the

dynamics, by control

the

pilot's

opinion The

of

vehicle's

flying of to

sensitivity. of an

improper

selection

degrade

flying

qualities

otherwise

satisfactory

vehicle

an unacceptable since there has eter. where The the bulk

level. In this been considerable of the data

investigation work already this

N6p was conducted

made a dependent variable to optimize this paramfrom references in the yaw 10-12 axis was

supporting control

approach

comes and

relationship

between

sensitivity

damping

explored.

Task

Requirements

and

Environmental

Factors

For increasing

piloted

flight

simulations, stability, in

it was the

concluded of

in

references

10-12

that signifiare to a

weathercock

presence

turbulence,

requires

cantly larger values function of the task precisely data. For I) NOE 2) NOE 3) 4) 5) define this

of damping. performed. tasks

Also, It was for

the minimum directional also a critical part of mission-oriented defined as

damping levels this simulation handling ref.

evaluation investigation

generating were

qualities 19):

these

tasks

(utilizing

flight deceleration

IGE hover OGE hover target acquisition at hover

Air-to-air

In order ties,

to design 20

aircraft strongly

of

various

configurations the use of

with

optimum simulation

handling where

qualithe envicould and refer-

reference

recommends

piloted

aircraft ronmental then be

physical characteristics conditions for various used toward base that and of eventual for for all cases

and geometry NOE maneuvers.

can be varied under different The data from these efforts of For advanced the aircraft time,

airworthiness subsequent of the

qualification

provide ence wind the 8

a data states

specifications. disturbances shall choose

present as

atmospheric contractor

(such the

discrete

gust, to

shear, approval

turbulence) the procuring

conditions

subject

authority. MIL-F-8501A) addition of can be demonstrated in flight. turbulence had a marked effect qualities effects of could the only be In referpilot

ence

Some requirements (as in 21 it was shown that the and are should performance. levels going always to be be

on

opinion with aircraft factor

Satisfactory to wash in a as a utilized included

handling out the real-world requirement.

achieved If VTOL

higher

of damping

turbulence. this

situation,

environmental

10

Flightpath

Management

The ability of a rotorcraft pilot to perform the flightpath management function is determined by the handling qualities of the vehicle: "Those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role" (ref. I). Handling qualities are determined not only by the stability and control characteristics of the vehicle, but also by the displays and controls which define the pilot-vehicle interface, the environmental characteristics, and the performance requirements for
the task (refs 22-24) yaw (fig. axis 6). handling this between environment technical qualities experimental aircraft and criteria which are relevant for to find In developing different some the candidate

rotorcraft,

investigation and

attempted

meaningful control of

relationship aircraft

stability task

control

configurations, measures. stanto an The

task, a

required

performance

ingenuity

contractor's

solution

to meet

military which may

performance not lead

dards should not be limited by outdated specifications aircraft design optimized for the mission.

EXPERIMENTAL

DESIGN

Yawing

Equations

of

Motion

and

Experimental

Variables

An approximate in reference 10 as:

yawing

equation

of motion

for

a helicopter

in hover

is

presented

: N6p For ated this only simplified as a result analysis of the

6p + N r lateral

_ + Nv velocity, of

v + Nv v, the of

vg equation wind the (5) U o. may This be

(5) gener-

a crosswind

component

mean from

relation of the

is v = -U o sin simulated wind.

#, where Equation

_ is the yaw angle measured (5) may then be written:

direction

: N_p For small simulated

6p

+ Nr

" _ - UoNv flight

sin

_ + Nv at an

- Vg angle _o to the

(6)

disturbances from a trimmed wind, equation (6} becomes

condition

A#

: N6p

(A6p)

+ Nr

(A_)

- UoNv

cos

_o(A_)

+ N v.

Vg)

(7)
+ where trimmed at _o A_ and A6_ {N6p are 6po the _o - UoN v sin _o } angle is and the pedal pedal displacement input required from to the trim disturbance 6po , Since yaw 6po

conditio_ of to the wind

and

11

w rj Z

QC w o_

I-

{_z
_

I [_
/z
I_ / ___--

_
z=_ee_

_2
Q) v

_
uJ r_ -I(-) >.O--

_/_ _ __= .
JL______

.,.-4 .,..4 ,--4 l=r bO

-z,, a,
_o
I-- a

-r CJ

-C.1

_0_ _

I I

__-===_

__

. -i l
I I I I

.,-4 ,--4

r.) (i) ,.-4 (-

II

LIJ I-(J

.l.J

c_
0 .lJ

_zo

__

rJ

0 0 ,---4 ,--I 0 4-) tO 0

z 0

;w r,J_

,,_
I,-

0 r/) 4-) r,

ba v ko ,4 kb9 .,-i r,. 0 '_v I

_E_
a ..i t--

12

N6 P and equation (7) in Laplace

6 Po

- U N sin o v becomes

__o = 0

(8)

notation,

(S 2

- NrS

+ UoN v cos

,o)A,(S)

: N_ P

A_p(S)

+ Nvvg(S)

(9)

The

transfer

function

relating

the

yaw

rate

response

to

pedal

input

becomes

_--(s) :
_p S2_NS+UN r response

N6pS
o v cos _o with natural frequency

(10)

The

small

amplitude

directional

is oscillatory

JUoN v cos _o the frequency becomes that

and damping ratio -Nr/(2JUoN v cos @o ). When is simply _ N ; when trimmed cross wind, the o of a simple first-order system N6

trimmed into the wind, directional response

_--(s)
6 p -S-N

r
r

and of

when

trimmed

down

wind,

the

mode

is statically

unstable,

having

divergent

root

Nr

U N

_-

I+

ov
(Nr/2)2

and

a convergent

root

of

r[ ov ]
_-I+ + I (Nr/2) Hence, tional of the in addition to the wind conditions, the dominant contributors Nr, and N v. translational degree equations using the to hover direcstability and control directional transfer the contribution characteristics are N_p, function applicable during made by to of the lateral reference The derivation flight must of freedom determining Laplace operaof recognize the the tor) Side basic are force
^ ^ ^ ^

translational 10, the three

helicopter.

According motions

lateral-directional

the helicopter

(written

(S - Yv)V

(YpS

+ g)

+ (U

- Yr)_

: Y6 P

6p

+ Y6 a

6a

(11)

13

Rolling

equation
^ ^

S(S Yawing equation

^

Lp)_

L6
a

6a

(12)

-N v

+ (S

N )_ r

N _ P

6 p

+ N v

v g

(13)

The by

side the

force

derivatives mass.

are

the

dimensional

derivatives

of

the

helicopter

divided

helicopter the is above

From pedal

equations

((11)-(13))

the

transfer

function

relating

yaw

rate

to

input

N 6 iS _--- (S) 6p S2 - (Nr P +

- Yv

(Y6 P

/N6 P

)Nv) (14)

Yv )S +

(N r Y v - YrNv ) + UN v the normal modes of lateraldominant parameters

The

denominator

of

this and

expression hence speed this above the

determines stability are

directional for

motion

characteristics. again was to N6p , Nr, investigate The and

The N v. the

a helicopter The main

in low purpose of

flight

experiment transfer

yawing of

degree

of

freedom

described

by the

functions.

effects

weathercock was assigned state yaw over differ-

stability and angular rate damping were as the dependent variable to attempt to rate response to pedal input. The

the independent variables; N6 maintain a near-constant stea_y and sensitivity were varied

damping

ent ranges eters that of Nv

o Nv selected. made up each test correspond to

Figure 7 shows configuration. types of

the combinations of the various paramAs indicated in figure 7, the ranges LHX candidate aircraft.

also

different

Mathematical

Model

Generalnonlinear aerodynamic terms tion trol (ref. ment bladed fin and wind; of of

The

aircraft and

equations inertial were

of

motion of

were the by

represented

by

the

full A).

set The a

gravitational forces and a Taylor-series the total

terms about a The

equations reference

(appendix values defined

moments

represented

and

first-order as funccon-

Expansion (ref.

reference values were of a Bell of

trajectory the trim, from Army

airspeed the force

25).

stability, a generic helicopter Helicopter to be

and

parameters 26) using

for total

basic and

SCAT moment data A). rotor

aircraft model from The the

obtained main 406 model

nonlinear (ARMCOP) Improvea and two, adverse Nr

mathematical

single

rotor

input

source

Program

(AHIP)

(appendix tail

ARMCOP

tail

rotor

is assumed

teetering were were not

rotor;

flapping,

vortex-ring-state nonlinear and as very tail

dynamics, rotor

flow N6p

modeled. as a

To

represent of

primary magnitude

effects, of the data

derived

function results

a direction favorably

relative obtained

this

technique

produced

which

compared

to

14

Nr

--_

-0.5 0.5

-1.0 0.75

-4.0 1.00

-6.0 1.65

N6p --_

/-

///.-/

i/

. /

I-- 0.005 "_ /////

///R //R1// .,"

//

m 0.0025 X--

<

0.001

_i_ rad/sec 2 ft/sec rad/sec 2 in.

Nr = sec-1

Nv =

N6P -

[]

PRIMARY R

CONFIGURATIONS

= YAW SCAS COMMAND HEADING HOLD

R1 = RATE

Figure

7.-

Experimental

matrix.

in reference ARMCOP model data (ref.

27 (fig. exhibited 28) {fig. model

8). Also pedal similar trends 9). was included on the in

and collective as compared to

trim wind

positions utilizing the tunnel and flight test

An engine of variations model change than trim I%

the

simulation yawing moment

to

take and

into

account

the

effects The for of and a a

in rotor included a

rpm

total

heave-axis control

force. system; droop

engine l-in. less pedal 1%-rpm

representation the rotor 10

of an rpm

electronic

fuel

in collective, (appendix A). for

exhibited

a maximum the change

transient in tail In

Figure resulting change

illustrates

rotor case

pitch of to

conditions the

ehange_ in pedal

in main margin

rotor and

rpm.

the

droop,

effective torque

tail

rotor

capability

counteract

main

rotor

ts minimal.

15

_j =0

30

330

LEFT SIDEWARD FLIGHT 90

RIGHT 270 SIDEWARD FLIGHT

120 c

240

150 180 REARWARD FLIGHT

210 D UNSTABLE YAWING MOMENT GRADIENT LOSS OF DIRECTIONAL CONTROL MARGIN

a) WIND

TUNNEL

RESULTS

FOR

OH-58

_j =0

DECREASED NSp

INCREASING TH R UST REQUIRED 300

LOW DIRECTIONAL DAMPING 90 270

120

!40

DEC R EASE D NSp 150 180 (N v = 0.01 ) b) NONLINEAR CONTROL MATHEMATICALLY CHARACTERISTICS MODELED

OW DIRECTIONAL DAMPING

DIRECTIONAL

Figure

8.-

Comparison

of

derived

directional

control

characteristLcs.

16

uJ,=

p_

o ,_,,p

4 2 0 100
I I I I I I I i I

40 RIGHT HEADWlND

80

120 RIGHT TAILWIND

160 I

200

240 I

280

320

360 1

LEFT TAILWIND

LEFT HEADWIND

knots

-----10 ....

30

40

(ARMCOP)

OH-58A FLT TEST 20 knots OH-58C IGE 20 knots WIND OH-58C IGE 30 knots

+4444 WIND TUNNEL MODEL RESULTS (20 knots)

_uj

o Io

z'_

50
100 _11_.. 0 ..."::

_'-_ N_uJ o u. z

_,,=7_<_" ='=" =_ -- -so f':_'"""/"

_'_ -100 i i i i

"
I

, I I ,

Figure

9.- Comparison

of pedal tunnel,

and collective and flight

positions

for ARMCOP,

wind

test data.

17

70
I

80
I

90

100

RPM WARNING

CONTINUOUS 110

OPERATION

Figure

I0.-

Main

rotor

effect

on

tail

rotor

capability

to

counteract

rotor

torque.

Augmentationaxes, added in the all

To

maintain

good

handling

qualities and

in

the

pitch, The

roll,

and of

heave

configurations and roll,

included

displays

augmentation. significantly would not used by idea

purpose pilot

the

stability pitch,

control and heave of

augmentation axes so

was that

to

reduce

workload factors

they

become for Hoh

dominant the and SCAT the

affecting augmentation reference table

pilot 22.

opinion from They were

performance. to low quantify speed

The scheme the

criteria intuitive are

display in

and accep-

came

a classification able for

developed

Ashkenas minimum on

that

handling

qualities and

and

hover They

strongly an

dependent visual (table

the cues scale Compu-

visibility that ter gave

level

available

displays. of

proposed

outside cues to

a fine-grained imagery FOV of

quantification (CGI) due systems to the are motion

available when

outside trying and display

2). a of good

generated cue the

limited, simulator that the

provide of to that in the

usable

environment, the

reduced

field-of-view CGI

lack

detail. the

After SCAT case, cues an

comparing (fig. be 11),

vertical

it was the OVC

subjectively scale. level

decided this

simulator to the

would,

worst visual

a 2 on

Applying I handling system are only

number

maximum

allowable to have at

table, attitude position

to achieve (response and

qualities, and an

it

is necessary flight

least when

feedback) cues

integrated

director

(for

velocity

adequate).

18

ILl rY

,--1 [.)

L..) 0
v

,-.1 _1 c.)-,
1.1,1

C i,-

r-,
I,-,4

u
--I

0,') E--, 0 _m I

d
,-..1 0 0 z
a.

o
'

i
e., e_.o

"i
I

_2

i! ._i
e,

-I--

19

OF POOR

QUALITY

70 60

80

90

30 20 10 HLS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 AHIP FOV FOUR WINDOW CGI VISUAL SYSTEM FOV

Figure

11.-

Pilots'

field-of-view

comparisons.

The system

pitch

and the

roll

axis axis

augmentation consisted of a

consisted

of

an

inertial

velocity The

command yaw hover

while and speed

heave

rate-command included two of B.

altitude-hold. concepts these designed systems

stability and low

control (<40

augmentation The

systems actual

for the

knots). 25,29,30) and

implementation in appendix

for

simulation The yaw rate

(refs. yaw

is discussed control and

stability

augmentation control and

systems

(SCAS) The

comprised

washed-out heading-hold feed forward feed con-

damping

augmentation

quickening. an

rate-command

included to provide forward trol

integral-plus-rate steady-state to prevent B). the (appendix and were

feedback acceleration. drift The same caused control

integral-plus-proportional zone was included of in the

A dead by the force the

integral pilot C were

paths

integration

inadvertent in appendix

inputs

characteristics experiment. of the

implemented

throughout

Tl_rbulence hover steady _nd slow

and windflight also

A meaningful consisted following 31) was of

investigation including model from

weathercock of 25,

stability turbulence

in and

effects

wind

velocities. Dryden model model U g

The

reference

based

on

the

MIL-F-8785C Dryden

(ref.

implemented:

turbulence

: U g

(white

noise)

- amplitude

2O

= _V g

(white

noise)

g wh(.re

: #w g

(white

noise)

: o Ug : o Vg

_ 2/_ u_ _ I +

I (Lu/V)s

-'F "_'-v I + (J3Lv/v)s v_-V [I + (Lv/V)s]

_Wg

: W L_F" _

I + (J3Lw/V)s [I + (Lw/V)s]

where

turbulence

"break

frequencies" V/Lw

correspond rad/sec

to V/Lu

the

values

of

V/L

Altitude

= V/Lv

rad/sec

20 200

ft ft

1.27 .13

0.25 .025

The vertical turbulence speed measured at 20 ft

intensity ow was above ground level

specified as being 10% of the mean (AGL). The ratio of the horizontal vertical intensity varied to 2.0 at zero altitude.

wind of

turbulence intensities o u and o v to the altitude from the value of 1.0 at 1000 ft lengths required were (from ref. 25):

as a function The scale

h L
W

for for

h _ 20 h < 20

ft ft

= 20

5h L = L 100 1000

for for for

200

ft

_ 20 ft ft

ft

h < 20 h > 200

To was

provide was used

the

effects at

of two mean

steady wind

wind speed

and

wind and

shear, 200 ft these

the

magnitude Linear

of

the

steady alti-

wind

specified

altitudes:

20 ft between

AGL.

interpolation these was are

to determine

altitudes.

Beyond

tude extremes as a function table 3.

the mean wind speed remained constant. of altitude in a similar fashion. The

Wind direction wind conditions

specified defined in

21

TABLE3.- SIMULATED WINDCONDITIONS

20 ft (AGL) LIGHT MODERATE STRONG 19 knots 21 knots 34 knots 200 ft (AGL) 21 knots 26 knots 45 knots

CONDUCT

OF

THE

EXPERIMENT

In aircraft related overall mission mission

this

experiment

the

task

assigned

to

the

pilot

included

control

of

the indirectly The The SCAT

and associated functions, to control of the aircraft mission profile conducted flight to a hover turn turn was to conduct of the

but it did not include such as navigation and operations

tasks that were communications. NOE of

Scout/Attack five day task (ref.

in an

environment. a typical

consisted during

segments 19),

representative

specifically:

I) NOE 2) 3) 4) 5) The 40 knots.

Deceleration Precision Precision Air-to-air profile After was hover

hovering hovering target began at

(in-ground

effect) effect)

(out-of-ground and point

acquisition the start the the to

engagement (fig. 12) with at to or below the 50 (10 pilot and at aircraft ft ft AGL, AGL) at 50 ft and

negotiating with

canyon aircraft east.

course coming At

a deceleration in the a center

maneuver of the

performed area

a hover the

pointing

the

that

time

performed a constant

180 altiairat the

left tude. craft 75-ft

turn

while

maintaining

position

over

the

pivot

point

After stabilizing the aircraft at the 180 point, the pilot turned the 180 back to the right. He then initiated a vertical climb and unmasked (AGL) The the the altitude pilot pilot while then maintaining executed the the a eastern orientation turn. After and position

over of the

ground. OGE tion from left turn, of the

again

180 left to

completion for the

oriented The right

aircraft (CGI The

120 magnetic was of the the

to wait

initia-

air

target. and from

target console. to

helicopter) target times prevent pilot The to The

automatically was target pilots changed

initiated randomly varied from

simulation

control

direction

to right, from where

left. was done

appearance from

randomly when the and enemy

2 to 8 sec. the target with an

This would

anticipating and engage

appear.

attempted following

to acquire manner:

aircraft

air-to-air

missile

in the

22

r_

"13

(.J
v

(I) to 0 o .._ t. I 0) I 0 I o., (tl Iz I

d
,e--

e.
.,,-4

r..

23

I) Pilot detecting 2) target

activated

fire

contr_

1 symbols

on

HUD

using

cyclic

switch

after

target Pilot maneuvered aircraft to align sight pipper on center of gravity of

(I ) 3) Seeker acquisition launch tone (I 2 kHz) box inside good indicated appeared missile infrared energy being 6 azimuth) a steady

received. 4) 2.5 kHz 5) destroyed

Missile After 2

constraints being

(6 elevation, launch constraints

sec of

target

acquisition Pilot

tone

indicated fire

track,

missile motors

ready enemy aircraft was

depressed and

trigger,

rocket

ignited,

(sound

visual)

Before runs. were first again were

each These required run with not of

pilot runs of each

started were him

record

rlns to

he

was of

given the

five a

to

eight idea

familiarization what standards the before

accomplishe_

give

pilot mission subjects

good tasks.

in performing period, the

each the

the

Also,

simulation by the of

pilot of the

familiarized (appendix D).

themselves The pilots under (ref. 32)

the

tasks

reading

pilot

instructions

informed At

characteristics of the

particular

configuration pilot axis rating

evaluation.

the

conclusion pilot

run,

a Cooper-Harper the yaw

was assigned and were elicited. Each order. augmentation tions such not were things be of the orders

general

comments

regarding

handling

qualities

test

configurations divided into The This

was method took

presented groups: used account was

to so

the that

pilots the

in a

random and yaw configurabecause of

The

were

three

primary,

secondary, interesting

configurations. looked as at first.

into

the all

possibility the was test

that,

simulation Also, done

schedules, each of the

malfunctions, presentation the

configurations for each

might

examined. This was

orders effects of

different from

pilot. any

in order

to prevent and

learning

benefitting For were where and from is the

particular

test

configuration(s) task, This the target

generating and from was An

misleading target being to

results. time predict test

target randomly when being

acquisition assigned. target each

direction the pilots this

appearance able keep of to the

prevented

would by an

appear. irrelevant 13. as

Again,

done

results order

influenced

variable.

example

a presentation

illustrated Five

in figure pilots I: served Army

evaluation

pilots test

for

the

experiment: 3,400 flight hr, 2,200 of which

I) Pilot were

experimental 100 hr

pilot

with

in rotary-wing 2) Pilot 2:

aircraft, Army

NOE test

experience. pilot with 3,800 flight hr, 1,700 of which

experimental 100 hr

were

in rotary-wing 3) Pilot in 3:

aircraft, Civilian

NOE

experience. test hr pilot with 5,100 flight hr, 2,900 of

experimental aircraft, 500

which

were

rotary-wing

NOE

experience.

24

PILOT

EXPERIMENTAL
N r

MATRIX -6.0 1.65

-0.5

-1.0 0.75

RUN NO.

CONFIG.

TARGET DIR 1

TARGET DELAY 2 (SECS)

N6p

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44

4 18 12 5 7 26 6 2O 13 27 19 9 11 28 33 25 34 14 17 3 10 8 15 1 38 32 35 2 31 29 16 39 3O 37 24 21 4O 36 22 23 3R 19 R1 19R 3R1

+ + +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

8 4 8 2 4 8 2 6 2 2 6 6 8 2 4 8 4 2 4 8 6 4 8 6 4 8 2 6' 8 6 8 6 6 4 4 2 6 2 2 4

7
..n

i/i Z m O

oF
P< On-

.02

1
_llZIll_.

?'17, "//://R

7 1

E
_> :il .< o
"fl

fN /zx.
V//llil'l_

15 16 21

T NT

"//_/_P._ f//h>///.
#E /i_ lili M I1

o
;> -I

23 24

T NT

f,'/,(./_////, _/_ z
.O025 >

R_;, >'l/.

22 29

"/_/_l/_ ,
//llll./,t_

31 32 39 40

T NT T

H
O_ m

z co

V/_ 282Z .O011

30 37

1
E_

x.,"/X///_,
N r = sec-1

36

38 rad/sec 2 ft/sec

+ + +

3 0 z o -K ci 0 z
"It

Nv PRIMARY CONFIGURATIONS

N_ r

rad/sec 2 in.

R = YAW SCAS R1 = RATE COMMAND

HEADING

HOLD

1 + .._,.MEANS c .,n -,4 "-' MEANS

TARGET TARGET

FLIES FLIES

FROM FROM

LEFT RIGHT

TO RIGHT TO LEFT DISPLAY

+ +

6
z

2 DELAY

IS FROM

SELECTION

OF BOB-UP AND

J_
ffl

TO START OF TARGET FLIGHT, TO ONE OF FOUR VALUES

WAS LIMITED

Figure

13.- Typical

pilot-subject

configuration

order.

4) Pilot 4: Army experimental test pilot with 4,700 were in rotary-wing aircraft, 75 hr NOE experience. 5) Pilot 5: Army pilot/engineer with 1,100 flight rotary-wing aircraft, 400 hr NOE experience.

flight hr, 3,600

of

which

hr,

1,000 of which

were

in

25

Facility

and

Cockpit

Configuration

This motion provided

piloted

simulation (fig. the 14).

was

conducted

on

the

Ames

Research

Center

vertical (CGI) system windows shown wall walls

simulator the on NOE

A four-window, Figure field of 15 view rocks in

computer-generated-image the view of each of the a typical trees The on helicopter. the sides on of

visual

display. pilot's

shows

four

superimposed depicts were and floor the to

The the

scene canyon

canyon the

course. height and relative generated

The

and cues.

used

provide

attitude motion the

patterning

the

canyon

provided 8

cues. simulator display and math (HUD) model and and a PDP 11/40 computer

A Sigma drove mounted dix A. the

computer and

Evans

Sutherland The

head-up display

a 9

in.

KRATOS given was

panelin appenwith

display

(PMD).

format arrangement

characteristics similar stick, to the

are OH58D

A conventional force-feel The are cockpit

helicopter loaders dimensions, in appendix for

used

artificial pedals. layout used and

driving

a cyclic system A sound used in rotors, for the

a collective

stick, and

and

control C. model the

characteristics, system the air-rush conduct provided noise, of the

instrument cues driven was by

illustrated from

aural Aural

parameters

the mathematical the simulation control cues

simulation.

cueing

throughout missile fire

engine/transmission experiment.

necessary

Data

Acquisition

Along craft mental diate state

with data

the pilot were

ratings

and Three

tape

recorded charts include aircraft

pilot were are

comments, used to

real record

time the E.

airexperiImme-

collected. The performance line tape

strip to The

digital post-run from a

variables. aircraft Versatec magnetic

variables data

specified

listed

in appendix statistics performance analysis.

preliminary state and

were data were

provided also

printer. for

recorded

on

post-simulator

processing

and

RESULTS

Analysis

of

Experimental

Pilot

Rating

Data

A total the each an individual task are

of

147 data pilot

runs

were

obtained pilot G.

employing rating

the data,

pilot-subjects. and pilot comment

All

of for

ratings,

averaged

data

listed

in appendixes were enabled also

F and

A correlation on the ratings to the

analysis of the

(appendix primary test and

F) and

analysis

of

variance which

conducted pilot

configurations, changes and

indexing

sensitivity between

configuration

task

examining

significant

interaction

primary

variables.

26

\/
4..1 ,-4 0 *r.._ C).

27

0 0_

_d

0
H rj

E 0

I L -I 0

Q) r_

.,-4 r,.

0 0_

28

Effect

of

Learning

on

Pilot

Ratings

Ratings tion rating and felt be of the

as

an

assessment of

technique the

vary

considerably and By the

in reliability experience), precise of the and

as of

func-

characteristics (objects the effects figure various of

raters

{training over time

the it was It can

situations

rated,

instructions}.

issuing course

instructions

randomizing that the

configurations due to

experiment,

learning the

would of

be greatly learning averaged

diminished. for all of the would

seen

from

16 that If

relative had

effects place, run. be

tasks tend to

were

insignificant. as the test the test

learning

taken

the

ratings the the pilot

decrease given primary at

progressed of the

through experiment

each can

Therefore, with

ratings for the

beginning

analyzed

ratings

configurations

presented

later.

Analysis

of

Variance

Before ing of the

any yaw

attempt control FOR

was rating

made

to

elaborate an analysis

on

the of

theoretical was

or

practical on

meanthe

data,

variance

conducted

MEAN HQR 8 I-TASK 1

/
I 4

FIRST 22 RUNS EXAMPLE OF POSITIVE LEARNING EFFECT

TASK

8 F TASK 6 0
-r

TASK

LI

4
I I I I I

2 0 5 10 RUN # 8 - TASK 6 5 15 20

25

10 RUN#

15

20

25

4 2 0

10 RUN #

15

20

25

Figure

16.-

The

effects

of

time

on average

pilot

ratings

(HQR

= handling

qualities

rating).

29

rating data for the primary test configurations. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether differences in ratings due to variations in configuration, turbulence, task, or their interactions were (or were not) greater than what could be attributed to chance (ref. 33). A summaryof the analysis-of-variance results is presented in table 4. TABLE4.- SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS Degrees of freedom 10
I

Mean square, F Probability*

Source of variance

g2

Between configurations Between turbulence and no turbulence Between tasks Configurations task Configurations turbulence task

13.8 132.5

5.82 7.11

0.001 .076

4 40 40

15.4 1.33 1.19

4.95 2.11 1.72

.01 .001 .01

*Level

of

significance

_ g 0.05.

Table urations a) b) c) d) The are

4 shows exhibited

that four

the

Cooper-Harper

rating

data sources

for of

the

primary

test

config-

statistically differences differences the the

reliable

rating

variance:

Variance Variance Variance Variance

due due due due

to to to to

in configurations in task between between these configuration configuration, of variance of and task and turbulence that means and their was qualiand differthere

interaction interaction of

task,

statistical

sign[ficance

sources two

indicates the rating tasks,

systematic each

(non-chance) source category. the affected

differences Therefore, present of

between the

or more ratings.

within

test

configurations,

interactions expected, ties tasks. ences error. reasonable that or an at in the

handling turbulence were a

quality did

Contrary the all mean

to what handling

presence/absence (HQRs) when the

not

affect

ratings These the As a

ratings used as

averaged for

across

configurations between due be to real sampling with

findings handling result, of of

were

basis and of be

discriminating differences could this is

qualities a practical confidence. the the means magnitude

ratings meaning

those the

results that

derived

a one

degree least

It must is different of the

noted from

analysis required

only to

tells

one of

the

others.

Additional

analyses, tell which

inspection

means

themselves

30

meansare different. Also, determining whether or not a statistically significant difference between meanshas any practical importance is left to the judgment of the researcher.

Correlation

of Individual

Pilot Ratings with the Average Ratings

The reliability of the assessment of the flying qualities of configurations, when the pilot is asked to rate and commenton the configuration while performing specific tasks, is improved with an increase in the number of evaluation pilots. This could not wholly be accomplished due to the fixed number of simulation hours and required number of configurations to be evaluated. But high reliability can be maintained if each of the evaluation pilots consistently correlates well with the average (ref. 10). Each pilot's rating must be independent of time and have a high index of correlation with the average ratings. This index of correlation is a measure of how well his sensitivity to configuration changes (as reflected in his ratings) correlates with the sensitivity of the average ratings to the sameconfiguration changes. The results of the correlations between the individual ratings of the primary test configurations and the average ratings across all four evaluation pilots are given in appendix F. This analysis also provided a measure of the average deviation to be expected in the observations and an approximate criterion for rejection of a particular rating or evaluation pilot. An index of correlation of unity represents a perfect I to I correlation between the particular pilot rating and the average, while an index of correlation of zero indicates zero correlation of the pilot rating with the average. The index of correlation for the pilots for each task is shown in table 5. The index of correlation for all four pilots was moderately high except for two cases (Deceleration pilot 3, Fire-control pilot 2) showing that their sensitivity to configuration changes was basically the sameas the average. Since the correlation was very low in the Fire-control case for pilot 2, and it appeared that his sensitivity to configuration changes was negligible (the difference in his ratings due to scatter), pilot 2's ratings were rejected for the fire-control task. Also, the ratings for TABLE5.- SUMMARY OF PILOT CORRELATION ANALYSIS Task Pilot I 2 3 4 NOE Deceleration O.77 .78 .71 .84 0.78 .81 .40 .79 Low turn 0.70 .79 .68 .79 Fire control 0.72 .18 .72 .71

High turn 0.76 .77 .77 .72

31

pilot 3 during the deceleration maneuverwere rejected, since a value of 0.40 is statistically not any different than zero. For N = 21, a correlation of 0.43 is required for a significance of _O.O5. Dampingand YawGust Sensitivity For NOEflight, deceleration and hover turns, higher levels of yaw weathercock stability (Nv) required higher levels of damping (Nr) to achieve level I handling qualities (fig. 17). With the addition of wind and turbulence, these samevalues of N v required an even higher level of damping to achieve level I handling qualities. It was also illustrated that the task does affect the level of yaw damping required for each of the Nv'S tested. It appears that the more the task demands control activity in the yaw axis, the more yaw damping is required. In the deceleration task, very low damping levels can be tolerated for all levels of N v. In performing this task the pilot is only controlling the yaw axis to maintain the nose along the direction of flight. In the NOEtask, yaw control becomesmore important in that the pilot is using the yaw axis controller in coordination with the roll controller in negotiating the turns throughout the course. Correspondingly more damping is required as N v increases. Whenthe pilot performs the hover task, he is then controlling mainly the yaw axis. In this case the required levels of damping are the highest for increasing values of N v. This sametrend also occurred for a different task when turbulence/wind was added. It can be seen from figure 17 that the minimumlevels of damping increased considerably and the increase in slope corresponds to the type of task performed. The only configurations that maintained level I handling qualities for all of these tasks with turbulence were configurations: 37 29 Nv = O.001, N r = -4 N v = 0.0025, Nr = -4 with an added yaw

These values correspond to an ABCor XV-15 type of aircraft damper.

In this experiment, control sensitivity (N__) was held as a dependent variable and only changed with yaw damping. It must be r_cognized though that all three variables (Nv, Nr, N_o) should be considered when establishing a criteria. Using data from references 10 and 11, and data obtained in this experiment, the following 3-dimensional plots were obtained (figs. 18 and 19) for NOEand hover flight. It can be readily seen that a criteria for yaw handling qualities should encompassall of these variables for a given task. A minimumlevel of damping can be specified, but its value is also dependent on N v and N6p.

32

-7

LEVEL

1 WITH

ADDITION

OF LIGHT r ^

TURBULENCE " _ _ LEVEL I WITHOUT

-6

-4

"7
J

;Z

-2 _,___'_,_ ..-_\\_\\\\\\\._\_J | UNSATISF ACTOR Y

ABC

NOE -7 -LEVEL LIGHT -6 f 1 WITH ADDITION

DECELERATION OF

TASK

TURBULENCE/WIND

"7
-4 Z LEVEL 1 WITHOUT ', , 'TURBULENCE SATISFACTORY -2 3.5 LEVEL I I 2
I

BOUNDARY

ADEQUATE
|

HOVER LEVEL LIGHT 1 WITH ADDITION

TURNS OF

(IGE, OGE)

TASK

-7

TURBULENCE/WIND 3,5 BOUNDARY

-6

TURBULENCE SATISFACTORY

\\\\\\\_W" _

"7

_-4
LEVEL -2 2 ADEQUATE

I .02 rad/sec 2
Nv w

.005

.01

.03

ft/sec

F_gure

17.-

N r versus

N v.

33

N r = -0.5 N r = --1.0

8-

"

Nr = -6.0

/ ./" N r = -4.0

/
/)

z6
I--

<_
OE

_4 o
._1 a..

I N v = 0.01 2.0

I .5

I 1.0 rad/sec 2 in.

I 1.5

I Nv = 0.001 2.0

rad/sec2 ft/sec

N(sp Figure 18.Composite

of yaw damping, sensitivity, and data (NOE task) without turbulence.

weathercock

stability

Yaw

Control

Response

For

the

fire

control

task,

no

statistically

obvious

trends

in pilot

rating of

with N r and N v were apparent. Reference the controllability and maneuverability of its short-term-attitude response pedal which in response the for yaw each to control axis is by

13 states that, "The pilot's awareness the vehicle is influenced primarily by inputs." calculating The A means the values for the of identifying response damping in and this

short-term to a unit

heading of yaw

I sec heading

input yielded in

configuration. handling

response task levels minimum I sec values control move the are responses

level-1 figure -4

qualities handling l-in. of

air-to-air were

fire-control only that for and states are yaw damping the

indicated between -2.5

20. sec -I.

Level-1 for Military for but

qualities pedal

obtained

10-17 after and

I sec

deflection F-83300

between and for or

specification level-1 handling

maximum

heading

responses

qualities to

6-23 after damping fire quickly or outside

I in.

of pedal tasks pilot

deflection, are

no

specific

relationship the the

specific and

specified. it was sight of from

In analyzing observed the the of target that

air-to-air pilot lying

missile to area

task

comments, the taken

desired of in the

aircraft Pilot

to align comments

with

a minimum

overshoot

undershoot. the level-1

configurations 20 may be

handling

qualities

region

figure

summarized

as:

34

8 N r = -0,05 6 N r = -1.0

N r = -4.0 2 N r = -6.0

I Nv = 0.02 2.0

I Nv = 0.01 2.0

I
0 .5

I
1.0

I
1.5 rad/sec 2 in.

I
2.0

N v = 0,001

rad/sec 2 ft/sec

N6p

Figure

19.-

Composite

of yaw damping, data (hover task)

sensitivity, and weathercock without turbulence.

stability

AIR-TO-AIR -6 FIRE CONTROL TASK/TURB.

-4 LEVEL
L=

-2

10 AFTER

20

30 deg

1 sec FOR ONE in. PEDAL,

Figure

20.-

Yaw

damping

versus

control (with

response

for

the

air-to-air

Fire-control

task

turbulence).

35

< sition

10

after

I sec

for

I in.

pedal--The

pedals

are

too

insensitive

for

acqui-

and

tracking. after I sec for I in. pedal--The pedals are too sensitive for acquisi-

> 17 tion and INrl

tracking. > 4--Aircraft displayed keeps settled control overshooting down on a ratcheting when tracking. the target. It is

hard

INrl < 2.5--Aircraft to get the aircraft

and undershooting consistent rate.

Examples good either get the minimum

of time had

this had and poor

are

illustrated good or error. were the an

in

figure and

21. were

The

configurations damped, received it was thus that

that which poor

received accounted ratings hard to for

ratings

a very tracking response

response The not

optimally damped,

configurations optimally within task a

extremely

sight

aligned are of

with for 60 may plane.

target

the

allotted the range

time

constraints. aircraft ft. traveling Variations region of at in the

These a constant the yaw target

results velocity

air-to-air and well at

with

target of of

knots very

constant the

1,000 the

trajectory

affect

location

level-1

damping-response

hover tasks

Level I control response data was also obtained for the task. These results are listed in table 6. It can be the MIL-F-83300 specification is a satisfactory

NOE, seen

deceleration, and that for these

criterion.

Response

to Turbulence

An minimum response mum

important damping to

result levels

of are

the

analysis

conducted on or

in reference the basis of

11 was the

that

the

apparently either task an

determined open-loop boundary is constant

aircraft's MiniairThere-

turbulence, levels for

from

a closed-loop lines all along values

viewpoint. which of the N v.

damping

a given

and

are

craft's

heading

response

to turbulence

for

fore, as Nv is increased, the pilot requires increasing values of Nr to maintain the aircraft response to turbulence at the desired level. The values of oT selected for the level I boundary from the experiment conducted in reference 11 was 8 and 7 the over This yaw a was for the visual and instrument approach data at task, was respectively. by generatH). plotted. of N v,

For ing oT

control period of

experiment, 6 sec with

heading light

response turbulence

obtained

a hover

(appendix

Heading response (oT) versus yaw damping for each of the Nv'S These results are given in figure 22. It can be seen that for oT decreases as damping increases. The correlation It can also requirement level A linear correlation

was then all values was

analysis

conducted

between oT and N r. ately high correlation. the for more values the of yaw Nv damping to

coefficient be observed is increased. I were:

was 0.79, which shows a moderthat the higher the value of Nv, The respective damping levels

achieve

36

CONFIGURATION 5 '_ RIGHT

CONFIGURATION

37

R CO i-o "r (z: COnr *SELCL, I _11.9 SEC *SELECT 0 F.C.

_5"LEFT MISSION P.R. = 7 IN. = 1.5 _ AIRCRAFT KEPT FAILURE

9.60

SEC--=-

_t MISSION P.R. = 4 SUCCESS

m=t

N r = -1.0 4 / 1SEC/1 COMMENTS:

N r = -4 4/1 sec/1 in. = 15 COMMENTS: VERY GOOD AND QUICK WELL DAMPED

OVER AND UNDERSHOOTING THE TARGET

RESPONSE

CONFIGURATION 5 RIGHT

24

CONFIGURATION
m

30

I CO

*SELECT *SELECT F.C.

_z..
_'rr
O0 UJ

_ \
F.C. ]_ .12.05 SECS-_

6.43 5 LEFT MISSION P.R. = 6 IN. = 13.68" KEPT OVERSHOOTING THE AIRRATCHETING BECAUSE CONTROL FAILURE Dt M ISSION P.R. = 3 N r = -4 4/1 sec/1 in. = 12.9 COMMENTS: VERY AND TRACK THE SUCCESS

SECS m,t

N r = -6 4/1SEC/1 COMMENTS: THE

EASY

TO ACQUIRE

TARGET HAD

TARGET

CRAFT

TENDENCIES SELECT F.C. - STRIP CHART DATA STARTS WHEN PILOTS INITIATES FIRE-CONTROL SIGHT ON HUD USING CYCLIC STICK SWITCH _* EOM - END OF MISSION OUT OF TIME) L,R TARGET (PILOT EITHER SHOOTS DOWN TARGET MISSILE

OR RUNS

***

WAS INITIATED

FROM

EITHER

THE

LEFT

OR RIGHT

DIRECTION

Figure

21.-

Examples

of

yaw

axis

control

activity

for

the

fire-control

task.

37

TABLE

6.-

LEVEL

I CONTROL

RESPONSE

DATA

FOR

TASKS*

NOE

Deceleration

IGE

turn

OGE

turn

MIL-F-83300

Minimum Maximum

6 12

6 12.5

13.5

13.5

23

*_

after

I sec

for

I in.

pedal

(low

turbulence/wind).

For

Nv Nv Nv

= O.O1, : 0.005 = O.O01, are for

O.02

---

N r : -4.5 Nr Nr = -3.5 = -1.8 with more previous research results, must be but this to criteria was

0.0025

--

These only

values examined

in general the hover

agreement case tasks. and

directed

investigate

possible

values

for other

10

LEVEL _ ..........

