Document
LARGE AIRCRAFT HANDLING QUALITIES William D. Grantham NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia First Annual NASA Aircraft Controls Workshop NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia October 25-27, 1983 LONGITUDINAL HANDLING QUALITIES CRITERIA The point to be made here is that some of the present-day longitudinal handling qualities criteria for transport class aircraft do not apply to very large (G.w. = In fact, of the four criteria indicated here, 2,000,OOO lbf) transport aircraft.
of MIL-F-8785C could be said to be in only the short-period frequency requirements Moreover, agreement with the present very large aircraft simulation study results.
if it is conceded that the C-5A has satisfactory longitudinal handling characteris- none of these criteria are applicable to very tics, then it might be concluded that large aircraft.
@@ Large transports simulated C-5A simulated A (a) MIL-F-8785C .* _-I n.(b) AIAA Paper No. 65-780 r rllc. ICC (d) NASA CR-137635 I EFFECTIVE TIMF, DELAY tl IN COMMAND PATH (PILOT QW = 1.5 IUD/SEC) These pitch rate response criteria were developed by Chalk (NASA CR-159236) and "effective time delay "transient peak ratio address such parameters as (q);" "effective rise time (At=t2-tl);" and apply to the dynamic (Aq2/Aql);" and response with the pilot in the loop. This table indicates that the effective time delays of the simulated large transports meet the requirements of this reference for pitch, roll, and yaw. Also, although it is not indicated in this chart, the pitch transient peak ratio requirement was met for all large transports (Aq+q 1 simulated.
None of the large aircraft simulated met the suggested pitch requirements for At (effective rise time parameter). This is quite disconcerting since the referenced limits on At are derived from or related to the constant limits on w,2/n/a used in MIL-F-8785C, and as shown earlier in thefirst figure of this presentation, all of the simulated large aircraft met the level 1 requirement for w,2/n/a.
It should be noted that NASA CR-159236 lists no requirements for "transient peak for the roll and yaw axes.
ratio" or "effective rise time" TANGENT AT MAX SLOPE t, - INTERSECTION OF MAX. SLOPE LINE AND ZERO AMPLITUDE t2 - INTERSECTION OF MAX SLOPE LINE AND STEADY STATE A92 - N TRANSIENT PEAK RATIO *q1 w EFFECTIVE TIME DELAY A92 '1 I A At - EFFECTIVE RISE TIME Large Aircraft Simulation Results Requirements-NASA CR-159236 Augmented Ave Pitch Roil .133 .120 I - COMPARISCNOF SIX LAHOS CONFIGURATIONS TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE SIJBSONIC PITCH RATE REQTJIBEMENTS Because the Shuttle is always operated as a closed-loop system, the conventional ML-F-8785C open-loop aircraft modal format for flying qualities was considered to be inappropriate. Instead, Shuttle pitch axis flying qualities were specified in the time domain by the response boundaries indicated in this chart.
However, the Shuttle specification itself does not correlate well with much of the recent flying qualities experimental data. For example, some selected LAHOS configurations (AFFDL-TR-78-122) were compared to the Shuttle criterion.
Note that it was possible to select some LAHOS configurations that exceeded the boundaries and yet had good (level 1) flying qualities, while others that met the requirements had poor (level 2) flying quali- ties. (Similar results were found for correlations of the Neal and Smith data of AFFDL-TR-70-74.)
Pilot Rating LAHOS
I
4-4 Level 2 Level 2 2.5 - Time, set Time, set (b) LAHOS configurations satisfying the (a) LAHOS configurations which do not meet Shuttle pitch-rate requirements.
the Shuttle pitch-rate requirements.
COMPARISONOF SIX LAHOS CONFIGURATIONS TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE SDBSONIC PITCH RATE ENVELOPE, BTJT USING NORMALIZED o! RESPONSE It has been suggested that the original Shuttle time-history envelope was .developed for angle of attack instead of pitch rate. The figure on the left of this chart shows the a response of LAHOS configurations 2-1, 4-C, and 3-C plotted in the Shuttle time-history response envelope. The responses now fall approximately within the Shuttle envelope with level 1 flying qualities.
The figure on the right of this chart shows a plot of the a responses of UHOS configurations 4-0, 4-3, and 4-4 on the same Shuttle time-history envelope, and all three configurations have level 2 flying qualities. Although the pitch rate responses of these three configurations were shown to. be within the Shuttle envelope in the previous figure, the angle-of-attack responses shown here indicate a very sluggish, unacceptably responsive vehicle.
* CALSPAN suggests that normalized u should be used instead of normalized pitch rate.
Pilot Rating LAHOS Config. Overall Approach 4-o Level 2 0 4-3 Level 2 Level 1 1 4-C 1 Level 11 Level 11 4-4 Level 2 Level 2 y 2.0 : :: 4: ", 1.5 a, ," 4: 1.0 -0 .F -.E .5 k z I $: 7-L I J 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 Time, set Time, set (a) Configurations which satisfy Shuttle 6 (b) Configurations which do not satisfy envelope when a is used. Shuttle i envelope when a is used.