1 HANDLING

QUALITIES

BOUNDARY

N v = 0.01,0.02 (TAIL ROTOR) N v = 0.005 (NOTAR) N v = 0.001,0.0025 (ABC, XV-15)

"lD

! "l

ADEQUATE WARRANTS'",. IMPROVEMENT "

1.60

01 "00oo e

SATISFACTORY W/O IMPROVEMENT

..........
"e

................
I -3

o'_e

.....
I -5

...........
I -6

-1

I -2 YAW

I -4 N r, sec -1 with no pilot

DAMPING turbulence

Figure

22.-

Heading

response

due

to

inputs

(6 sec).

38

The maximum aT resulting

differs considerably from a oT possible difference distinctive tasks, possible In order generate

for level I handling qualities

of 7 or 8 as obtained period These open used to results loop

was 1.6 .
11. generate show that

This The aT, the it is response.

in reference

may have come from the time and the level of turbulence. good viable handling qualities however, must be

to determine to become and a the

from the

turbulence task, the

criterion, level

specific

time

to

aT,

turbulence

thoughtfully

considered.

Loss

of

Tail

Rotor

Control

Effectiveness

This in the ness, tions flown table

phenomena (refs. of 47

has

been

experienced In

operationally the

by loss

many of and

OH-58 tail

series

aircrews

field a total were by 7.

34 and data by

35).

investigating obtained. and The the

rotor

effectivecondiwere in

runs one

were

moderate remaining

strong

wind

evaluated test

engineer/pilot The resulting

configurations are presented

four

pilots.

Cooper-Harper

ratings

TABLE

7.-

COOPER-HARPER

RATINGS

FOR

TAIL-ROTOR

CONFIGURATIONS

Nr, s_'l -.5 -1.0 -4.0 -6.0 WIND

ii iii iiiiii i !iii

t_

4_
04

__

ST R0 N G

==
"1o

E
>

!iii!!i i iiii
0.01 ?,,_r,_: _>_/_ .

ilNiii..o..

//./////////.ii)!iiiii[iiii;i;!iii::i::i':ili::i::i::!::i::iii ;: ;;, :iii! i:, i! iii) iiii:,i:;i;:);,i;;i:,iii::i:: ADDED CONTROL ENCOUNTERED

iiiiiiii!i iiiiiiiiiiii iiii!i!!iiiii!iiiiiii sT.o iiiiiiiiiil

1 YAW AUGMENTATION LOSS OF TAIL-ROTOR

By modeling the first-order conditions and azimuths, it was istic series only of that encountered (refs. or during 34 and

effects possible loss of

of to

Nr, Nv, and N_ for different wind induce a right-_pin which is characterrotor do control not effectiveness that these in OH-58 are the these

tail

aircraft variables more

35). to laid

These cause for

results

imply but, by

circumstances was

the phenomena; research.

investigating

factors,

groundwork

further

39

For yaw damping levels control of the aircraft was terrain control tered. limits urations relative tion took (and rate forced The wind the of while the pilot was

of INrl g 1.0 with lost or the aircraft attempting during of the to initiate

moderate or strong was flown into the a recovery. where a All right

wind conditions, surrounding of the loss of

incidents At were NOE wind. the no time

occurred did for the Pilot roll and loss

90 right occur in

turn, the The

spin

was pedal

encouNmargin configinto directhe

control

left

turn;

however, the

reached through wind.

certain left the

configurations. turn, right having turn to

pilots tail tail

flew of to

various

turn

the the

the yaw

aircraft with the turn

Conversely

required that

comments yaw

indicated inputs

the

very

sharp

right than with

which yaw input yaw

coordinated subsequently due to the yaw

control

required This rate,

a higher combined for low

normal the

a higher environmental rate would _ and

induced right

rate).

added

tail-wind

moment to 7).

damped even on

configurations, aggravated. a relative severity and of the

the coming

accompanying lose of by partial 30 to the

acceleration effectiveness 90 (fig. the 23 yaw

become due to

more the

tail

rotor

then angles

receiving

from yaw rate the control

Depending of of the the

wind,

induced was

pilot, (@ Figure

damping 30 and some of

aircraft, increased aircraft

effective velocities), states and

change

in yaw spin

control

power

between

90 for

relative

induced. during

shows loss

dynamic

positions

a typical

control

case.

Additional a higher altiadding addiWhen the the

pilot comments indicated tude (>200 ft), recovery tional pilots collective attempted the during

that if the loss of control might have been possible. the spin the usually left tended effect ground to of aggravate main or

had occurred at At NOE altitudes, the condition. by

to decrease result was the

rotor

torque

decreasing the spin. control

collective, While margins generate region, implied required coming line the be was up may a

tree wasn't

contact lost to

during even

performing have been

turn,

control

though

power would In this

reached. on the but turn

In correlating tail rotor from thrust as rate increased wasn't yaw the flight. large full yaw

this _

figure of

7, a left 270 to Pilot

turn

relative

wind

angles

330 . comments was

damping that left from the

is adequate the rate. with the left

is required. as also would were the right,

since yaw

severe was to They

neither by left the pedal

the wind to

This This line Since

left caused of no

diminished the continue

relative in order until pedal

the nose was

right.

pilot

increase

adding

margin in a not

reached. state

rates

encountered, The pilots

the

pilot

would this

steady

condition they the

with

left

pedal. for this out of

commented by adding the right.

that left This

desirable, and flying

but with

could nose 23. of of

compensate the

condition trim to

cyclic also

aircraft

is

illustrated By decreasing

in figure the

value in of

the

aircraft

directional

gust

sensitivity

parameter

(N v) from 0.02 for yaw damping moderate tivity. tivity and For was Due changed to less

to 0.01 values

strong winds, it was observed that pilot ratings improved -4.0 and -6.0; for damping values of -0.5 and -1.0 in aircraft no control was lost for both with values of gust gust sensisensi-

strong light

winds, winds, (N v

degradation

in pilot

rating

increasing

evident the

Vg

is insignificant). of though the engine rpm governing effects system, coupled the to rotor the rpm aircraft

excellent 1.O%.

nature Even

than

the

were

40

38 sec TIME COURSE 225 HEADING 160 270

TAI L ROTOR PEDAL POSITION, % -50 _ 40

('_ _ J

PILOT ATTEMPTED TO NEUTRALIZE FULL RIGHT PEDAL _PEDAL AND FLY OUT OF CONDITION FULL LEFT PEDAL

PEDAL MARGIN / REACHED

TAIL

ROTOR deg ROTOR LIMITS -12 -20 100 MAX. _ 177/sec

PITCH,

[
% -/%

_, deg/sec

vV_

-100

ROTOR

SPEED, 410 I 385"

rpm

HEIGHT GROUND

ABOVE LEVEL ft

15o r 10o I _-

A/C CONTACTED

TREES

(HAGL),

L
MAX. TORQUE

5o
COLLECTIVE POSITION, %

AVAILABLE TURN

PILOT ATTEMPTED TO DECREASE RATE BY LOWERING COLLECTIVE

8O A/C AIRSPEED, knots 40 0 A/C CRASHED

Figure

23.-

Typical

loss

of N6p

tail-rotor = 0.5, high

control winds.

N r : -0.5,

Nv

: 0.02,

41

yawing moment, a I%drop in rpm required only a 0.3 in. change in required left pedal (6p) for trim conditions. Pilot commentsfurther supported that rpm control was not a major factor inducing or aggravating the loss of yaw control effectiveness in this experiment. This result does not imply that poor rpm control _s not a factor in tail rotor loss of control; but, that with a very good governor, rpm control is eliminated as a factor. By adding a yaw SCAS or rate-commandheading-hold augmentation to a configuration with low yaw damping (Nr = -I.0), the averaged pilot ratings improved. The pilots commented that the nose of the aircraft had less of a tendency to oscillate and it was very easy to modulate the yaw rates. Bandwidth Analysis Bandwidth is a qualitative measure of the input-to-output response of a dynamic system. Since it is a measure of the system input-to-output response, multiparameter changes within the system should be captured. This phenomenon makes bandwidth an attractive criterion. Bandwidth analysis is conducted in the frequency domain and results in a fundamental measure of the ability of the system output to follow the system input. A higher system bandwidth reflects a faster and more predictable aircraft response to control inputs. The input and output quantities selected to define the system bandwidth are those most appropriate to the task being evaluated; for example, heading regulation involves rudder pedals as the input and yaw angle or rate as the output. The bandwidth hypothesis (ref. 36) originated from the idea that the pilot's evaluation of aircraft handling qualities is dominated by the response characteristics of the aircraft when it is operated in a closed-loop tracking task. That is, the pilot's capability to make rapid and precise control inputs to minimize errors, and thereby improve closed-loop tracking performance, dominates his evaluation. The classical definition of closed-loop bandwidth (ref. 36) is the frequency at which the Bode amplitude is 3 decibels (dB) less than the steady-state amplitude of the system. For a closed-loop system characterized by a first-order response, the bandwidth as defined above is also the crossover frequency of the constituent rateordering (K/S) open loop as shownon the left side of figure 24. In this figure, the crossover frequency is labeled mc, and the bandwidth T; the latter to signify that bandwidth here is a direct measure of the closed-loop time response to a step command as shown on the right side of figure 24. In this case, crossover frequency, bandwidth, and the inverse of the response time are identical. In general, such exact unity does not carry over to higher-order systems. Nevertheless in manycases, including those of flying qualities interest, the bandwidth as defined above is close, but not exactly equal, to the crossover frequency. In the field of aircraft flying qualities, "bandwidth" (defined by the highest open-loop crossover frequency attainable with good closed-loop dynamics) is typically used to measure the speed of response a pilot can expect when tracking

42

OPEN

LOOP AIRFRAME,

_/h

PILOT

AIRFRAME

_c

3dB

_ __j__
RESPONSE 1c LOOP CLOSURE GAIN

o:(RAD/SEC)

_C

UJ

"O

Z_ -90

I
Figure control and stability disturbances system.

1.0 [_ __ ___

....

_.__.---

--

_ _ONSE

CLOSEDLOOP

1_-.95 0 i
t-_

FREQUENCY

DOMAIN

TIME

DOMAIN

24.-

First-order

bandwidth/response

relations.

with

rapid

inputs. the

Bandwidth of

indicates

how

tightly

he

can it

close

the

loop of

without tracking ing and

threatening precision

stability disturbance and damping

the pilot/vehicle For

system;

is a measure tasks,

rejection. allows the

precise to

tracking

maximizinputs in the

open-loop reject

pilot

track due

high-frequency to low damping

without

unacceptable

oscillations

closed-loop

Bandwidth for higher-order the

hypothesissystems, of

Since

the

open-loop equal

crossover to) the

frequency

is

equal

to

(and,

approximately bandwidth as or a and the 6 dB

classical are for

closed-loop equivalent. a simple,

bandThat pure is is,

width, the pilot (fig.

definition bandwidth a 45 phase The basis

crossover crossover gain comes and

frequency frequency

system with 25).

is defined margin of this

gain

margin, from

whichever gathered phase

frequency that

lower the

criterion damping

data

express an

relationship open-loop

between plant (ref.

closed-loop 36). of

open-loop

margin

for

ideal

Physical loop response

significance characteristics lag

bandwidth. (Kp,Kc

A pilot 24)

will to a

attempt K/S

to shape.

equalize

the

open-

of fig. are

Controlled amount, (T L that > I sec) were as

elements whereas are

requiring requirements

equalization significant

generally of 36).

downgraded pilot-generated The

a minimal lead

for

amounts {ref.

characteristically in using

unsatisfactory as handling

considerations are

implicit follows:

bandwidth

qualities

criterion

summarized

43

_=
0 -6 _ b; -12 -18 -24 ,/___S

dB

+ _2

100 60 20 0 -20 -60

i

1_, deg

-100 .1

_:, rad/sec

i WNS

_i

Figure

25.-

Definition

of

closed-loop
or

bandwidth,
).

UBW

(_BW

: lesser

of

mBWpHAS

=BWGAIN

I. damping) 2. frequency 3. tion and 4. responses tics are of not

Bandwidth or The for Low hence -Z w

is a measure {heave damping). system gain

of

risetime

or

speed

of

response

I/T R : -N r

(yaw

closed-loop a pure values poor

bandwidth (3 rad/sec are

is approximately yaw). of a need

equal

to

the

crossover

pilot of

bandwidth

indicative

for

pilot

lead

equaliza-

ratings. a minimum inputs (see value without Locus basic of bandwidth is equivalent or any other I). to requiring rapid

Requiring to control low damping

overshoots

undesirable If such

characteris-

Root the

Analysis--Appendix airframe, for stability the yaw

characteristics may by be certain

available But aerodynamic

through the

augmentation are are: limited

required. inherent

still

control

response which

characteristics axis

derivatives,

N_

P
2
S

- NrS

+ NvU cos

_o

even

if the Pilot

aircraft modeling.

is perfectly A closed-loop to see

decoupled. bandwidth modeling analysis could using be used a simplified as pilot tool

model

was

investigated

if pilot

a predictive

44

for yaw-control handling-qualities transfer function was:

research.

The

assumed

form

of

the

pilot's

-_S P(s) : Kr e

where K_ e, the

is the pilot gain Pad@ approximation

and r is the reaction (expanded to the fourth -r _-- S -_S 2 I + 2 I + _ 2 -_S 2

time delay (fig. term) was used:

26).

For

2
+

-_S where e

I + I +

I "

-_S 2 TS 2 3

_S 2 I m 2 +6

A/C
CHARACTERISTIC PILOT MODEL TRANSFER FUNCTION

Figure

26.-

Pilot

model

and

aircraft

transfer

function.

with

the

initial

value

of

The

set

to 0.3

sec,

which

is

representative of adjusting the

of

the

human

neuromuscular gain K_,_ as the crossover unity). assumes value. a

time

delay.

computations

consisted

pilot's

function frequency of

of Nr, N6p , N v to give a selected phase margin (30 ) at (frequency at which the open-loop amplitude ratio is was his 3 used as the constant the crossover lead frequency, this for constant the values of which

A value that The the

3 rad/sec adjusts of value

pilot

characteristics yields

to maintain optimum

selected

rad/sec

Nv and phase margin performing a constant caused aircraft performed by lateral heading a

(ref. 11). In this heading task while so that the

analysis, the pilot was assumed to be the aircraft was disturbed in heading pilot reacted to suppress the the deviation loop he of

turbulence, from the

reference task To

heading. 11). the

Therefore,

in closing

"compensatory" results.

(ref.

Bandwidth in the transfer obtained

characterize an

configurations

evaluated

by

the

pilot

yaw-response

simulation,

idealized

heading-rate-to-pedal

control-input were this

function _/_p, was assumed. From for open-loop and pilot-in-the-loop variables may (ref. that be were evaluated with for as good

this transfer function, Bode plots analyses, using the matrix of the (Appendix confidence J). An idealized the form of

experimental transfer helicopter utilizing

function model

assumed used

because a

mathematical model system Y = _/_ used to p' analysis

25)

these

studies of

was

small-perturbation The open-loop

stability

derivatives A

functions

velocity.

block diagram, including is shown in figure 27. obtain the open-loop

the assumed form linear analysis plots and

of the transfer computer program the

function where (ref. 37) was pilot model

Bode

to perform

closed-loop

45

PILOT

AIRCRAFT

OPEN LOOP SYSTEM

Yp =

Kp = 1 Kc s

K c=N6p 2_'o0 = N r 002 = UoNvcs Co

Yc =

S2 + 2_'o0S + 002

Figure

27.-

Yaw

response

block

diagram

for

open-loop

analysis.

(Appendix widths Harper

J).

Figures

28-31

show

an

evaluation

of

the

open-loop

heading

rate

band-

mBW pilot

for the experimental ratings for the NOE

=

matrix of variables task, the deceleration

versus the averaged Coopertask, the low-hover turns

10

NOE TASK YAW TO COLLECTIVE COUPLING NO YAW TO COLLECTIVE COUPLING

LEVEL z h8

6
LEVEL 2

_"

r_ _ 2 LEVEL 1 _ 37 23 _ 3_'_ _ 39

2 HEADING

3 BANDWIDTH, ratings

4 rad/sec versus

Figure

28.-

NOE

task

- pilot

heading

bandwidth.

46

DECELERATION 10

TASK

COLLECTIVE TO YAW COUPLING NO COLLECTIVE TO YAW COUPLING

LEVEL 8 z n_J 6

--l,
33111_ _1_

19

__

LEVEL

37_

_L--J_-_L 21-

_9J_m5_31

O O LEVEL 1

I 1

I 2

I 3 HEADING

I 4 BANDWIDTH,

I 5 rad/sec

I 6

1 7

Figure

29.-

Deceleration

task

- pilot

ratings

versus

heading

bendwidth.

task, and the air-to-air target-acquisition here because of similarities between those For resulted bandwidths, the level the in NOE task and low-hover better ratings bandwidth at turns,

task. The high-hover data and the low-hover bandwidths qualities. 3 to 5 and deceleration than greater At do these not task than

turn turn 3.0

was omitted data. rad/sec values of stay in

substantially however, the The

handling range

higher

from the

consistently gets For good be

I region. appears

where

considerably the air-to-air

better

ratings

to be was no

values

greater correlated Since results

3 rad/sec. for

engagement qualities measure suggest level of

task, of the

there tested of

readily

bandwidth the bandwidth

handling assumed to task will yield be a

configurations. response, is a and the

can

the

speed that

of

the of

air-to-air

targeting which by

strongly I handling

there

specific that these

range values

bandwidth can only be

values

qualities,

obtained

optimizThis compenof yaw the rate

ing N6_ and N r conclusion seems satory above tracking. assumed

for this task (see previous results for appropriate since the initial hypothesis The air-to-air because tracking the pilot in this

air-to-air task}. assumes a defined is a variation match his

simulation to

tracking

is attempting

quickly

47

LOW HOVER

TURNS

TASK

COLLECTIVE TO YAW COUPLING IkO COLLECTIVE TO YAW COUPLING

10

LEVEL
Z

<
nO

T
)3 Z 9 I1 13 l_l
_. 2L1!

-J 6

a.

< _r , 4
ha.

-331 2.=

0 0

LEVEL

3 HEADING

4 BANDWIDTH,

5 rad/sec

Figure

30.-

Low

hover

turns

task

- pilot

ratings

versus

heading

bandwidth.

with

the

flightpath aiming results bandwidth or _

of

the

target

ship

while

also

simultaneously

minimizing

the

missile The minimum Nv, N_p,

error. for may the be NOE, deceleration, this inputs) and along must hover with be tasks indicate that while (such a as

specified, to pedal an for

additional in order into the

parameters to use J) 32). completely of were The

response

used made

define pilot pilot

a specification. model gains with as resulting the

Finally, tool the from

investigation yaw-control pilot for

was

a simple The

a predictive

handling-qualities analysis the NOE better a (Appendix (fig.

research.

closed-loop ratings of of be 4 will 6. only

correlated correlation than a configa pilot In config-

Cooper-Harper that that only at a pilot

pilot gain a gain still

task

indicates uration gain of

yield

handling

qualities may

requires 4, it may 32

Even

though

configuration satisfactory

require

a marginally even at

configuration. gain values,

looking urations tions. derived validity

figure high

it

is evident sensitivity categorize with the

that

the

lower

pilot

with

gust

still an

were

marginally using

satisfactory this data, value. one To

configuramust look have at the the

In order pilot of

to

fully along

aircraft gust with

gain this

aircraft

sensitivity known

approach,

a configuration

marginal

handling

qualities

48

10

FIRE CONTROL

TASK

YAW TO COLLECTIVE COUPLING NO YAW TO COLLECTIVE COUPLING

(9 z
m

LEVEL 3

<
n-

o .J a. LU a. r_

331 4

19

13

5 ]
)

31 "1
I

LEVEL

_7

<
I

37
I

O15 J_

n" LM

0 0 2

LEVEL

3 HEADING

4 BANDWIDTH, ratings

5 rad/sec versus

Figure

31.-

Fire

control

task

- pilot

heading

bandwidth.

was

analyzed

(configuration yielded 32

35). gain this

Using of

the

closed-loop Comparing to of

pilot this

techniques, with the

this results in the a

configuration presented level N

V

a pilot shows

5.5.

value

in figure

configuration rating other but a more

predict This (such

handling technique as

qualities can

2 region must

(a Cooper-Harper capability, be used for also

pilot

6.5).

provide

preliminary g 0.01)

predictive

criteria

specifying

complete

specification.

Performance use this of various technique aspects is

analysisobjective that poor

This measures

method of

for system

assessing qualities are

handling The result

qualities assumption in the

involves underlying

the of

performance.

vehicle-handling which to be

degradation

certain

of

system is,

performance assumed

objectively

measurable. with

Degradation mission

of these measures achievement. The yields complete measures an performance objective a task) can be

in turn,

negatively

correlated

approach record a

has

the

advantage tracking in

of

measurement error,

objectivity. error, and

It time These in to

(for

example, of

airspeed

as

function when

variation with

vehicle-control

parameters. as stated

reliable

treated

sophisticated

techniques

49

10

Nr = -6.0, N6p Nr = -4.0, N6p

= 1.65 = 1.00 = 0.75 -- 0.5 VALUES OF N v > 0.01 N v _< 0.01 3 [] II 19 27 33 25 LEVEL 2 A17 LEVEL 3

_9 Z u _-8 nO
.J

[] a

Nr = -1.0, N6p N r = -0.5, N6p OPEN SYMBOL CLOSED

SYMBOL

VALUES

E o w <
w

8 7 15

[] 05
2O_uL 13 _qF 21 _':37 11

o
0

< "4
LM Q,, CI:

<
I

__39 23 00 31

"'2
0

LEVEL

4 CLOSED

5 LOOP PILOT

6 GAIN K1
_v

Figure

32.-

Pilot

ratings

versus

closed-loop

pilot

gain

(K_)

for

NOE

task.

reference approach. have pilot

33.

There it

are

at

least

two to

serious select to to a

shortcomings one or two

of

the

performance measures that the

First,

is difficult with his

performance success.

predictive tends to

validity accommodate

reference output

ultimate wide

mission of

Secondly, in control

range

variations

parameters without permitting states that this accommodation the of the control the yaw task, at This the

degradation of is accomplished of operator

vehicle by a

performance. Reference 33 shift of effort and attention for and unexpected contingencies measures from

to

expense was

readiness data

mission. control

method

explored test

using

performance

experiment's

primary

configurations.

Analysis variance

of varianceduring

The the

performance experiment

measures were:

selected

for

an

analysis

of

examination

5O

Height above ground level - NOEtask (I) Forward airspeed - NOEtask (I) Heading changes - deceleration task (2) Yawrates - in-ground-effect hover turn (3) Height above ground level - IGE turn (3) Heading error - hover bob-up (4) Yawrates - OGE hover turn (5) Height above ground level - OGE turn (5) Reaction time data - fire control task (6) These measures were selected by the researchers on an arbitrary basis. A task analysis was conducted, and standards used in reference 19 to perform the listed combat task were utilized as a reference for the various measures. Table 8 lists the analysis of variance results for each of the performance measures. The F-test indicated differences in level of performance for the following measures (significant difference indicated if p g 0.05): Forward airspeed (task I) Aircraft heading (task 2) tion and turbulence Yawrates (task 3) due to Yawrates (task 5) due to due to differences in configuration or turbulence due to the combination of differences in configuradifferences differences in configuration in configuration

The F-test did not indicate which of the configurations differed significantly in performance from other configurations. To establish the differences and the meaningfulness of each of the above measures, a further analysis was conducted of each of the above. Forward airspeed performance measure. The meanforward airspeed versus damping is depicted in figure 33. Also for each data point, the associated pilot rating is included. The pilots were instructed to fly at 40 knots 5 knots in flying the NOE
corridor. stay not within approach The Those two It can the be seen that in none of the turbulence the ratings cases for was the pilot able cases to do performance I handling did meet the and criteria. qualities. the performance criteria that met that are level divided into two groups. Also, the turbulence

level that

cases groups (INrl

were: _ 2.5);

configurations those

I handling outside

qualities level I not

criteria

configurations qualities that did more

remained

(INrl _ 2.5) in the level 2 handling show that most of the configurations level perform experiment communication tions. measure for I handling the task. the qualities) This was just

criteria meet the pilot in the other to be

area. The performance

pilot comments criteria (but to adequately In this navigation

required

compensation pilot tasks

caused not

the

degradation to his perform ability

ratings. such for a good as

pilot that

required on

and

might

impinge However, actions

compensate used be as

poorer so

configurathat it percepis met

It does NOE all

appear flight.

that

forward

airspeed the total

can task

performance

must

structured perform

encompasses tively, and

necessary

a pilot would

must ensure

cognitively that

manually, measure

communicatively.

This

a performance

51

TABLE 8.- ANALYSIS

OF VARIANCE

FOR NOE PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

Variable

Degrees of freedom

Mean square

F statistic

Probability

Height

above

ground

level

- task

Configuration Turbulence Configuration

x turbulence

10 I 10

15.44 48.1 9.1

1.19 3.22 .54

0.33 .17 .85

Forward

airspeed

- task

Configuration Turbulence Configuration x turbulence

10 I 10

15.2 2503.5 7.31

2.31 88.9 .72

0.0375 .0O25 .6985

Aircraft

heading

- task 2

Configuration Turbulence Configuration turbulence

10 I 10

29.6 17.9 24. I

I.94 .43 2.66

0.078 .56 .019

Yaw rates

- task

Configuration Turbulence Configuration x turbulence

I0 I I0

15.35 .47 1.79

4.77 .09 .81

O.OO04 .783 .62

Height above

ground

level

- task 3

Configuration Turbulence Configuration

x turbulence

10 1 10

2.99 .80 2.14

I .37 .04 .92

0.2424 .85 .53

Level of significance

p _ 0.05.

52

TABLE8.- Concluded Variable Degrees of freedom Mean square

F statistic

Probability

Heading error - task 4 Configuration Turbulence Configuration 10 turbulence

I 10 15.07 6.8 17.5 0.8 4.32 1.04 0.63 .13 .4332

Yaw rate - task 5

Configuration Turbulence Configuration x turbulence

10 I 10

11.8 .20 3.1

3.90 .08 1.15

O.0018 .8 .36

Height

above

ground

level

- task 5

Configuration Turbulence Configuration x turbulence

10 1 10

18.0 18.7 23.14

1.14 5.23 I.67

0.366 .11 .1349

Reaction

time - task 6

Configuration Turbulence Configuration x turbulence

10 1 10

2.6 OO09 I .59

I.49 .02 I.21

0.193 .893 .3234

because of overall compensation. Aircraft sented

good handling

qualities

and not Just because

of added

pilot

heading

error

performance

measure.

Aircraft heading

configuration

(reprein

by values

of yaw damping)

versus aircraft

error

is represented

figure 34. During this task the pilot was instructed to maintain the aircraft heading at 360 5 . It can be observed that most of the configurations performed within the performance criteria, even with turbulence. It can be concluded that the task performance standard was not set at a level where the lack of good handling qualities really made a considerable difference. If the data in figure 34 were to be given a performance criterion of 3 o instead of the 5 , then the standard could possibly have some significance regarding handling qualities. Minimum damping

53

PERFORMANCE -6
A

CRITERIA

40 +-5 KNOTS TURBULENCE NO TURBULENCF A4.75

30z 9"///,

PERFORMANCE
t_; CRITERIA AND 7,_, LEVEL 1 H O 7, 7"///_ Y":]; / &5.76 &4.25 3 3 Y_ /A

z v z 0 m Fn-

u. -2 Z 0 < >0

6 25

,5.75

MET PERFORMANCE 4.0 5.6 3.75/ _ ,4.011 40 knots measure data. CRITERIA NOT LEVEL BUT ONE HANDLING QUALITIES 4.3 '/_/403

7.4 2q

_ 16.25 25

5.75 6.75

I 30

6.3_14.75_9 35 AIRSPEED,

MEAN Figure 33.-

FORWARD task

NOE

performance

values level

could

then

be specified qualities. criteria,

that Still, but do

met

both

the

performance be cases that

criteria do not

and meet

the level This I

I handling qualities

there meet

would the

handling again which solely

revised

performance

standard.

illustrates the pilot's ability to compensate for poorer handling further substantiates the conclusion that performance data cannot in determining Yaw rate the "goodness" measure of an aircraft. 5). The performance data

qualities, be used

performance

(tasks

3 and

for

all rate than the

the

configurations was 12/sec. 22/sec criteria figuration in yaw was not for

show the minimum yaw rate achieved was 8/sec and the The pilots were only instructed to maintain a yaw rate both hover Even tasks, though and all of the in it was this configurations performance concluded the the were caused that the well by

maximum of less within in

limits. were was at

differences evident, In in the

changes

con-

statistically not

overall

difference criterion

rates set

significant. level

case of

relative measured

performance data. currently weapon

a precise task combat task

context

Fire-control ing air-to-air this

performance for

analysis. the

With ability takes on

Army of

doctrine aircraft

emphasizsystem to

helicopters, NOE

the

accomplish Because performance engage the

in an

environment no

special

significance. system an from which at to gain

there data,

is presently several target

operational become

air-to-air Can

questions with for a

apparent. missile

aircraft If it

hover what are

a moving

air

stinger-type type of

system?

can,

performance

standards

this

task?

54

TURBULENCE NO TURBULENCE -I0 OPEN SYMBOL - MET LEVEL 1 HANDLING QUALITIES DOUBLE SYMBOL - YAW COLLECTIVE COUPLING INITIAL -8 SELECTED TO

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA I REVISED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

==
i-II -6

z=
z ,< a ,< >I I MET PERFORMANCE & LEVEL 1 CRITERIA

-4 I IMINIMUM DAMPING WITH TURBULENCE 'OR COLLECTIVE TO IyAW COUPLING

I I I -2

I
I

I
I

@L 'A o0 '
A
0
I I I I

Ao@

I I

-+6 AIRCRAFT

-+4 HEADING

---2 ERROR, deg

-+0

Figure

34.-

Deceleration

task

performance

measure

data.

Performance to obtain system appendix circular yaw rates.

data

were that

collected could

during be

the

simulation in

of

the

fire

control

task

information

possibly of

used

assessing data

preliminary collected time

aircraft is shown data, and mean in

designs. K. error The

A complete data

tabulation of:

the

performance successes,

consisted data,

the average yaw rates, due to

reaction

radius

maximum were

successful-firing-time their importance in

data, the

These of the

measures fire

selected task. rate.

overall

performance Target

control success

engagement

In figure Also as:

35

the

region

of

success

_75%

is qualito

plotted on the ties boundary. acquire ing above and

N r versus A success down or the

_ graph. was defined target into

illustrated is the level I handling when the piloted aircraft was able within the allotted time without

shoot ft

aircraft the

ascend-

100

crashing

surrounding

terrain.

55

6 AVERAGE SUCCESS >_ 75%

7 == z

LEVEL ONE HANDLING QUALITIES

I I I

10 AFTER 1 sec/1 in. PEDAL

20

Figure

35.-

Fire

control

task

performance

measure

data.

The

graph

illustrates

that

the

level

I handling

qualities

boundary

is

encomdates empha-

passed by the occurred that size previous

area of high success, lie outside the level performance results

but there I handling show

are regions qualities pilot can

where high success boundary. The data still or of to maintain considerable the system, complete all

that

the

adequate extent. but it aspects

performance The success must of be

by increasing pilot rate can be used to in context of

compensation to a moderate determine overall adequacy total pilot effort expended

analyzed task. peculiar with

the

Task correlate

performance specific

data.

The

performance parameter,

data but

listed it was

in

table

9 did

not

any

configuration

considered

important

TABLE

9.-

TASK

PE:RFORMANCE

DATA

(AIR-TO-AIR

TARGET

ACQUISITION)

Average for 4 pilots

Highest average value observed

Maximum

value

observed

Minimum value observed

Maximum yaw rates (during acquisition) Pilot reaction time Circular error radius Successful firing Yaw acceleration Mean yaw rate time

25.7/sec 2.1 see 8.86 ft 9.2 sec 5.5/sec 5.38/sec 2

32.2 sec 3.7 sec 13.3 ft 10.37 sec 6.6O/sec 2 6.16/sec

37/sec 6.4 sec

10.5/sec .043 sec 2 ft 5.94 sec 1.03/sec 2 2.99sec

34 ft 12.64 sec 9.7/sec 2 8.4/sec

56

because it outlined
plishing producing task from this an aircraft a hover.

the

overall task.

performance The data

of

the

pilot-aircraft could be an the

system initial

in accomattempt at

particular

in effect for

performance

criterion

conducting

air-to-air

engagement

CONCLUSIONS

A piloted qualities advanced tional tions. effects series or

simulation for

was low

conducted speed

to

investigate knots) and test

directional-axis hover tasks

handlingby an

requirements Scout/Attack

(_40

performed included

helicopter.

The

various

configurations

direc-

characteristics of various A secondary objective Of that contribute and also to to the

candidate light helicopter family configurathis investigation was to model the first-order of tail rotor control qualities context the of experienced parameters the given by the OH-58 reduce

loss

aircraft

evaluate

the handling in the

that test

eliminate Based

tail on

rotor the

control of

problems the

condiwere

tions. drawn: I. ties Harper tion, of

results

experiment,

following

conclusions

Subjective piloted pilot

ratings

are By

reliable

method

of of

determining variance led to

the

handling Cooperin

quali-

aircraft. were and task;

using

the analysis to ascertain of

technique, differences further

ratings

utilized the

subjective which

configura-

turbulence, of the

establishment

meaningful

analysis 2. values (NOE) of

results. values of directional level and gust hover sensitivity turns. Not required for are only greater minimum minimum yaw damping in task levels. without

Higher yaw

damping NOE

to achieve

I handling

qualities

nap-of-the-Earth

flight,

deceleration,

levels affected and the addition Typical turbulence values (NT)

by changes in of turbulence of required

weathercock will also for

stability (Nv) , but the cause a shift in required tasks with turbulence

variation damping (T) and

damping

three

are:

Nv

NOE

Deceleration

Hover

turns

0.005 .02

N
r

S -4.0 I achieved] _ -4.5 2.-6.0

Level [not

N _< -4.0 Lrvel I [not achieved]

N
r

< -6.0
I achieved]

Level [not

NT

0.005 .02

-I -3

> N > Nr
r

N
r

< -0.5
< -1.O

N
r

< -2.0

Nr

N r < -6.0

57

3. Yaw damping, yaw gust sensitivity, and control sensitivity as total criteria for an air-to-air target acquisition and tracking response criteria must and a heading response level I handling

cannot task.

be used Control

also be applied. Values of Nr between -3 and -4 (see -I) of 10 to 16 in I sec for I in. of pedal input yielded

qualities.

4. Open-loop aircraft turbulence response appears to be a satisfactory criterion for determining aircraft handling qualities at hover. For the hover task with low turbulence/wind, the level I handling qualities criterion Two important factors must be recognized as affecting this value: of turbulence/wind be generated. selected, and the other is the time allowed was 1.6 (aT). one is the level aT value to

for the

5. For the tail rotor configurations, a relatively simple tail rotor model was able to reproduce the reductions in yaw damping and control power at certain relative wind azimuths which contribute to a loss of directional control. Loss of directional control occurred only for tailwinds and quartering tailwindsgreater than 20 knots for the specified NOE flight task. For wind speeds greater than 20 knots, configurations with larger values of yaw damping (INrl > 1.0 see -I) were less susceptible to a loss of directional control; for winds greater than 30 knots, lower values of weathercock stability (N v < 0.O1) also had beneficial effects. The effects of this particular engine model did not induce or aggravate the loss of tail rotor control substantially for the given test conditions and variables. 6. It appears that minimum bandwidths may be specified, in general, for some

tasks. But other aircraft parameters should also be used for the definition of any particular criteria. This applies to the NOE, deceleration, and hover tasks. For these tasks, configurations with bandwidths less than 3 rad/sec will assuredly have poor handling qualities; but on the other hand, just because a configuration exhibits a bandwidth greater than 3 rad/sec does not ensure that it will be a level I configuration. There are other factors such as the task, the control strategy, inter-axis coupling, and turbulence levels that must be accounted task, it is necessary for. Because of the uniqueness of the air-to-air tracking to optimize pedal

response with yaw damping for the specific task. Using only the bandwidth criteria may not yield totally reliable results. Finally, a simple pilot model can be used to provide a preliminary predictive capability. This analytic approach can be considered ideal from the system design point of view because the optimization of a system with reference to handling qualities can be begun on paper in the very early phases of control design. 7. The performance data for the yaw control record of measures as a function of the variation parameters. The performance measures experiment yielded an objective in vehicle, task, and turbulence to have a predictive validity

that were found

with reference to mission success were: airspeed, for the NOE flight; heading error, for the deceleration maneuver; and target engagement success rate, for the fire control task. The values of these measures were:

58

Airspeed Yaw heading Target In using performance measures

t_O knots 5 knots error 5 (initially), success rate

3 (revised) _ 75% in equating them to han-

engagement alone,

one must

be careful

dling qualities. As shown in the performance measures results, the controller tends to accommodate his output to a wide range of variations in control parameters without permitting degradation of vehicle performance. must be used in conjunction with handling qualities aircraft formance performs measures Therefore, assessment performance measures to ensure that the for perchosen so

the mission with the desired level of effort. Finally, to have some predictive validity they must be carefully

they reference the success of the task. This can only be accomplished by conducting a thorough task analysis and deriving specific and significant standards for the given task.

59

APPENDIX

SCAT CONFIGURATION

PARAMETERS

AND STABILITY

DERIVATIVES

SCAT

AERODYNAMICS

General The total aerodynamic forces and moments required for the six-degree-of-freedom and first-order defined as a func-

equations of motion are generated as the summation of reference terms of a Taylor series expansion about a reference trajectory

tion of airspeed (VEQ). Function generation system subroutines are utilized to produce the values for the following parameters as functions of a single variable VEQ: I. Reference values for total forces and moments--X R, YR' ZR' and M R

2.

Reference BISR,

values

for aircraft

motion

and control

variables--w R, AIs R,

eoR , and eTR R for the aircraft for engine/rotor stability and control parameters--e.g., Z_, N_ at 20-knot Each of the and Xw and Zeo

3. 4.

Values Values

degree-of-freedom--e.g., forces for and moments 20 knots

The reference intervals

values

for the total

are specified

of the independent

variaDle

S VEQ s 100 knots.

remaining dependent variables is specified at 20-knot intervals (above 20 knots) at 10-knot intervals (from 0 to 20 knots of the independent variable). Linear interpolation breakpoints. is used to determine the value of each parameter between these

Derivatives The longitudinal and lateral-directional uncoupled with the exception of yawing moment inputs. moments effects An option to account aerodynamics of the basic model are due to tail rotor collective pitch forces and coupling

which adds perturbations to the basic aerodynamic for coupling effects is available. The following {I) longitudinal equations, equations,

are included:

va, p, r, AIs , 8TR, _, and _.

(2) lateral-directional

w, q, 8o, BIs,

6O

Summary Perturbation variables-

of

Equations

DWB

: WB

- WBR

DTHETO

: THETO

- THETOR

DAIS

= AIS

- AISR

DBIS

= BIS

- BISR

DTHETTR

= THETTR

- THETTRR

DOMEGA

= OMEGA

- OMEGAR

where system normal

WBR,

THETOR,

AISR, as

BISR,

THETTR of VEQ.

are

all

generated is set

by at

function a constant

generator equal to the

subroutines rotor

functions speed.

OMEGAR

operating

X-force

equationFAX = XMASS*{XQ*QB + XW*DWB + XBIS*DBIS + XTHO*DTHETO + REF}

where

XQ,

XW,

XBIS,

XTHO,

XHSIA,

and

XREF

are

all

generated

as

functions

of

VEQ

Y-force

equationFAY = XMASS*{YP*PB + YR*RB + YV*RB + YAIS*DAIS + YTHTR*DTHETTR + YREF}

where

YP,

YR,

YV,

YAIS,

YTHTR,

and

YREF

are

all

generated

as

functions

of

VEQ

Z-force

equationFAZ = XMASS*{ZQ*QB + ZW*DWB + ZBIS*DBIS + ZTHO*DTHETO + ZH*DH + ZREF} and

where

ZQ,

ZW,

ZBIS,

ZTHO,

ZH,

and

ZREF

are

all

generated

as

functions

of

VEQ

HAGL DH = O

- 40

for for

HAGL HAGL

_ 40 > 40

ft ft

where

HAGL

= HCG

- HTER.

L-moment

equationTAL = XIXX*{ULP*PB + ULR*RB + ULV*VB + ULAIS*DAIS + ULTTR*DTHETTR}

61

where ULP, ULR, ULV, ULAIS, and ULTTR are all M-moment equation-

generated as functions of

VEQ.

TAM= XIYY*{UMQ*QB + UMW*DWB + UMBIS*DBIS + UMTHO*DTHETO + UMREF} where UMQ,UMW, UMBIS,UMTHO, and UMREFare all N-momentequationTAN= IZZ*(UNP*PB + UNR*RB + UNV*VB + UNTH0*DTHETO + UNTTR*DTHETTR + UNAIS*DAIS) where UNP,UNR, UNV,UNTHO, UNTTR,and UNAIS are all VEQ. generated as functions of generated as functions of VEQ.

The values of the referenced forces and moments, stability and control parameters, and reference aircraft motion and control variables are presented in tables A-I through A-8 as functions of (VEQ) at the designated breakpoints. The optional perturbations to the basic expressions for total forces and momentsto account for coupling effects are as follows: aerodynamic

DELFAX = XMASS*(UXP*PB + UXR*RB + UXV*VB + XAIS*DAIS+ XTHTR*DTHETTR) DELFAY = XMASS*(UYQ*QB + UYW*DWB + YBIS*DBIS+ YTHO*DTHETO) DELFAZ = XMASS*(UZP*PB + UZR*RB + UZV*VB + ZAIS*DAIS + ZTHTR*DTHETTR + ZOMEGA*DOMEGA) DELTAL= XIXX*(ULQ*QB + ULW*DWB + ULBIS*DBIS+ ULTHO*DTHETO) DELTAM = XIYY*(UMP*PB + UMR*RB + UMV*VB + UMAIS*DAIS + UMTTR*DTHETTR) DELTAN = XIZZ*(UNQ*QB + UNW*DWB + UNBIS*DBIS + NOMEGA*DOMEGA) The values for the derivatives
Tail must be rotor modelingin hover aspect, yaw a gust For and

are also presented in tables A-3 through A-8.

military at low in applications, speeds tail for in winds control coming wind adequate coming power, from directional from any control To

provided this

azimuth. yaw was

investigate Nr, by by and making making The

changes

rotor winds

aircraft any azimuth and

damping, modeled and

aircraft both NV ARMCOP

sensitivity

N r and _6 functio _f model

functions of relative wind magnitude. 22 was utilized

direction

magnitude

in reference

to

obtain for

the 40

linear knots

derivatives (in 10-knot

for N r and increments)

N__ from 0 to 360 (in (taBles A-9 and A-IO).

20 increments)

0 to

62

The tail rotor wasmodeled as a teetering rotor without cyclic pitch. Since the tail rotor flapping frequency was much higher than that of the main rotor system, the tip-path plane dynamics were neglected. The local flow at the tail
rotor included the effect of downwash from the main rotor system. A complete description of the mathematical model is given in reference 22. A listing of the values for the tail rotor parameters is given in table A-11.

TABLE

A-I.- MASS AND GEOMETRY

CONSTANTS

Programming symbol

Engineering symbol

Definition

Units

Nominal value

XIXX XIYY XIZZ XIXZ XMASS XP YP ZP

Ixx IIyy
ZZ

Body axis moments! of inertia Cross-product of inertia Aircraft mass Pilots design eye position in body axis coordinates

Slug-ft 2

1028.4 2938.9 2228.0

Ixz M

Slug-ft 2 Slugs Ft

363.0 122.51 5.375 .93 -5.28

TABLE

A-2.-

REFERENCE

TRAJECTORY

PARAMETERS,

FORCES,

AND MOMENTS

VEQ, Programming symbol Engineering symbol 10 WR, ft/sec AISR, deg BISR, deg THETOR, deg THETTRR, deg XREF, ft/sec YR, ft/sec ZREF, ft/sec UMREF, rad/sec 20 3.97 -0.51 -.715 6.0 9.225 2.913 1.444 -32.036 0 -2.06 -.357 5.7 8.61 3.633 1.412 -33.013 -.203 -2. 678 -.143 5.25 7.38 3.633 1.412 -33.013 -.203 40

knots

60 6.56 -I .23 .572 5.25 5.53 2.142

80

100 5.36
--.I

wR A1 B SR =IsR _oR

3.65 -1.854 .286 5.1 6.15 I .893

.6435 5.55 4.61

1.6 6.0 5.75 .872 .9660 -31.878 -. 0006

YR ZR MR

1.392 .8192 .6561 .6736 -31.819 -31.963 -31.386 -.0135 -.033 I -.0105

63

TABLE A-3.-

X-FORCE

STABILITY

AND CONTROL

PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots Programming symbol Engineering symbol O IO 2O 4O 6O 8o 100

XQft/sec2/rad/sec XU,* ft/sec2/ft/sec XW, ft/sec2/ft/sec XTHO, ft/sec2/deg XBIS, ft/sec2/deg UXP, ftlsec2/rad/sec UXR, ft/sec2/rad/sec UXV, ft/sec2/ft/sec XAIS ft/sec2/deg iXTHTR ft/sec2/deg XOMEGA *Not explicitly I

Xq XU XW

1.O3 -.O144 O194 .332 .51 -.197 -.04 .OO4 -.147 -00024

1.07 -.021 .0236 .3O8 .5 -.188 -.034 .004 -.146 -.002 0

1.19 -.025 .0319 .285 .48 -.16 -.04 .OO43 -.146 -.0015 0

1.42 -.024 .o396 253 .46 -.133 -066 .0067 -146 -005 0

1.43 .043 .o41 .257 .43 -. 152 -.O42 .oo5 -. 139 -.OO7 o 045 .213 .41 -.21 -.03 .0046 -.133 -.016 0

I.29 -.073 .046 .077 .42 -.35 -.O4 .007 -.119 -.O3 O

Xe o XBIS Xp Xr Xv XAIS XeTR XR included

in aerodynamics.

64

TABLE A-4.- Y-FORCE STABILITY AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots

Programming symbol

Engineering symbol 10 2o 4o 60 80 100

YP, ft/sec2/rad/sec YR, ft/sec2/ft/sec YV, ft/sec2/ft/sec YAIS

ft/sec2/deg YTHTR, ft/sec2/deg UYQ, ft/sec2/rad/sec UYW, ft/sec2/rad/sec YBIS, ft/sec2/ft/see YTHO, ft/see2/deg YOMEGA YU, ft/sec2/ft/sec

Yp Yr Yv YAIS Yetr Yq Yw YBIS

-0.9 .3 -.033 .5 .239 -.243 -.0O5 .15 .104

-1.1 .29 -.032 .5 .235 -.048 -.0117 .15 .I05 0

-1.24 .33 -.033 .49 .226 -.045 -.01 .155 .o16 o

-1.45 .63 -.08 .49 .217 .072 -.013 .165 -.023 0

-I .46 .914 -. 107 .496 .206 048 -.023 165 -.053 0 -.006

-1.28 1.17 -.135 .5 .226 .036 -.033 .170 -.08 0 .0012

-0.77 I .52 -.175 .524 .24 .017 -.O49 .189 -. 109 0 .0026

Ye o Yn Yu 0 .0075

.0018

.0035

.00403
!

65

TABLE A-5.- Z-FORCE STABILITY AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots

Progra_ing symbol

Engineering symbol I0 2O 40 60 8O 100

ZQft/sec2/rad/sec ZOMEGA, ft/sec ZU*, ft/sec2/ft/sec ZW, ft/sec2/ft/sec ZTHO, ft/sec2/deg ZBIS,
ft/sec2/deg ZH, ft/sec2/ft UZP, ft/sec2/rad/sec UZR, ft/sec2/ft/sec UZV, ft/sec2/ft/sec ZAIS, ft/sec2/deg ZTHTR, ft/sec/deg

Zq Zn Zu Zw

-0.028 -252

0.126 -2.52 -. 156 -. 384

0.854
-2.52

0.47 -2.52 -.069 -.65 -5.29 .713 0

0.12 -2.52 -.011 -.73 -5.73 1.12 0

0.54
-2.52 021

o.o87
-2.52 .016 -.81 -6.56 2.08 0 I .53 .348 -.01 -.45 022

.0133 -.32
-4.93 .06 .47 I-.023 .209 -.0006 -.016 .00013 in aerodyn_ics.

-.188
-.5

-.73
-6.2 1.55 0

Z@ o ZBIS Zh Zp Zr Zv ZAIS ZeTR

-4.8
.199 .3525 .175 .21 I -. 002

-4.77

.35
.235 .23

53
.25 -.OO4 -.168

.85
.289 -.0056 -.14

1.2 .33 -.OO77 -.36 .01

.213
-.0026 -.084 .002

-.048
.0012

.004

.006

*Not explicitly

included

66

TABLE A-6.-

L-MOMENT

STABILITY

AND CONTROL

PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots Programming symbol Engineering symbol I0 20 40 60 80 100

ULP, rad/sec2/rad/sec ULR, rad/sec2/rad/sec ULV, rad/sec2/ft/sec ULAIS, rad/sec2/deg ULTTR, rad/sec2/deg ULQ, ,2 rad/se_ /rad/sec ULW, rad/sec2/ft/sec ULBIS, rad/sec2/deg ULTHO, rad/sec2/deg UOMEGA, I/sec ULU, rad/sec2/ft/sec

Lp Lr Lv LAIS LeTR Lq Lw LBIS

-3.09 -.114 -.026 .92 .067 -.738 -.0008 -.315 -.066

-3.1 -.113 -.025 .99 .066 -.73 -.0007 -.315 -.07 0

-3.21 -. I06 -.024 .92 .064 -.71 -.OOO5 -.315 -.076 0

-3.3 -.013 -.03 .92 .06

-.7

-3.3 -.072 -.03 .92 .055 -.65 -.0015 -.32 -.09 0

-3.17 -.17 -.032 .92 .O6 -.65 -.OO5 -.325 -.12 0 -.O05

-2.83 -.33 -.031 .937 .0634 -.642 0.011 -.34 -.213 0 -.003

-. 0007 -.32 -.09 0

L8o L_ Lu 0 .026

.0184

.OO85

.003

-.OO7

67

TABLE A-7.- M-MOMENT STABILITY AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots

Programming symbol

Engineering symbol 0 10 20 40 60 80 100

UMQ, radYs'ee2/rad/sec
._ -o

Mq Mu . Mw

-1.18 .0074 -.0046 -.043 -.33 .257 -005 108 -.003 0 -.0025

-1.2 .0074 -.0064 -.029 -.33 255 -0026 1o8 -.0015 0 -. 0025

-1.25 .0067 -.OO88 -.013 -.327 .246 .0006 .1o8 -.0004 0 -.0025

-1.22 .0061 .0029 .005 -.324 232 .0084 .108 .0o13 0 -.003

-I24 .0045 004 .046 -.328 225 .0078 .11 .0048 0 -. 0028

-0.91 009 .031 .04 -.32 .24 .0134 .I08 .009 0 -.003

-1.1 .0051 .0184 .12 -. 338 .24 .0281 I08 .02 0 -. 0046

UMU, . . rad/sec2/ft/sec UMW rad/sec2/ft/sec UMTH0, rad/sec2/deg UMBIS, rad/sec2/deg UMP, rad /sec- /rad /se c UMR, rad/sec2/ft/sec UMAIS, rad/sec2/deg UMTTR, rad/sec2/deg MOMEGA, I/sec UMV, rad/sec2/ft/sec

Me o MBIS Mp Mr MAIS MBTR Ma Mv

68

TABLE A-8.- N-MOMENT STABILITY AND CONTROL PARAMETERS

VEQ, knots

Programming symbol

Engineeringl symbol I0 2O 4O 60 80 IO0

UNP, rad/sec2/rad/sec UNR, rad/sec2/rad/sec UNV, rad/sec2/ft/sec UNTRO, rad/sec2/deg UNAIS, rad/sec2/deg i UNTTR, i rad/sec2/deg 11 UNQ, 2 1 rad/sec /ft/sec:
UN_, rad/sec2/deg CNBIS, rad/sec2/deg NOMEGA, I/see UNU, rad/sec2/ft, ! [

Np Nr Nv

-0.09 -.43 .018 .324 .03 -.268 -.21 -. 002 -.01 .062 .005

-0. 126 -.48 .019 .B .03 - .265 -.216 -. 004 -.012 .062 OOO8

-0. 144 -.55 022 .26 .03 -. 253 -.24 - .009 -015 .062 -.016 .027 .198 .02 -.248 -.262 -.021 -.028 .062 -.0105 .031 .186 .016 -.232 -.36 -.02 -.39 .062 -.0081 3 .O36 .2 .015 -.265 -.455 -.015 -.04 .062 -.0084

-0.48 -I .77 .O78 .35 .025 -.27 -.599 -. OO5 -. OO5 .062 -.OO8

NB o NAIS NBTR Nq Nw NBIS

I 1 I sec I Nu

69

TABLE

A-9.-

N6 o

DERIVATIVE

VALUES

FOR LINEAR

TAIL-ROTOR

MODELING

Bwind/direction

(GAMAHIC),

deg

VEQ

20

40

60

8O

9O

100

120

140

160

10

NIO

N10

NIO

N10
X

NIO
X

N10
X

NIO
X

NIO

NIO

NIO
X

100.7% 20 N20 N20 N20

X

100.7% N20
X

IOO.7_ N20
X

100.7_ N20
X

99.6% N20
X

N20
X

N20
X

N20
X

103.5% 3O N30 N30

X

104.6% N30
X

105% N30
X

105% N30
X

I04.6_ N30
X

I04.6%, N30
X

103% N30
X

1o2% N30
X

N30
X

105% 4o N40 N40

1o7% N40
X

1o7% N40
X

106% N40
X

I07% N40
X

107% N40
X

107% N40
X

107% N40
X

104% N40
X

125%

127%

126%

124%

125%

128%

127%

126%

125%

VEQ

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

I0

N10
X

NIO
X

NIO
X

N10

NIO
X

NIO
X

NIO
X

N10
X

NI0

99.6% 2O N20
X

99.6% N20
X

99.6% N20
X

100.7% N20
X

101% N20
X

99.6% N20
X

100.7% N20
X

N20
X

N20
X

99% 3O N30

97.6% N30
X

96.7% N30

lO1% N30
X

106% N30
X

108% N30
X

102% N30
X

97.7% N30
X

97.7% N30
X

101% 40 N40

65% N40
x

69% N40
X

107% N40
X

109% N40
X

75% N40
X

66% N40
X

78% N40
X

N40
X

120% NIO : NeT R at N20 NeT R at N30 NeT R at N40 NeT R at 10 20 30 40

91.5% knots knots knots knots

95% VEQ VEQ VEQ VEQ

70%

53%

118%

56%

93.3%

131%

70

T_BLE

A-IO.-

Nm DERIVATIVE

VALUES FOR LINEAR

TAIL-ROTOR

MODELING

8wind/direetion

(GAMAHIC),_ deg

VEQ

20

40

60

80

90

100

120

140

160

10

RIO

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO

RIO
X

105%
20 R20 R20
X

105% R20
X

105% R20
X

110% R20
X

108% R20
X

108% R20
X

104% R20
X

96% R20
X

R20
X

IO2%
30 R30 R30

103% R30
X

105% R30
X

110% R30
X

110% R30
X

!10% R30
X

102% R30
X

95% R30
X

90% R30
X

1oi%
40 R40 R40
X

103%
R40
X

lO3%
R40
X

109%
R40
X

113%
R40
X

110% R40
X

101% R40
X

94% R40
X

89.7% R40
X

8O%

82%

82%

82%

92%

87%

80%

73%

69%

VEQ

180

200

220

240

260

280

300"

320

340

10

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO
X

RIO

RIO

94% 20 R20
X

91% R20
X

91% R20
X

91% R20
X

91% R20
X

92% R20
X

91%
R20
X

R20
X

R20

86%
30 R30
X

81%
R30
X

75%
R30
X

68% R3O
X

68% R3O
X

71%
R30
X

76% R30
X

86%
R30
X

95%
R30

87% 40 R40
X

79% R40
X

95.5% R40
X

7o.5%
R40
X

45.5%
R40
X

51%
R40
X

75% R40
X

1o6%
R40
X

R40

68% RIO = N r at R20 N r at R30 N r at R40 N r at 10 20 30 40

89% knots knots knots knots VEQ VEQ VEQ VEQ

79%

80%

97%

89%

85%

82%

71

TABLEA-11.- SCATCONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS (UTILIZING ARMCOP MODEL PARAMETERS)

Algebraic symbol Computer mnemonic Example value

Name

Units

Main rotor MR rotor MR chord

(MR) group RMR CMr speed _MR nb YMR

E

radius

ROTOR CHORD OMEGA BLADES GAMMA EPSLN AKBETA AKONE

ft ft rad/sec N-D N-D %/100 lb-ft/rad N-D

17.5 .79 41.3 4 7.06 .0291 11287.46 .4307

MR rotational Number

of blades

MR Lock number MR hinge offset MR flapping spring constant coupling tangent

KB KI

MR pitch-flap of 63

MR blade twist MR precone angle (required for

8tMR aOMR

THETT AOP

tad tad

-.17 .034907

teetering MR solidity MR lift curve MR maximum

rotor) OMR slope aMR CTma x is CIS tad .08726 SIGMA ASLOPE CTM N-D tad- I N-D .05794 6.00 .1145

thrust shaft tilt

MR longitudinal (positive

forward) STA H WL H STAH WLH

in.

MR hub stationline MR hub waterline Tail rotor (TR) group

107.329 115.3

in. ft rad/sec N-D N-D N-D tad rad rad -1 in. in.

TR radius TR rotational TR Lock number TR solidity TR pitch-flap TR precone TR blade twist coupling tangent speed

RTR _TR YTR TR KITR aOTR 8tTR

RTR OMTR GAMATR STR FLOTR AOTR THETR

2.7083 249.338 1.79 .1244 -.5774 .01745 0 5.73 354.104 88.067

TR lift curve slope TR hub stationline TR hub waterline

aTR STATR WLTR

ATR STATR WLTR

72

TABLE

A-11.-

CONTINUED

Name

Algebraic symbol

Computer mnemonic

Units

Example value

Horizontal HS HS HS HS HS HS HS station waterline incidence area aspect maximum dynamic rotor HS

stabilizer

(HS) STAHs WLHs STAHS WLHS AIHS SHS ARHS CLMHS CLmaxHs nHS effect KVMR XHG XKVMR
in. in.

258.12 72,94 -.091 9.74

angle

iHS SHS

rad ft 2 N-D N-D N-D N-D

ratio lift curve slope

ARHs

4.33
674 .77 1.0 .85

pressure induced

ratio velocity

Main at

Vertical VF VF VF VF VF VF VF VF

fin

(VF) STAvF WLvF angle iVF SVF STAVF WLVF AIFF SF ARF ALMF CLMF CLmaXvF nVF kVTR VNF XKVTR N-D N-D
in. in.

stationline waterline incidence area aspect sweep maximum dynamic rotor ratio angle lift curve slope

354.67 93.2 -.091 9.12 4.60 .4538

.77 65 1.0 .80

rad ft 2 N-D rad N-D

ARuF AF

pressure induced at VF

ratio velocity

Tail

effect

Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft Aircraft

mass weight roll pitch yaw cross

and

inertia Wio WAITIC XIXXIC XIYYIC XIZZIC XIXZIC lb slug-ft slug-ft slug-ft slug-ft 2 2 2 2 3944.7 1208.4 2938.9 2228.0 363.O

inertia inertia inertia product of inertial

IXX Iyy IZZ Iyz

73

TABLE

A-11.-

CONTINUED

Name

Algebraic symbol

Computer mnemonic

Units

Example value

Center Center Center

of of of

gravity gravity gravity

stationline waterline buttline

STAc.g. WLc.g. BLc.g.

STAGG WLCG BLCG

in. in.

I08.7 39.3 1.4

in.

Fuselage Fus

(Fus) reference point STAAc F STAACF in. 114.2

aerodynamic stationline

Fus

aerodynamic waterline

reference

point

WLAc F

WLACF

in.

58.2

Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus Fus

drag, drag, drag, drag, drag, drag, lift, lift, side

_ = B = 0 variation variation variation a = 90 B = 90 m = B = 0 with with B with with with m2 B2

Dolq @(Dlq)l@_ @2(Dlq)l@_2 B2(DIq)I_B2 D/ql_ = 90

DI D2 D3 D4

ft 2 ft2/rad ft2/rad ft2/rad ft 2 ft 2 ft 2 ft2/rad ft2/rad ft3/rad ft 3 ft 3 ft3/rad ft 3 ft3/rad ft 3 2 2

16.71 -I .719 27.63 71.38 5O. O0 93. O0

-.5

D5
D6 XLO XLI YI YLI YL2 XMI XM2 XM3 XNI XN2

D/qlS
Lo/q

= 90

variation force,

B(L/q)/@_ iM(Y/q)/Mb B(_Iq)IBB _/qlB M/q with _i6(M/q)/Ba M/ql_ with B = 90 : 90o

16.977 -48.988 -28. O0 6.0 -58.0 257.8 6O. O0 -343.78 210.00

variation

rolling rolling pitch pitch pitch yaw yaw

moment, moment, moment, moment, moment, a

variation B = 90 = B = 0

variation _ = 90

moment, moment,

variation B = 90

B(Nlq)laS N/qlB : 90

74

TABLE

A-11.-

CONCLUDED

Name

Algebraic symbol

Computer mnemonic

Units

Example value

Controls CAIS Swashplate lateral for zero lateral cyclic pitch cyclic stick CAI s CBIS Swashplate longitudinal cyclic pitch for zero longitudinal cyclic Longitudinal sensitivity Lateral Main cyclic root control sensitivity pitch CK 2 C5 CK2 C5 rad/in. rad 0.02452 0.01745 stick cyclic control CK I CKI rad/in. CBI s tad tad

0.036019

rotor zero

collective

for Main

collective collective

stick control C6 C6 rad/in. 0.02618

rotor

sensitivity Tail rotor zero root collective position C8 C8 rad/in. O. 1073 pitch C7 C7 tad 0.1403

for Pedal

pedal

sensitivity

75

ENGINE

MODEL

The ated sion torque engine as

total the a

torque

required of

for

the and

engine

degree-of-freedom terms of of

equations a Taylor series

is

generexpanThe

summation reference for

reference

first-order as a to

about

trajectory SCAT will and

defined be rpm

function what the

VEQ

(table model supplied

A-12). 250-C30R by

supplied provides.

the

similar

Allison

The

torque

derivatives

(table:A-13),

Hughes

Helicopters Inc. were needed to include motion The model assumes there are no . mechanical unit (HMU) and an electronic

the engine dynamics in the equations of drive system dynamics (N_ : k_). A hydrop control unit (ECU) are represented.

Approach

The

torque

required

equation

is expressed

as

QR where _QR AQRE Q = _ Am +

: QRef

+ AQr

6QR 6q " q + 6Q R Ae o + 6eTR

6QR 6p

6QR P + _ 6Q R .r

6Q R +-6e o

ABTR

+ 6fl

6fl

and

QREF

are

reference

(trim)

values

as

function

of

VEQ

(table

A-12).

TABLE

A-12.-

TORQUE

REFERENCE

TRIM

VALUES

VEQ,

knots

10

20

40

6O

80

I00

COLL

POSITION

(%) TORQS

37.5 322.0

35.6 288.0

32.8 245.0

30.0 196.8

31.0 203.36

35.6 265.9

56.3 489.96

Ft-lb/TORQR,

The

torque

supplied

equation

is

expressed

as:

Qs where is a

Qs (ref)

AQs of initial collective in collective position position (table A-12) and AQ s fed through an ECU & HMU with an

Qs(ref) function

is a function of the change

76

rpm feedback loop. Values for QR performance data {figs. A-I through The block engine diagram in figure

as a function A-3).

of airspeed

were

taken

from engine

A-4 shows the low frequency

representation

of the

speed control. linear model is good for 6% _G changes about 91% NG. coupling

This

The resultant equations.

changes

in rpm (_) are included

in the aerodynamic

TABLE A-13.-

ENGINE

TORQUE

AND ROTOR

SPEED

DERIVATIVES

6Qr

- 0.00661

I/ft-sec (QW)

IE + R 6_ I IE +R I 6Qr - -0.570 6q 6QR I/sec (QQ)

- -0.837

I/sec (QP)

IE + R 6p 1 6QR . -0.347 I/sec (QR)

IE + R 6r 6QR -- : 0.206 IE + R 6e o I 6QR - 0.0112 I I/sec2/deg (QTHO)

11sec2/deg

(QTHTR)

IE + R 6QR 1 6Z - -2.52 m 6_ 1 _QR - 0.543 I/sec (QOMEGA)

ft/sec

(aero derivative)

ZOMEGA

IE + R _n - 0.062 I/sec (aero derivative) NOMEGA

77

E3
UJ

460 O
UJ

O BELL HELICOPTER FLIGHT 459C

TEXTRON

FLIGHT

TEST

DATA

n_r 380 uJ O
O. UJ 03 nO

GW = 3,982 Ib CG = Sta 123.7 N R = 391

300

AMBIENT

CONDITIONS

t-14.

hp = 724 ft OAT = 15.56 o" a 140 .... 0

I l I

<_ 220 03 UJ

= 0.9722 = 1116.80
I

ft/sec
I I

z z
UJ

20

30 TRUE

40 AIRSPEED, test

60 knots data (10-40

80

100

Figure

AI.-

0H-58

flight

knots). TEST DATA

O BELL HELICOPTER FLIGHT 459C r_

UJ

TEXTRON

FLIGHT

z: 460-

5
0
W n-

GW = 3,905 Ib CG = sta 123.7 N R = 390 AMBI ENT CONDITIONS hp OAT = 1,375 ft -2.39C 1.0100 :" 1083.00 ft/sec / JE) ,/_

380U.I

0
Q. LU

00 300nO

/
I 80 f 100

1U.

< 2201u_
UJ

z 0 Z W

140: 0

I 20

I 30 TRUE

I 40 AIRSPEED,

! 60 knots

Figure

A2.-

0H-58

flight

test

data

(60-120

knots).

78

12

\_

10
o
v'-

m"

8
..J w

4
uJ nD.

_I

300

350 SHAFT

400 450 HORSEPOWER

/ 500 MAX hp USED IN CURRENT ENGINE MODEL power available.

Figure

A3.-

Installedengine

maximum

continuous

79

0 Q_ (.,-4

bO

CO C_ I

{. bO

8O

SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS Variables IE_R = combinedpower turbine/rotor Np = power turbine speed (rad/sec) QR= required aero torque (ft-lb) Qs = supplied torque (ft-lb) C G = torque to power turbine (ft-lb) %N G = gas generator speed (percent) = rotor speed (rad/sec) Engine r_m = 6000 QR(TORQ) = TORQR + DELTORQ where TORQR represents the values of VEQand DELTORQ = QW*PWB + QQ*QB + QP*PB+ QR*RB + QTHO*DTHET + QTHTR*DTHETTR + QOMEGA*DOMEGA Qs(TORQS) = TORQSR + DELTORQS where TORQSR represents values of VEQand DELTORQS is derived from: AQs(DELTORQS) = 0.475 CG where
CG and %NG = 3.35 DELTHETO + 50 =

inertia

= 607.2 slug-ft 2

+ + 6) 14) (S 550(s + 5)(S

1.15}. Finally:

% NG

(S +

TTORQ

= TORQS I

- TORQ TTORQ IE+R

DMOEGA and _(OMEGA)

= _ +

= 0MEGAR

+ DOMEGA

81

DISPLAY DYNAMICS

The purpose of the display dynamics portion of the mathematical model is to produce the signals used to drive the moving symbols on the electronic displays. These signals are either simply elements of the aircraft state vector or the result of certain logic applied to selected state vector elements to produce the desired dynamic characteristics. The moving symbols are organized in this section on the basis of the type of information they convey; that is, orientation, situation, command,and fire control. An additional function of this portion of the program is to alter logic as a function of five discrete display modes--cruise, transition, bob-up and fire control--which are selected manually by the pilot. the display hover,

The operational requirements associated with each display modeare defined as: I. Cruise--high-speed level (FLOT). flight enroute to the forward line of troops

2. Transition--low-speed nap-of-the-earth sideward flight, decelerations. 3. Hover--stable hover with minimumdrift.

maneuvers, such as dash, quick stop,

4. Bob-up--unmaskand remask maneuvers over a selected horizontal position. 5. Fire control--acquiring and tracking aerial/ground ery during any of the above phases.

ground

target for weapondeliv-

In addition to the electronic display symbol drive logic, the display dynamics program will also provide signals for the following cockpit instruments: I 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8. Attitude-director indicator (ADI). (HSI).

Horizontal situation Radar altimeter. Barometric altimeter. Instantaneous vertical Airspeed indicator. Engine torque. Normal accelerometer.

indicator

speed indicator

(IVSI).

82

FLIGHTCONTROL DISPLAYLOGIC

A SCATbasic electronic primary symbols used by the cyclic director symbol, and parameters that drive these
Transition components motions component driven by The top time angles angle. of of of the modeDoppler vector The are

display format is illustrated in figure A-5. The pilot to control the aircraft are the velocity vector, hover position symbol. The logic and scaling of the symbols vary as a function of display mode.
vector the by the is driven longitudinal (DH), directly that component while its by is, the (X) lateral horizontal vertical lateral are and the in transition mode; displayed

velocity driven

velocity

(Y) of YDH. displayed

heading

referenced

velocity

motions

vertical vector sec.

motion is driven Laterally,

of

the

cyclic

director pitch is driven attitude is

symbol attitude by for roll

with with

respect a

to

the

the

velocity of 50 than

by washed-out the symbol roll

washout for of roll roll

constant greater For Hover

attitude values

5.73 and case, the (XDH,

by washed-out the washout values

smaller

the mode-

latter For

time of

constant

10 sec. in the of hover, the the heading-

smaller by the YDH). symbol roll

velocity and

encountered lateral

velocity referenced The constant) These transition

vector

is driven

longitudinal

components

velocity cyclic and

director washed-out

is driven attitude

by

washed-out time at

pitch

attitude

(IO-sec

time

(10-sec

constant). the time of the switch from

changes in logic to hover mode. modesame by EXH The as logic

occur

instantaneously

Bob-up remains vertically and mode the YDH, the

driving mode by

the velocity logic. EYH The

vector hover and at

and

cyclic symbol the

director is now

symbol driven of XDH

the

hover

position EYH the which the mode are

and

laterally with

where

EXH

integrals bob-up

respectively,

integration a by command the

commencing heading

time has

the

display fixed and on the

is selected. display, that is now existed

Finally, driven at the

symbol, between display

remained heading

difference the bob-up

current was

heading

time

selected. (fig] actions A-5) will will be

Fire be used by

control the

display when

(aerial engaging

target an air

engagement)target. The

This

display

pilot

following

performed: I. 2. 3. (Missile Pilot Pilot Seeker launch activates maneuvers acquisition constraints the Fire Control to (1.2 a_pears align KHz) HUD symbology pipper using on cyclic switch.

aircraft tone box

sight

target

Zl . received.

indicates

IR energy

being

6 EL

6 AZ).

83

SYMBOL

IN FORMATION

A.

AIRCRAFT

REFERENCE

FIXED

REFERENCE VECTOR, DIRECTOR,

FOR

HORIZON

LINE

VELOCITY CYCLIC W I 61% L 30 I SYMBOLS B. 0-200 /C -150 C. V :-LOCITY VECTOR HORIZONTAL COMPONENTS RIGHT _ _ 50 H I J D. H3VER POSITION DESIGNATED RESPECT SYMBOL FORWARD BOB UP/HOVER MODE HOVER E. Cv'CLIC DIRECTOR CYCLIC HOVER AIRCRAFT 50200 _--6_ 0 K MISSILE F. AIRCRAFT HEADING DESIRED MOVING HORIZON (CRUISE LINE MODE ONLY) PITCH AND

HOVER AND FIRE

POSITION, CONTROL

33

,
EO

3 G

6 ]

E I

ROLL

ATTITUDE

WITH

RESPECT

TO AIRCRAFT NOSE-UP PITCH

REFERENCE AND LEFT

(INDICATING ROLL) VELOCITY FORWARD AND

DOPPLER (INDICATING

AI

I I_

-100

DRI FT VELOCITIES) HOVER POSITION AIRCRAFT OF DESIRED WITH

TO AIRCRAFT (INDICATING AND POSITION) STICK COMMAND TO RIGHT

REFERENCE

W I 61% L

30 I

33 i

N I F

6
1

E
I

WITH AND

RESPECT OF

TO

POSITION HOVER TAPE

SYMBOL POSITION)

(INDICATING TO RIGHT

FORWARD

-150

INDICATION NORTH)

OF HEADING

NFTM-i
I--tS'
t _L

(INDICATING I JP- -100 G. BOXH z 50 H. RADAR ALTITUDE HEADING ERROR HEADING (INDICATING HEIGHT ANALOG (INDICATING AT

TIME 030)

BOB-UP

MODE

SELECTED

CONSTRAINTS m J

ABOVE AND

GROUND DIGITAL

LEVEL FORM

IN BOTH

50 ft) WITH FULL-SCALE ft/min

TARGET

ACQUISITION

MODE I. FATE OF CLIMB MOVING POINTER

W
I_

30 I

33 I

? F

3 I

6 i

E i 50200 -150 K. I,IRSPEED 30RQUE SIGHT PIPPER BOX J. tATERAL ACCELERATION

DEFLECTION (INDICATING INCLINOMETER SIDE FORCE DIGITAL

OF 1,000 0 ft/min)

61o/,, L INDICATION OF

READOUT

IN knots

--_-40 K

AI'-.
-.. _ J

I H

-1 O0 L. 50 M. N. ENGINE FOV FOV FOR FOR TORQUE CAGED UNCAGED IN percent MISSILE SEEKER ( 1 ) ( 3 )

CONSTRAINTS

MISSILE

SEEKER

CRUISE

/ TRANSITION

MODE

Figure A5.- Heads l@/panel

mounted

display

symbology.

84

4. KHz) tone 5. constraints The follows:

After will Pilot box

2 sec

of

target a good fire at the

being track. trigger

inside

missile

launch

constraints

steady

(2.5

indicate depresses flashes of

igniting per second.

simulated

rocket

motor.

Launch

3 cycles logic for

derivation

aerial

target

fire

control

sequence

proceeds

as

with

Let (XT, YT, ZT) represent the target the origin at the HUD location. The are:

position desired

in an values

aircraft body axis system of target azimuth and

elevation

-I Az(PSII) = tan -I EL(THETI) : -sin

YT XTT ZT RS

2 where target = 4x_ s _ position R

2 2 + YT + ZT" in an

Getting

(XT,

YT,

ZT)

is

performed to an -sin

by

transforming body

the system:

Earth-referenced e cos

coordinate cos 8 sin

system

aircraft e

-x TYT =

cos

"xT
!
i

sin sin 8 cos - cos sin

sin sin e sin + cos cos

sin

cos

YTP

LZT.

cos +

sin e cos sin sin

cos sin - sin

e sin cos

cos

cos

zTp

Summary

of

Equations

Orientationwhich provide

The

following on

parameters

are

used

to

derive

the

moving

symbols

information

aircraft Symbol

orientation: Parameter

Aircraft Horizon

heading line

PSI THET, PHI

Situationvertical planes

Aircraft are

position to

and the

velocity

information the

in the

horizontal

and

provided

pilot

through

following

symbols:

85

ORiG'J_A'i.,

7i_ i _!: .... "

Og
.... .... " Symbel

QUAUTY
,_ Parameter

XDH,
h'i _ : } . .

YDH

(TRANSITION) (HOVER/BOB-UP)

XDHAT, VEQ

YDHAT

Horizontal. I

Lpngitud.inal, Lateral Velocity Hover vector

airspeed

pos itipn

EXH,
: .7 , :

EYH

(BOB-UP)
L: _

HAGL Vertieal Radar altitude'"" Rate of climb _ ALTD

The the the

velocity true velocity

vector vector

symbol

is driven velocity, in

in XDH, the

the

transition, The dynamics

hover, to program.

and vary

bob-up the Thus:

modes

by of

values

of ground

YDH.

ability

scaling

is retained V_ECX

display

: UKDXD*XDH

(TRANSITION)

(HOVER/BOB-UP)

and VVECY : UKDYD*YDH (TRANSITION) (HOVER/BOB,UP)

where

UKDXD

and and

UKDYD which,

are in

constants, general, the hover

the as

values a

of

which of moves

may

be

selected mode. to

by

the

researcher In bles EXH t_e

vary

function symbol

display in

bob-up EYH.

mode, Thus:

position

response

the

varia-

and

HDVX

= UKD*EXH

and_

, _;.:/

..._ !.,

._ :,_

;..:_:: -'HOVY=

.-

_:":'

_.,-_:

. "-

.-_ '

:,:: :

.... :: _

: :

uKi)Y*_.YH :_:''_ ':

where

UKDX

and

UKDY

are

constants information director _ ifproperly "

whose

valuers may

be

selected and

by

the

researcher. acceleration. in the maintain

Additional Commandhorizontal a stable plane hover. VTIPX

status The cyclic which, :Thus, : VVECX

incl_des:ehgi:n@_%o_que symbol provides "command" 'the,

lateral

information pilot to:reachand

designed,:.ai:lows .'". ..... :, TIS

+ UKDTHT*THET* TIs TIS T2s + I + I

VTIPY

= VVECY

+ UKDPHI*PHI*

-;86

where UKDTHT and UKDPHI are constants, the values of which may be selected by the researcher and which, in general, vary as a function of display mode; the nominal values of T I and T2 are functions of display mode as follows: Hover/bob-up 10 10

Transition

TI, sec T2, sec

50 10 for PHIR _ 0.1 for PHIR > 0.1 symbol heading is provided;

In addition, difference bob-up

a command between mode

heading

this symbol that

is driven

by the the

the current

and the heading

existed

at the time

display

was selected

(EPSIBU). stick director is provided. The director drives the logic

Finally,

logic for a collective

is implemented as a weighted sum of altitude original rate of climb symbol; thus, ALTDRC For rate of climb + UKDALTD*ALTD only, UKDHAGL

and altitude

rate which

+ UKDHAGL*(HAGLE-IO0) is set to zero.

information

Additional status information includes engine torque and lateral acceleration. The expression for engine torque was derived in the section titled "engine model" of this appendix. The torque response to collective first-order filter with a 0.1-sec time constant. Thus: TRQ = TORQS * Lateral acceleration is driven 10 S + 10 AYP. pitch is lagged by a

by the parameter

Fire Control The equations implemented as derived

(Aerial Target

Acquisition) and fire control logic are

for the azimuth,

elevation,

XT = T11*XTP YT = T21*XTP ZT = T31*XTP

+ TI2*YTP + T22*YTP + T32*YTP

+ TI3*ZTP + T23*ZTP + T33*ZTP

87

PSII THETI where SLANTR Seeker constraints If sounds. PSII The = XT 2 + acquisition box also YT 2

: R2D*ATAN2(YT/XT) : -R2D*ASIN(ZT/SLANTR) When KHz) PSII - PSI IR = 11I energy and being THETI - THET = 11I.

+ ZT 2. (1.5

tone appears.

indicates

received.

Missile

- PSI : [3I and THETI - THET missile can then be fired. R2D = radians to degrees

13I

for

2 see,

then

2.5

KHz

tone

NOTE:

conversion.

DERIVATION

OF

THE

LINEARIZED OF THE

SIX-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM SCAT HELICOPTER

REPRESENTATION

The obtained main body, blades azimuth. uration braic

values from a

of the

stability total 22). and and the (ref.

derivatives force The and model

used moment, has

in

the

simulation of

model of

were a s!ngle six rigid-

nonlinear,

mathematical degrees The rotor and describe the

model freedom:

rotor three with

helicopter

ten

rotor-flapping, rotor forces A-11 lists

rotor-rotational. radially parameters simulation. and source units data. required Listed for each

model summed

assumes about

rigid the configalgefor each the

moments

integrated to

Table for use

a helicopter name, values

in the

computer mnemonic,

are

parameter The

symbol, were trim are

computer taken and

parameter. A-6 data using through from AHIP

parameter aircraft These

from

AHip

Figures

A-23 hover

illustrate to 100 knots. Also, each of

some

selected

stability derived the

derivative C81 data

data

also

compared A-27

with

parameters. data for

figures A-24 through controlled axes.

represent

resulting

dynamic

check

the

88

MODE L [] A C) LF 1.0 C81 ARMCOP ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

PEDALS .E

RT -1.0 0

I 20

I 40

knots

I 60

I 80

I 100

Figure

A6.-

Tail

rotor

pedal

trim

vs

airspeed.
_ .

COLLECTIVE 5 4 .E 3 2

/
t 80 i 100 vs airspeed.