COMPARISON OF LARGE TRANSPORTAIRCRAFT SIMULATED TO SHUTTLE PITCH RATE CRITERION ENVELOPE, BUT USING NORMALIZED a RESPONSE This chart presents a comparison of the "angle-of-attack" response for the simu- lated large transport aircraft to the "pitch rate" response criterion developed for the Space Shuttle.
These large aircraft do not correlate wsll with the Shuttle criterion, even when normalized r is substituted for normalized 8. The figure on the right presents the augmented dynamic response for four large aircraft configurations, all of which were assessed by the pilots as having satisfactory (level 1) approach and landing flying qualities. However, when compared to the Shuttle time-history envelope, it would be sluggish responses, concluded that these large aircraft had unacceptably which was not the case.
Large A/C Pilot Rating, Pilot Rating, Large A/C Landing Task Config. Landing Task Config.
1 1 1 Level 1 1 1 Level 2 Level 1
2 Level 2 I 2 I I
Level 1
3 Level 2 I 3 I I
4 Level 1 Level 1
I 4 I I
y 2.0 "u 2.0 am : =: =: u y- 1.5 : 1.5 0 0 a, aJ $1.0 2 1.0 24 -0 : 13 -0 N" = .5 = .5 E E 0' fi z z
I
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, set Time, set (a) Unaugmented large transports simulated.
(b) Augmented large transports simulated.
- COMPARISONOF LARGE TRANSPORT SIMULATED AIRCRAFT TO BOEING PITCH RATE REQUIREMENTS The low-speed pitch rate response criterion indicated in this chart and reported in NASA CR-137635 was developed by the Boeing Company for application to the han- dling qualities requirements for supersonic transports. It should be noted that this Boeing criterion differs from the Shuttle pitch rate response criterion presented earlier in that this Boeing criterion allows for much more pitch rate overshoot, and allows for much less initial pitch rate delay.
Upon comparing this pitch rate response and pilot opinion of the very large "subsonic" jet transport of the present ground-based simulation study, it can be seen reasonably well with the Boeing- that the simulated large aircraft results agree developed SST landing approach criterion. Indications are, however, that the minimum satisfactory level of "initial" pitch rate response allowed by this criterion could probably be relaxed for very large (G.W. = 2,000,OOO lbf) transport aircraft.
Large A/C Pilot Rating, Config. Landing Task 1 Level 1 2 Level 1 3 Level 1 -- 4 Level 1 1,r. IN I,-. LIL (a) Unaugmented large transports simulated. (b) Augmented large transports simulated.
COMPARISONOF SHORT-TERM PITCH RESPONSEOF SIMULATED LARGE TRANSPORTAIRCRAFT WITH CATEGORYC REQUIREMENTSOF PROPOSEDMIL HANDBOOK The short-period frequency requirement of 8785C was based upon the premise that is a primary factor affecting the normal acceleration response to attitude changes the pilot's perception of the minimum allowable wsp [that is, limits are placed on Likewise, the physical interpretation of the so-called "control wsp2/(n/a)l.
anticipation parametern [CAP = wsp2/(n/a>] assumes that the dominant concern for a pilot pitch control input is normal acceleration response.
also true that the pitch attitude response to pitch control It is, of course, inputs is of paramount importance, and, whether the appropriate correlating parameter is n/a or 1/Tg2 is a moot point in that data that correlate with l/To2 gener- However, it was observed in AIAA Paper No. 69-898 that ally also correlate with n/a.
the product ~~~~~~ provided a slightly better correlation than CAP. (Physi- cally, represents the separation in phase between aircraft response in %pT02 path and pitch attitude.)
Thus, the combination with criterion of AFWAL-TR-82-3081 %pTe hip* i?' in is presented in this c art along with the characteristics of the simulated very large opinion of these configura- aircraft of the present study. And, since the pilots' approach and landing were, in general, level 2 when unaugmented and tions during it is concluded that the results of the present 6-DOF ground- level 1 when augmented, simulator results are in good agreement with this based WspT02 vs. csp criterion.
NOTE: l/T ; n,(g/V) IN THIS INSTANCE % Large transports simulated C-5A simulated w T
WspTe2
sP 02 H LEVEL ) CLASS .
4SP 4SP (a) Large aircraft, unaugmented. (b) Large aircraft, augmented.
COMPARISONOF SIMULATED LARGE TRANSPORTAIRCRAFT TO LOCKHEED C-5A AND BOUNDARIES FROM FLIGHT TEST The boundary indicated as taken from TN D-7062 was derived using a general purpose airborne simulator (Lockheed Jetstar) with a model-controlled, variable- stability system installed to provide simulation capability. This boundary presents the pilot ratings (PR) for the maximum "roll acceleration" commanded by the pilots for the various roll time constants investigated. The boundary indicates that a roll acceleration capability of approximately 0.12 rad/sec2 or greater was consideredtobe satisfactory (PR < 3.5) by the pilots; and that the pilot ratings rapidly became unacceptable (PR > 6.5) when the roll acceleration capability was decreased below 0.10 rad/sec2.