1 0 20

i 40 knots

I 60

Figure

A7.-

Collective

trim

89

MOE_EL 17 C81 A ARIV!COP O AFT ARMCOP, WlTH LATERAL SI:ICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

LONGITUDINAL

.=_

FWD

-4 0

t 20

t 40

knots

I 60

I 80

I 100

Figure

A8.-

Longitudinal

cyclic

trim

vs

airspeed.

RT

.8

.4

LATERAL

0
t-

,m

-.4 E) -.8 E) -1.2 E) (3

LF -1.4 0

t 20

t 40 knots

J 60

i 80

i 100

Figure

A9.-

Lateral

cyclic

trim

vs

airspeed.

9O

MODEL [] C81 ARMCOP ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

== []
N

E3

-2 0

20

40

knots

60

80

100

Figure

AIO.-

Vertical

damping

derivative

vs

airspeed.

-5

_.==_-10 b
N

[]

[]

[]

[] [] []

-2 0

20

40 k nots

60

80

1 O0

Figure

A11.-

Z-force

due

to

collective

derivative

vs airspeed.

91

O_iGH_I, PAGE OE POOR QU_Ln'Y

MODEL [] O .I C81 ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

z_ ARmCOP ....

5 x

-.1 .. 0

I - ..20

I - 40

knots

t -60 "

I 80

! 100

Figure

A12.-

Drag

damping

derivative

vs

airspeed.

ol

_ El

_....

[] ! I I I,

/40

.... i.6o
,knots

,;so

ioo

Figure

A13_:- Side

force

damping

derivative

vs

airspeed.

92

MODEL 1_3C81 /k ARMCOP O ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

E3 E3 u 0 E3 E]

0 0

b-1 0

/k

-2 0

i 20

i 40 knots

i 60

i 80

i 100

Figure

A14.-

Roll/pitch

coupling

derivative

vs

airspeed.

-2

I I t
i- 1

o o
_

[]
_

rn
I_

o
0

-3

-41 0

I 20

I 40 knots

I 60

I 80

I 1O0

Figure

A15.-

Roll

damping

derivative

vs

airspeed.

93

MODFL [] A O C81 ARMCOP ARMOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

13

13

,FI

13

E)

[]

_J

20

40 knots

60

80

100

Figure

A16.-

Roll

moment

due

to, lateral

cyclic

input

derivative

vs

airspeed.

.020

015

+.a

o 010 A

[] 13
A

o
E) Z_

.005 Q

I 20

I 40 knots

I 60

I 80

I 100

;. "

Figure

A17.-

Roll

moment

due

to

forward

velocity

derivative

vs

airspeed.

94

[] MODEL /k C81 O ARMCOP ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

[] o

-2 0

20

40

knots

60

80

100

Figure

A18.- Pitch

damping

derivative

vs airspeed.

1.0

--

%
"o .5 } Q 13 D Q Q 0

20

40 knots

60

80

100

Figure

A19.- Pitching

moment

due to longitudinal airspeed.

cyclic

input

derivative

vs

95

MODEL [] A O 0 C81 ARMCOP ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

E]
Z

-2 0

20

40

knots

60

80

100

Figure

A20.-

Yawing

moment

due

to

pedal

input

derivative

vs

airspeed.

.10

.05 z
I I I I I

20

40 knots

60

80

100

Figure

A21.-

Yaw

weathercock

stability

derivative

vs

airspeed.

96

MODEL [] A O C81 ARMCOP ARMCOP, WITH LATERAL STICK MIGRATION FUNCTION ADDED

0
e.B

O
E)
_

==

-1.0 0

i 20

i 40

knots

i 60

i 80

i 100

Figure

A22.-

Z-force

due

to

lateral:cyclic

_nput

derivative

vs

airspeed.

e-

'T
N

O O

==

O Q

O
[] []

_-5
N

-1.0 0

I 20

I 40 knots

I 60

I 80

I 100

Figure

A23.-

Z-force

due

to

longitudinal

cyclic

input

derivative

vs

airspeed.

97

,,.I, ............... 30

, ......... _=

TICK

MARK 50

i|lllll

illill

i*1

J|

II

I11

Illl

1 sec

_j, deg/sec

(). deg/sec -300 2O

0, deg

LATERAL CYCLIC POSITION, %

-20 80

-5O 5O

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

_, deg/sec 2

-8O 5

-50 30,

VERTICAL ACCELERATION, G

, deg/sec

-5

-30

Figure

A24.-

Time

history (15

for sec)-

l-in., no

ramped

longitudinal

cyclic

input

augmentation.

98

25

............................

TICK MARK

=1

sec

, deg

-25 180

@, deg

-180

Figure

A24.- Concluded.

99

......................... 3O

TICK

MARK
IIIllllillllllllltlilllllll

25

0, deg/sec

_, deg

-30 20

-25 50

TAIL e, deg 0 I

ROTOR

PEDAL POSITION, %

___/
I_ 15 secs

-20 8O

-50 50

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

YAW ACCELERATION, deg/sec 2

-80 30

-5O 50

_,deg/sec

_j, deg/sec

-30

Figure

A25.-

Time

history

for no

l-in.,

ramped

pedal

input

(15

see)

augmentation.

100

40 .......................

, , , ,, TICK MARK = 1 sec

TAIL ROTOR BLADE POSITION, deg

10

-20 10-

TAIL ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in.

-10

-180

Figure

A25.-

Concluded.

101

,,,,I,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,,J,,TICKMARK 5O -

ll[l[llllllllllllill[lilll

= 1 sec

80

LONGITUDINAL CYCLIC POSITION, %

/ 1l_15

\ sec _

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

-5O 5O

-8O 5

PITCH ACCELERATION, deg/sec 2

W.T,CA.
v .___
ATION,

ACCELER-O
I -5

-5O 3O

@, deg/sec

;, deg/sec

-30 25

(_, deg

_, deg

-2O

-25

Figure

A26.-

Time

history (15 sec)

for

l-in.,

ramped

lateral

cyclic

input

- no

augmentation.

102

II11111111111111111111111|

50

_, deg/sec

-50 180

_, deg

-180

Figure

A26.-

Concluded.

103

Illlllllllillllllllll[lllll|

30

, .........

, .........

, .......

TICK MARK = 1 sec

1000

_, deg/sec

VERTICAL VELOCITY, ft/min

-30

-1000

'I
-20 80 t

I Z -,,

VERTICAL

1
-5 410 385

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

ROTOR, rpm

-80 100 -

360 1500 -

COLLECTIVE POSITION, %

50 1_15 sec _

HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, ft

750

Figure

A27.-

Time

history

for no

l-in.,

ramped

collective

input

(15

sec)

augmentation.

104

30,

u, ........

, ......

, ........

TICK MARK
= 1 sec

, deg/sec 0

-3O 25

, deg

-25 50-

_, deg/sec

-50 180

II'
V

_,deg

-180

Figure

A27.- Concluded.

105

APPENDIX

STABILIZATION

AND

CONTROL

SYSTEMS

DESCRIPTION

FLIGHT

CONTROL

SYSTEMS

Four I. 2. 3. 4.

major

control

system

configurations yaw

are

provided:

Mechanical--pitch, SCAS Hover on--pitch,

roll, roll, yaw

augmentation--pitch,

+roll, yaw

Vertical

augmentation--collective

Configuration and 3 are systems tigations ences of the using judged based

I is based from

on

information 14. useful

from

AHIP

reference 3 and variation

data. 4 are for

Configurations generic done control invesreferin

derived

reference

Configurations system Missions.

to represent

control

experimental work

on Scout/Attack a basis the for

Helicopter these

Previous

13 and control computer

14 was system

systems. is

In general, by the equations of

a digital use of the are the

representation Z-transform; from control and the

transfer

functions appropriate functions. in

obtained

programs, S-plane

difference Block figures of

obtained various

corresponding system dynamic in this

transfer are

diagrams The

configurations check data appendix.

presented from

BI-B5.

stability functions

derivatives are also

derived

several

these

transfer

listed

MECHANICAL

FLIGHT

CONTROLS

The tudinal

baseline cyclic

mechanical

flight

control

system

uses

pilot

inputs

of

(I)

longi-

control

(6b) , (2)

lateral

cyclic

control

(6a) , (3)

directional (AIS),

controls (6p), (I) longitu_inal (3) The for

and (4) collective control swash-plate angle {BIS),

(6 c) to determine, respectively (2) lateral swash-plate angle (4) main position

tail rotor collective pitch (BTR) , and relationships between the pilot control the basic airframe are as follows:

rotor collective pitch (8o). and control surface position

Longitudinal-

6e: BIS : 0.0 - 2.06 6e Limits BIS:

5.33

in.

+11 , -11o

106

LINKAGE
_ _, de_

0.0

DELE,

in.

-L.uo .--_'113,

_ BIS, deg

UKQH

_--QB,

rad/sec

DEAD_

_ I UKDELE 7 __-_UKTHETH _-TH ETR, rad

-0.1 DDELE, in.-.-_ / /in.

/ +0.1 /_UKDELE in. ! .__, _1L UKXO I_XOH, ft/sec

Figure

B1.-

SCAT

pitch

control LINKAGE

systems. 0.0
+

UKX

DELA,

in.

//'-'_'_

UKPH

-6---PB,
i

rad/sec
.

DDELA,

in.

I,nl/L
-0.1

Figure

B2.-

01
I/I ,;[I
roll SCAT

IUKDELAI

_'

VO.,t,sac
UKY 1.0 4.5 (AUG ON)

control LINKAGE

systems.

ft/sec

I Figure B3.SCAT

lin.I vertical

I control

i systems.

"

107

+ 8.00 LINKAGE in.

I

OTR, deg

DEAD

ZONE

--[

3.63

] 'q
HEADING HOLD

13.57

-5.16 --"--'-_'1 / I +.0.1/I

15.25

RATE

COMMAND

Figure

B4,-

SCAT

rate

command

heading

hold

system.

LINKAGE 6p in. -__ -6.15 deg

+8.00

(_TR, deg

-90 in. (S + 0.2)(S + 5.01

60S S+0.2

WASHED

OUT YAW

RATE

PLUS QUICKENING

Figure

B5.-

SCAT

yaw

axis

control

system.

I08

Lateral6 : -+5.33 in.

a

AIS : O.O + 1.43 6a

Limits AIS: +6 , '6 o

Directional6 : 3.25
r

in.

OTR : 8.00 - 6.15

6p

Limits OTR: +280 , -12o

Collective6 : O
0

0 - 10.65 lO 17 0

in.

: 1.0

+ 1.5 6
C

Limits

0 :
0

STABILITY

AND CONTROL

AUGMENTATION. SYSTEM

(SCAS)

Limited or unlimited authority SCAS actuators produce additional control surface motion in response to sensed aircraft motion parameters (SAS) and pilot control inputs (CAS) in the longitudinal, lateral, and directional axes. The SCAS control mode may be selected by the researcher for each axis individually or for all three axes collectively. The transfer functions for the SCAS are presented below together with the simplifications SCAS6B 1 6B 1 6B 1 6B 1 : --_ 0 + --_- u + - 6e 6e where employed for the purposes of the simulation.

Longitudinal

6B 1

8.54

s2(s

T
Simplifying,

(s)

- (s + 0.1)(s

+ 1.756) + 0.145)

10.62{s +

+ 0.3}(s (s + 0.15)

+ 0.975)

~ deg/rad

--

6B 1 8

(s)

8.54 s2(s

+ 1.756)

+ 10.62(s (s + 0.1)(s

+ 0.1)(s

+ 0.3)(s

0.975)

0.15)

19.16(S : 19.16(s -

3 + 1.545 s 2 + 0.2327 s + 0.01621) (s + 0.1)(s + 0.15) + 1.386)[s2+ 2(0.72)(0.11)s (S + 0.1)(S + 0.15) (0.11) 2]

109

6B 1 8 and

(s)

= 15.71(s 1.386)

6B1 (s) :
U

4.452 x I0-3(s + 0.3)(s + 0.975) (s + 0.15)(s + 1.0) deg/ft/sec

S impl ify ing

aB1 (s)
U

= 8.681

10 -3

finally,

6BI -12.32 s(s + 1.756) aT (s) = (s + 0.145)(s + 0.147)(s + 3.45) Lateral SCAS6A I 6AI : T where 6A I " + _

" aa

aAI

-1.461

s2(s

+ 2.3)

%-- (s) = [_ ; 6.1)(s

-2.911

0.2)

1.45 s(s + 2.28)

(s + 0.8?)

deg/rad

s(s + 2.3)(s + 0.0175)(s + 0.5686) (s + 0.1)(s + 0.2)(s + 0.87)

Simplifying,

6AI Finally,

(s)

-1.90

s(s (s

+ 2.3) + 0.2)

aA1 (s) 6a Directional SCAS-

0.908 s(s + 2.3) (s + 0.2)(s + 0.2)(s + 0.769)

deg/in.

6TR where

(s)

....

6TR r

6TR 6
r

6r

6TR

"

6TR v

--6T---E (s) : 60.00 r

s s+0.2

- deg/rad/sec

110

and 6T---_R (s) r

-90.O ~ deg/in. (s + 0.2)(s + 5.0)

For

V ! 50 knots,

dTR/

: 6TR/v : O.

For

V > 50 knots only,

6TR (s) = -324.3 Ks 2 614.8 Ks -(s + 0.2)(s + 10) - (s + 0.2)(s + 10) ~ deg/rad

where

K : 0.5 - 0.00333(V

- 50) (V ~ knots).

Simplifying,

6T---_R (s) and

-32.43 Ks(s + 1.896) (s + 0.2)

__ -831.4 6TRy (s) : V(s + 14.7)

~ deg/ft/sec

--ST" (s) - 57.3 v V

SCAS limitspercentages I. 2.

SCAS actuator

authority

limits were deflection

taken

from reference

2 as

of equivalent

full controller

as follows:

_+10% for pitch and roll SCAS +-15% for yaw SCAS authority is limited, the following control surface limits

When SCAS actuator result :

6B 1 -+1. lO 6A 1 -+0.6 o 6TR -+3 0 According to reference 7, the attitude hold mode is available that is below V : 50 knots

by switching

out the CAS in the pitch

and roll axes,

6B 1 6B 1 and 6A 1 aA 1 : - e
:--_-" e +

6B 1
U U

111

and

by

providing

a pseudo-heading-hold

feature s s + 0.2

in yaw, s+1.1 s + O.2

that

is

6TR

= 87"04

r-meg

Hover

Augmentation

Systems

Inertial position following hold

velocity system

command through

and the

position and

holdroll

The

implementation actuators

of

a hover of the

pitch

SCAS

consists

logic :

6BI and

: K6 6e + e

K _6 e df6e

+ Kqq

+ K88

+ K_x h_

+ K x ex h

_A 1 : K6a_a .+ Kf_ a
S

_a

+ Kpp

K4_@ + k_,y h

+ Kyeyh

where

the

subscript axis

indicates system position

positions origin from

and at

inertial nominal

velocities center of

in an

aircraft and

heading-referenced the e terms

with

the

gravity, point the from

indicate software (VNPH

errors the

the

pilot-designated east The components

hover of

Simulation inertial velocity

calculates and VEPH,

north

and

aircraft these utilizes YDPH)

respectively). to angle the

transformation

Earth-referenced the sine and

velocity cosine of the

components heading VNPH

heading-referenced and CPSI) as

components follows:

(SPSI

(SDPH,

: XDPH*CPSI

- YDPH*SPSI

VEPH

: XDPH*SPSI

+ YDPH*CPSI

The

heading-referenced of the

position

errors

EXH

and

EYH

are

calculated

through the

an pilot

intedesig-

gration nates

appropriate point (see

velocity fig. B-6).

components

which

commences

when

a hover These

head-referenced the positions

quantities of various

are

also

used on the

by

the

display

dynamics

program

to

calculate

symbols

pilot's

electronic

display.

Rate

Command

Heading

Hold

With becomes:

the

heading

hold

mode

selected,

the

directional

axis

SCAS

equation

6TR

: K6r 6r

+ Kf_r ;_r

+ K r r + K_e_

112

SPSI

CPSI I FLPSNCLR=I XDH XDPH

!

SPSI SPSI YDH YDPH

1
SPSI

9
CPSI CPSI Figure B6.Heading reference position error derivation. The trol intent system of this control the mode is to provide directional a yaw controls. rate command-heading through pilot's

)
EYH

hold

con-

Inertial

Velocity

Command

Altitude

Hold

With mented,

vertical

augmentation of the

selected, logic:

a simulated

collective

SCAS

is

imple-

consisting

following

69o

: K 6c 6 c + K _6c. 16c

+ K_6

+ KhC h

The

objective system

of

this

SCAS the

mode

is

to provide collective

an

altitude

rate

command-altitude

hold

control

through

pilot's

stick.

113

Summary

of

Equations

In general, perturbations on

the various the basic

control mechanical

systems flight +

to

be

investigated system;

are that

implemented

as

control

is:

AIS

= -O.OO

1.43*DELA

+ DELAI

with

AIS

limited

to +6.0 to

-6.0 , DELA

limited

to

4.27

in.,

and

DELAI

limited

to

0.6 . BIS = 0.0 - 2.06*DELE + DELBI

with

BIS

limited

to 11 ,

DELE THETTR

limited = +8.00

to

5.33

in.,

and

DELBI

limited

to ZI.1

- 6.15*DELR

+ DELTR

with 3 .

THETTR

limited

to

+28 to

-12 , DELR

limited

to

3.25

in.,

and

DELTR

limited

to

THETO

1.O

1.5*DELC

+ DELTHO

with

THETO The

limited perturbation

to

I.O to quantities by the

17 , and DELAI, control above

DELC

limited DELTR,

to O.0 and (tables values for

to

10.65 are

in. calculated B-4). set to are given in (The any

DELBI, mode

DELTHO B-I and

using SCAS other listed figures

logic actuator values in

determined limits by the B-5

selected

through may be

specified researcher). through B-11.

are

nominal

SCAT

Stability Time

derivatives for

selected cases

cases are

tables

B-16.

histories

selected

B-7

through

Control paths for all

nonlinearitiesthe

Dead

zones

are

included systems The

in to

the

integral drift

feed

forward by the

hover-vertical pilot be

augmentation control enough

prevent of the

caused zones,

integration O.1 even system in., in

of was

inadvertent selected to

inputs.

size any

dead

large yet

to prevent so as

noticeable to affect

drift adversely

effects the

turbulent response to

conditions control

small

enough

not

inputs.

114

TABiE B-I.Control mode Pitch SCAS on

6BI LOGIC DELBI :

_ b_147)_ [_ s + O_5)(s 12.32 s(s + 1.756) +

+ 15.71"QB + 0.OO8681"UB

3.45)

]*DELE

21.77*THETR

Hover augmentation

UKDELE*DELE = UKQH*QB

(I/S}*(UKDELEI*DDELE

UKX*XDH)

+ UKTHETH*THETR

+ UKXD*XDH

where time

DDELE of

is the

perturbation passed through

of a

DELE dead

from zone

its of

value O.1

at in.

the

engagement

TABLE

B-2.-

6AI

LOGIC

Control

mode

DELAI

Roll

SCAS

OFF

Roll

SCAS

on

[
(s time

+ 0.2)(s

+ 0.2)(s

.. o. _
+ UKY*YDH) of a DELA dead from zone passed through

+ O-?2J + UKPHIH*PHIR

Hover

augmentation

UKDELA*DELA

+ (I/S)*(UKDELAI*DDELA

+ UKPH*PB

UKYD*YDH

where

DDELA of

is the perturbation

its of

value 0.I

at in.

the

engagement

115

TABL _ B-3.- 6eT R

Control mode

LOGIC

DELTR

Yaw

SCAS

on

[ (s

-90

5.0

)_],DELR

+ 60.O.(s

+s o. 2),R

where

Heading

augmentation

UKDELR*DELR

(I/S)*(UKDELRI*DDELR

+ UKPSI*RB)

+ UKRH+RB

where time

DDELR of

is

the

perturbation passed through

of

DELR a dead

from zone

its of

value O.1

at in.

th_

engagement

TABLE

B-4.-

880

LOGIC

Control

mode

DELTHO

Collective augmentation

UKDELC*DELC

(I/S)*(UKDELCI*DDELC

+ UKAH*ALTD)

+ UKHD*ALTD

where time

DDELC of

is

the

perturbation passed through

of

DELC a dead

from zone

its of

value 0.1

at in.

thl

engagement

NOTES:

(1)

The

previous

derivatives variable. by the the

used

other

than all of

unity the

for

step

sizes had

in to

the be

independent divided (2) Also, tions in for

Therefore, step size.

derivatives

through running the

stability were the

derivative put

program, of the

the

transfer A/C

funccontrol previous

augmentation to get

in front control

basic

linkage; control linkage ical feed

therefore, derivatives conversion forward loop.

correct

derivatives,

the

must be divided through by the respective control factors: Pitch--1.90 and Roli--1.3 (includes mechanloop), TR--6.15, and COLL--3.09 (includes mechanical

feed

forward

116

TABI.E

I_-5.-

STABILITY

DERIVATIVE

MATRIX (HOVER

WITH CASE)

AUGMENTATION

ADDED,

YAW

SCAS

USER

IDENTIFICATION

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = I._ KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 1.7 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 5.21 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = ._ DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .0 FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .23736E-02 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = .0 LB/FT2 IXX = 1029. SLUG-FT2 IZZ 2228. SLUG-FT2 IYY = 2939. IXZ = 363.

YAW

- SCAS IVC AUG

PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE-

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .5gg_E 91 .5000_E 91 .5000_E 91 .5009_E #I .5009_E 90 ! .5gg_E gg .5009_E #0 .3099@E #1 .1009_E #2 .4099_E 01

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .17453E-01 .17453E-91 .17453E-O1 10090E O1 100_OE 01 100_OE O1 10000E 01 19009E 91 10_00E 01 19OOOE 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 19000E 01 19000E 01 19OOOE O1 19OOOE O1 190OOE O1 19009E 01

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE I_

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /OBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC /DAP -.15411E-01 .58844E -.64341E-O1 .32268E-O2 .1277_E -.31289E 90 OO 01

FTY -.15350E .12059E .14615E -.47946E-O1 .32466E-WI .10659E gl 01 _I 02

FTZ .20418E-01 .75011E .22327E .73694E-_1 -.ZI#66E -.4m884E-O1 il _0 _O

TTL -.42312E -.37390E .38998E -.5_317E-01 -,13348E-JI .19744E _1 01 01 O1

TTM .12394E -.43268E -.17574E -.49552E-02 -.16291E-B1 .23994E Bg OO _l 90

TTN -.1305OE -.30788E -.16644E .12563E-01 .I9689E .63899E-_1 MB OO 00 02

/OEP /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.967J4E .25573E-_2 .52732E -.55853E-O1

BB

-.284ggE -.14674E

I! _1 O9

-ollllll
-.14546E-O2 -,78672E .44661E-O1

II

.s|I4BE -.41140E

It 00 00 00

,llllfl .17525E-01 -.66565E-01 .49955E-01

l!

.IIItlI-BI .16578E .51453E -.99113E-_2 01 09

90

.16655E .26077E-_1

O1

-.10624E .10959E

117

TABLEB-6.- STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIX WITHAUGMENTATION ADDED, YAW SCAS (10 KNOT CASE) USER IbENTIFICATION : SCAT TRIMMED AIRSPEED =
10.0 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITV = 16.9 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 5.4B DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .00 DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD RHO = .23736E-02 SLUG/FT3 QBAR IXX = 102B. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = IVV = 2939. IXZ = YAW - SCAS IVC AUG

PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

AREA = .0 FT2 = 27.7 FT = .3 LB/FT2 222B. SLUG-FT2 363.

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .50000E 01 .50000E 91 .50_0_E 01 .50000E 01 .5_00_E 00 .50000E 00 .50000E 00 .390@0E 01 .10000E 02 .4900_E 01

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR 17453E-O1 17453E-01 17453E-O1 1009OE 91 10000E 01 I_000E 01 109_OE 01 1OO9OE O1 19090E 01 10000E 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS.' LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 19000E 01 1000_E 01 10900E 01 10000E 01 199OOE O1 109OOE 01

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /OBIC /RBIC /VBIC IWBIC IOAP -.84141E-92 .5B349E -.I1965E .41971E-92 .12442E -.311|9E 90 18 91 00

FTY -.17150E .13814E .10353E -.46903E-01 .26024E-91 .I#||BE

/

FTZ 01 61 02 .23397E .2621#E Z613ZE 69946E-_I -.20244E 11 .lgltl| _I Ig 00 _1 _

TTL -.43176E -.37318E .Z7133E -.51036E-_1 -.16_92E-O1 .|lg|O! I1 O1 _1 01

TTM .12215E -.43447E -.66843E-91 -.51665E-O2 -,12794E-O1 .mSRI41 gg 00 gl

TTN -.16289E -.33027E -.I1946E .14399E-BI .97367E-O1 90 00 #2

.m=O|ll.gl

/OIP /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.9B_HBE .21426E-91 .4928OE -.487_3E-_1

Bm

-.28499E -.25176E

_ 01 0_

-,_7781[ -.12843E-91 -.76B_IE .30544E-#I

J#

.59047E -.7_708E

BN 00 00 0_

.5ZOg7E .16072E-01 -.46411E-01 .38204E-_1

_J

.2270?t-Wl .28590E .47998E -.13745E-01 _1 _0

O_

.1679BE .27763E-%1

_I

-.1120_E .10231E

118

TABLE

B-7.-

STABILITY

DERIVATIVE (20

MATRIX KNOT

WITH CASE)

AUGMENTATION

ADDED,

YAW

SCAS

USER

IDENTIFICATION

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 2g.g KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 33.8 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 5.82 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .gg DEG WEIGHT = 3949. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .g FTZ SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD - 27.7 FT RHO = .237369-92 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 1.4 LB/FTZ IXX = 1928. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2ZZ8. SLUG-FT2 IYY = 2939. IXZ = 363.

YAW - SCAS PITCH, ROLLIVC COLLECTIVE - AUG

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE 5gggBE B1 59_##E gI 5#BgBE _l 5_E gl 59_BgE 99 5g_g_E gg 5gg_gE 99 .39999E 91 .lg_gBE 92 .49g99E 91

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .17453E-91 .17453E-91 .17453E-91 1999mE 91 IggggE 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 .19999E 91

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE .19999E .19999E .lggggE .19999E .19999E .19999E

FACTOR gl 91 91 91 91 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC /nAP .19572E-91 .57641E -.13991E .512759-92 91 99

FTY -.18427E .1432BE .1389mE -.46388E-91 91 91 92

FTZ .33323E .41881E .33291E .58252E-91 98 91 99

TTL -.43415E -.37118E .37339E -.47949E-91 gl gl 91

TTM" .11315E -.43664E -.23436E-91 -.53947E-92 -.96331E-H2 !l AI|IIIt #B _9 91

TTN -.18999E -.382939 -.16543E .1994WE-91 .78551E-91 .OgOlOl,l| 99 99 92

.ZzzgeE -,l|llll

mm l!

-.5Z917E-mZ .11111t II

-.zzzzeE *,llitll

91 ii

-.22971E-m1 .IUUl

lip
IDRP /DCP /UBIC

-.91196E .gz256E-92 .45598E -.75735E-91

98

-.Zg448E -.13899E

il 91

-.664719 -.12293E-91 -.76329E .19937E

88

590401BI -.393599 99 99

62152E .24633E-92 -.ZgB_lE-gl .36378E-91

BB

,/14ggg-ml
.16337E .41599E -.15819E-01 91 99

99

.25598E-gl -.99339E-92

91 99

-.12159E .451599-_I

119

TABLE

B-8.-

STABILITY

DERIVATIVE (30

MATRIX KNOT

WITH CASE)

AUGMENTATION

ADDED,

YAW

SCAS

USER

IDENTIFICATION

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 39.0 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 50.7 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 4.59 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .99 DEG WEIGHT = 3949. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS" WING SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD RHO = .23736E-92 SLUG/FT3 QBAR IXX = 1928. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = IVY = Z939. IXZ =

YAW - SCAS PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

IVC - AUG

AREA = .9 FT2 = 27.7 FT = 3.0 LB/FT2 2228. SLUG-FT2 363.

STEP INDEPENDENT VARIABLES PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

SIZE 91 gl 01 91 99 09 gg 01 92 01

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE

FACTOR

.59090E .59090E .59990E .5_999E .59909E .50990E .59999E .30990E .19999E .4_900E

.17453E-91 .17453E-91 .17453E-91 .10099E .1999_E .19909E .19999E .19000E .19999E .10000E

91 91 01 91 01 91 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTH TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR ,19999E 91 .19999E 91 .19999E 91 .lgggE 01 .19999E 91 .10099E 01

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES,

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC IDAP .33062E-01 .57837E -.24794E .68978E-H2 ,llg64E -,11#11| #B II 01 99

FTY -.19477E .15382E .1377gE -,69671E-91 -,16226E-BI .11437i I1 91 91 92

FTZ .53494E .57261E ,41147E .51715E-91 -.22899[ -,lllZll BI II 90 91 99

TTL -.43866E -,373_7E .36693E -.51999E-91 -.284ZIE-BI olD|liE El 91 91 91

TTM .19615E -.43371E ,31448E-91 -.57131E-92 -,13S97E-92 .|_l/ll II 99 91

TTN -.19225E -.45599E -.16869E .21513E-91 .BZI4BE-_I ,t_14|l-/1 99 00 92

_IIEP /DRP
p

-.992961 .19982E-_1 .43937E -.1_384E

|B

-.3/3gee -.13622E

Bm 91

-.lmlgSE -,18446E-91 -.89476E .88328E-91

ml

.tl3|31 -.38128E

8l gg 99

,ole4u -.27625E-92 -.64987E-92 .37969E-91

/If

,4184H-I1 .16483E .36638E -.13942E-91 91 99

/DCP /UBIC

g9 _0

-.56939E-92 -.38349E-91

91

-,13289E ,16934E-91

120

TABLEP-9.- STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIX WITHAUGMENTATION ADDED, YAWSCAS (40 KNOT CASE)

USER

IDENTIFICATION

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 48.0 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY 67.6 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 3.37 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE ._g DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA .g FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .237369-0Z SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 5.4 LB/FTZ IXX = 1928. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228, SLUG-FT2 IVY = 2939. IXZ = 363.

YAW PITCH,

- SCAS ROLLIVC AUG

COLLECTIVE

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE 50090E g! 5000_E 91 500099 01 5000_E 91 5_9009 gg 599009 H# 50000E g# 30999E gl 190099 92 4gggE 01

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .174539-91 .174539-01 .174539-01 .10m09E 01 .lggggE 01 .109099 gl .lgOggE 01 .IgBggE gl .109009 91 .10009E 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR .1_9999 91 .lg909E 01 .lgggBE 91 .199099 01 .1_099 91 .I_099E 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 1_

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX IPBIC IQBIC IRBIC IVBIC IWBI .46565E-91 .58036E -.36595E .85559E-9Z .1215BE B_ 01 09

FTY -.2_526E .16443E .13659E -.93939E-91 -.Z3BBZE-BI g1 91 02

FTZ .73653E .726279 .48992E .455839-91 -.t45ZSE #1 II 99 91 99

TTL -.443159 -.374959 .358689 -.54991E-BI -.3Bg?21'BI .|gitlt t| 91 91 91

TTM .991579-91 -.439789 .863329-91 -.699389-02 .GS342E-B2 .iillll ii 91

TTN -.293589 -.52883E -.193639 .24768E-01 .459759-B1 llllllltl| 99 gB 92

_,tlIIV|

l#

.116|II

ml

_|I|II1

1|1! /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.173111 .307459-01 .49478E -.740319-01

I!

-,311|f! -.13345E

II 01

-.llllll -.Z45929-91 -.84637E .73492E-91 121

I|

,I/gill
-.36898E

II
00 90

,I$ii11
-.79882E-92 .79834_-92 .342369-91

lit

_llllll'/! .19964E .31689E -.77975E-02 91 99

g#

-.36792E-91 -.32072E-91

01

-.14399E .174749-91

TABLE_-I0.-

STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIX WITHAUGMENTATION ADDED,YAW SCAS (50 KNOT CASE) USER IDENTIFICATION : SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 50.0 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 84.4 FT/SEC ANGLE OFATTACK = 3.55 DES FLIGHTPATH ANGLE = .00 DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .O"FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .23736E-02SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 8.5 LB/FT2 IXX = 1028. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228. SLUG-FT2 IYV = 2939. IXZ = 363. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC STEP SIZE .50000E 01 .500_0E ml .SmO_OE 01 .500_0E 01 .5mO_OE _ .500_0E 00 .500_0E 00 .300_0E 91 .100_0E 02 .40000E 01 UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS SCALE FACTOR 17453E-01 17453E-01 17453E-01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01

YAW

- SCAS IVC AUG

PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR .10000E 01 .10000E 01 .10000E 01 .10000E 01 .10000E 01 .10000E 01

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 10

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC #DAP .32776E-01 .56655E -.41397E .77987E-_Z .1246flE *i_||Ii BJ ml 01 _0

FTY -.20613E .16324E .13462E -.10651E -.3_?ZlE-BI blWigl[ fl 01 01 _2 00

FTZ .87937E .9_280E .40744E .41788E-_1 -.257BBE _HIJl[ ml |f .liilli 00 01 _0

TTL -.44315E -.37245E .34072E -.54164E-E1 01 01 01

TTM .94423E-01 -.43366E .19103E -.6_8Z7E-_Z .14B24E-#I i| .t|lt|t II 01 00

TTN -.22414E -.23028E -.18907E .27904E-BI .45B24E-B1 ,II11ti-It _0 01 02

/DEP /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.141411 .36897E-01 .40796E -.45942E-01

t!

-.3114ti -.13mO7E

@! 01

-,If41|l -.14141E-01 -.88160E .10232E

||

.llilll -.35359E

I# 00 00

_11t111 -.18751E-01 .40784E-01 .30215E-01

II

,IIYlII .18450E .30718E .13431E-01

Im 01 00

0_

-.60791E-01 -.24476E-01

01 00

-.14399E .19525E-01

122

TABLEB-11.- STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIX WITHAUGMENTATION ADDED, YAWRCHH (10 KNOT CASE)

USER IDENTIFICATION : SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 10.9 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITV = 16.8 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 5.48 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .99 DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .0 FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .23736E-02 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = .3 LB/FT2 IXX = 1028. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228. SLUG,FT2 IVY = 2939. IXZ [] 363.

YAW

RCHH IVC IVC

PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .59009E 91 .59909E 01 .50909E 91 .59909E 01 .59009E 90 .59900E 90 .50909E 90 .30000E 01 .10900E 92 .40909E 91

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR 17453E-01 17453E-91 17453E-01 10009E 01 19099E 91 19009E 91 19999E 01 10099E 01 19909E 01 19999E 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 10900E 01 1_999E 91 1_990E 91 19999E 91 10909E 91 19990E 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC /DAP -.04141E-92 .58349E -.11965E .41083E-92 .12442E -.31099E B_ 00 01 00

FTY -.17150E .13814E .10353E -.46903E-01 .26_23E-_1 .IB650E 01 91 01 OZ

FTZ .23395E .26210E Z6130E .6Bg28E-BI -.2_Z44E -.I0222E BI B# 99 91 _0

TTL -.43176E -.37318E .Z7133E -.51036E-01 -,16B_E-BI .21086E BI 01 01 01

TTM .12215E -.43447E -.66843E-01 -.51666E-02 -.12794-B1 .23_m4E mm 00 01

TTN -.16289E -.33027E -.I1946E .14490E-01 .97366-iI ,63899E-_I 90 99 OZ

....

_NP
/DRP /DCP /UBIC

-. iNlmlm n
.21426E-91 .49280E -.48702E-01 09

-.2141ge
-.25176E .16798E .27763E-01

II
91 90

-,tY_llt
-.12844E-91 -.76801E .39543E-91

i!

.It|4Y|
-.70798E

le
99 90 90

,IltlYl
.16972E-91 -.46411E-91 .38204E-01

,||Pl_|-l!
.28599E .47990E -.13744E'01 91 09

91

-.11209E .10231E

123

ORIGINAL OF POOR

PAGE

IS

qClXl, J1_

TABLE

C-12.- STABILITY

DERIVATIVE MATRIX WITH (2O KNOT CASE)

USER IDENTIFICATION :

AUGMENTATION

ADDED,

YAW RCHH

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 20.0 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 33.8 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 5.82 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .00 DEG WEIGHT = 3940. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD RHO = .23736E-92 SLUG/FT3 QBAR IXX = I_20. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = IVY = 2939. IXZ =

YAWRCHH PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

IVC IVC

AREA = .9 FT2 = 27.7 FT = 1.4 LB/FT2 2228. SLUG-FT2 363.

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .59900E 91 .59009E 91 .59909E 91 .509_9E 91 .59900E 99 .50090E 09 o59900E 09 .309_0E 91 .19990E 02 .49000E 91

UNITS R/S RIS R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE-FACTOR .17453E-01 17453E_91 17453E-91 19090E 91 1999_E 91 10990E 91 19999E 91 10900E 91 10990E 01 10909E 91

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTV FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR .19099E 91 .19990E 91 .19999E 91 .19_99E 01 .19099E 91 .19999E 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX IPBIC /QBIC /.RBIC IVBIC /WBIC /DAP .19572E-91 .57641E -.19424E .51271E-_2 .12196E -.31B97E 00 BB 91 99

FTY -.18427E .14329E .19998E -.46388E-01 -.61927E-92 ,10437E 91 91 91 92

FTZ .33325E .41881E .29859E .58255E-01 -.21228E -.17892E El 99 99 91 99

TTL -.43415E -.37118E .26347E -.47949E-91 -.22974E-01 .19596E H1 01 91 91

TTM .11315E -.43664E -.16556E-91 -.63947E-92 -.96346E-02 .23004E 90 99 91

TTN -.18990E -.38293E -.11981E .18949E-91 .78550E-B1 .63899E-BZ _9 99 92

-.gtt96E /DRP /DCP /UBIC .16624E-91 .45598E -.75737E-_I

BB

-.ttlit!
-.25944E

I!
91

-,II|Yll
-.22151E-91 -.76329E .19949E

tf

,lee4_l
-.79921E

H
00 90

,t_ll|t
.44386E-92 -.29891E-91 .36378E-01

ee

,|04tll-Bt
.29437E .41599E -.15819E-91 01 _0

90

.25598E-_1 -.99333E-92

91 00

-.12159E .45159E-91

124

TABLEB-13.- STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIXWITHAUGMENTATION ADDED, YAW RCHH (30 KNOT CASE)

USER IDENTIFICATION : SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 3g.g KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 59.7 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 4.59 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .gg DEG WEIGHT = 3949. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .g FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .Z3736E-92 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 3.9 LB/FTZ IXX = 1928. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228. SLUG-FT2 IVY = 2939. IXZ = 363.

YAW-

RCHH - IVC - IVC

PITCH, ROLL COLLECTIVE

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE 59999E 91 59_99E 91 59999E 91 59999E 91 59999E 99 5_99E _9 5g999E 99 3gg_E 91 lggggE 92 49999E 91

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .17453E-91 .17453E-91 .17453E-91 .19999E 91 .19g99E 91 .lggggE 91 .10999E 91 .l_gggE 91 .l_9ggE 91 .199g9E 91

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 lggggE 91 19999E 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES,

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBI IDAP .33985E-91 .57837E -.19213E .68978E-92 .11963E -.31997E BB 99 91 99

FTY -.19477E .15382E .99653E -.69671E-91 -.16226E-B1 .19437E 91 gl 91 91

FTZ .53494E .57259E .35993E .517mgE-91 -.2289BE ".26849E BI ## 99 91 99

TTL -.43866E -.37397E .25955E -.51999E-91 -.28429E-91 .19596E 91 91 91 91

TTM .19615E -.43371E .23733E-91 -.57128E-BZ -.13587E-B2 239W3E 99 99 91

TTN -.19225E -.45599E -.12257E .21613E-91 .62147_'B1 .53249E-91 99 99 92

/PEP /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.19t$4E .36612E-91 .43937E ..19384E

tl

-.19_|8| -.24959E

l! 91

-,lfllll -.33797E-91 -.89476E .88336E-91 125

l|

.llllll -.69859E

II 99 99

,$1g|ll -.59615E-92 -.64987E-92 .37969E-91

BI

.49|49E-81 .39299E .36638E -.13942E-91 91 99

99 99

-.56939E-92 -.38349E-91

91

-.13289E .16_34E-91

TABLEB-14.- STABILITYDERIVATIVE MATRIXWITHAUGMENTATION ADDED, YAWRCHH (40 KNOT CASE) USER IDENTIFICATION : SCAT TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 49.9 KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 67.6 FT/SEC ANGLE OFATTACK = 3.37 DEG
FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .99 DEG WEIGHT = 3949. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = .9 FTZ SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .23736E-92 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 5.4 LB/FTZ IXX = 1_Z8. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228, SLUG-FT2 IYY = 2939. IXZ = 363. YAWRCHH IVC IVC PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE 59999E 91 59999E 91 59999E 91 59999E 91 59999E 99 59999E 99 59999E 99 39999E 91 19999E 92 49999E 91

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .17453E-91 17453E-91 17453E-91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E Bl 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTV FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91 19999E 91

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 19

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /VBIC /DAP .46563E-91 .58936E -.28998E .85559E-BZ .12156E -.31997E 99 99 91 99

FTV -.29526E .16443E .99225E -.93939E-91 -.23952E-91 .19437E _1 91 91 91

FTZ .73656E .72627E .42123E .45599E-91 -.24528E -.35784E 91 9m 99 91 99

TTL -.44315E -.37495E .25563E -.54999E-91 -.3B97ZE-91 .19596E El 91 91 91

TTM .99157E-91 -.43978E .64923E-91 -.69936E-BZ .6534ZE-_2 Z3BH4E fib 91

TTN -.29358E -.52883E -.14938E .24767E-91 .45975-I1 .42599E-ml 99 99 92

/DEe /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.07390| .56657E-91 .49478E -.74_32E-91

BB

-.31347| -.24593E

BY 91

-,||942E -.45319E-91 -.84637E .73499E-91

BI

,5B19|| -.67997E

BR 99 99 -.14721E-91 .79834E-92 .34236E-91

.532BBf-ff! .35132E .31689E -.77977E-92 91 99

99

-,36792E-91 -.32972E-91

91

-,14399E .17474E-91

126

ORIGINAL

PAGE

IS

oF Poor QuAUl'Y
TABLE B-15.STABILITY DERIVATIVE MATRIX WITH AUGMENTATION (50 KNOT CASE)
USER IDENTIFICATION : SCAT

ADDED,

YAW RCHH

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 50.g KNOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 84.4 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 3.55 bEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .g_ bEG WEIGHT = 394_. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING AREA = ._ FT2 SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD = 27.7 FT RHO = .23736E-m2 SLUG/FT3 QBAR = 8.5 LB/FT2 IXX = Ig28. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = 2228. SLUG-FT2 IYY = 2939. IXZ = 363.

YAW - RCHH PITCH, ROLLCOLLECTIVE

IVC IVC

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .5_O_gE 01 .5_g0E 91 .5_0_E 01 .5_OgOE B1 .5_0_E 9_ .5_O_gE 0_ .5_OggE _ .3_ggE _1 .1_000E _2 .4_000E 91

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR .17453E-_1 .17453E-_1 .17453E-_1 .lB,#BE 91 .1W#O_E _1 .l_gE _1 .l_gE _1 .1BgggE gl .10000E 01 .1gggOE 91

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR .]gg_OE 01 .lggBBE _1 .10_gOE BI .l_gE _1 .lOBatE _I .10_OgE _1

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS O_JE OF THE ROW REPRESENTS ONE ()F THE 1_

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /OBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC /DAP .32776E-_I .56655E -.31093E .77986E-_Z .12466E -.3_353E 9_ _ _1 _

FTY -.28613E .16324E .98299E -.I#651E -.32721E-#1 .I_5_BE 01 fil R1 _1 ##

FTZ .B7937E .9028_E .36794E .41785E-_[ -.257_8E -.3ZBB4E BI _B gg 01 gB

TTL -.44315E -.37245E .24197E -.54164E-_1 -.31B43E-BI .19596E BI 01 01 _1

TTM .94423E-01 -.43366E .13867E -.6g826E-_Z 14_25E-BI 23216E BB gl BB

TTN -.22414E -.2302BE -.13754E .Z7_4E-_I .46BZSE-BI ,38330E-B1 _0 gl _2

IDEP /DRP /DCP /UBIC

-.$4546E .67994E-01 .40796E -.45942E-_]

BE

-.31349E -.23969E

o_ _1

-,17411[
-.26959E-gl -.BB16gE .1_231E

_t

IIYg|!
-.65161E

gJ
gg 00

,IIIIIE
-.34554E-01 .40784E-gl .30215E-_1

BB

,SgllBE
.34001E .3071BE .13434E-01

Be/
01 90

g#

-.6_791E-)1 -.24476E-)1

_1 _g

-.14399E .19525E-01

,.

127

TABLE

B-16.-

STABILITY

DERIVATIVE (60

MATRIX KNOT

WITH CASE)

AUGMENTATION

ADDED,

YAW

RCHH

USER

iDENTIFICATION

SCAT

TRIMMED AIRSPEED = 60.0 K[dOTS RELATIVE VELOCITY = 101.3 FT/SEC ANGLE OF ATTACK = 3.74 DEG FLIGHT PATH ANGLE = .00 DEG WEIGHT = 3040. LBS MASS = 122.4 SLUGS WING SPAN = 4.3 FT CHORD RHO = .23736E-02 SLUG/FT3 OBAR IXX = 1028. SLUG-FT2 IZZ = IYY : 2939. IXZ :

YAWRCHH PITCH, ROLL - IVC COLLECTIVE - IVC

AREA : .0 FT2 = 27.7 FT = 12.2 LB/FT2 2228. SLUG-FT2 363.

INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

PBIC QBIC RBIC VBIC WBIC DAP DEP DRP DCP UBIC

STEP SIZE .50000E 01 .500_0E 01 .500_0E 01 .50000E 01 .500_0E 00 .50000E 00 .590_0E 90 .30000E 01 .10000E 02 .40000E 01

UNITS R/S R/S R/S FPS FPS INCH INCH INCH INCH FPS

SCALE FACTOR 17453E-01 17453E-01 17453E-01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01

DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

FTX FTY FTZ TTL TTM TTN

UNITS LBS. LBS. LBS. FTLB FTLB FTLB

SCALE FACTOR 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01 10000E 01

EACH EACH

COLUMN REPRESENTS ONE ROW REPRESENTS ONE OF

OF THE THE 10

6 DEPENDENT INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES. VARIABLES.

FTX /PBIC /QBIC /RBIC /VBIC /WBIC /DAP .1897BE-01 .55277E -.34177E .70926E-_2 .125_9E -.29609E H_ _H 01 00

FTV -.2_700E .16204E .97354E -.12mH1E -.425B1E-H1 .1_564E H1 01 01 01 00

FTZ .10221E .10792E .31464E .37663E-ml -.2682_E -.29823E BI HB 01 02 00

TTL -.44315E -.35995E .22832E -.5424HE-01 -.31317E-BI .IgSgBE HI _1 01 01

TTM .Bg699E-01 -.43657E .21331E -.61276E-#2 .216_7E-BI .23428E _m _1 _m

TTN -.24467E -.4_767E -.1346BE .29245E-01 .45478E-_1 .34_B_E-H1 09 01 02

IOlP IDRP /DCP /UBIC

-.81695E .79333E-O1 .41116E -.57418E-01

8B

-.31349E -.23346E

B_ _i

-._1277E -.67987E-02 -.91680E .89115E-01

HI

.6179|| -.62329E

BB _0 00

.St_leE -.54387E-01 .73584E-01 .29867E-01

HH

.141BBE .32868E .29758E .25372E-_I 01 00

0_

-.B4790E-_! -.18976E-_

01

-.14399E .22012E-01

128

5O ,,,,,,,,,

.......

,,,,,,,,,,

TICKMARK = 1 sec

500

IIIIII

IIIII

III111

IIiiiiii

PITCH ACCELERAATION, deg/sec 2

--_

__

'

VERTICAL VELOCITY _/min

-50 30

-500 5O

LATERAL _, deg/sec 0 A_ CYCLIC POSITION, % 0

__J

t--,ssEc--I

-3O 20

-50 50

_), deg

_, deg/sec 2

-20 80

-50 50

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

, deg/sec

-80

-50

Figure

B7.-

Time (15

history sec)

for

I-in.,

ramped

longitudinal command system.

cyclic

input

- inertia]

velocity

129

25 '"'''"'''""'"''"'"'

TICKMARK
= 1 sec

180

IIIIl|lllllllllJllllllilll

_, deg

-180

_j, deg/sec

-50 40

TAIL ROTOR BLADE POSITION, deg

10
f

-20 10-

TAI L ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in.

-10

Figure

BT.-

Concluded.

130

50 .......

' ..................

TICK MARK =lsec

LJllllllllllll|llllaltlt!

80

LONGITUDINAL CYCLIC POSITION, %

FORWARD 0 ____1 knots AIRSPEED,

__/
-5O 5O

-80 50O

PITCH ACCELERATION, deg/sec 2

A _-

,i _

.'

VERTICAL VELOCITY, ft/min

-50 30

-500 30-

_, deg/sec

i_

v_.

, deg/sec

A A_ _1=_ v v

J I

-30 20 -

-30 25

_, deg

, deg

L v

--

-20

-25

Figure

B8.-

Time

history

for

:-in., velocity

ramped

lateral

cyclic

input

(15

sec)

inertial

command

system.

'131

ORIGINAL

PAGE

IS

oe POOR _.JAJ.JTY

.........................

TICK MARK = 1 sec

YAW ACCELERATION, deg/sec 2

-50 50-

_, deg/sec

TAIL ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in.

-10 180

_,' deg

__.._.-..11

-180

Figure

B8.-

Concluded.

132

4"

2O

''"""

............

'"'"

TICK MARK =1 sec

iiilll

ii

III

Illlllllt

IIIIII

O, de9

VERTICAL ACCELERATION, G

-20 80

-5 200

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

'1

TORQUE SUPPLIED, ft-lb

100

___/

-80 100 -

------J

0 1000

COLLECTIVE POSITION, %

5O 1_15 0 500 see--4 . ,,_

HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL,

5OO

0 30

VERTICAL VELOCITY ft/min

, deg/sec

--

--

-500

-34)

Figure

B9.- Time

history for l-in., ramped collective inertial velocity command system,

input

(15 sec)

133

lllltllllillllllilllllll|J

25

TICK MARK = 1 sec

|ll|lllllllllllllillllllll

180

, deg

__

vl

JI

_;deg

-25 5O

-180

_, deg/sec

-50 40

TAIL ROTOR BLADE POSITION, deg

10

-20 10

TAIL ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in. -10

Figure

B9.-

Concluded.

134

5O

........

'' ................

TICK MARK = 1 sec

IIIlllllillllllllllll|llll

5O0

PITCH ACCELERATION, deg/sec 2

VERTICAL VELOCITY, ft/min

.,='1

-5O 30-

-500 50

0, deg/sec

, deg/sec 2

Av

Vg

-30 20

-50 30

0, deg

=_ -20 80 -

_, deg/sec

0 -30 25

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

, deg

-8O

,J

-25

Figure

BIO.-

Time

history

for yaw

l-in., axis

ramped

pedal

input

(15

sec)

SCAS.

135

IIlllllll|illlllll|lllllll

1000 HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, ft 0 5O

TICK MARK =-1 sec

IIlllllllllllllltlllllllll

40

500

TAIL ROTOR BLADE POSITION, deg

10

-2O 10-

TAIL ROTOR PEDAL POSITION, %

_J
_-- 15sec----.. I
-50

TAIL ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in

-lO
180

YAW ACCELER ATION, deg/sec 2

I
L/
_, deg 0

-180 50

_, deg/sec

-50

Figure

BIO.-

Concluded.

136

,,,',,,,,',,,,,',liJll,l,i 5O PITCH ACCELERATION, deg/sec2

TICK MARK = 1 sec

Illllll|lll

IIIIIIIIlllll

II

500

r-__

--

VERTICAL VELOCITY, ft/min

-500 1000 HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL,

_,deg/sec

500

-3O 2O

r
, deg/sec2

5O

_, deg

-20 80 -

-50 50

FORWARD AIRSPEED, knots

_;, deg/sec

--80

-50

Figure

B11.- Time history for l-in., ramped pedal rate command heading hold.

input

(15 sec) -

137

lillllllllllllillil|lllll

TICK MARK
=1 sec

llll[lll|llillliillillllll

25

4O

, deg

TAI L TAI L ROTOR BLADE 10 POSITION, deg -20 10

-25 50 TAI L ROTOR SCAS ACTUATOR POSITION, in.

TAIL ROTOR PEDAL POSITION, %

-5O 5O

-10 180

YAW ACCELERATION, deglsec2

4, deg

-50 50

-180

_, deg/sec

-50

Figure

Bl1.-

Concluded.

138

APPENDIX

COCKPIT

CONFIGURATION

DATA

A listing

of the control

characteristics

that were set-up

implemented

for the for the conduct

simulation is given in Table C-I. The actual of the experiment is shown in figure CI.

of the cockpit

TABLE

C-I.-

AIRCRAFT

CONTROL

SYSTEM

CHARACTERISTICS

Collective system

Longitudinal cyclic system

Lateral cyclic system

Directional system

Control

travel travel travel

Swash-plate Rotor blade

10.65 in. I full down 17 full up 16 1.5/in. 2.0 ib 0.0 ib/in. 3.0 ib

10.66 in. 11 forward 11 aft 22 o 2.06/in. 0.5 ib 1.05 ib/in. 6.11b

8.54 in. 6.0 left 6.0 right 12 1.43/in. 0.5 Ib 0.68 ib/in.

6.50

in.

40 6.15/in. 4.0 ib 3.5 lb/in. 15.0 ib

at 0.75R Rotor gearing Control breakout (zero friction) Control-force Limit-control gradient forces 3.4 ib force

139

ROTOR TACHOMETER <-12.3"--_

AIRSPEED INDICATOR

ATTITUDE

[L
8"
i

'
I I

\_

_//_/D)I

CAALTTO: ET ER

I
I

HUD PMD _[_

i I

__o,o
TURN AND BANK INDICATOR INSTRUMENT PANEL

BL 11.25 (SEE GLARE SHIELD \ 5.5" 5.33 /_ TORQUE_ STA 64.50 ENGINE _ _-WL 63.44 FIG. 11) I

HUD_

17"

I '
L SEE INST. PANEL BLOW-UP

',

28.5"

\
I(

lh
I-,_-._ 3.25"
3.25"

WL 32.22

Figure

CI.-

SCAT

cockpit

general

arrangement.

140

APPENDIX D PILOT INSTRUCTIONS BRIEFING (To be read by pilot) The mission will begin at poin t A, with the aircraft at 50 ft AGLand 40 knots, and the panel-mounted display (PMD) in the Transition mode. There may be wind and turbulence. NOE. Fly through the canyon at 40 5 knots, staying as close to the ground as possible (no higher than 50 ft AGL). DECEL. After crossing the last berm, decelerate and switch the PMD to Hover at 10 to 15 knots. Cometo a full stop within 10 ft of the center of the hover area, at 10 2 ft AGLand pointing North 5 .
LOW-TURNS. right and low TION: BOB-UP. and stay turns, Switch stop Within say at 5 the North ft of PMD to Bob-up. Use initial Turn left turn at and stop at 180 to 5 . Then turn

5 . the

a constant hover the

rate, 10 2 to

not ft the

exceed At

90 in 4 sec, the end of the

point

AGL. first

"mark" detent the PMD

and

squeeze

trigger

switch

detent.

(CAU-

second With

disengages still

simulation.) bob-up 5 . to Say 80 10 ft AGL. Stay within the 5 ft of

in Bob-up, North

the initial hover point, pointing switch to the first detent.

"mark"

and

squeeze

trigger

HIGH-TURNS. right and and stay

With stop within at

the

PMD

still

in a

Bob-up, constant hover

turn

left

and

stop not ft

at

180 5 .

Then

turn

North of

5. the PMD PMD

Use initial

turn at

rate, 80

to exceed AGL. At

90 in 4 sec, the end of the

5 ft

point

10

high-turns, FIRE-CONTROL. Stop at the

switch With ZSU-23 the AGL. left. PMD

the the (at to

to

Hover. in Hover, turn right maintaining 80 10 ft AGL.

still

120-130). Bob-up, for not HUD the until the and target stay within will 5 ft of be As the current from you left see hover to point at or and

Switch 80 10 ft to

Watch It may the

which

flying soon as

right, target,

right not

appear to Fire

right

away.

the

before, Using

switch the HUD,

Control. pipper appear flash, on the on in target. HUD. pitch, A tone Keep then a hit. the press Stay will sound, fire 10 ft of and the the

put box

sight box box the

missile-launch-constraints launch-constraints button. The missile-launch

will will

the

target the

inside

tone

changes

indicating

within

141

the hover point and at 80

fire been exceed Ratings. turns, and within shot 100 15 sec, down. ft a This AGL, or will

20

ft

AGL tone happen a

throughout will if or sound you the

target-acquisition. and you before will be scored fire acquiring

If you as the

do

not

pulsating also into to

having

target,

crash rating

tree

ground

during

tracking. turns, to high-hover bob-up

Assign

a C-H

the of

NOE, the

deceleration, You do

low-hover not have

fire-control

segments

mission.

ratethe

maneuver.

142

APPENDIX. E

DATA ACQUISITION

REQUIREMENTS

Tables E-I through E-3 delineate the variable data collected on the three strip charts available for use throughout the experiment. Table E-4 lists the immediate post-run aircraft performance data to include preliminary statistics that were provided from a Versatec line printer. Table E-5 lists when the different phases of data collection were initiated. Table E-6 lists the mission outcome codes used to categorize each air-to-air engagement. Figure El represents a graphical time line representation of the complete fire control task.

TABLE E-I.- STRIP

CHART DATA VARIABLES

(NO. I)

Parameter

Mnemonic

Full scale/units

Polarity

I. Longitudinal

cyclic

position

DELE QBDDG QBDG THET UBKTS DELC . HD HDDG

50%
50Olsec 2 t30/sec 20 -20 to +60 knots

+ Aft + Nose up + Nose up + Nose up + Up + Up + Up

2. Pitch angular acceleration 3. Pitch rate 4. Pitch attitude 5. Airspeed 6. Collective 7. Vertical 8. Vertical control position

o-Ioo%
500 rpm 5 g's

velocity acceleration

TABLE

E-2.- STRIP

CHART DATA

VARIABLES

(NO. 2)

Parameter

Mnemonic

Full scale/units

Polarity

I. rpm 2. Arpm 3. Torque Q 4. Radar altitude 5. Lateral cyclic stick position 6. Roll angular acceleration 7. Roll rate 8. Roll attitude

OMEGA DOMEGA TORQ HAGL DELA PBDDG PBDG PHI

360-410 rpm 20 0-200 ft-lb 0-100 ft

50%
50Isec 2 t30/sec t25

+ + + +

High > > RT

+ RT + RT + RT

143

TABLEE-3.- STRIPCHART DATAVARIABLES (NO. 3) Parameter

Mnemonic

Full scale/units

Polarity

I. 2. 3. 4.

Directional pedal position Yawangular acceleration Yaw rate Yawrate

movement

DELR RBDDG RBDG RBDG THETTR DELTR PSII THETI

50%
50Isec 2 50/sec 10/see -20 to +40 10 50 t20 in.

+ RT + RT + RT + RT + RT + RT + RT

5. eTR 6. Yaw SCASactuator 7. _-heading error 8. e-elevation error

144

TABLE (Minimum value,

E-4.-

END OF RUN VERSATEC value, rms, mean,

DATA _, N sample)

maximum

Mission Variables NOE DECEL IGE TURN

phase

OGE TURN

TARGET

Height

above ground,

ft

i 4 / / / in. / / /

/ 4 / 4 / / 4 / / /

/ / / / / / / / ,/ / / 4 / ,/ / ,/ / / / / / / / / / /

Longitudinal velocity, ft/sec Lateral velocity, ft/sec Heading, deg Cyclic lateral position, in.

/ / / / / / / / /

Cyclic longitudinal position, Collective position, in. Pedal position, in. Attitude rate, deg/sec Pitch angle, deg Y-hover error, ft X-hover error, ft Radial hover error a Heading Y-hover X-hover error, deg ft/sec ft/sec ft/sec b error, deg deg error,

/ / 4 / / / 4 /

velocity, velocity,

Yaw rate, ft/sec Yaw acceleration, Azimuth sighting Elevation Time b Mission Target Target sighting failure

4 code c

direction, t slant range / g of wind, knots 4 / / / in detail 4 / on page 146.

Torque, ft-lb SAS actuator, deg Lateral aRadial component hover

/ /

error

calculations

are explained

bTime marking points are shown in table E-5 and figure CMission failure codes are described in table E-6.

E-I.

145

TABLE

E-5.-YAW

CONTROL

SIMULATION

EVENT

MARKERS

Event No.

Flight task

Start time marker

time

End marker

Task-required display mode(s)

NOE Decelerate/stop Low turns Bob-Up High (B-U) turns

Start of RUN Last berm B-U display Marker (I) Marker (2) (I)

Last

berm (I)

B-U display Marker {I) Marker (2) Hover display

Transition Transition

_ Hover

Bob-Up Bob-Up (2)_ Bob-Up

TABLE

E-6.-

AIR-TO-AIR

TARGET

ACQUISITION

MISSION

OUTCOME

CODES

Code

I 2 3 4 5 9 0

: = = = = = =

Missile fired/target in launch-constraints-box (LCB) :_Hit Missile fired/target not in LCB = Miss Exceeded time limit for target-acquisition task + Shot Down Exceeded altitude limit for target-acquisition task = Shot Down Ownship contacted terrain during T-A task = Crashed F/c logic or CGI Problem, but reaction 2 data valid F/c logic or CGI Problem, and all phase 6 data invalid

DEFINITIONS

OF

HOVER-ERROR

MEASURES

FOR

YAW-CONTROL

STUDY

Vehicle

location

at start error:

of

maneuver:

Xo,

Yo

Longitudinal

hover

(EXH) i = x i - x o

Lateral

hover

error:

(EYH)i

: Yi

- Yo

Radial Circular

hover error

error: radius: =

(ERH) i = (CER)i and : _(EXH) EYH -

(EYH) i i _ _-_]2 + [(EYH) i _ Ey---_]2

_(EXH) i. where EXH N

_(EYH) N

Median

radial (ERH)i's median

hover ; that

error (50 ERH): Value of is, with the radial hover that radius at or below

(ERH) i which encompasses errors ranked according

!

50% of the to size, the

(ERH) i is

which

50%

of

the

(ERH) i s lie.

Median

circular (CER)i's.

error

radius

(50

CER):

Value

of

(CER) i which

encompasses

50%

of

146

TII_IE LINE FOR PHASE 6 (FIRE CONTROL TASK)

i

PILOT SELECTS BOB-UP MODE OF DISPLAY

4_

m r"

_>

TARGET HELO ENGAGED

T;=
" -I$=__. mr-

TARGET FIRST BECOMES VISIBLE TO CRT EDGE

0 rz PILOT SEES TARGI-T AND SELECTS FIRECONTROL MODE E,F DISPLAY

PILOT FIRES MISSILE OR RUN ENDS BECAUSE TIME LIMIT EXCEi:DED, ALTITUDE LIMIT EXCEEDED, OR OWN-SHIP CRASHED INTO TERRAIN

Figure

El.-

Time

line

sequence

for air-to-air

target

acquisition

task.

147

APPENDIX

PILOT

RATING

DATA

Tables F-I through F-5 represent the individual and averaged pilot ratings for each task and tested configuration. Tables F-6 through F-IO represent a correlation analysis conducted on the pilot ratings of the primary test configurations to enable the indexing of pilot sensitivity.

TABLE Test configuration

F-I.- PILOT

RATINGS

FOR NOE FLIGHT HQR p4

TASK

pl

p2

P3

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40

5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.o 3.0 8.0 --6.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.o 7.o 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0

7.0 4.5 6.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 8.0 7.5 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 ----7.5 4.0 8.0 3.0 --------8.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 7.0 ------9.o 7.o --3.0 -----

5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 9.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 9.0

6.0 3.5 7.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.o 4.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3

5.750 4.000 5.000 3.250 4.750 3.000 7.250 ?.167 5.500 4.125 4.250 3.75O 4.333 4.000 7:375 5.625 6.250 4.375 3.667 3.333 3.333 4.333 5.750 4.750 6.250 3.250 4.750 3.333 3.333 5.333 6.250 4.OOO 3.333 3.250 3.333 5.667

0.829 .791 1.581 .433 1.785 0 1.299 0.850 1.118 .545 .829 .433 .471 O 1.781 1.386 1.299 .820 .471 .471 .943 .471 1.479 .829 2.861 .433 1.299 .471 .471 2.625 1.920 1.871 .471 1.090 .471 2.494

148

TABLE

Fwl.--

Concluded HQR p4

Test
configuration pl p2 P3

sd

51 52 53 54 55 57 58

WQ--

6.0
Qm--

3.0 --4.0 ----8.0 ---

5.0 4.O --5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0

2 I I I 2 2 1

4.000 4.000 4.000 5.OOO 6.OOO 7.OOO 5.000

1.000 ------0 1.000 ---

TABLE Test

F.-2.-

PILOT RATINGS

FOR DECELERATION HQR p4

FLIGHT

TASK

configuration

pl

p2

P3*

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 37

6.o 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 --5.0 3.0 4.0 3.o 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.o 3.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0

4.o 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.o 3.o ----4.5 5.0 7.0 4.5 --------4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------4.0 4.0 ---

4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.o 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.o 2.0 4.0

5.0 3.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.o 4.0 3.0 7.0 7.0 7.o 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.o 3.0 7.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2

5.000 3.300 4.600 3.300 4.200 4.000 6.660 4.500 4.660 3.300 4.000 3.300 4.000 3.500 5.500 6.00O 6.600 3.500 3.5OO 3.500 4.500 3.5OO 4.OOO 3.600 4.600 3.300 3.600 3.000 3.500 3.5OO 4.600 4.000 3.500

1.410 .818 2.500 .818 1.170 0 .680 .707 .824 .818 0 .818 0 .707 1.870 2.240 .680 1.220 .7O7 .707 .7O7 .707 0 1.630 2.940 1.630 .820 0 .7O7 .7O7 1.630 0 .7O7

149

TABLE Test configuration

F-2.-

Concluded HQR p4

pl

p2

p3*

sd

38 39 40 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 *Ratings

2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 --3.0 4.0 --3.0 ...... 3 .O ......... ...... 4.0 - ........ 5.0 ...... ...... 5.0 ......... were rejected

4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 --4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

3 2 2 I I 0 I 2 I I

3.000 3.000 3.500 4.000 3.OOO 0 4.0O0 5.000 5.000 5.000

1.41o 0 .707 o --o --0 0 ---

due to low correlation.

TABLE F-3.- PILOT RATINGS Test configuration

FOR LOW HOVER HQR p4

TURN FLIGHT

TASK

pl

p2

P3

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.O 7.0 --6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.0

7.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.O 7.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 ----3.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 --------5.0 2.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 ---

5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.O 5.5 6.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

6.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 6.0 3.O 8.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3

5.750 3.00o 4.500 3.750 4.250 3.250 6.875 5.000 4.500 4.500 4.500 4.000 4.667 3.667 5.000 4.750 5.250 3.250 3.667 3.667 4.333 3.667 4.750 3.125 4.5OO 3.250 4.250 3.000

0.829 0 1.500 .433 1.090 .433 .893 1.414 1.118 1.500 1.658 0 .471 .471 1.225 1.785 1.090 .433 .471 .471 .943 .471 .433 .545 1.500 .433 .433 .816

15o

TABLEF-3.- Concluded Test configuration 31 32 33 34 35 37 39 4O 51 ....... 52 53 54 55 57 58 pl 4.O 4 .O 4 .O 4.O 4.O 3.0 4.0 5.O ...... ...... ...... 6.O -----

p2 ----6.0 3.O --4.0 -----

P3
3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 --4.0 ----9.0 ---

HQR n p4
4.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 --5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 I 1 I 2 2 I

_
3.667 3.333 5.000 3.000 3.667 3.250 3.667 4.000 4.000 5.000 4.000 5.000 5.500 7.000 5.000

sd
.471 .471 1.000 .707 .471 .829 .471 .816 1.000 ----.500 2.000 ---

--"----

TABLE F-4.- PILOT Test configuration pl

RATINGS

FOR HIGH HOVER HQR p4

TURN

FLIGHT TASK

p2

p3

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26

5.0 3.O 4.O 4.0 3.5 4.O 7.O --6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.O 4.0 6 .o 7.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.O 3.O

7.O 5.O 3.O 3.O 3.O 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.O 4.O 3.O 3.O 7.O 5.5 3,,o :, 6.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 --4.O --3.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 4.O 5.O 3.0 4.0 --3.0 --3.0 --3.0 --3.0 5.O 4.O 2.5 3.O

6.0 3.O 7.O 3.O 6.O 3.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 5.O 4.0 6.0 3.o 7.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4

5.750 3.000 4.25O 3.750 4.375 3.25O 6.625 4.667 5.OOO 4.375 4.250 4.OOO 4.667 3.667 5.OOO 5.OOO 5.000 3.250 4.OOO 3.667 4.333 3.667 4.750 2.875

0.829 0 1.639 .433 .960 .433 .65O I .247 I .581 I .556 I.299
0

.471 .471 I.225 I.581 I.225 .433 .816 .471 .943 .471 .433 .217

151

TABLEF-4.- Concluded Test configuration 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 pl 4.0 4.0 5.0 2 .o 4.o 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 ...... ......... ...... ......... 6.0 ...... ......... p2 4.0 3.O 4.0 ------6 .o 3.0 --4.0 ----P3 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 ...... 6.0 HQR p4 n 7.0 3.O 4.0 4 .o 5.o 4.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 --5 .o 6.0 6.0 5.0 4 4.500 4 3.375 4 4 .250 3 3.000 3 4 .000 3 3 .667 4 5 .000 4 3 .250 3 3 .667 4 3.250 3 3.667 3 4 .000 2 4 .000 I 5 .000 I 4 .000 I 5 .000 2 6.000 2 6.5OO I 5 .000
sd

1.500 .415 .433 .816 .816 .471 1.000 .433 .471 .829 .471 .816 1.000 ------0 .500 ---

TABLE

F-5.- PILOT RATINGS Test configuration

FOR TARGET

ACQUISITION HQR p4

AND TRACKING

FLIGHT

TASK

pl

p2*

p3

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

7.0 4.0 5.o 4.0 4.O 5.0 _ 4.0! --99.0 5.0! 4.0 99.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 99.0 99.0 6.0 99.0 99.0

7.0 99.0 99.0 5.0 5.O 6.0 7.0 5.0 99.0 99.0 6.0 5.0 --6.0 99.0 99.0 7.0 -----

99.0 3.5 4.0 99.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0

7.0 4.o 7.0 5.0 6.0 99.0 7.0 99.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 99.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0

3 3 3 2 3 2 3 I 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2

7.000 3.833 5.333 4.500 4.600 4.500 5.660 6.0oo 6.OOO 4.667 4.330 4.833 4.OOO 4.333 6.OOO 4.000 4.500 5.000 4.OOO 4.5OO

0 .236 1.247 .707 1.630 .707 2.160 1.000 1.000 .471 .812 .624 0 1.247 .816 0 .500 1.410 O .500

152

TABLEF-5.- Concluded Test configuration

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 *Ratings

: pl
0

p2*
__m

P3

HQR I p4 n
5.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 99.0 5.0 3.0 99.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.O --6.0 6.0 5,0 4.0 3 3 31 3 3 3 3 3 2 I 2 3 I 3 2 I 2 I I I 2 I I 4.667 5.O0O 4.800 6.300 4.300 3.400 4.OOO 3.667 5.5OO 5.OOO 4.500 3.000 3.500 3.5OO 4.000 4.000 3.500 4.000 4.OOO 6.000 5.500 5.000 4.000

sd

3.0 4.O 5.0 --6.0 7.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 3.O 5.0 7.0 3.o 4.0 4.0 99.0 4.0 --4.0 4.0 --- 99.0 5.0 --- 99.0 99.0 99.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 2.0 99.0 --3.5 4.0 7.0 3.0 99.0 --3.0 99.0 --, 99.0 ...... 3.0 ......... ...... 4.0 ......... 5.0 ...... ...... I 99.0 --...... rejected

1.247 .816 1.470 1.960 1.630 2.540 0 .471 1.500 0 .500 1.410 0 .86O 1.000 0 .500 ------.500 0 ---

I due to negligible

correlation.

153

c_ O o.

o_

;? ,? ;?
> _ ,,lit I 03

't

t_ Q.

o3 a IN O. C_ N n3 E-_

O r,. H E-'

0 r,. > ,_ i.-.i O. O o3

Z O [-, .-3 r.1

Z 0

,-1

I
O3 r_

0 O c_) oo_ Z Z H O. to _J_ oooo .B

rr_ E-_ 12) ,-1 i-...t

O ooo.o.o t_ I

I
oooooo O3 C_

! r,. r.1 .-3

! I ,_.1 ooooooo _J

I
t_ O'3 oo_. B o_ O

t_

r-

_L

I > r_

O_

154

Q..

o.

IJ)

_ N N I:L

ul P.. o

E-_ 0 > :) .,-i oo,,

0 r,. X H

_,_ i--i E-_

Z 0 O. ,1

_o,o, 0 :> I

o.o.

r_ 0 U o.o,,o

r_ 0

2_dd_d

Z E-_ r_ E_ 0 _N_ n_ E-' 0 CO I _NN_N I r,,.

._.oooo

o;
I

,.-.1 N

,..-1

(M

E-_

_>>>>

155

ooooo

....

_,.**0.0t

Lf_ [-_ O :x:

__J

ooo.o

Z O I--i E-,
,.-1 _.1 0

_.o....oo Z

0 _o_o.0 I !

c;
I C_ Lt_ .-.1 m b-4 _N_ N__

II

156

APPENDIX

PILOT

COMMENT

DATA

Tables G-I through G-5 list individual pilot comment data for each configuration flown while conducting the five designated tasks.

TABLE G-I.-

PILOT

COMMENTS ON TASK

I (NOE FLIGHT)

Date

Run
no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

I117184

No

26

I find

that while

the breakout

is ade-

quate, the force gradient could be a bit higher. As far as the directional access, the commanded position was there. It became immediately apparent that the damping was decreased somewhat and that there was a tendency to overshoot the desired heading. 1/17/84 7 Yes 3

The damping and control sensitivity were markedly decreased. One, by the frequency of directional motions required and in magnitude of motions in order to obtain the desired heading. In the turn there was tendency for reverse yaw, a substantial amount of pedal and a tendency to overshoot.

1/17/84

Yes

11

The damping appeared to be adequate, but the decrease in control sensitivity required the tendency to overshoot. The desired yaw rate could easily be commanded. The aircraft did not want to seem to turn as rapidly manded it to. as ! had com-

1/17/84

No

Very responsive, would prefer friction on the collective. Increased benefit. friction

increased

1/17/84

Yes

on collective

is a

1117184

No

18

Controllability in question. Lack dampening exists in the yaw axis.

of

157

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/17/84

Yes

27

Tendency to overcontrol the directional axis. The damping seemed to be adequate as the frequency of the pedal inputs was not that high; however, there was a tendencyto overshoot on the desired heading. 2 Acute angle and reflex exceptional. Excellent ability to achieve the turn or rate of yaw. angle turns were control and good desired rate of

1/17/84

10

No

34

1/17/84

11

No

The additional control system damping was adequate and satisfactory; however, relative sensitivity was decreased. This decrease did not affect control, but it did increase the magnitude of pedal displacements in order to obtain the desired yaw rate or a skid through the turn. The turns were accomplished easily.

1/17/84

12

Yes

Apparent decreased

damping was substantially with an apparent increase Considerable difficulty the desired heading down within 5 and with some on the pedals. was not aircraft a problem. was overall a It

in in the

sensitivity. maintaining NOE course bicycling 1/17/84

13

Yes

13

Heading seemed

control like the

It

more sluggish, higher damping and decrease in control sensitivity. wasn't reacting desired. 1/17/84 14 Yes 3 as quick as I would

have

Maintaining

desired

heading

was

not

problem. The damping appeared adequate, the sensitivity perhaps was just higher than desired. Could be coupled with shorter 1/17/84 15 NO I than necessary in the time yaw constant.

28

Very

sensitive

axis.

158

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/17/84

16

Yes

33

It appeared that the pedals had no control or did not tend to streamline. The aircraft did not tend to streamline with the aircraft in forward flight. Yaw damping was inappropriate. High pilot workload required to maintain the aircraft as far as yaw control is concerned. Very poor scan system.

1/17/84

17

No

Pretty fair all in all. Good collective response. No change in pitch and roll over the previous configurations nor in collective. In going straight and narrow there were no problems; in clearing the berm, however, the heading does appear to want to drift right and left, depending upon the application or decrease of torque, requiring increased pilot workload. Heading control is difficult. There are the desired normal frequency of pedal motion bicycling back and forth on the pedals, indicative of a low damping. There also appears to be relative low sensitivity. In straight runs control is no problem, in the turns it becomes
one.

1/18/84

No

I0

1/18/84

Yes

33

Increase in damping appeared to be marginal to adequate. Control sensitivity was low enough in requiring some of the large pedal excursions to establish the desired heading and desired rate, caused a tendency to lag--not necessarily overshoot but lag orient the helicopter. in trying to

159

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/18/84

No

2O

4.5

Sensitivity seemed was not sufficient

higher. for the

The damping control

sensitivity, consequently there is a tendency to over control, evidenced by the frequency of back and forth of bicycling pedal motions. Performance on the straight runs was no problem. Control on turns was, however, at the desired speed. 1/18/84

Yes

19

Tendency to overcontrol. High frequency of back and forth pedal motions indicative of low damping. The sensitivity was not particularly high either. There was a large magnitude of pedal displacements, significant difficulty in maintaining the desired heading during the NOE run. Control not a problem. I had to slow down to obtain desired performance. Damping was unsatisfactory. Sensitivity did appear to be increased and small magnitude pedal displacements would generate high yaw rates. Speed had to be slowed to 30-35 knots in order to negotiate the turns.

1/18/84

Yes

17

1/18/84

No

18

4.5

Damping appeared to be generally adequate. There was not a necessity of high frequency pilot inputs;, sensitivity appeared to have decreased. Very tive highly in the damped. Very,very directional axis. insensi-

1/18/84

No

14

1/18/84

No

20

Good harmony between damping and sensitivity. Task could be accomplished within the desired performance criteria.

160

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/16/84

No

34

Minimum compensation required. tive very sensitive, very nice controlling over berm and also down the other side. A little

Collecfor going trouble

with the lower torque of the aircraft. Very sensitive yaw inputs. Small minor roll inputs cause the turn slip indicator to go outside of the trim conditions. 1/16/84 Yes I 13 Controllability was no problem. compensation was required. Compensation and roll and ity in little. 1/18/84 No I 20 the was required I still feel and roll Minimum

1/18/84

Yes

in the pitch the sensitivaxis is too

pitch

Considerable the yaw axis urations.

compensation compared to

primarily other

in

config-

1/18/84

Yes

Considerable compensation axis, very high sensitivity pedals.

in

the yaw in the

1/18/84

Yes

27

Minimum compensation required maneuvering down the course. High gains in yaw axis make some compensation necessary. Performance obtainable, but only with maximum pilot compensation. Large yaw excursions and extensive compensation in the yaw axis whatsoever. to maintain any heading

1/18/84

Yes

17

1/18/84

Yes

11

Extensive

compensation

required

to control

maintain any kind of directional throughout the maneuver. 1/18/84 10

NO

12

Initial tendency to overcontrol in the yaw axis with the aircraft overcompensating. Control sensitivity very high. Did not have a noticeable weathercock stability or side force characteristics with forward airspeeds.

161

TABLEG-I.Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR

Continued

Date

Run no.

Comments

1/18/84
1/18/84

11

Yes

25

Tendency to overcontrol 2). Slightly decreased Forward seemed problem in the

slightly (I or in sensitivity.

12

Yes

speed directional stability adequate with airspeed. No maintaining the desired heading straight runs and the turns were than the other

relatively easier configurations. 1/18/84

13

No

Damping appeared to be somewhat lower, and control sensitivity unchanged from previous runs, and so consequently the aircraft had some apparent quickness. Maintained desired heading. 40 Highly damped, control system. was difficult. totally insensitive Turning the aircraft You had to roll the

1/18/84

14

No

aircraft and once you got it over in a reasonable high bank angle, then you had to pitch the aircraft through the turn, causing pedal deflection. 1/18/84

15

No

32

Aircraft

does

not Lack

want of

to

turn

in in

forthe

ward flight. turns. 1/19/84 No

control

24

Seemed underdamped in forward flight. Tendency to overcontrol in pedal motions. Adequate weathercock stability. Adequate side forces were generated for commanded side slip angles. Damping and sensitivity appeared to be well matched and the forward flight regime could negotiate the large angle turn without any major difficulty.

1/19/84

Yes

31

162

TABLEG-I.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

I119184

Yes

29

Damping relative

appeared to comparison.

be

adequate in Control sensitivlower than It required

ity was not significantly what I'd want it to be.

large pedal excursions in order to generate the correct yaw. However, that was ameliorated because of the rather high damping, not a tendency so consequently to overcontrol. not seem to have there was

1/19/84

Yes

15

Aircraft

did

the

full

flight weathercock to resort to more dinate the turns.

stability and i had pedal inputs to coor-

1/19/84

Yes

23

Good forward weathercock through the

flight stability. stability. Could turns.

Good easily

fly

1/19/84

Yes

39

Could fly through the turns without problems. Major collective inputs to go up and over the berms did not induce large yaw excursions, and was able to reasonably fly through at the generally targeted airspeed.

1/19/84

No

30

Good flight track. Directional stability could generate adequate side forces. It was not quite as well damped in forward flight as the last major increase in workload. two. No

1/19/84

No

22

Good

forward

flight

stability.

No

appreciative pedal displacements. Tendency to make me Overconfident. 1/19/84

Yes

16

It did quite well through the turns. Adequate damping and control sensitivity but required a bit more work. Very lightly overcontrol. Damping Adequate damped. Slight tendency to

1/19/84

10

Yes

53

1/19/84

11

Yes

57

was virtually nonexistent. control in question.

163

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/19/84

12

Yes

51

Able to generate adequate side forces with side sl_. Able to fly through turns with minimum pedal displacement.

the

1/19/84

No

12

3.5

Heading information up here on the HUD, especially the altitude information helps a good deal. I don't use the torque at all and the heading is relatively useless during the NOE. All I am using for the NOE portion is the right portion with the tape and altitude readout. The biggest problem I saw was the heading shift as a function of increasing and decreasing power going over the berm, so there was a slight tendency for the nose to shift right with increased power. A lot more difficult to fly primarily due to the degraded yaw control. Aircraft nose was much more active in going left and right. In power applications and actually going over the first berm, it was almost uncontrollable due to a rather rapid application of power on part. Difficult to have any precise tracking. However, jumping over the berm, it was controllable. my one

I119/84

Yes

17

7.5

1/23/84

Yes

Biggest aircraft

workload to make

was trying to it around the

get the turns

without smacking into the sides. It took an awful lot of bank angle and a whole lot of pedal to get the aircraft coming around. 40 knots seemed to be far too fast to maneuver the aircraft with the bank and yaw characteristics.

164

TABLE

G-I.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/23/84

No

26

I liked the handling qualities of the aircraft better. It seemed easier to make the turns at 40 knots without smacking into the side. The aircraft seemed looser in yaw control and seemed much less stable or steady in a particular heading, so that it did require a little bit of pedal inputs all the time you were flying, but the turns in fact were easier. I had some trouble with altitude control and a little heading control problem. Nothing much different other than I did lose the panel-mounted display. It seemed like it took an excessive amount of bank angle and pedal to stop the aircraft from sliding to the left.

1/23/84

Yes

13

1/23/84

No

34

Difficult coordinated turn. On the second turn I tried to come inside and look at the panel-mounted display and use the velocity vector to help me determine whether or not I was coordinated. The coordination scene is really poor. an excessive It seems like it is taking amount of bank angle and

pedal input to get around the turn, continually wanting to slide. 1123184
No

28

I felt my ability to fly a predetermined path over the ground to keep the aircraft in the center line of the canyon was easier than it had been on previous runs. Bank angle on pedal displacements in the turn did not seem excessive. Airspeed control was good.

1/23/84

No

I0

7.5

The predictability of the pedal requirements is very poor when the aircraft is banked. The aircraft was loose and wallowing around in yaw control. A slight pedal displacement caused a very large yaw displacement and I could not figure out what the steady state rate
was.

165

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/23/84

Yes

I had

to slow

down

to

20-25

knots

to I

negotiate the course. Any faster and would have flown through the sides of the course. 1/23/84

Yes

19

In the right turn the aircraft dished out to the left and then yaw control became extremely uncoordinated. The nose kept turning to the right. Considerable compensation the yaw axis, especially ing the turns. required in when negotiat-

1/24/84

Yes

19

1/24/84

Yes

Large pedal inputs required to compensate for yaw drift once you put the pedal in (a fair amount), it feels like there's a delay and then a large rate occurs, so large inputs are required to maintain some kind of straight course. Extensive compensation was required in maintaining directional control. This also affected maintaining a proper course through the NOE area.

1/24/84

Yes

25

1/24/84 1/24/84

No Yes

12

4 3

No

comments. compensation required with required, collective minor yaw applica-

39

Minimal inputs tion. Very

1/24/84 1/24/84

No No

22

3 4

easy

to

fly

down

the

course.

Aircraft had a tendency to dish out a bit in the turns, but I was able to keep it within what I considered acceptable limits while traversing the canyon area. Yaw excursions with collective increases and decreases were minimal. Controi seemed real was smooth very and the

1/24/84

No

predictability

good.

166

TABLE

G-I.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Piiot

A/C configuration

PR

Commen ts

1/24/84

No

4.5

Yaw axis seemed to be a bit undamped. I would like to have more positive control over it. No particular problems. I

1/24/84 1/24/84

No

4 4

4 18

3.5 7

Yes

Because of the poor heading response, ended up doing "S" turns down the course.
I

1/24/84

No

12

The nose was twitchy and very sensitive. The nose kept wobbling back and forth as the aircraft went down the ! course. Overshot the turns and had to "S" turn down the course. Slight overshoot in yaw axis during turns, but not nearly to the extent I've seen before.

1/24/84

IO

No

26

1/24/84

11

No

that

1/24/84

12

No

20

Not much power to yaw coupling, but I did have to chase the heading after coming out of the turns. The addition of the wind caused me to overcompensate in controlling the yaw axis. 10 I Extremely sensitive in the yaw axis to the extent that I had to slow down in attempting eventually the turns, even though I lost control and crashed. control I had to

I,'24/84

13

Yes

13

1/24/84

14

Yes

27

1/24/84

15

Yes

19

To maintain adequate slow down 10 knots.

1/24/84

16

Yes

In this run, flying NOE was not the primary task, it was maintaining aircraft control. Yaw and roll coordination was very good. into the turns

1/25/84

Yes

14

167

TABLEG-I.Wind/ turbulence A/C configuration

Continued

Date

Run no.

?ilot

PR

Comments

I125/84

Yes

The aircraft was fairly loose in yaw control, and it required quite a bit of activity on the pedals to try to keep the nose straight. It was so difficult to control in yaw that altitude and speed control deteriorated. The turn coordination was really great.

1/25/84 1/25/84

4 5

No Yes

2 2

20

3 8

27

The aircraft required a lot of pedal to establish a good turn. I had to slow down to 20 knots to make the turns. It took excessive roll coordination craft to turn. amounts of pedal and just to get the air-

1/25184

Yes

33

1/25184 1/25/84 1/25/84

2

No

3o

Very nice and easy to control axis.

in the yaw

No Yes

I I

28
21

3 4

No problems. You've got to be a little more active in the loop to keep the desired heading as you make collective changes. The yaw to collective coupling was a problem. There seemed to be a longer than normal lag in the yaw response. Minimal compensation, to yaw coupling. no obnoxious power

1125184

Yes

11

1125184 1/25/84 1/26/84

No

28

Yes

33

I had to slow down considerably negotiate the course.

to

Yes

25

The yaw control during turn coordination was very poor. The aircraft was very loose in directional control. Extensive pilot compensation was required primarily based on the difficulty in making the right turn.

1/26/84

Yes

11

168

TABLEG-I.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C configuration

Date

Run no.

Pilot

PR

Comments

I126184

No

18

I was able to roll into and out of the turns without a lot of workload in trying to continually increase the bank angle and pedal inputs to keep the aircraft in the center. I did not like the yaw to collective coupling. The aircraft was continually wallowing around. I was not able to make precise pedal inputs and get a desired result.

1/26/84

Yes

1/26/84

Yes

38

It required some pedal in the turns, but I was quickly able to recognize what I needed in the way of pedal input and immediately get it when I initiated the controls. It felt real comfortable. You can keep the nose in what looks a coordinated turn but the aircraft doesn't want to turn. like Just

1/26/84

Yes

29

1/26/84

{es

29

I was very aggressive in this particular operation, more so than I've been in the past. It is easy to compensate with the pedals for any yaw excursions that I experienced throughout the course. The NOE course requires considerable pilot compensation in the yaw axis in making heading changes while making turns. It is easy to maintain heading while increasing or decreasing the collective. Moderate pilot compensatlion was required to negotiate the turn properly. The sensitivity seems to be increased a bit. Easy to negotiate tive applications correlation. the course. Collecrequired no pedal

I126/84

Yes

13

1/76/84

No

40

1/26/84

Yes

1.

23

1/26/84

No

32

169

TABLE

G-I.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/26/84

Yes

15

Considerable

compensation

in

the

yaw

axis in negotiating collective to yaw increased 1/26/84 pilot

the turns. Also, coupling required

workload. you

No

24

The sensitivity isn't very high, but still need to be in the loop pretty tight to negotiate aggressiveness. the course with

any

1/26/84

Yes

31

Collective to no compensation easy to

yaw correlation requiring in the yaw axis. It was turns. was very good. turns. required in the It was

negotiate control

1/26/84

Yes

16

Heading very

easy

to negotiate pilot

the

1/26/84

10

Yes

55

Extensive yaw axis, turns.

compensation

especially

in negotiating

1/26/84

Yes

39

I had to I liked.

work The

with the pedals yaw seemed like as it should

more than it wasn't been in

as responsive negotiating. 1/26/84 2

No

have

3O

Minimal compensation, feedback. Moderate course. required. compensation No power to

no

power

to

yaw

1/26/84

Yes

37

to yaw

go through correlation

NOE

1/26/84

NO

24

I could and lack control.

detect of

little

bit in

of the

wallowing heading

preciseness

1/26/84

Yes

21

Every time I would go over a berm and make a large power change, coming back down would require a lot of right pedal to keep the nose where I wanted it. Minimal able to compensation required. keep my speed up fairly I was well.

1/26/84

No

40

170

TABLE

G-I.- Concluded

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot config r uration PR Comments

I126184

No

22

The heading would wobble every time I would make a power change and it took reasonably large pedal applications to correct. There was a lack of preciseness heading control. in

1/26/84

Yes

23

1126184

Yes

51

Considerable compensation due to power to yaw compensation and the apparent unpredictability of the pedals. I had to overcompensate in yaw control to negotiate the course. The first turn was easy the second was reasonable. Very difficult Some power to control. required turn

1/26/84

I0

No

54

1126184

11

No

52

1126/84 1126184

12 13

Yes No

4 4

55 58

to yaw compensation

171

TABLEG-2.- PILOT COMMENTS ONTASK2 (DECELERATION)

Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/17/84

No

26

Heading control not a problem. Again, it's a matter of coordinating the collective. It was evident that the normal directional control motions required order to maintain the hover were increased. The desired heading could

II17/84

Yes

in

1/17/84 1/17/84

8 I

Yes No

3 I

11

be maintained.

Moderate compensation from the sensitivity of the controls increased power workload to stabilize the desired hover point. Tendency to PIO within the collective bounce with the high sensitivity set on them.

1/17/84

Yes

3.5

Takes a little more power workload to stabilize at the desired point. I think some of the compensation might have been on the collective. Controllability becomes questionable.

1/17/84 1/17/84

No Yes

I 3

18 27

No major problems directional. 2

in maintaining

1/17/84

I0

No

34

Directional control not a problem, desired heading could easily be attained.

the

1/17/84

11

No

Decrease in sensitivity caused the heading to wander in the normal collective coupling, in that there was larger than perhapsdesired, pedal displacement.

1/17/84

12

Yes

Oversensitivity in the pedals had a tendency to make me oscillate what I was trying to target for my desired heading.

172

TABLEG-2.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/17/84

13

Yes

13

Aircraft had less of a tendency to wander in heading as the aircraft was decelerating. Not difficult. I entered 10 to 12 knots slower than I have in the previous runs.

1/17/84

14

Yes

1/17/84

No

28

The sensitivity in the pitch is particularly noticeable. On that approach I got down to 3 ft prior to stopping the aircraft's forward motion and along with that some minor yaw excursions. High pilot workload. High pilot workload. Collective response very good. Ability to maintain a desired altitude once established, excellent. Very easy control. Heading control is difficult because the decrease in damping and apparent insensitivity to the controls. No problems. be obtained. desired pedal of

1/17/84

Yes

33

1/17/84 1/18/84

6 I

No No

4 10

1/18/84

Yes

33

Desired performance could Perhaps larger than excursions.

1/18/84

No

2O

Significant difficulty in trying to maintain the desired heading performance. A median frequency bicycling motion back and forth in order to try and keep the nose generally the way we wanted it to go.

1/18/84

Yes

19

Low damping, low control bicycling back and forth

sensitivity, on the pedals.

1/18/84

Yes

17

Easily accomplished, while compensating for the decrease in damping.

173

TABLEG-2.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Commen ts

Date

Run no.

1/18/84

No

18

Adequate damping even though it was low control sensitivity. The desired performance could be obtained without a problem. 4 3 4 Not particularly No problem difficult. performance.

1/18/84 1/18/84 1/16/84

No

14

No No

3
I

20
34

with desired

The collective to yaw coupling inputs required by the pilot are considerable in that area, in that it requires moderate compensation by the pilot to maintain the heading. Very easy and safe to decelerate the aircraft with a nose-up attitude.
I

I116184

Yes

13

Moderate compensation. A very aggressive quick stop maneuver. I find that the controls are sensitive in pitch, roll, and yaw when trying to stabilize a desired altitude at a specific point. Moderate compensations, iCompensation was required in the pitch and roll and I still feel the sensitivity in the pitch and roll axis--it's a bit too much for that particular maneuver.

1/18/84

Yes

1/18/84 1/18/84

No

2O

Minimal compensation. the aircraft.

Easy

to control

Yes

Very hard to stop the aircraft yaw and high sensitivity in the pedals. I ended up overshooting the point. I'm more concerned with the control of the aircraft requiring extensive pilot compensation Just to slow the aircraft and attempt to maintain a heading. Not much compensation required.

1/18/84 1/18/84

Yes Yes

I I

27 17

3 5

Extensive compensation required once slowing some of the airspeed, high power workload in yaw axis to obtain any kind of directional stability.

174

TABLE

G-2:- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

1/18/84

Yes

11

Considerable pilot compensation required once the airspeed slows down. High power workload in the pedals to maintain directional control.

1/18/84

10

NO

12

Significant maintaining No problems.

overcontrol the desired

tendencies in heading 5 .

1/18/84 1/18/84

11 12

Yes Yes

3 3

25 5

3 3

No tendency to overcontrol with the nose altitude in maintaining the desired heading. Damping A piece A piece appeared of cake. of cake. lower.

1/18/84 1/18/84 1/18/84 1/19/84

13 14

NO

3 3 3
3

4 4O 32
24

No No No

15
I

Not a substantial problem. There was not the apparent tendency to overcontrol. No problems with heading tendency to overcontrol. control. No

1/19/84

Yes

31

1/19/84

Yes

29

Heading control not a problem. Large pedal excursions factor. Heavily damped decreased tendency to overcontrol or make it virtually nonexistent.

1/19/84

Yes

15

No significant problems in maintaining heading control and decelerating, Slight tendency to overcontrol on my part, down when we got into the translational environment. No tendency No problems. No real tendency for the nose to wander. for the nose to wander.

1/19/84

Yes

23

1/19/84 1/19/84 1/19/84

Yes No No

39

3 3 3

3
3

3O
22

175

TASLE

G-2.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

1119184 9

Yes

16

Too fast. I started decelerating too late. Tendency to overshoot the area, not overshoot but, in the DECEL to have a higher than perhaps desired nose attitude. That did not adversely affect being able to hold the heading. Really no problems. I had to go back and forth on the pedals to maintain the heading. No particularly abrupt or rapid maneuver. Control is not in question but had to work at doing it.

1/19/84

10

Yes

53

1119184

11

Yes

57

I119184

12

Yes

51

No real major problems. I was able to keep heading under control. Quite nice. The symbology helps a lot. Prefer head up display. Biggest task was getting the nose up high enough so as not to overshoot the desired points. It seemed like it takes a nose-up pitch attitude in order to anticipate and overshoot the desired point of stop.

1/19/84

No

12

1/19/84

Yes

17

4.5

Once I got the aircraft settled down through the first turn and all, the second turn went much better. However, I slowed the airspeed from 40 to 20 knots, I think, which may have been the factor for the improvement. Overall deceleration was acceptable. Heading control was not much of a problem although it was a bit looser in the deceleration in the previous run. Task would be a lot easier if the velocity vector was on HUD rather than PMD where you had to come inside to assist in getting a rate of deceleration. You could get desired performance, with moderate compensation.

_A

1/23/84

Yes

176

TABLE

G-2.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/23/84

No

26

Went to pot, check rather mance. Task could gauge performance

mostly because of crossthan aircraft perforwould be simpler if you your deceleration. was obtainable. required Adequate

1/23/84

Yes

13

Desired ate

performance

just

moder-

compensation.

1/23/84

No

34

I never did switch to the hover mode, but guess it doesn't matter because it didn't have the symbology. Nothing of any significance. Desired performance and just moderate compensation. The heading control was fine. seem to be much

1/23/84 1/23/84

No No

2 2

28 10

Heading control of a problem. Nothing

didn't

1/23/84 1/23/84

7 8

Yes Yes

2 2

5 19

significant

to

point

out

there. the

Heading control transition from Extensive controlling

was very poor during flight to hover. required in

1/24/84

Yes

19

compensation yaw axis.

1/24/84

Yes

Large pedal inputs required to maintain some kind of a straight course. Moderate Yaw axis well. It was during Very compensation controllability required. worked out very

1/24/84 1/24/84

Yes No I

25 12

1/24/84

Yes

39

very easy to maintain the deceleration. to execute the

heading

1/24/84

No

22

easy

quick

stop.

Some compensation was required for yaw excursions due to collective changes. 1/24/84 No

The deceleration No problems with

was yaw

simple and control.

easy.

177

TABLE

G-2.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84 I0 11

No No

2 2

8 4

4 4

No

problems

encountered. problem with visual

Having cues. Not a

a slight

No Yes

4
4

4
18

3
7

lot

of

compensation caused

required. large excur-

Large sions I kept chasing

power changes in heading.

No

12

putting in lots of pedal the yaw movement of the

in nose.

No

26

No particuiar comments. normal deceleration. No large problems due to

Performed

No

yaw.

There

was

a slight amount coupling which ing of 8 .

of collective caused a change

to yaw in head-

1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84

12
13

No

20

No problems heading. The much addition of

in maintaining

aircraft

Yes

13

of

the

wind

did

not

cause

a problem. a lot. I forgot hover mode

14

Yes

27

I overcontrolled the yaw axis The workload was so high that to go from transition mode to on the HUD. Overcontrolled deceleration. Because I was the yaw axis

1/24/84 1/24/84

15

Yes

19

7.

during

the

16

Yes

trying

to

control

altitude

with large collective movements, heading control was off a considerable amount.

1/24/84 I125184

No

14

Deceleration and easy a to

to a hover do.

was

comfortable

Yes

It was without

fairly steady deceleration much problem in yaw axis.

178

TABLE

G-2.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

I125184

No

20

4.5

No problems with yaw control deceleration. The deceleration went fairly

during

1/25/84 1/25/84

Yes Yes

2 2

27 33

smoothly. in yaw

The aircraft was fairly stable during the deceleration. Easily controllable

1/25/84 1/25/84

No

I I

30 28

in yaw axis.

No

Pilot compensation was not a factor, especially in the yaw axis. I have inputs to make a fair amount of pedal to maintain the heading. problems.

1/25/84

Yes

21

1/25/84 1/25/84

I 2

Yes No

4 4

11 28

No particular

There wasn't a lot to do in the yaw axis since there was minimal yaw to collective coupling. There was no substantial collective to yaw coupling and any change in heading was pilot induced. No significant problems, control was fairly easy. 4 5.5 No problems directional

1/25/84

Yes

33

1/26/84

Yes

25

1/26/84 1/26/84

2 3

Yes No

2 2

11 18

with yaw control.

The yaw to collective coupling was fairly noticeable on the start of the deceleration. It was difficult to modulate the nose movement with pedal inputs because the pedals were so sensitive.

1/26/84

Yes

No problems with yaw control during initial stages of deceleration, but the aircraft seemed to want to wander around in heading toward the deceleration termination. Heading was no problem. responded nicely. The aircraft

1/26/84

Yes

38

179

TABLE

G-2.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

1/26/84

Yes

29

I was able well.

to control

the yaw axis

very

1/26/84 1/26/84

I 2

Yes Yes

I I

29 13

I flew this maneuver

very aggressively.

It was relatively easy to maintain a desired heading during the deceleration; however, there was moderate compensation in correlating the yaw to collective coupling. 4 It didn't require much compensation to maintain a desired heading while applying the collective, but if an input were made it required a fair amount of compensation to control the heading. I had to stay in the yaw loop to maintain the desired heading. I was able to stabilize close to the desired heading with a moderate amount of compensation. It required moderate pilot compensation to maintain the desired direction. I was finding also that the yaw has some effects in coupling into the roll axis. Moderate compensation, but I was able to stabilize on approximately the desired heading. Very aggressively flown. Heading trol worked out beautifully. 4 con-

1/26/84

No

4O

1/26/84

Yes

23

1/26/84

Yes

32

1/26/84

Yes

15

1/26/84

No

24

1/26/84

Yes

31

1/26/84

Yes

15

There is not much in terms of pilot workload in yaw and collective. High pilot workload and I also attacked in the quick the maneuver stop, with than

1/26/84

I0

Yes

55

considerably less aggressiveness I've done before. 1/26/84 Yes 4 39 3 No pedal to power by the pilot. compensation

required

180

TABLE
L

G-2.- Concluded

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbufence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

I126/84

No

30

No particular problems. No pilot workload in yaw to keep it on heading. Not much compensation required.

1126184! 1/26/84

Yes No

4 4

37 24

3 3

I am able to hold the nose generally in the right direction and roll out on north at the end of the deceleration. Not a lot of compensation No apparent yaw to power lems that I was required for. There during wasn't much required. coupling probto compensate

1/26/84 1/26/84

Yes No

4 4

21 40

1/26/84

No

22

compensation

required

the deceleration.

1/26/84

Yes

23

The yaw control workload was considerably higher than what I thought it should be. Moderate compensation tain the heading. required to main-

1/26/84

Yes

51

1126/84

10

No

54

It wasn't high on workload. I only wandered off inheading 5-10 . Minimal drift in heading control

1126/84 1/26/84

11 12

No Yes

4 4

52 " 55

I had to reallyconcentrate in making only very small pedal movements. 5 I Yaw to power compensation required.

1/26/84

13

No

58

181

TABLE

G-3.-

PILOT

COMMENTS

ON

TASK

(LOW

HOVER)

Wind/ Date Run no. turbulence Pilot

A/C configuration PR Comments

1/17/84

No

26

Could not command in other words, a The desired turn

the desired tendency to rate could be

turn rate; overshoot. com-

II171841

Yes

_nded, could be (once established), modulated as necessary to speed it up or slow it down. Tendency to overshoot and for aircraft to want to continue in existing 1/17/84 direction. of turn rate was there. The on to

Yes

11

The

trend

primary problem of difficulty was in arresting the heading on the aircraft the desired heading. Tendency again overshoot and to bicycle a bit. Low frequency of rather large magnitudes. 1/17/84 No

Tendency to PIO. Very slow frequency and some minor overshoots of yaw. Light friction on collective. Seems to drift, difficulty in looking at the PMD and trying to keep my position on side and staying on the point. the out-

1/17/84

Yes

Controls

are

a bit

sensitive

and

tend

to

overshoot. Increased pilot workload, moderate compensation. No apparent torque differential across pedals. 1/17/84
No

18

Pitch and roll sensitivity same as before; however, yaw sensitivity increased considerably. Numerous overshoots and also very excessive rates for small pedal inputs. Desired achieved tendency overshoot rate and of turn could be easily controlled, there was a to But be

1/17/84

Yes

27

to undershoot as opposed on the desired heading. performance ease.

again, the desired achieved with some

could

182

TABLEG-3.- Continued
Wind/ Date
_un no.

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

turbulence

1/17/84

10

No

34

The desired rate of turn could be easily achieved and could be modulated quicker or slower, and stopping on the desired heading again could easily be done with no apparent overshoot. The desired turn rate or yaw rate could be easily established and modulated. No tendency to overshoot or undershoot the heading or to adapt to the fact that the large control displacements were required in yaw. As a corollary to that, if one is adapted to smaller magnitude control displacements correlating to some yaw rate, then it is immediately noticeable that to achieve the approximately same yaw rate you have to increase the amount that the pedals are displaced.
i

1/17/84

11

No

1/17/84

12

Yes

5.5

Substantial tendency on overshoot the headings, large opposite direction Large magnitude required to get keep it moving.

my part to requiring a very control input.

1/17/84

13

Yes

13

of pedal displacements the aircraft moving and

1/17/84

14

Yes

Relatively easily attained small heading adjustments Tendency to overshoot.

and modulated needed.

1/17/84

No

28

Problem maintaining the desired position over the ground within 5 ft, so position came probably in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 ft of the desired point. Rate of turns are fairly rapid and little tendency to overshoot and not get on the desired heading. pilot workload, High gains create high

183

TABLE

G-3.-

Continued

Run

Date
no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/17/84

Yes

33

Yaw axis control was no real problem in terms of conducting the turn, stabilizing on the heading. Oscillations in yaw control, possibly PIO, show up in the turn slip indicator and HUD.

1/17/84

No

Problem heading. position

in

returning to the Easier to maintain over the ground.

desired the desired

1/18/84

No

IO

The ability to keep the turn rate modulate the turn rate as you are ing the is extremely damping. difficult because

and turnof

1/18/84

Yes

33

Difficulty because of pedals.

in modulating displacement

yaw rate, required in

1/18/84

No

2o

The desired rate could be easily attained. Tendency to overshoot desired heading.

the

1/18/84

Yes

19

Seems to be some coupling. It seemed like there was a marked lateral drift the out aircraft. in order I attempted to null it to maintain the approximate

in

position. There was also a tendency to undershoot the turns going to the right, and overshoot the turns going to the left. 1/18/84

Yes

17

Tendency

to

generate

higher

than

desired

yaw rate, with a small pedal consequently with the damping

input and being

apparently decreased in that there was a tendency to overshoot the turn and then make a flurry of pedal inputs to try and get in under control and sustain the desired heading. Tendency to overshoot left, undershoot right.

184

TABLEG-3.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/18/84

No

18

Could be accomplished with some of precision over it, in having larger than desired control displacement. Aircraft did not want to turn.

degree it make

1/18/84

No

14

Large it

pedal displacements in order turn. Tendency to undershoot desired target heading.

to make the

1/18/84

No

20

The yaw rate could be and modulated high or rested on the desired significant difficulty.

easily slower heading

attained and then without

1/16/84

No

34

High pilot workload in the pitch and yaw. Sensitivities appear to be high. Difficulty in maintaining position over the ground. Considerable pilot compensation with a

1/16/84

Yes

13

very large tendency to PIO in the lateral axis. Difficulty in maintaining the position over the ground. Very difficult task requiring considerable compensation.

1/18/84

Yes

Maintaining cern to me.

a constant It appears

rate was a conthat a particu-

lar pedal input did not necessarily come up with a rate command. I started, with what I would say, slow turn right at the beginning and ended up with the rate accelerating throughout the turn requiring moderate compensation in the yaw axis to control the rate of turn. Difficult to maintain ground position.

1/18/84

No

20

Easy to establish a desired rate, quick response of the pedals is a nice trait. Nice characteristics in the hovering position turn. Was over ground able to maintain easily.

185

TABLEG-3.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/18/84

Yes

Considerable compensation. Yaw rate built up very rapidly. Very hard to stabilize on the desired heading at the end of the turn. High sensitivity in pedals. Perceived turn rate some drift. and things No problem with that nature.

1/18/84
1/18/84

Yes

27

of

Yes

17

Very sensitive, undamped too. Yaw control required extensive pilot compensation. Orientation over the point for me was not possible with the yaw rate that I ended up achieving. High sensitivity in the yaw axis. Again it seems to create problems, as far as I am concerned. Crawling out of the desired heading with a good roll rate or yaw rate established extensive pilot compensation. And, once on the heading again, extensive pilot compensation required to maintain that heading. The desired rate could easily be obtained. Some slight difficulty in modulating the rate, slowing or speeding it up and stopping on the desired heading. The desired rate could could be modulated and desired heading workload. without be achieved arrested on intolerable or it the

1/18/84

Yes

11

1/18/84

10

No

12

1118/84

11

Yes

25

1/18184

12

Yes

Relatively easily accomplished. Damping and control sensitivity reasonably matched. The aircraft is not as quick as might necessarily be desired. I'd like the time constant to be a little shorter on turns were not affect this, but nonetheless the easily established and did the stationkeeping task. no real major

I118/84

13

No

14

Easily accomplished, problem.

186

TABLEG-3.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence Pilot A/C configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/18/84

14

No

4O

Because of the slowness of the yaw rate at full control defection, stationkeeping could be very, very precise. You have the ability to stop and start the yaw rate. There was really only one yaw rate that you could obtain, stopping on the desired heading could be easily accomplished. No No or problem whatsoever. over-

1/18/84 1/19/84 1/19/84

15
I

No No

3 3

32 24

real tendency to overcontrol or undershoot the desired heading.

Yes

31

I could get the rate I wanted, modulate the rate slower or faster, and stop on the desired heading. There was no tendency to overshoot. However, it did not seem to respond as quickly as perhaps was desired. Larger than desired pedal displacements to generate the yaw rate. The desired yaw rate could be modulated. Slow or faster, it did require relatively larger pedal displacements in some other configurations. Not any great workload as far directional axis is concerned. as the In

1/19/84

Yes

24

1/19/84

Yes

15

yawing aircraft, in generating the yaw rate it seemed like it was inducing a translation about the area, requiring considerable workload as far as the cyclic was concerned in tain the Rover position. trying to main-

1/19/84

Yes

23

Not much different than previous configuration except required less effort as the translation was of a lesser magnitude.

187

TABLEG-3.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot confi urati n PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/19/84

Yes

39

Less of a tendency to translate while yawing. Could easily concentrate or split concentration between stationkeeping and going up to the heading, maintaining a constant yaw rate and stopping on the desired heading. Starting with run 5, I started using the trim button more, push release button and ensuring once I got that, I'd hit it a couple times to make sure that I had it all squared away, and then Iid do the pedal turns. I found in doing that I'm translating all over the place. I had not been doing that as much in the previous run. Could easily do low turn.

1/19/84

No

.3O

1/19/84

No

22

I could accurately stationkeep to make the turns, modulate the rates, stop on the desired headings and still remain precise in staying in the bob-up position.

1/19/84

Yes

16

In this and did maintain trimming

particular the turns precise doesn't

case, did not re-trim and was still able to stationkeeping, so seem to be a factor.

1/19/84

10

Yes

53

Other than the fact that they are highly sensitive, could generate larger rates very easily. Had the tendency to go back and forth on the pedals, in order to maintain the desired yaw rate.

1/19/84

11

Yes

57

In trying to obtain a rapid yet controlled rate, control was in question. Significant tendency to overcontrol the aircraft. Not able to maintain performance standard and actually did descend into the ground while trying to maintain and control the aircraft.

188

TABLE

G-3.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/19/84

12

Yes

51

There was a snappiness, a good crispness to the yaw rate. I was able to control it while keeping it going, speed it up, slow it down, stop on the desired heading. No real tendency to over- or undershoot the desired heading. Some tendency to translate in position over the surface, however certainly controllable without any major work load. Problems looking faster and turn really had. at PMD. Tendency greater than what to I go

1/19/84

No

12

1/19/84

Yes

17

Task was easy but display setup limited performance. Problems with position control. A lot of jerking, necessitating more control applications to cyclic. Tendency to overcontrol. Desired performance requiring moderate pilot compensation and a little bit of difficulty with position retention. The aircraft wanting to drift, primarily laterally, it seemed like in the turn. I would perceive the velocity vector moving out to the side, but the sensitivity seemed to be such that it took quite a bit of lateral stick to correct for that.

1/23/84

Yes

1/23/84

No

26

2.5

Quite easy. Virtually no altitude control necessary. Biggest workload was trying to keep a stable rate of turn and I kept several times trying to change the rate or to decrease it a little bit based upon Satisfactory what I saw visually. without improvement.

1/23/84

_'es

13

It took more pedal pressure to establish the turn and keep it going and I found because of that it seemed like my turn rate was slower. Position retention was worse, lateral but still satisfactory. A lot of displacement.

18q

TABLE

G-3.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/23/841

No

34

Real comfortable, the cues were good. felt it was much better this time just looking outside about the rate and having the overall control of me flying the airplane rather than flying the target gauge. More comfortable controlling the rate of the turn.

1/23/84

No

28

The

rate

of

control

seems

much

better than

looking out of the cockpit rather using the panel-mounted display.

1/23/84

No

10

I felt good about the rate of turn and good about the position retention. I was able to start and stop the turns smoothly looking outside while incorporating the panel-mounted display information into the task. Comfortable hover and comfortable turns, but aircraft was a little loose in attitude control. It also wobbled around a bit. There was slow down a tendency for the aircraft to in the turn. There was also a

1/23/84

Yes

1/23/84

Yes

19

tendency for the aircraft to drift away from the pivot point. I was not perceiving the drift visually, although it seemed significant on the PMD. I frequently had to chase the drift correction.

1/24/84

Yes

19

Very nice crispness in generating a good yaw rate. Moderate compensation is required to stabilize at the desired heading with only one or two overshoots. Once you put the pedal input in, a rapid yaw rate builds up. It takes a considerable amount of opposite pedal input to stop the yaw rate and there's a tendency to overshoot numerous times before you're able to stabilize on a heading.

1/24/84

Yes

190

TABLE

G-3.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/24/84

Yes

25

You can desired required the yaw It was desired

pretty much stabilize in the heading. Small overshoots considerable compensation in axis. very easy to turn rate. stabilize on the

1/24/84

No

12

1/24/84

Yes

39

Very easy to stop on desired heading. Aircraft did not generate the kind of rates that I would like to see. Very easy to roll out on desired heading, although I cannot generate the kind of yaw rates that I would like to see with full pedal input. The was ability pretty to stop good. on a precise heading

1/24/84

No

22

1/24/84

No

1/24/84

No

Became slightly motion cues and the PMD.

confused the cues

between the displayed on

1/24/84

No

Aircraft

characteristics

were

excellent, use

but I became both outside simultaneously. 1/24/84

confused when trying to visual cues and the PMD

No

Was able to performance. Did not

get

satisfactory

1/24/84

Yes

18

overshoot

or

lag

much

during

the

pedal 1/24/84 No 4 12

turns. input caused attention therefore,

Very small amounts of pedal large yaw rates. All of my was directed to that aspect; altitude and position in making

degraded. the low hover

1/24/84

10

No

26

No problems turns. Was the able

1/24/84

11

No

to maintain but yaw

exact rate

position slower.

over

ground,

was

191

T#BLE

G-3.-

Continued

Date

Runi
no. !

Wind/ turbulence

AIC Pilot confLgurat[on PR

! !
I Comments

I/24/84

12

No

20

It only took a small amount of pedal to get the turn going. There wasn't a lot of lag in it, and I was able to generate the rate reasonably well and stop it without moving away from the reference point. I kept fixating on trying to maintain position over the ground, thereby letting all other control tasks deteriorate. Yaw axis workload. by itself was not that high But with the wind factored all of the yaw the axis, precise axis was degraded a in

1/24/84

13

Yes

13

1/24/84

14

Yes

27

controlling control of somewhat.

1/24/84

15

Yes

19

I wasn't altitude turns.

able to maintain while initiating

position or the hover

1/24/84 1/24/84

16

Yes

Was trying hard craft control.

just

to maintain

air-

No

14

Pedal displacement and little bit high, which rather slow turn.

pressure resulted

was a in a

1/25/84

Yes

I thought the sensitivity of the pedals was way too high. I wasn't able to modulate the pedals such that I could ever get to a steady state in yaw. The pedal predictability was bad. The yaw coordination, the pedal pressure, and force required for a steady rate turn was very good. I was able to modulate the forces and change the turn rate to get just what I wanted quite easily. I was also able to stop exactly where I wanted to. Just a slight bit of difficulty modulating the turn rate due to added wind/turbulence. in the

1/25/84

No

20

1/25/84

Yes

27

192

TABLE

G-3.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/25/84

Yes

33

I seemed able to establish a turn and keep a fairly constant turn rate going and stop it where I wanted to, but there was extensive compensation in trying to maintain aircraft position at the same time. 2 Very easy to stabilize on the desired heading, and also very easy to generate the kind of rates I like to see with pedal displacement. and

1/25/84

No

3O

1/25/84

No

28

Very easy to generate desired rates roll out on the desired heading.

1/25/84

Yes

21

I didn't like the maximum pedal rates-the sensitivity is too low. There is a tendency to overshoot once you get to the desired heading. I didn't feel that I was as much in

1/25/84

Yes

11

control of the yaw rate as I would like, but I was able to accomplish the task. 1/25/84 2
No

28

A small amount of pedal gave me an appropriate amount of yaw rate that I was used to and was able to control. Altitude control was somewhat of a

1/26/84

Yes

25

problem in ground effect. I used the panel-mounted display probably 80% of the time. 1/26/84 2 Yes 2 11 3 Primarily used panel-mounted the maneuver. display for

1/26/84

No

18

The yaw rate was a problem. Because of the sensitivity of the pedals, a very slight input caused the yaw axis to go too fast. It was kind of difficult to slow it down or change it. 7 It takes a lot of pedal pressure and displacement to stop the yaw response to modulate it. It is very unpredictable.

1/26/84

Yes

or

193

TABLE

G-3.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/26/84

Yes

38

The yaw rate once established right. I felt, though, that too much pedal pressure when make a pedal input.

was all there was I wanted to

1/26/84

Yes

29

The yaw rate was basically fine, but the ability to modulate and change the yaw rate was not as good as I would like it to be. I liked the crispness build up a yaw rate, pedals are a bit too with which you but I feel the sensitive. can

1/26/84

Yes

29

1/26/84

Yes

13

It is very easy to generate the kind of yaw rates that I would like to see and it is also very easy to stabilize on the desired heading with very little overshoot. Very nice to get a rapid acceleration and end up with a high constant rate. However, when you want to stop on a desired heading you end up with several overshoots of Z6-8 .

1/26/84i

No

4O

1/26/84

Yes

23

The pedal sensitivity bit too much and the into a constant rate

was rate turn

Just a little of washout was too

quick. There is also a tendency to overshoot when rolling out on the desired heading. 1/26/84 Yes 32 I would aircraft faster. 1/26/84 Yes like in to the be yaw able axis to move a little the bit

15

Able to establish on desired heading without any overshoots or minimal overshoots in magnitude, but very hard to maintain position over the ground. I would like to see increased sensitivity in the pedals.

194

TABLE

G-3.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

AIC configuration

PR

Comments

1/26/84

No

24

Damping looks good, but I would like to see a little bit more rate for the amount of pedal displacement. Initial accelerations are good, but I still don't have the kind of yaw rates that I would like to see. Damping is very good. Easy to roll out on heading, but I would like to see an increase in the yaw rate. Very easy to build up a very rapid rate (even excessive). To arrest that rate, it required extensive pilot workload. I put in pedal, the rate would build up nicely and then would fall off. I would have to put in more pedal to get the rate up to where I wanted it. I had to put in more pedal than I thought I should to get the thing turned. Once the rate built up, it was where I wanted it. A little bit more pedal than I would like to have to put in to build up the yaw rate, but the yaw rate got there reasonably fast and stayed there. I was able to reasonably develop rate, but the pedals felt a tad sluggish. a yaw

1/26/84

Yes

31

1/26/84

Yes

15

1/26/84

10

Yes

55

1/26/84

Yes

39

1126184

No

30

1/26/84

Yes

37

1/26/84

No

24

1/26/84

Yes

21

I felt that I got an inadequate yaw rate even though it stayed reasonably constant. Not as quick or crisp as I would like, but once the rate built up it was predictable. I also had to fine tune the pedals to get the performance I wanted.

I126/84

No

40

195

TABLEG-3.- Concluded
Wind/ turbulence AIC configuration

Date

Run no.

Pilot

PR

Commen ts

1/26/84

NO

22

I had to put in a lot of pedal to get the amount of turn rate that I wanted and I was not able the heading. to precisely control

1/26/84

Yes

23

There was a lack of precision in the pedals. The amount of pedal required throughout the turn varied. It had to continually make small medium corrections in the pedals order to keep the turn going. to in

1/26/84

Yes

51

1/26/84

10

NO

54

A given amount of pedal would develop a yaw rate and then that rate would seem to wander off or speed up depending on where I was in the turn. The cyclic workload the turn rate down. forced me to slow

1/26/84 1/26/84 1126/84

11

NO

52

12

Yes

55

Because of the type of control system, had to do the task a lot slower. The cyclic work load caused me to degrade my yaw performance.

13

NO

58

196

TABLE G-4.-

PILOT

COMMENTS

ON TASK 4 (HIGH HOVER)

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

1117184 1117184

6 7

No

3 3

26 3

No question

of good

controllability.

Yes

The desired turn rate could be commanded once established, and modulated as necessary to speed it up or slow it down. Tendency to overshoot--desire for aircraft to want to continue in existing direction. Loss of visual near field cues that help you target on the desired heading increased pilot workload. The trend of turn rate was there. The primary problem of difficulty was in arresting the heading on the aircraft on the desired heading. Tendency to overshoot and to bicycle a bit. Low frequency of rather large magnitude.

1/17/84

Yes

11

1/17/84

No

Tendency to PIO. Very slow frequency and some minor overshoots of yaw. Light friction on collective. Seems to drift. Difficulty in looking at the PMD and trying to keep my position on the outside and staying on the point.

1/17/84

Yes

3.5

Controls

are a bit sensitive

and tend to

overshoot. Increased power workload, moderate compensation. No apparent torque differential across pedals. 1/17/84

NO

18

Takes a high-pilot workload to maintain the desired heading with power change compared to other configurations. Increased yaw sensitivity. Numerous overshoots and also very excessive rates for small pedal inputs. Desired rate of turn could be easily achieved and controlled. There was a tendency to undershoot as opposed to overshoot on the desired heading. But again, the desired performance could be achieved with some ease.

1/17/84

Yes

27

197

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Wind/ Date
Run no.

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

turbulence

1/17/84

10

No

34

The desired rate of turn could achieved and could be modulated or slower, and stopping on the

be easily quicker desired

heading again could easily be done with no apparent overshoot. Primarily the loss of near field keys from the imagery due to out of ground effect hovering tended to degrade ability to hold heading. 1/17/84 11
No

The desired turn rate or yaw rate could be easily established and modulated. No tendency to overshoot or undershoot the heading or to be adapted to the fact that the large control displacements were required in yaw. As a corollary to that, if one is adapted to smaller magnitude control displacements correlating to some yaw rate, then it is immediately noticeable to achieve the same yaw rate you have to increase the amount that the pedals are displaced. More concentration required performance. to get the

1/17/84

12

Yes

5.5

desired heading to overshoot. 1/17/84

Tendency

13

Yes

13

No real significant erable work load.

difficulty

or

intol-

1/17/84

13

Yes

Relatively easily attained and modulated. Small heading adjustments needed. Increase field Tendency to in workload and overshoot. due to loss visual of cues. near

visuals,

hence

1/17/84

No

28

Rate of turns are fairly rapid and little tendency to overshoot and not get on the desired heading. High gains create high pilot workload. Difficult to maintain desired altitude. Didn't seem to be the yaw control. a problem as far as

1/17/84

Yes

33

198

TABLE

G-4.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

1/17/84

No

Problem in returning heading. IO

to the desired

1/18/84

No

The ability to keep the turn rate and modulate the turn rate as you are turning is extremely difficult.

I118184

Yes

33

Difficulty in modulation yaw rate because of large displacements. The desired rate could be easily attained and was potentially desired. Tendency to overshoot the desired heading. Seems to be some coupling. It seemed like there was a marked lateral drift in the aircraft. It attempted to be nulled out in order to maintain the approximate position. There was also a tendency to undershoot the turns going to the right and overshoot those to the left. Tendency to generate higher than desired yaw rate, with a small pedal input and consequently with the damping being apparently decreased it appeared that there was a tendency to overshoot the turn and then a flurry of pedal inputs to try and get under control and sustain the desired heading. Tendency to overshoot left and undershoot right. Tendency turn. to overshoot and undershoot the

1/18/84

No

2O

1/18/84

Yes

19

1/18/84

Yes

17

1/18/84

No

18

81/18/84

No

14

Aircraft did not want to turn. Large pedal displacements in order to make it turn. Tendency to undershoot the desired target heading. A bit more work than the low turn; within a tolerable limit. still

1/18/84

No

2O

3.5

199

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/16/84

No

34

High pilot workload axis. Sensitivities

in the appear

pitch and to be

yaw

high. Difficulty in maintaining tion over the ground. 1/16/84 2 Yes

posi-

13

Considerable pilot compensation with a very large tendency to PIO in the lateral axis. Difficulty in maintaining the position over the ground. Very difficult task requiring considerable compensation.

1/18/84

Yes

Maintaining cern to me.

a constant It appears

rate was a conthat a particucome to

lar pedal input did not necessarily up with a rate command. Difficult maintain ground position. 1/18/84 2 No 20

Easy to response trait. hovering position

establish a desired rate. Quick of the pedals is a nice Nice characteristics in the turn. Was able to over ground easily. maintain

1/18/84

Yes

Considerable compensation. Yaw rate built up very rapidly. Very hard to stabilize on the desired heading at the end of the turn. High sensitivity in pedals.

1/18/84

Yes

27

Perceived turn rate

some and

drift. things of

No

problem

with

that

nature.

1/18/84

Yes

17

Very sensitive, undamped too. Yaw required extensive pilot compensation. Orientation over the point, for me, was not up possible achieving. with the yaw rate I ended

200,

TABLE

G-4.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Piiot

AIC configuration

PR

Comments

1/18/84

Yes

11

High sensitivity in the yaw axis. Again it seems to create problems, as far as I am concerned. Crawling out of the desired heading with a good roll rate or yaw rate established extensive pilot compensation. And, once on the heading again, extensive pilot compensation required to maintain that heading. 3.5 Easier as far as obtaining precision in starting and stopping the aircraft on the desired heading. Not appreciably different from the low turns. Did feel some lateral, some perceived lateral oscillations shaking the aircraft. Means that the linear not angular type oscillations, perhaps indicative of turbulence. Orientation over the point for me was not possible with the yaw rate that I ended up achieving.

1118184

IO

No

12

1/18/84

11

Yes

25

1/18/84

Yes

11

High sensitivity in the yaw axis. Again it seems to create problems, as far as I am concerned. Crawling out of the desired heading with a good roll rate or yaw rate established extensive pilot compensation. And, once on the heading again, extensive pilot compensation required to maintain that heading. 3.5 Easier as far as for precision in starting and stopping the aircraft on the desired heading. Not appreciably different from the low turns. Did feel some lateral, some perceived lateral oscillations shaking the aircraft--means that the linear not angular type oscillations, perhaps indicative of turbulence or whatever, those did not affect the performance of the task.

1/18/84

IO

No

12

1/18/84

11

Yes

25

201

TABLEG-4.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C configuration

Date

Run no.

Pilot

PR

Comments

1/18/84 1/18/84

12

Yes

..

Relatively easily accomplished. No problem starting and stopping the turn. No noticeable difference in the ability to do the turns in-ground effect or outer-ground effect. Desired heading obtained. could be easily

13

No

14

1/18/84 1/18/84 1/19/84 1/19/84

14

No

4O

15 I

No

32 24

3 3

No problem

whatsoever.

No

No real tendency to overcontrol or overor undershoot the desired heading. I could get the rate I wanted to, modulate the rate slower or faster, and stop on the desired heading. There was no tendency to overshoot. However, it did not seem to respond as quicklyas perhaps was desired. Larger than desired pedal displacements.

Yes

31

1/19/84 1/19/84

3 4

Yes Yes

24 15

4 4

Not any great workload as far as the directional axis is concerned. In generating the yaw rate it seemed like it was importing a translation about the area requiring considerable workload as far as the cyclic is concerned in trying to maintain the hover position.

1/19/84

Yes

23

Not much different than previous configuration except required less effort as the translation was of a lesser magnitude. Less of a tendency to translate while yawing. Could easily concentrate or split concentration between stationkeeping and going up to the heading, maintaining a constant yaw rate and stopping on the desired heading. Could easily do high turn and stay within 5-10 ft of the desired location.

1/19/84

Yes

39

1/19/84

No

30

202

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/19/84

No

22

I could accurately stationkeep to make the turns, modulate the rates, stop on the desired headings and still remain precise in staying in the bob-up position. In this and did maintain trimming particular the turns precise doesn't case did not and was still re-trim able to

I119/84

Yes

16

stationkeeping, so seem to be a factor.

1/19/84

I0

Yes

53

Other than the fact that they are highly sensitive, could generate larger rates very easily. Had the tendency to go back and forth on the pedals in order to maintain the desired yaw rate. get the Tendency

1/19/84

11

Yes

57

Had to work substantially to kind of performance I wanted. to overcontrol and overshoot.

1/19/84

12

Yes

51

There

was

a snappiness,

a crispness

to

the yaw rate. I was able to control it while keeping it going, slowing it down, speeding it up, stopping on the desired heading. No real tendency to overor undershoot the desired heading. Some tendency to translate a position over the surface. However, certainly controllable with no major pilot workload. 1/19/84 2
No

12

Problems looking faster and turn really had.

at PMD. Tendency greater than what

to I

go

1/19/84

Yes

17

Task was easy but display set-up limited performance. Problems with position control. A lot of Jerking--necessitated more control applications to cyclic. Tendency to overcontrol.

2O3

TABLEG-4.- Continued Wind/ Run turbuno. lence Yes A/C configuration

Date

Pilot

PR

Comments

1/23/84

Desired performance requiring moderate pilot compensation and a little bit of difficulty with position retention--the aircraft wanting to drift, primarily laterally, it seemed like in the turn. I would perceive the velocity vector moving out to the side, but the sensitivity seemed to be such that it took quite a bit of lateral stick to correct for that. Quite easy. Virtually no altitude control necessary. Biggest workload was trying to keep a stable rate of turn and I kept trying to change the rate or to decrease it a little bit based upon what I saw visually. Satisfactory without improvement. It took more pedal pressure the turn and keep it going because of that, it seemed rate was slower. Position worse, lateral to establish and I found like my turn retention was A lot of

1/23/84!

No

26

2.5

1/23/84

Yes

13

but still satisfactory. displacement. as for low

1/23/84 1/23/84

NO

34

Cues weren't as good It felt quite good. The rate of control

hover.

NO

28

seems

much

better than

looking out of the cockpit rather using the panel-mounted display.

1/23/84

NO

10

I felt good about the rate of turn and good about the position retention. I was able to start and stop the turns smoothly looking outside while incorporating the panel-mounted display information into the task. There all. was no vibration or wobbling at

1/23/84 1/23/84

Yes

Yes

19

I spent more time looking was able to make adequate corrections.

at the drift

PMD

and

204

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/24/84

Yes

19

Very nice crispness in generating a good yaw rate. Moderate compensation is required to stabilize at the desired heading with only one or two overshoots. Once you put the pedal input in, a rapid yaw rate builds up. It takes a considerable amount of opposite pedal input to stop the yaw rate, and there's a tendency to overshoot numerous times before you're able to stabilize on a heading. You can desired required the yaw It was desired pretty much stabilize in the heading. Small overshoots considerable compensation in axis. very easy to stabilize turn rate. on the

1/24/84

Yes

1/24/84

Yes

25

1/24/84

No

12

1/24/84

Yes

39

Very easy to stop on the desired heading. Aircraft did not generate the kind of rates that I would like to see.

I124/84

No

22

Very easy to roll out on the desired heading, although I cannot generate kind of yaw rates that I would like see with full pedal input.

the to

1124/84

No

The ability to stop on a precise heading was good. I felt that the position retention was a bit off due to the lack of visual cues. Became slightly motion cues and the PMD. Spent more time lack of outside Had no within Did not confused the cues between the displayed on

1/24/84

No

1/24/84

No

on the visual

PMD due cues.

to

the

1/24/84

No

problem in keeping the the constraints box. overshoot or lag much

aircraft

1/24/84

Yes

18

during

the

pedal

turns.

205

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/24/84

No

12

Very small amounts of pedal input caused large yaw rates. All of my attention was directed to that aspect, therefore A/C altitude and horizontal position suffered. 3 3 No problem making the high hover turn.

1/24/84 1/24/84

I0 II

No No

4 4

26 6

Lack of visual cues did not compromise my ability to hold over a single point while doing the turn. I thought the sensitivity of the pedals was way too high. I wasn't able to modulate the pedals'such that I could ever get to a steady state in yaw. The pedal predictability was very bad. The yaw coordination, the pedal sure, and force required for a rate turn was very good. I was modulate the forces and change rate to get Just what I wanted. pressteady able to the turn

1/25/84

Yes

1/25/84

No

20

1/25/84

Yes

27

Just a slight bit of difficulty in modulating the turn rate due to the addedwind/turbulence. I seemed able to establish a turn and keep a fairly constant turn rate going and stop it where I wanted to, but there was extensive compensation in trying to maintain aircraft position at the same time. Very easy to stabilize on the desired heading, and also very easy to generate the kind of rates I like to see with pedal displacement. and

1/25/84

Yes

33

1/25/84

No

30

1/25/84

No

28

Very easy to generate desired rates roll out on the desired heading.

206

TABLE
I

6-4.- Continued

Date

Run
no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

I125184

Yes

21

I didn't like the maximum pedal rates. The pedal sensitivity is too low. There is a tendency to overshoot once you get to the desired heading. While performing the task I could not maintain tolerances that were respective of adequate performance. A small amount of pedal gave me the appropriate amount of yaw rate that I was used to and was able to control. The pilot workload was somewhat affected by the requirement to pay a little more attention to altitude. Primarily used panel-mounted the maneuver. display for

1125184

Yes

11

1/25184

No

28

1/26/84

Yes

25

1/26/84
1126/84

Yes

11

NO

18

The yaw rate was a problem because of the sensitivity of the pedals; a very slight input caused the yaw axis to go too fast. It was kind of difficult to slow it down or change it. It takes a lot of pedal pressure and displacement to stop the yaw response to modulate it. It is very unpredictable.

1/26/84

Yes

or

1126184

Yes

38

I felt too much pressure in the breakout forces when I wanted to make pedal inputs. There was kind of a disharmony required for the turns in both directions. I tended to overshoot in forces

1/26/84

Yes

29

1126/84

Yes

29

one or two oscil-

lations before stabilizing on the desired heading. This aspect required considerable pilot compensation.

207

TABLE

G-4.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/26/84

Yes

13

It is very easy to generate the kind of yaw rates that I would like to see and it is also very easy to stabilize on the desired heading with very little overshoot. Very nice to get a rapid acceleration and end up with a high constant rate. The pedal sensitivity bit too much and the into a constant rate quick. There is also overshoot when rolling desired heading. was rate turn a just a little of overshoot was too

1/26/84

No

40

1/26/84

Yes

23

tendency to out on the

1/26/84

Yes

32

I would aircraft faster.

like in

to the

be yaw

able axis

to move a little

the bit

1/26/84

Yes

15

Able to establish on desired heading without any overshoots or minimal overshoots in magnitude, but very hard to maintain position over the ground. I would like to see increased sensitivity in the pedals. Damping looks good, but I would like see a little bit more rate for the amount of pedal displacement. are kind good, but of yaw. I
_6

1/26/84

No

24

to

1/26/84

Yes

31

Initial accelerations still don't have the Damping is very on heading, but increase in the

1/26/84

Yes

15

good. Easy to roll I would like to see yaw rate. up To a very arrest pilot

out an

1/26/84

10

Yes

55

Very easy to build (even excessive). it required

rapid rate that rate workload.

extensive

1/26/84

Yes

39
I

I had pedals wanted

to continually fine tune the to get the yaw rate where I it.

208

TABLE

G-4.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/26/84

No

30

I had to put in more pedal than I thought I should to get the aircraft turned. Once the rate built up, it was where I wanted it. A little bit more pedal than I would like to have to put in to build up the yaw rate, but the yaw rate got there reasonably fast and stayed there. The yaw control wasn't as I thought it should quite be. as precise

1/26/84

Yes

37

1/26/84

No

24

1/26/84

Yes

21

The workload was greater in the pedals because I felt that I had to change pedal position to maintain the desired yaw rate. No particular difference and the low hover turn. crisp as I would like. between this Not as quick or

1/26/841

Yes

40

1/26/84

No

22

I had to put in a lot of pedal to get the amount of turn rate that I wanted and I was not able to precisely control the heading. The effect of weathercock more apparent than during effect hover. 5 stability was the in-ground-

1/26/84

Yes

23

1/26/84

Yes

51

I had to continually make small to medium corrections in the pedals in order to keep the turns going. The weathercock tendency was worsethan the low hover but the work load was not any more extensive. The cyclic workload forced me to slow my turn rate down. I instinctively brought down the yaw rate until I could get the aircraft under control. I let the yaw rates build up too fast.

1/26/84

I0

No

54

1/26/84

11

No

52

1/26/84

12

Yes

55

209

TABLE

G-4.-

Concluded

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

I126/84

13

No

58

The cyclic workload my yaw performance.

caused

me

to

degrade

210

TABLE G-5.-

PILOT COMMENTS

ON TASK 5 (TARGET

ACQUISITION)

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

Pilot

A/C configuration

PR

Comments

1117/84

No

26

Tendency to overshoot and have to come back. Compromise to performance of that one and while the desired rate of quickness was there, the tendency to overshoot it is what has caused the tracking problem. Not rated. Tendency to overshoot caused difficulty in _intaining the retical on the target.

1/17/84 1/17/84

7 8

Yes Yes

3 3 11

1/17/84

No

Ran out of fingers to control all the functions on the cyclic stick. I had to release the force gradient disable switch to move to the attack display mode and then had to use the same to hit the missile fire switch, resulting in a late fire. If you want to fly with the force gradient off you have to use your thumb and workload goes up considerably.

1/17/84

Yes

Easy to acquire the target as the left gradient was on. Target easily tracked initially as well. Tendency to overshoot when swinging around to acquire the target. Aircraft tends to drift a bit too much. No comments. Apparent vibrations perceived while flight did not adversely affect the stationkeeping task. Controllability No comment. not a problem.

1/17/84 1/17/84

No

1 3

18 27

Yes

1117/84 1/17/84

10 II

_0

3 3

34 6

No

211

TABLEG-5.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

RLIn nO.

1/17/84

12

Yes

Sensitive. The task of arresting the yaw rate and getting it going in the opposite direction to follow along with the task required considerable effort with a tendency to overshoot. Control reversals and the magnitude of the pedal displacements and trying to arrest the turn rate in one direction and immediately bad. get it started in another were

1/17/84

13

Yes

13

Best performance so far as the ability to keep the retical on the air target, where there is learning on my part because of the apparent sluggishness of the aircraft. There is less of a tendency to overshoot in trying to rapidly displace the nose on the retical in the vicinity of the target and then fine trim. Seeming lateral shake in the aircraft. Initially commanding a rather large yaw, a high rate yaw excursion, arresting it, and then going back to tracking the airto-air target. No tendency to overshoot. Damping appeared adequate. Did acquire target in cross hairs. Difficult to release the force gradient and have full control of the aircraft and I am physically limited in the ability to re-orient the head depth display to fire power and also to launch the missile, and that I cannot disable the force gradient and perform those two functions simultaneously. Not rated.

1/17/84

14

Yes

1/17/84

No

28

1117184

Yes

33

212

TABLEG-5.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence AIC Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/17/84

NO

Tendency to overshoot through the target before you could stabilize on the target. Once stabilized on the target, you get the perspective of the velocity of which the target is moving across the front. Tracking ability becomes considerably easier. Initial acquisition is a real problem there. Moderate pilot compensation required. Tendency to overshoot with large ,m%gnitude pedal displacements at a full control motion, at moderate frequency back and forth. Because of the large pedal displacements, there was a tendency to undershoot, or perhaps overshoot, essentially lagging the target in trying to track, because of pedal motions. Tendency to under- and overshoot the target while trying to maintain the necessary yaw rate to track it. Marked tendency to undershoot and you had to sort of creep up to it to place the retical on the target. Tendency to overshoot the target and in recognizing the overshoot, then the compensation would be not to put in such a large pedal input and then through the tracking task, it appeared that the retical was lagging behind the target. Relatively low apparent damping and high sensitivity. Initial tendency to overshoot the target. A large right yaw rate imparted to the aircraft, it was arrested and then a left yaw rate was commenced to track the target. Initially, there was lagging behind the target and then I was able to modulate the rate so as to track the target.

1/18/84

NO

I0

1/18/84

Yes

33

1118/84

No

2O

1/18/84

Yes

19

1/18/84

Yes

17

1/18/84

No

18

213

TABLEG-5.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no.

1/18/84

No

14

5.5

The tracking task was compromised by the inability for the aircraft to respond rapidly enough. The desired damping is there, but is inhibiting trying to get the aircraft to respond with any degree of rapidity, consequently always lagging behind the target with the retical. Performance was not compromised by the directional handling capability. Rapid yaw displacement at a high rate, followed by that being arrested and then a yaw rate to the right to begin to track the target. No problems in the rate reversal; there was an initial tendency to undershoot the target. Moderate compensation required, tendency to minor PIO in the yaw axis trying to engage the target and maintain the aircraft orientation on the target throughout the tracking task. Small roll inputs also tend to cause the slip indicator to go from large excursion outside the number lines which is very distracting in head-up display the way it's set right now. Initial acquisition required moderate compensation, followed by continuous inputs in the yaw axis to maintain the desired track on the target. Considerable compensation required for initial target acquisition then tracking required moderate compensation. Tracking required extensive compensation at a range because of the high sensitivity in the pedals. You have to be very tight in the loop to ensure target acquisition and maintain the proper track.

I118184

No

20

1116184

No

34

1/16/84

Yes

13

1/18/84

Yes

1/18/84

No

20

214

TABLE

G-5.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/18/84

Yes

Maximum amount of pilot compensation required. Unable to acquire and hold the target. I had quite a tendency to overshoot. Almost undamped oscillations about the target to the point that you could not lock on.

1/18/84

Yes

27

Had

to

lower

the

nose

of

the

aircraft

to

maintain the target aircraft in the cross, consequently resulting in a drift across the ground. Controllability in the yaw axis was there once I was able to acquire the target, I was able to maintain track on the target. 1/18/84

Yes

17

Unable to acquire time constraints

the target within the and unable to launch a against to high of the

missile. Part of it was working the force gradient contributing power workload, and that's part

physical constraints in the cyclic stick--unable to disengage the force gradient while you are trying to activate your fire control mode, then switch it on the cyclic or thumb operation. 1/18/84 1/18/84

6
10

Yes No 3

11 12

Not

rated.

Not appreciably degraded one way or another. Concentration required in the directional axis of the target tracking task. There was an initial tendency to overshoot. I was able then to track the target without difficulty with some tendency to bicycle on the pedals in trying to vernier the control.

215

TAELEG-5.Wind/ turbulence

Continued

A/C
Pilot configurati.)n

Date

Run no.

PR

Comments

1118184

11

Yes

25

4.5

Stationkeeping performance seriously degraded by the

was not directional

handling qualities. The tracking task, however, was less than desired. Damping coupled with the apparent control sensitivity, there was a tendency in keeping the retical on the target to walk it back and forth. In the majority of times, the target was underneath the retical symbol pretty much most of the time. 1118184 12 Yes

Easily accomplished, the rate reversal yawing left, first right target initially appeared from the left was easily accomplished. It took a bit of adjustment when I verniered it and matched yaw rates and tracked the target with some ease. Still had to mentally anticipate and put in a larger than desired pedal motion.

1118184

13

No

14

3.5

Perhaps in anxiousness there is nothing more, just a tendency to overcontrol in trying to vernier the retical on the target, but got the rates matched up without a great deal of difficulty was able to hold them and execute launch. and the

I118/84 1118184 I119184

14 15 I

No No No

3 3 3

4O 32 24

Not No

completed. pilot rating. First off, there

Easily was and

accomplished.

just a slight tendency I'm going to track the pilot pilot rating. rating.

to undershoot target.

I119184 1119184

Yes Yes

31 24

No No

216

TABLEG-5.- Continued Wind/ Run Jturbuno. l lenc e A/C Pilot configuration Comments

Date

1/19/84

I Yes

15

No significant problems. I was able to generate the desired yaw rates and match well with the target. To hold on the target was no problem. The aircraft yaw rate could be matched with the target's velocity and I could rapidly acquire the target and match yaw rates and stay within sight parameters. Aside from the initial distraction of

1/19/84

I Yes

23

1/19/84

I Yes

39

the target coming in from the left, or from the right, and yawing back toward, Just mental cooperation. Things had a slight tendency to overcontrol, in that regard, but I was able to match velocities and stabilize the yaw rate. 1/19/84 7 INo

30

Initial slight tendency to overcontrol, overshoot the target. However, there was adequate damping in there to come back and vernier any real tendency the pedals. onto the target without toward bicycling on

1/19/84

INo

22

A tendency to over- and undershoot on the target. A slight bicycling of the pedals and wound up with the retical lagging the target and had the vernier on. A little bit more difficult than before. Slight trol. target target. initial tendency to overconI was able to match up on the and keep the rates and shoot the

1/19/84

I Yes

16

1/19/84

10

IYes

53

More tendency to overcontrol, overshoot the target, bicycle the pedals, but I was able to vernier that out and track the target. Overall control sensitivity seemed to be adequate, I certainly would not want something any more responsive with the decrease in damping.

1/19/84

11

IYes
I

57

Not

rated.

217

TABLE

G-5.-

Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C
Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/19/84

12

Yes

51

I was

able

to to

rapidly

get

the

aircraft's and ini-

nose around match rates.

track the target One overshoot and

tially matching rates, but that was in the rate direction reversal, going from a right yaw rate to a left yaw rate to match up. The rest of that I was able to adjust the retical onto the target and was able to keep the retical centered on the target throughout the engagement.

II191841

No

12

I think I'm still muddling through, trying to figure out what's really going on. Biggest workload I think is trying to mentally think about where the trees are, to get the airplane under control again and then get back to putting the pipper on the target. Don't know whether I am 3 ft or 300 ft the

1/19184

Yes

17

from target. Difficult to get the retical on the target and keep it on target for more than a second or a second and a half. Marginal performance. 1/23/84 Yes

I overshot culty got a lem.

to

the

left

and

had

diffi-

coming back to the right. I never tone. I had an overshoot probI don't know or maybe my mind or out of forerequired

my eyes were just a little sight. Adequate performance considerable compensation. 1/23/84 2 No

26

I thought I kept the retical on the target long enough to engage target, but probably didn't change the pitch sufficient to move up or down to get the foresight on. Inefficient performance in knowing where I am in relation to the bob-up position. Adequate performance.

218

TABLEG-5.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run
no.

1/23/84

Yes

13

Similar to last time. It helps to back up if you don't hit the trees so fast and I'm having trouble keeping the retical on the target. I can't quickly get it on there and keep it on there in yaw control, so I'd say that the desired performance is not obtainable. Adequate performance requiring extensive compensation.

1/23/84

No

34

Overshot twice and was never able to get steady on the target. No positive inputs on pitch much, because I'm having a hard time on yaw. Difficulty perceiving where I am in relation to the terrain. I am unable to make small accurate displacements in the yaw axis, i.e., the A/C keeps jerking around and I can't get the pipper lined up on target.

1/23/84

No

28

Quickly to move over to the target but just unable to get quickly on the target and stabilize; and once I do overshoot, I am unable to make small displacements in yaw, such that I can get the pipper lined up with the target. I was able to get the pipper on target and keep it there fairly within constraints. The target was then track. very easy to the well

1/23/84

No

10

1/24/84

Yes

acquire

and

1/24/84

Yes

25

Extensive compensation acquire the target. I can't get the pipper get a proper engagement

in

trying

to

1/24/84

No

12

on the target signal.

and

1/24/84

No

It took me awhile to get the aircraft settled down in yaw to match the aircraft yaw response with the movement of the target aircraft.

219

TABLEG-5.- Continued
Wind/ turbulence A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

Date

Run no. 2

1/24/84

No

I am unable to get quickly on the target, due to the overshoots. When I finally get the yaw under control, time has run out. Aircraft required more than normal control inputs to get the required response, even though I was able to on target in a reasonable time.

1/24/84

No

get

1/24/84

Yes

18

When changed the collective during the task, the yaw tracking was affected. Therefore, it took too long to stabilize on target. overuntil and undershooting out the of time. if I had the

1/24/84 1/24/84 1/24/84

I0 11 12

No

26

I kept target

I ran

No

I might have gotten had more time. It took a reasonable

target

No

2O

amount

of

workload it

to get was on

the pipper on target, but once target, it was easy to track. the target the proper the target. twice before rate and put I the

1/24/84

13

Yes

13

I overshot could get pipper on

1/24/84

14

Yes

27

The the the was

target acquisition was harder than tracking. Once I got the pipper on target I was surprised how easy it to track. quickly able to get oriented on

1/24/84

15

Yes

19

I was

the target and match I had to hold an odd

rates, even though pitch attitude. power but want to I kept to fly of

1/24/84

16

Yes

I had

all

kinds

of

control

quickly acquire the target, overshooting it. I didn't sideways hitting due to the surrounding

high probability trees.

22O

TABLE

G-5.- Continued

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/25/84

Yes

14

I was able to get the pipper on target very easily and quickly, but I couldn't hold it on for I second. The ability to turn and put the pipper on the target was extremely poor. I drifted considerably from where I started over the ground.

1/25/84

Yes

1/25/84

_o

20

I am not able to quickly get the pipper there and keep it there. I am still making a lot of inputs and overcontrolling somewhat in pedal control. I'll initially sweep through in yaw and overshoot as I try to turn toward the target. I'll either not put in enough control or too much and swing through or fall short again. The predictability of the pedal inputs is poor. A tendency to overshoot initially due to the forced gradient. You can't disengage the force gradient and also change displays due to the controller configuration. I don't like particularly working against the force gradient. One overshoot and then it is relatively easy to get the pipper on the target.

1/25/84

Yes

27

1/25/84

No

3O

1/25/84

No

28

1/25/84
_

Yes

11

I was unable the target.

to hold

very steadily

on

1/25/84

No

28

Minimal compensation. Once I got the pipper on the target, I was able to match the rate of the target helicopter, get a lock on, and get a missile shot off easily.

221

TABLE

G-5.-

Continued

Wind/ Date
Run no.

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

turbulence

1/26/84

Yes

25

I tried was not overshot

to go quickly to the target and able to stop on the target, but it 20 or so. I was able to decrease the error, but it I would consider an excessive time.

continually took what amount of 1/26/84 Yes

I Just was unable to quickly get the pipper on target and keep it there. I was continually trying to make small corrections but I kept overand undershooting the target.

1/26/84

Yes

38

I'm unable to make the correct pedal inputs to get the pipper where I want and keep it there, or to make small corrections to quickly match my turn rate with that of the target. I was just kind of wallowing around there and Just happened to get the acquisition box and was able to shoot the missile.

it

1/26/84

Yes

29

1/26/84

Yes

29

Very easy to generate a rapid yaw rate to attempt to acquire the target. There was a tendency to overshoot initially due to the high sensitivity in the pedals.

1/26/84

Yes

23

It was very difficult to acquire the target and also the follow-on tracking was a difficult task. I seem to be experiencing control ratcheting. to

1/26/84

Yes

32

I would be able direction overshot

like to to move of the

have a quicker rate the aircraft in the

the target faster. I also target several times.

1/26/84

Yes

15

Very aggressively went after the target and overshot it by two oscillations. Yaw control felt too damped.

222

TABLEG-5.- Continued Wind/ Run turbuno. lence

No

A/C
Pilot configuratic,n PR Comments

Date

1/26/84

24

I used rotate

full right pedal deflection to the aircraft in the direction of

the target and went through a series of three overshoots trying to stabilize on the target. Damping was good, but I would like to be able to generate higher rates.

1/26/84 1/26/84

Yes Yes

I I

31 15

Easy

to acquire

and

track

the

target.

Had to use full pedal deflection to swing the aircraft around to the right to engage the target, one overshoot, and then I was able to track it. You can get a good rate buildup to move over to where the target is. The tendency is to overshoot quite a bit. Once you are able to dampen those oscillations down and end up with a good track, it is relatively easy tracking operation. to continue the

1/26/84

10

Yes

55

1/26/84

Yes

39

I could get over to the

the nose of the aircraft target quickly with a large

pedal application, but then when I wanted to reverse the direction, I overshot the target A/C. Had to match the rate with the pipper with minor pedal corrections.

1/26/84 1/26/84

No

30

It only took to track the

a couple target.

of

small

movements

No

24

I had to put in a lot of pedal to get the pipper on target. After the fourth overshoot I used the cyclic stick. I was able to target without input. get the pipper resorting to on the using cyclic

1/26/84

Yes

21

223

TABLE

G-5.-

Concluded

Date

Run no.

Wind/ turbulence

A/C Pilot configuration PR Comments

1/26/84

Yes

40

It felt to me like I put in two pedal applications to get the rate going. Once I got it there, it stopped reasonably well with no real overshooting problem. The aircraft felt too sluggish. I had to put in considerable pedal to get the nose in the direction I wanted.

1/26/84

No

22

1/26/84

Yes

23

The aircraft was sluggish when I tried to acquire the target initially. I didn't notice a lack of yaw rate in acquiring the target, but there was a slight bit of hunting with the pedals when I was trying to lock on. The initial response was very good, but I kept over- and undershooting the target. I finally started using cyclic to aim the aircraft. Reasonably responsive the target. in yaw to acquire

1/26/84

Yes

51

1/26/84

10

Yes

54

1/26/84

11

No

52

1/26/84

12

Yes

55

I think the key to tracking with this system is attempting to acquire very rapidly and quickly match rates. I used my previous pilot strategy and that took too much time. Pedals were reasonably responsive.

1/26/84

13

Yes

58

224

APPENDIX H YAWRESPONSE DUETO TURBULENCE Table H-I lists the heading response generated after turbulence at a hover. the introduction of light

TABLEH-I.- TURBULENCE RESPONSE DATA after For initial 6 sec with no pilot conditions is 45 input under light turbulence.

the aircraft

is at a hover.

Wind direction

to the right of the nose. Configuration 7 PSI, deg Minimum = -0.11585E Maximum = .32624E rms = .22043E Mean = .18211E deviation = .12420E N sample =

Standard

Configuration I PSI, deg Minimum : -O.19879E Maximum : .79183E rms = .11906E Mean = -.57551E deviation = .I0423E N sample = .122OOE

02 O1 02 O1 02 03

Standard

00 01 01 01 01

.12200E 03

Standard

Configuration 3 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.17142E Maximum : .77848E rms = .45972E Mean = .36712E deviation = .27671E N sample = .122OOE

OO O1 O1 O1 O1 03

Standard

Configuration 9 PSI, deg Minimum : 'O.17OO4E Maximum : .14845E rms = .IO515E Mean = -.83668E deviation = .63685E N sample = .122OOE

02 O1 02 O1 O1 03

Standard

Configuration 5 PSI, deg Minimum = -O.50483E Maximum = .20181E rms = .25477E Mean = -.13632E deviation = .21524E N sample = .1220OE

O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 03

Standard

Configuration 11 PSI, deg Minimum = -O.93182E-O2 Maximum = .12571E 02 rms = .76282E O1 Mean = .59735E O1 deviation = .47442E O1 N sample = .122OOE 03

225

TABLEH-I.- Continued
Configuration 23 PSI, deg Minimum : O.43257E-05 Maximum : .39196E O1 rms : .24569E O1 Mean : .21469E O1 deviation = .11946E O1 .1220OE 03 N sample : Configuration 25 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.58969E Maximum = .45601E rms = .38789E Mean = -.23518E deviation = .30845E N sample = .12200E

Standard

Configuration 13 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.44544E Maximum = .17098E rms = .24905E Mean = -.16337E deviation = .18798E N sample = .122OOE Configuration 15 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.23346E Maximum = .11070E rms = .11888E Mean = -.42832E deviation = .11090E N sample : .122OOE

01 01 01 01 01 03

Standard

Standard

01 01 01 OO 01 03

Standard

01 01 01 01 01 03

Standard

Configuration 17 PSI, deg Minimum : O.85681E-06 Maximum : .21797E 02 rms = .97941E 01 Mean = .72516E 01 deviation = .65831E 01 .122OOE 03 N sample = Configuration 19 PSI, deg Minimum : -0.35183E-O2 Maximum = .21311E 02 rms = .IO207E 02 Mean = .74625E 01 deviation = .69636E 01 N sample : .12200E 03 Configuration 21 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.30909E-01 Maximum = .17240E 01 rms = .99142E OO Mean = .81875E OO deviation = .55906E O0 N sample : .1220OE 03

Standard

ConfiEuration 27 PSI, deg Minimum : O.23463E-05 .42698E 01 Maximum = .26211E O1 rms = Mean = .22622E O1 .13238E 01 deviation = .12200E 03 N sample = Configuration 29 PSI, deg Minimum = -O.98852E O0 Maximum = -.14825E-04 rms = .74434E O0 Mean = -.69351E O0 deviation = .27036E 00 N sample = .12200E 03 Configuration 31 PSI, deg Minimum : -O.86200E Maximum = .73896E rms = .44974E Mean = -.IO539E deviation = .43722E N sample = .122OOE

Standard

Standard

Standard

Standard

O0 O0 OO OO OO 03

226

TABLEH-I.- Concluded
Configuration 37 PSI, deg Minimum : -0.90663E-01 Maximum = .25352E 01 rms = .16746E 01 Mean = .14314E 01 deviation = .86927E O0 N sample = .12200E 03 Configuration 39 PSI, deg Minimum : -0.54167E O0 Maximum = .65578E O0 rms = .36043E O0 Mean = .73246E-01 deviation = .35291E O0 N sample = .12200E 03

Standard

Configuration 33 PSI, deg Minimum : 0.2914OE-05 .14554E 02 Maximum : .75263E 01 rms : .54999E 01 Mean = deviation = .51378E 01 .12200E 03 N sample = Configuration 35 PSI, deg Minimum : -0.86260E Maximum = .96953E rms = .43558E Mean = .26062E deviation = .34901E N sample = .12200E

Standard

Standard

O0 01 01 01 01 03

Standard

227

APPENDIX

ROOT

LOCUS

ANALYSIS

General

transfer

function

(yaw

axis)

(s) :
_P S2-NS+UN r

N6pS o v cos _o

Uo cos

15 knots

= 25

ft/sec

_o : 45 45 = 0.707

The on the the

open the

loop

poles

and

closed

loop

poles

of I-I

each to the

of

the

configurations For loop the closed

are loop

plotted system has

following gain

root has

loci the

graphs value of

(figs. one

1-20). closed

feedback form

where

transfer

function

(s) _p -

G(s)
1 + G(s)H(s)

(fig. settling value in time. T

1-21) The sec.

is

the

predominant of the order the 90% the loci

time

constant

and

an

alternative to 37% of by

measure its

for

envelope For a

transient system

response it can be

decays

initial

second

approximated

I/_m N. step

T r (fig. 1-21) is defined as function input to rise from 10 to function resulting this T is done by closing a root

time required of its final loop plot time with then

for the response to a unit value. For a given transfer feedback T R. 1-22 to 1-23), the gain. The

a unity becomes

taken

from

After plotting following conclusions

T r vs T (system may be made: and high hover

constant)

(figs.

best

For the low hover pilot ratings. For the air-to-air pilot ratings. In both cases the

tasks

T R < 0.2

sec

and

_ < 0.6

give

the

acquisition

task

T R < 0.13

and

< 0.33

yields

the

best

T/T R

ratio

remained

at

2.5

0.25.

228

TRANSFER 0.5s

FUNCTION

PILOT

RATINGS
W

NONE

s2 + 0.5s + 0.3535 N6p = 0.50 N r = 0.50 Nv = 0.02

I
-2

I
-1 K=0._ ..

ZERO'S

0,00 j 0.54

POLES -0.251 CLOSED UNITY LOOP

.-j
K = 0.5

FEEDBACK

-0.5 +- j (0.3217) Figure II.Root locus plot (configuration I).

TRANSFER

FUNCTION

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 5.75 5.75 7.00

jw

0.75 s s2 + s + 0.3535 N6p Nr Nv = 0.75 = 1,00 = 0.02

LOW HOVER HOVER ACQ TARGET

K = 0.75

!
-4

'

I
'

I
-3

I
-2

POLES CLOSED UNITY -0.47,

-0.5

-+ j 0.643

.-j

LOOP FEEDBACK

-3.03

Figure

12.-

Roct

locus

plot

(configuration

3).

229

1s s2 + 4s + 0.3535 Nsp = 1 N r =4 Nv = 0.02

PILOT

RATINGS
W

LOW HOVER 4.50 HIGH HOVER 4.25 TARGET ACO 5.33

K=j

K=I

I +'-,
-5

', "+
-4

I
-3

_
-2

_
-1

POLES -3.9, -0.10 CLOSED LOOP POLES (K -- 1) -0.07, -4.9

Figure

13.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

5).

1.65 s s2 + 6s + 0.3535 N6p = 1.65 N r -- 6.00 Nv = 0.02

PILOT

RATINGS 4.250
W

LOW HOVER

HIGH HOVER 4,375 TARGET ACQ 4.750

K = 1.65

I
-7

I,:
-6

I
-5

I
-1

POLES CLOSED

-5.95,

-0.05 -7.60

LOOP POLES (K = 1.65) -0.05,

-__j I

Figure

14.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

7).

230

0.5 s s2 + 0.5s + 0.1767 N6p = 0.5 Nr = 0.5 Nv = 0.01

PILOT RATINGS LOW HOVER 6.25 HIGH HOVER 6.00 TARGET ACQ 6.00 w

-i
K = 0.5

I
-3

POLES -0.25 -+ j 0.338 CLOSED LOOP (K = 0.5) -0.771,-0.23 Figure 15.- Root locus plot (configuration 9).

0.75s s2 + s + 0.1767 N6p-- 0.75 Nr = 1.00 Nv = 0.01

PILOT RATINGS LOW HOVER 4.40

W

HIGH HOVER 4.80 TARGETACO 5.66

K = 0.75

K = 0.75

-I
-2

I'

, -1

....

I -.5

POL ES -0.771, -0.229 CLOSED LOOP (K = 0.75)-1.087,

-0.163

Figure

I6.- Root

locus plot (configuration

11).

231

s s2+4s+0.1767 Nhp = 1 Nr = 4 Nv = 0.01

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 4.50 4.25

jw

LOW HOVER HOVER

TARGETACQ

4.75

uIj
K=I , I -5 '

I_r
-4 -3

I
-2

I
-1

POLES -3.95, -0.05 CLOSED LOOP (K = 1)-4.96,-0.04

-j

Figure

17.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

13).

1.65 s s2 + 6s + 0.1767 N$p = 1.65 N r = 6.00 Nv = 0.01

PILOT

RATINGS 4.66
W

LOW HOVER

HIGH HOVER 4.66 TARGET ACQ 4.00

K = 1.65
-!

'
I

"
-6

I'"

I
-5

I
-2

I
-1

-7

POLES CLOSED

-5.97, -0.03 LOOP (K = 1.65) -7.63,-0.025

--j

Figure

I8.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

15).

232

0.5S S 2 + 0.5S + 0.088 N_p = 0.5 N r = 0.5 Nv = 0.005

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 5.00 5.00

jw

LOW HOVER HOVER TARGET

ACQ 6.00

K=0.5t K=0.5

'

I I
-1

I
-.5

'-i
POLES CLOSED -0.25- + j 0.29 LOOP (K = 0.5) -0.902,-0.1

Figure

I9.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

17).

0.75s s2 + s + 0.088 N6p = 0.75 N r = 1.00 Nv = 0.005

PILOT

RATINGS 5.25
iw

LOW HOVER HIGH HOVER TARGETACQ

5.00 4.50

K = 0.75
q I

I
-0.902, -0.1

| |

_ --.5

-1

POLES CLOSED

-i
-1.44,-0.062

LOOP (K = 0.75)

Figure

110.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

19).

233

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 3.66 4.00 4.00

W

s2 + 4s + 0.088 N6p = 1 Nr = 4 Nv = 0,005

LOW HOVER HOVER ACQ TARGET

K=I

:;'.
-5 -4

1
-3

i
-2

{
- 1

.-j

POLES -3.97, 0.03 CLOSED LOOP-4.98,

-0.02

Figure

111.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

21).

1.65 $ s2 + 6s+ 0.088

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 4.33 4.33

w

LOW HOVER HOVER TARGET

N6p = 1.65 N r = 6.00 Nv = 0.005

ACQ 4.66

K = 1.65

I
!

I -7

,--'=' -6

I -5

/_

I -1

POLES -5.98, CLOSED

-0.02 -0.01

--j

LOOP (K = 1.65), -7.63,

Figure

112.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

23).

234

0.5s s2 + 0.5 s + 0.044 N_p = 0.5 N r = 0.5 Nv = 0.0025

PILOT

RATINGS 4.75 4.75 5.40

w

LOW HOVER HIGH HOVER TARGET ACQ

K=0.5

'

II
-1 -.5

PO L ES -0.386, CLOSED LOOP

-0.114 (K = 0.5) -0.954, -0.046

.-j

Figure

113.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

25).

0.75s s2 + s + 0.044 N6p =-0.75 Nr Nv = 1.00 = 0.0025

PI LOT RATINGS LOW HOVER HIGH HOVER ACQ TARGET 4.50 4.50 5.66
w

K = 0.75 -2

I"

I I

-1

"" ""

I
-.5

POL ES -0.9538, CLOSED

-0.0462 -1.724

.-j

LOOP (K = 0.75) -0.025,

Figure

114;-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

27).

235

PILOT HIGH

RATINGS 4.25 4.25

w

$2 + 4s + 0.044 N6p = 1 N r =4 Nv = 0.0025

LOW HOVER HOVER TARGET

ACQ 4.00

K=I -5 -4 -3 -2 -1

POL ES -3.98, CLOSED

-0.02 -4.49,-0.01

-j

LOOP (K=I)

Figure

I15.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

29).

1.65 $ s2 + 65 + 0.044 N&p = 1.65 N r = 6.00 Nv = 0.0025

PILOT

RATINGS 3.66 4.00 5.50

LOW HOVER HIGH HOVER TARGET ACQ

K = 1.65

,I
-7 -6 -5 -1

POLES -5.99, CLOSED

-0.01

LOOP (K = 1.65) -7.64,-0.005

Figure

116.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

31).

236

0.5 S s2 + 0.5s + 0.0176 N_p = 0.5 N r = 0.5 Nv = 0.001

PI LOT RATINGS LOW HOVER HIGH HOVER ACQ TARGET 5.0 5.0 4.5
JW

K = 0.5

,I
ii

-1

-.5

POL ES -0.462, CLOSED

-0.038 -0.982, -0.018

LOOP (K -- 0.5)

Figure

117.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

33).

0.75 s s2 + s + 0.0176 N6p = 0.75 N r = 1.00 Nv --- 0.001

PILOT

RATINGS w

NONE

K = 0.75

I
-1

)<
-.5

POLES CLOSED

-0.725 LOOP

0.024 (K = 0.75) -1.74, -0.01

-j

Figure

118.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

35).

237

PILOT s2 + 4s + 0.0176 N6p = 1 Nr = 4 Nv = 0.001 HIGH

RATINGS 3.60
W

LOW HOVER HOVER TARGET

3.60

ACQ 4.00

_I j
K=I _ ,I :5' ::: -4 I -3 I -2 I -1

POLES -3.99, -0.01 CLOSED LOOP (K = 1) -4.99, -0.004

"-J

Figure

I19.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

37).

1.65 s s2 + 6s+ 0.0176

jw

N_p = 1.65 N r = 6.00 Nv = 0.001

K = 1.65
-I I

I
-7

-6

tc

-5

'l,

-1

I
-.5

POLES CLOSED

-5.99,

-0.01 -0.003

-j

LOOP (K = 1.65) -7.65,

Figure

I20.-

Root

locus

plot

(configuration

39).

238

c(t) 2.00

OVERSHOOT

\
1.37'

1.05, 1.00 .90'

I
.63' .50'

I /
I/ ,[ I =1

i
I
I

\
EXPONENTIAL ENVELOPE OF THE TRANSIENT RESPONSE

I
I II _t y

.10 0

I
_

_---T r
Figure 121.Plot of unit-st_p response

T_

of

an

underdamped

second-order

system

illustrating

time-domain

specification.

2.0 Z = 2.5, 2.5

6 4.5

TR

6 5.66 e4.50 ..= 4.0 4.75 .33e7.00 e5.66

5._

5.5_ 0 .13

_4.0 "1 1

I 2 r SYSTEM,

I 3 sec

I 4

1 5

Figure

122.-

Pilot

ratings (_)

for rise time (T R) .- target acquisition

vs predominant task.

time

constant

239

2.0 = 2.5, 2.5 TR 2.5, 2.27 2.27, 2.5

6.25 5.00

== 5.00 __. 1.0

UJ O0 i

4.40 5.25

4.75

nl-.5 3.66 4.5 3.6 MAX .2 "-_ 4.5 425 1.66 _4.25 i 0 MAX I .6 1

4.50 5.75

I 2 rSYSTEM, (SETTLE

I 3 sec TIME)

I 4

I 5

Figure

123.-

Pilot

ratings for rise time (T R) vs predominant (_) - low hover turns task.

time

constant

240

APPENDIX

YAW CONTROL

FREQUENCY

RESPONSE

DATA

Table J-1 lists the adjusted pilot gain K_ to give a selected phase margin (30 ) at the selected crossover frequency and the derived values for open-loop and closed-loop bandwidths. Figures J1 through J38 list the open and closed loop frequency response plots for each configuration.

TABLE J-1.-

YAW CONTROL CONFIGURATION RESPONSE DATA

FREQUENCY

Configuration

_Bw open

mBw closed

5.85 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 4.07 4.93 4.03 5.97 4.14 4.96 4.05 6.02 4.18 4.98 4.06 6.05 4.20 4.99 4.06 6.07 4.21 5.OO 4.06

0.90 I.26 4.00 5.42 .74 1.14 I.6O I.30 .64 I.8O 4.00 5.34 .57 I .00 4.OO 6.00 .52 I .O5 4.00 3.65

2.40 2.45 3.28 3.65 2.5O 2.30 3.10 3.60 I .30 2.48 3.19 3.65 2.30 2.40 3.24 3.61 2.25 2.32 3.10 3.50

241

0.5S S2 + 0.5 S + 0.3535 TRANSFER FUNCTION 0 -6

dB -18

12
-24 " , I " I I i i , ,I I i i i i ii_1 80 40

, deg

0 -40 -80 -120 .1 I , J I ,I,II 1 co, rad/sec I , , i , ,,,I 10

Figure

J1.-

Frequency

response for open loop configuration I.

transfer

function

242

(s)6p 0 -6

0.75S S2 + S + 0.3535

dB

1,
-18 -24 80 40

d,, deg

0 -40 -80

-12(] .1

lilt

I|1

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J2.-

Frequency

response

for

open 3.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

243

S2 + 4S + 0.3535

dB -18

I_I 'I
-20 -22
I I I I I i , ,I i i i , , , ,,_

d,, deg 4__

, ,,,,,,,, ,
.1 1 _, rad/sec 10 Figure J3.Frequency response for open 5. loop transfer function configuration

244

1.65 S -10 S2 + 6S + 0.3535

-12

11 "
dB -18 -20 40 20 0 _, deg -20 -40 -60 .1 1 cJ, rad/sec 10 i i , i ,,I i I I I I I ill

Figure

J4.-

Frequency

response

for

open 7.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

245

0.5 S S2 + 0.5S + 0.1767 0 -6

-12 dB -18 -24 -30 80 40

I I , , i i , II I I t , , II ,I

, deg

0 --40 -80 -120 .1 , , , , ,, ,,I 1 _, rad/sec l i i , , ,,,I 10

Figure

JS.-

Frequency

response

for

open 9.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

246

_ 0 -6 -12 dB -18 -24 80 40 _, deg 0-40 -80 -120 .1 I J

0.75 S

S2 + S +0.1767

_ J , m=ml 1 _, rad/sec

= = i 'Ill 10

Figure J6.- Frequency

response for open loop transfer configuration 11.

function

247

S S2 + 4S + 0.1767

-14

-_P dB-18

I I
-20 -22 40 20 ,I,, deg 0 -20 -40 -60 -8O .1 I l , t , i ill 1 co, rad/sec 1 I 1 I i lint 10
I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II

Figure

JT.-

Frequency

response

for

open

loop

transfer

function

configuration

13.

248

1.65S

-10
-12

S2 + 6S + 0.1767

1d -14
-16 -18 I I i I I ilil i I I _ i'''l 2O 0 -20 , deg -40 -80 1 _, rad/sec 10
D

Figure

JS.-

Frequency

response

for

open

loop

transfer

function

configuration

15.

249

0.5S S2 + 0.5S + 0.088 0 -6 -12 dB -18 -24 -3( ik i i , _ , _=l I I I I , , IJl

40 d), deg 0

-80 -120 .1 , , , 1 _, rad/sec I I Ii I 10

Figure

J9.-

Frequency

response

for

open

loop

transfer

function

configuration

17.

25O

0.75 S S2 + S + 0.088 0
i

L IdB 12
-18 -24 I I I

_, deg -40

-120 .1

, , ,i,I 1 _, rad/sec

= , ,ill 10

Figure

J10.-

Frequency

response

for

open 19.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

251

S S2 + 4S + 0.088 -12 -14 -_

dB -18 -20

-,
-22 20: 0-20 I t I t I I i II I I I I i I i I I

4_, deg

:2
-120. .1 i I I I I I Ill 1 _, rad/sec , , , , , i,,l 10 Figure J11.Frequency response for open 21. loop transfer function -

configuration

252

1.65 S -10 S2 + 6S + 0.088

-12

t_ppld

B -14 -16

-18 200 , deg -20

It

lilt

-40 -60 .1 1 _,rad/sec 10

Figure

J12.-

Frequency

response

for

open 23.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

253

0.5 S S2 + 0.5S + 0,044 0 -6 -12 dB -18 -24 -30

I I I I I I I If I I I i I f I I _

, deg 41

-80 -120 .1 _, I , , 1 rad/sec i I i l lill 10

Figure

J13.-

Frequency

response

for

open 25.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

254

S S2 + 4S + 0.044 -12 -14

16p IdB-18 -20 -22 20 0 -20 @, deg -40 -60 -8( .1

* I I I I I Ill I I I I I I lil

21

, I I Ill

I i III

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J14.-

Frequency

response

for

open 29.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

255

1.65 S S2 + 6S + 0.044

-10 -12

l IdB 14
-16 -18 20 0 ([), deg -20 I , t I = , i I] = = I = i J _,1

-40 -6C .1 1 _,rad/sec 10

Figure

J15.-

Frequency

response

for

open 31.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

256

0.5 S S2 + 0.5S + 0.0176

-6 -12 dB -18 -24i -3O 20 0 -20 @, deg -40 -60 -80 -10(] .1 1 _, rad/sec 10
i t , , , i iil t v i t , , It i

Figure

J16.- Frequency

response for open loop transfer configuration 33.

function

257

0.75 S 0 -6 -12 -18 -24

D

S2 + S + 0.0176

_, deg -40_60" -20 -80 -100 .1

I I I I , i t,l I I I i i , ill

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J17.-Frequency

response

for

open 35.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

258

S S2 + 4S + 0.0176 -12 -14

dB -18 -20 -22

,
i ' ' , , i=I I i i i , , ,11

-20 0--20 4), deg -40-80 -120 .1

, i , , I i II , , i , = l III

I
_, rad/sec

10

Figure

J18.- Frequency

response for open loop transfer configuration 37.

function

259

1.65 S -10 S2 + 6S + 0.0176

-12

ll 14
_P IdB -16 I i , lilll I

-18

, ,,,,I

2O 0 _, deg -20 -40 -60 .1 1 _, rad/sec 10

Figure

J19.-

Frequency

response

for

open 39.

loop

transfer

function

configuration

26O

0.5 S S2 + 0.5 S + 0.3535 CLOSED PILOT MODEL

20 10 0

LOOP WITH -20 -30 60 0 -60 _, deg -120, -180

I

i I llJ

ll,,l

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J20.- Frequency response pilot model

for closed loop transfer - configuration I.

function

with

261

(s) -8p 20100 dB -10 -20 -30

0.75 S S2 + S + 0.3535

-60 -120 d_,deg _180 -240 -300 .1 _,

I ! i I I I I

1 rad/sec

10

Figure

J21.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 3.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

262

40 2O 10

S S2 + 4S + 0.3535

-10 -20 40 0 4', deg -40 -80 -120 -160 .1

i I I , ' I i = iI , i = i , = ,ll

, I I I Ill 1 CO, rad/sec

* = , I ,,I 10

Figure

J22.- Frequency response pilot model

for closed loop transfer - configuration 5.

function

with

263

1.65 S 20 10 S2 + 6S + 0.3535

l ioB o
-10 -20 60 0 -60 -120 _, deg -180 -240 -300 .1
I I I I I I I i I I1

I I lJ

I i i]

I I I J

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J23.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 7.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

264

0.5 S 20 10 S2 + 0.5S + 0.1767

-_18PIdB

_0 10
-20 -30
I I I I IIII * , , ,

,,,,I

60 i
0 -60 -120 @, deg -180 -240 -300 .1
I I I '

1 _0, rad/sec

10

Figure

J24.- Frequency response pilot model

for closed loop - configuration

transfer 9.

function

with

265

0.75 S

3 I
20 dB

$2 + S + 0.1767

lO
0 -10 -20 -30 600
I I I |
I I

I I l

I t I t I

4_, deg -60 -120 -180 .1

I I i

,,I 1 _, rad/sec 10

Figure

J25.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 11.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

266

S S2 + 4S + 0.1767 20 10

-20 40

-40 _, deg -80 -120 -160 .1

! I l I i i i I_ l l I * i J,,l

I _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J26.-

Frequency response for closed loop transfer pilot model - configuration 13.

function

with

267

1.65 S 18 12 6 dB 0 -6 -12 40,

| I I I I I[

S2 + 6S+ 0.1767

0 4_,deg -40

-80 -120 .1
! I I , , i iil I I I I I t I I [

I co, rad/sec

10

Figure

J27.- Frequency re:_ponse for closed loop transfer pilot model - configuration 15.

function

with

268

0.5 S 20 10 0 IdB S2 + 0.5 S + 0.088

-lO
-20 .-_, 600, , ,, ,,I , , , , t |,il

@, deg -60 -120 -180 -240 -300 .1

| ! I , , , ,,I I I I I I I I II

1 c_, rad/sec

10

Figure

J28.- Frequency response for closed loop transfer pilot model - configuration 17.

function

with

269

0.75 S S2 + S + 0.088 20 10

dB -10 -20 -30 60 0 -60 d_,deg -120 -180 -240 -300 .1 I I I I I I I I II1 I I i I I I I II

i i , ,il 1 _, rad/sec

i , , l,,l 10

Figure

J29.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 19.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

270

S 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 40.

S2 + 4S + 0.088

_P

dB

-40@, deg -80 -120 -160 .1

I !
I

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J30.- Frequency

response

for closed

loop transfer 21.

function

with

pilot model

- configuration

2TI

1.65 S S2 6S + 0.088 1812 6 0

-6 _ I I
i 'I

-12

I I _

-40

,deg

-80

-120 -160 .1 |, I i I I llll 1 _, rad/sec I I I I I ,l,l 10

Figure

J31.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 23.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

272

0.5 S 30 20 10 0 S2 + 0.5S + 0.044

-20 -30 6O 0 -60 -120 _, deg -180 -240 -300 .1

I I I

, , ,,_1

1 _:, rad/sec

10

Figure

J32.- Frequency

response

for closed

loop transfer 25.

function

with

pilot model

- configuration

273

S 3O 2O S2 + 4S + 0.044

_P dB

'
0 -10 -20 40l , , ,iill i i ! , ,,,,I

-40 d,, deg -80 -120 -160

.1

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J33.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 27.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

274

1.65 S 18 12 S2 + 6S + 0.044

_P

dB

0 -6 -12
I I I ! ! I |l

40

o
-40 4_, deg -80

o120

-160 .1

'

,,,,I 1 _, rad/sec

,,,,! 10

Figure

J34.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 29.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

275

0.5S 30 20 10 S2 + 0.5S + 0.0176

__

liB

0
-10 -20 -30 60 0
I I

_b, deg

-60 -120 -

-180 -240 -300 .1

I I I

1 _:, rad/sec

10

Figure

J35.-

Frequency

response model

for -

closed

loop

transfer 31.

function

with

pilot

configuration

276

_ 20 10 0 dB -10 -20 -3
I I I I

0.75 S

S2 + S + 0.0176

il

II

0 _ -60, . deg -120 -180 -240 -300 .1

| I I i

1 o_, rad/sec

10

Figure

J36.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 33.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

277

S 30 20 100 -10 -20 40 0 -4i 4_, deg -80 -120 -181 .1 I I I i I I I II

S2 + 4S + 0.0176

I l,,It

1 _, rad/sec

10

Figure

J37.-

Frequency

response model

for

closed

loop

transfer 37.

function

with

pilot

- configuration

278

1.65 S 18 12 6 S2 + 6S+ 0.0176

Gas

o
-6-12
I I I I I

I
i I

-40_

40 @, deg 8O 120 160 .1

! I

, , ,,,,I
1

, ,,,,I
10

_, rad/sec

i'
Figure J38. Frequency response for closed loop transfer 39. function with pilot model - configuration

279

APPENDIX K FIRE-CONTROL TASKPERFORMANCE DATA Tables K-I through K-5 list, respectively, the successful firing times, the mission outcome codes, the pilot reaction time, the circular error radius performancedata, and the maximum yaw rate performance data for the air-to-air missile engagementtask by pilot and test configuration. TABLE K-I.AIR-TO-AIRMISSILE ENGAGEMENT SUCCESSFUL FIRING TIMES
Successful-firing times

Test configuration
pl p2

P3

p4

sd

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34

------

___

7.490 8.550

-----

11. 160 7. 150

9.410 -------

2 2 I I

10.285 7.320 8.550 7.010 7.490

0.075 .170 0 0 0 1.100 0

___

-------

7.010 7.490 7.780

9.980 2 9. 790- I 9.98O

------

8.880 9. 790
------

7.680

-------------------

8. 100 7. 920 7. 970 8.930 4.8O0 10.890 I0.350 7.65O 7.380

3
1

8.587 7.920 7.970 7.875 7.010 11.060 10.165 8.567 7.380 9.600 12.640 7.2OO 9.410 9.250 6.9O7

1.000 0 0 1.055 2.210 .170 .185 O.8OO 0 0 0 0 0 0.816 I.04O

------

9.600

6.820 9.220 11.230 9.98O 8.450 9.600 --7.2OO 9.410 8.45O 6.430

2 2 2 2 3 1 I I 1 3 3

12.640

8.930 8.350

10.370 ---

--5. 940

11.230 7.300

1 1

11.230 7.300

0 0

28o

TABLE K-I.-

Concluded
times

Task configuration
pl

Successful-firing
,J

p2

p3

p4

sd

37
38 39 40 51 52 53 54
56

--Q--

---

7.290

8.540
--Q--

------'m

8.550
9.760 7.380

--7.780 --7.580 6.050 9.020

I 3 I I 2 I

7.290 8.290 9.760 7.580 6.715 9.020

0 0.361 0 0 0.665 0

57 58
Average

9.600 8.640 8.800

10.370 8.200 8.700

.1 1

9.600 8.640

o o

281

TABLE

K-2.- MISSION

PERFORMANCE

RESULTS

FOR TASK

5 (TARGET

ACQUISITION)

MOC Test configuration pl p2 P3 p4 SI F2

Frequency

13

% Success

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 51 52 53 54 55

3 3 9 0 I 0 I 3 9 3 9 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 9 3 I -3 -3 3 0 0 0 9 3 3 0 -0 -I -4 -2 3 I 3 0 3 9 3 I I I -3 -3 -0 0 0 3 0 -1 3 0 -0 -.... .... -3

0 I I 9 9 0 4 I 9 1 9 5 I I 3 I I I I I I 1 5 9 0 3 0 I 0 5 3 0 1 1 1 0 I -0

3 I 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 I I 0 I 3 0 3 I I I I I 3 I 3 I I I I 3 0 I 1 0 1 3 1 I I -3 3

0 2 2 I 0 1 0 I 0 2 I 0 3 I 0 I 2 2 2 2 3 I I I I I 3 3 0 0 I 1 1 3 1 1 2 I 0 0 0

3 0 I 2 2 1 3 I I I I 2 0 2 3 I 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 2 I 2 0 0 2 2 I 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 I 2

I 2 I I 2 2 I 2 3 I 2 2 0 0 I 2 2 0 I I 0 0 0 I 2 I I 0 I I 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 I 0 0

0 100.00 66.67 33.33 0 50.00 0 50.00 0 66.67 50.00 0 100.00 33.33 0 50.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 33.33 25.00 33.33 50.00 33.33 100.00 100.00 0 0 50.00 50.00 100.00 75.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0 0 0

282

TABLEK-2.- Concluded
MOC
,

Test configuration
pl

Frequency

p2

p3

p4

SI

F2

13

% Success

57
58

_m

_u

I I

I I

0 0

I 0

100.00 100.OO

Ipilot fires missile 2Run altitude ends because limit

before

15 sec limit. was exceeded, crashed problems.

time limit

was exceeded,

or aircraft

into the surrounding terrain. 3Run was incomplete due to simulation

283

TABLEK-3.- PILOT REACTION TIMES (SEC) FORTASK5 (TASKACQUISITION) Test configuration 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 4O 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 pl p2 p3

p4 n x sd

6.483 1.482 2.283 4.563 3.273 3.883 2.602 .148 4.673 3.903 4.412 4.493 3.633 2.203 3.883 .O48 3.863 1.582 2.832 2.823 2.6a2 .433 1.772 5.033 3.142 .522 4.122 .148 1.572 1.752 2.353 2.923 2.193 5.233 4.563 .242 3.313 .142 4.563 4.223 1.202 .043 1.482 1.873 .8O2 3.503 .142 .433 6.283 1.822 .722 1,633 .043 .722 3.553 .238 2.113
2.153 1.433 3.682 2.283 2.013 2.193 2.153 1.163 1.113 2.373 4.412 2.783 2.642 5.233

1.532 2.303 1.482 .812 1.962 --.522 --3.363 2.303 .332 --2.593 1.923 --1.772 .722 .722 .142 .242 1.103 1.393 1.722 2.303 2.063 .142 .242 2.443 1.633 --2.063 1.292 --2.063 2.253 .722 1.722 2,493 .332 2.443 .623 .242

3 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

3.166 2.345 3.049 1.070 2.879 1.019 2.696 1.577 3.693 1.024 3.239 .740 2.193 1.670 2.207 .625 3.093 .270 1.793 .972 2.379 1.966 2.596 1.520 2.082 .510 2.009 .252 3.449 .296 3.168 .395 1.426 1.348 2.413 1.994 1.077 .935 1.218 .975 1.486 .473 .866 .590 1.548 .287 2.245 .959 1.102 .960 2.818 2.617 .929 .661 2.286 .482 .838 .795 1.683 .960 3.648 1.585 2.423 1.130 2.153 0 1.869 .309 2.967 .715 .722 0 2.003 .280 2.493 0 .332 2.253 .623 .242 0 .190 0 0

2.063

284

TABLEK-4.- CIRCULAR ERROR RADIUS PERFORMANCE DATA(FT) FORTASK5 TARGET ACQUISITION Pilot Configuration I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 51 52 53 54 55 18 8 6 10 8 6 6 18 12 28 6 20 8 8
14 12! 6 _ 14 6 22 18 12 4 16 34 34 10 12

Average 2 14 4 8 4 10 10 4 6 18 I0 14 4 6 12
8

4 20 6 8 20 4 6 6 10 12 8 22 6 8 I0 10 6
IO 10 8 12 8 IO 8 4 4 4 22 8 4 12 12

8 I0 6 6 8 8 6 4 6 6 14 2 4 8 8 8
8 10 8 4 14 6 20 8 2 26 4 8 12 6 12

17.3 7.3 7 11 5.5 7.5 7.5 5 9.5 12 13 12.5 4.66 10.6 7.5 8 8.66
I0 10.6 8 7.3 12 6.5 13.5 9.5 7 13 10.5 16.5 16.6 8 10

4 4 8 10 18

4 4

6 6 6 16 18 6

6 8 14 9 4 8 4 2

6 5 10 8.86 11 8 6 4 5

285

TABLEK-4.- Concluded Pilot Configuration I 57 58 13.3 Average Average with augmentation only 7.9 8.8 2 3 4 6 2 13.1 5 2 8.86 5.85 Average

286

TABLE

K-5.- YAW RATE PERFORMANCE DATA (DEG/SEC) FOR TASK 5 TARGET ACQUISITION Pilot

Configuration 1 2 3 4

Average

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17

43.9 36.5 29.7* 25.2* 23.4 31.8 25.4

18.3 37* 25.9*

18 19
20 21 22 23

24
25 26 27

28 29 3O 31 32
33

c.;

34 35
36 37

23.1 18.6 23.1 9.9 23.4 24.9* 26.4 41 17.0 37 *_ 27.5 30.7 32 39.7 20.6 35.6 8.8 35.1 _ 20.8"I 27.6 16.9 20.5 14 17.7 15.4" 16.7 21.9 14.5 13.6 26.8 42* 28* 10.5" 30.3 38 40* 13 26.6 29.8 22 28 24.9 17.7 36* 21 27.1 32* 22.2* 26.4 20.1" 38.2 18.6 29* 24 29* 19.O* 33.1 31" 23.4* 33.1 45* 31" 23.4* 33 49 31" 20.0 37.3 3O.6 24 35.1 22.4* 26 26.1 30.15 40.6"i28 27.7"! 24.7 21.5 25 29.9 38.5 19.6 36.3 25.2* 21.6 17.5" 31.7" 15.8 * 28* 27* 27.9 28.8* 24.2 13.4 35 32.4 32.4 26 26 24.3* 27.8 26.8 21.6" 27.9 31 12.8 14 13.5 22 18.1

2O.2 18.9" 13.7 17.8 11.7

27.4

30.8

38
39

27.6*

13.6

28* 35* 36* 35.2*

28
11.8" 17.1 26.7* 21.6" 13.4" 33 14.7 22 26.5 26.7 28.4 13.4 33 25.9

40 51 52 53 54 55

37

287

TABLEK-5.- Concluded Pilot Configuration I 57 58 Average

*Successful Average

4 21" 23*
21

23

32.2 18.5 31 21.14 33.8* 15.8" 31.9" 20.7*

L
target engagement.

25.7

288

REFERENCES

Harris,

T.

M.;

and

Beerman,

D.

A.: Air

Impact Combat.

of

Flying Flight

Qualities Systems,

on Inc.,

Mission Newport

Effectiveness Beach, Calif.,

for

Helicopter CR-166568,

NASA

Feb.

1983.

Edenborough, Bell 2Oth Dooley, copter

H.

K.:

Control Company May

and paper

Maneuver presented 1964.

Requirements at the

for

Armed

Helicopters. Society

Helicopter Annual L. W.:

American

Helicopter

Meeting, Handling paper

13-15,

Qualities No. 1041

Considerations presented at the

for

NOE

Flight. Forum,

Bell May

Heli1976.

Textron,

32nd

AHS

Tapscott, and

R.

J.:

Criteria Flight.

for

Control

and

Response

Characteristics June 1960, pp.

in Hovering 38-41.

Low-Speed

Aero/Space

Engineering,

Pegg, R. F.; and the Capability Sept. 1960.

Connor, A. B.: of a Helicopter

Effects of Control-Response for Use as a Gun Platform.

Characteristics NASA TN D-464,

on

Lynn,

Robert Aug.

R.: 1962,

New pp.

Control 31-40.

Criteria

for

VTOL

Aircraft.

Aerospace

Engineer-

ing,

Goldstein, of the

K.

W.:

VTOL Status.

and

VSTOL NASA

Handling

Qualities April 1982.

Specification,

An Overview

Current

CP-2219,

Vinje,

E.

W.; of

and

Miller,

D.

P.:

Flight of

Simulator

Experiments - V/STOL Fiying

and

An&lyses

in

Support

Further

Development

MIL-F-833OO 1973.

Qualities

Specification.

AFFDL-TR-73-34,

June

Craig, ments

S.

J.; (Part

and

Campbell, Systems

A.:

Analysis

of

VTOL

Handling

Qualities

RequireFeb.

II).

Technology

Incorporated,

AFFDL-TR-67-179,

1979. 10.

Gould,

D.

G.;

and

Daw,

D.

F.: on

A Flight

Investigation Directional No.

of

the

Effects

of

Weathercock National
.A

Stability Research

V/STOL of

Aircraft

Handling May

Qualities. 1964.

Council

Canada,

Report

LR-400,

11.

Smith, R. E.: Comparison of V/STOL Aircraft Criteria for Visual and I1strument Flight National Research Council of Canada, Report

Directional Handling Qualities Using an Airborne Simulator. No. LR-465, Sept. 1966.

12.

Doetsch,

K.

H.;

and

Gould,

D.

G.:

A Flight for V/STOL

Investigation Aircraft

of

LateralSpeed Maneuvering 1970.

Directional Flight.

Handling National

Qualities

in Low

Aeronautical

Establishment,

AFFDL-TR-69-41,

Mar.

289

13.

Chalk,

C.

R.;

and

Key,

D.

L.:

Background

Information - Flying

and

User of

Guide Piloted Mar.

for V/STOL 1971.

MIL-F-83300 Aircraft.

- Military Cornell

Specification

Qualities

Aeronautical

Laboratory,

AFFDL-TR-70-88,

14.

Anon:

Military

Specification-Flying Dec. 31, 1970.

Qualities

of

Piloted

V/STOL

Aircraft.

MIL-F-83300,

15.

Key,

D.

L.:

The paper

Status

of

Military at AGARD

Helicopter FMP

Handling-Qualities Meeting Worth, Ground 1961. on

Criteria. "Criteria Apr. 1982. Qualities; for

AVRADCOM Handling

presented of

Specialist Fort

Qualities

Military

Aircraft,"

Tex.,

16.

Anon:

Military

Specification-Helicopter For. MIL-H-8501A,

Flying Sept.

and 7,

Handling

General

Requirements

17.

Seckel, Press,

E.:

Stability New

and

Control 1964.

of

Airplanes

and

Helicopters.

Academic

Inc.,

York,

18.

Heffley, Data,

R.

K.:

A Compilation One: Data

and

Analysis

of

Helicopter CR-3144,

Handling Aug. 1979.

Qualities

Volume

Compilation.

NASA

19.

Anon: No.

Aircrew 1-136,

Training United

Manual

- Attack Aviation

Helicopter. Center,

Training Jan. 1981.

Circular

States

Army

20.

Pitt,

D.

M.: May

Advanced Are They? 1979.

Scout

Helicopter paper

Flying No.

Qualities

Requirements, at the 35th

How AHS

Realistic Forum, 21.

AVRADCOM,

79-28

presented

Carico, paper 1983.

D.; No.

and

Blanken,

C.

L.: for

Fixed-Base Army at

Simulator the 39th

Investigation Tasks. AHS Forum,

of AVRADCOM May 9-11,

Display/SCAS

Requirements A-83-39-60-4000

Helicopter

Low-Speed Annual

presented

22.

Hoh,

R.

H.; Speed No.

and and

Ashkenas, Hover in

I.

L.:

Handling Flight the 35th

Quality Visibility. Annual AHS

and

Display Systems

Requirements Technology, 1979.

for Inc.,

Low paper

Reduced at

79-29

presented

Forum,

May

23.

Lebacqz, and No. sitions

J.

V.; Using

and the

Aiken, X-22A Sept.

E.

W.: for

A Flight Decelerating Stability

Investigation Descending Aircraft.

of VTOL

Control, Report

Display, Tran-

Guidance

Requirements

Instrument

Variable 1975.

CALSPAN

AK-5336-F-1,

24.

Hoh,

R.

H.:

Bring

Cohesion 1983,

to pp.

Handling-Qualities 64-69.

Engineering.

Astronautics

&

Aeronautics,

June

25.

Aiken,

E.

W.:

A Mathematical

Representation of Control

of

an

Advanced and

Helicopter Display

for

Piloted AVRADCOM

Simulator Investigations TM 80-A-2, June 1980.

System

Variations.

290

26.

Talbot, P. D.; Decker, W. A.; Tinling, B. E.; and Chen, R. T.: A Mathematical Model of a Single Main Rotor Helicopter for Piloted Simulation. NASA TM-84281, Sept. 1982. D.: Wind Tunnel Investigation into the DirecApplied Technology

27.

Blake,

Bruce B.; and Hodder,

tional Control Characteristics of an OH-58 Helicopter. Laboratory, USAAVRADCOM-TR-83-D-18, June 1984. 28. Marshall, R.; Nagata, J.; and Carpenter, R.: OH-58C

Vertical Flight

Fin Blockage Activity Project

Evaluation. United States No. 83-03, Mar. 1983. 29.

Army Aviation

Engineering

Aiken, E. W.; and Blanken, C. L.: Piloted Control System Engagement. USAAVRADCOM

Simulation of the YAH-64 TR-81-A-11, July 1981.

Backup

30.

Aiken, E. W.; and Merrill, R. K.: Results of a Simulator Control System and Display Variations, paper No. 80-28 American Helicopter Society Forum, May 1980. Anon: Military MIL-F-8785C, Specification-Flying Nov. 5, 1980. Qualities of Piloted

Investigation of for the 36th Annual

31.

Airplanes.

32.

Cooper, G. E.; and Harper, R. P.: The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation Aircraft Handling Qualities. NASA TN D-5253, Apr. 1969. Mudd, S. A.: The Treatment of Handling-Qualities Vol. II(4), 1969, pp. 321-330. Merritt, E. S.; and Cioffi, C. C.: OH-58 Aviation Digest, Mar. 1982, pp. 3-10. Hewetson, M. J. T.: Tail Rotor Breakway. Tail Rating Data. Human

of

33.

Factors,

34.

Rotor

Control

Power.

U.S. Army

35.

Aerospace

Safety,

Oct.

1980,

pp. 7-9. 36. Hoh, R. H.; Myers, T. T.; Ashkenas, I. L.; Ringland, R. F.; and Craig, S. J.:

Development of Handling Quality Control of Degrees of Freedom. Apr. 1981. 37. Shah, S. C.; Walker,

Criteria for Aircraft with Independent Systems Technology, Inc., AFWAL-TR-3027,

R. A.; and Gregory, Inc., Pal0 Alto,

C. Z.: Calif.,

Matrix-X 1985.

User's

Guide,

V4.0.

Integrated

Systems,

291

i i

,,=

Report
_ICe _ nw_Sl_al_x

Documentation

Page
3. Recipient's Catalog No.

1. Report No. NASA TM 86755 TR 85-A-II USAAVSCOM

2. Government Accession No.

4. Title and Subtiile A Simulation Investigation Control Tasks of Scout/Attack for Hover Helicopter and

5. Report Date March 1987

Directional Low-Speed

Requirements

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Courtland C. Bivens* and Joseph G. Guercio

8. I_erforming Organization A-85257 10. Work Unit No. 992-21-01-90-01

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Ames Research Center, Moffett Directorate, ACtivity, CA 94035-1099 Field, U.S. Ames CA 94035 and 11. Contract or Grant No.

*Aeroflightdynamics Research Moffett and Field,

Army

Aviation Center, 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Memorandum

Technology

Research

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address National Washington, Systems Aeronautics DC Command, and Space and MO Administration, U.S. Army Aviation

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

20546-0001 St. Louis,

63120-1798

15. Supplementaw Notes Point of Contact: Field, Courtland CA 94035, C. Bivens, Ames Research or FTS Center, 464-5836 MS 210-7,

Moffett

(415)694-5836

16.' Abstract A handling formed tional Also, of the by piloted simulator experiment for was low conducted speed (!40 in light single to investigate and directional hover tasks were perthe direcaxis

qualities a

requirements

knots) the

Scout/Attack of

helicopter. various on

Included candidate

investigation family rotor dynamic Five

characteristics the experiment series to the

helicopter main/tail yaw-axis modeled. Cooper-Harper of each configurations yaw damping tasks. critical acquisition values at

configurations configurations effects pilots flew quality The high directhat

focused aircraft, loss under of

conventional the

OH-58

where tail rotor wind

first-order were

contributed 22

control conditions. of

configurations were of gust h&ndling that both the the main/tail parameters used the

various primary indicate require during and

handling with maintain It was

ratings results tional tory mined ties Finally, increased single

as

the

measure that greater

merit

configuration.

experiment

rotorcraft minimum

sensitivity qualities yaw in lack of

to

satisfacalso detertask.

nap-of-the-Earth control yaw loss of response and the air-to-air damping directional

flying are target

damping performing

handling and of gust

qualitracking sensitivity for the

substantial of

larger control

possibility rotor

low

airspeeds

configurations. 18. DistributionStatement Unclassified Unlimited

17. Key Words(SuggestedbyAuthor(s)) Flight simulation handling control qualities

Helicopter Directional

Subject 19. SecuriW Classif.(ofthisre_) Unclassified NASA FORM 1626 OCT 86 20. Securiw Classif. (of this page) Unclassified For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

category 2'1. No. of pages 297

08 22. Price A13

Virginia 22161