The boundary indicated for the large transports (G.W. = 2,000,OOO lbf) simulated in the present study (on a 6-DOF ground-based simulator) indicates that a roll accel- eration capability as low as 0.09 rad/sec2 was evaluated as being satisfactory (PR < 3.5). Similar piloting tasks were used in both studies.
Note that the C-5A ground-based simulation results indicate a pilot rating of 4.0 (level 2) for the lateral-directional handling qualities and yet the roll accel- eration capability was greater than 0.2 rad/sec2, indicating that the roll control power was not the reason for the level 2 lateral-directional pilot rating.
w Large transports simulated A C-5A simulated PILOT RATING TND-7062 I I I I I I I I I I ; .04 .06 .08 .l .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1.0 rad/sec2 L6 'a a max' COMPARISONOF RESULTS FROM LARGE AIRCRAFT SIMULATIONS WITH REFERENCEDRESULTS This chart relates pilot opinion of an aircraft's roll response to the parameter (The term $1 is defined as the maximum bank angle that can be achieved in one $1.
second.) The results of the present large aircraft simulation study (6-DOF ground- based simulator) are compared to the results of TN D-7062 and CR-635 (both reporting results obtained from airborne simulators).
None of these simulation results agrees as to the minimum satisfactory level (PR The results from TN D-7062 indicate that $1 must be greater than < 3.5) of $1.
approximately 6" for level 1 roll response; the results of CR-635 indicate that $q must be greater than approximately 3" for level 1 roll response; and the results from the present ground-based simulation study indicate that the $11 for very large transport aircraft could be as low as approximately 1" and still be considered to have satisfactory (level 1) roll response.
~~~ Large transports simulated, ground-based A C-5A simulated NASA CR-635 (367-80 air- borne simulator) 6- airborne simulator) B- 9- 10 I I I 1 .3 1 3 10 30 q. DEG VARIATION OF PILOT RATING WITH BANK ANGLE ATTAINED IN THE FIRST SECOND Maximum bank angle in the first second after initiation of wheel deflection has been suggested as a figure of merit for roll control systems. The ($1 max) variation of pilot rating with +l,, for the ground-based simulator results reported in CR-635 are indicated in this chart to be a function of effective wheel angle, 6 (The term 6weff is defined as the wheel angle for maximum rolling Weff' moment.)
These indicated lines of constant effective wheel angle suggest that the pilot is rating the bank angle per wheel deflection or roll response sensitivity, more so, or instead of, the parameter $lmax. Another interesting point to be seen from this chart is that a constant pilot rating of 3 (level 1) was obtained at the con- stant value of $1 max/bw = 0.1, while @l,, varied from 3' (6weff = 30') to 9" UWeff = 90"). Note aLso the results of the present large aircraft simula- tion study.
Although values of $lmax of these large aircraft configurations were much smaller than those of the referenced data, the large aircraft 6weff was also smaller and the overall results were the same; a pilot rating of 3 was obtained when (p1/6, = 0.1 (f$lmax pJ 1.5' for gweff = 15").
-------- 50 NASA CR-635 \ --- 75 i i -- -- 90 i Large aircraft results -.-.-.-.-'-.- 15 i i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BANK ANGLE IN THE FIRST SECOND, 9, , DEG max COMPARISONOF ROLL PERFORMANCE FROM LARGE AIRCRAFT SIMULATED WITH REFERENCEDRESULTS An inadequate "large aircraft data base" has led to handling qualitfes specifi- and, as a result,there is a risk that future aircraft will be over- cation problems, unnecessarily expensive, or possibly inadequate to perform the design mis- designed, sion. For example, considerable effort and expense were initially expended on the C-5A in an attempt to meet a requirement for rolling to an 8" bank angle in one It was later determined from flight tests that the handling qualities of the second.
C-5A were totally acceptable with less than one-half such roll capability.
All four of the figures on this chart relate pilot opinion to the time required Figure (a) shows C-5A roll performance compared to the 8785C to bank 30" (t,+300).
Although this aircraft is considered to have satisfactory roll perfor- requirement.
mance, it would be evaluated as less than satisfactory by the military specification criterion. Boeing suggested a few years ago that the t =3Co criterion should be a function of aircraft landing weight (fig. (b)). Severa ! aircraft in service today meet this criteria but do not meet the MIL-SPEC criteria. Extrapolation of the Boeing criteria indicates that the t$=3Go requirement should be relaxed for heavier Class III aircraft.
Current results of the ongoing large aircraft simulation study are summarized in figures (c) and cd). Results shown in figure (c) indicate that a t,+3Co of less than 6 set should result in "acceptable" roll response characteristics, and that a of less than 4.0 set results in "satisfactory" roll response.
Figure (d) t9=30° indicates that the present large aircraft ground-based simulation results are in good agreement with the airborne simulation results of TN D-7062, wherein smaller Class III aircraft were simulated.
SUMMARY - The short-period frequency requirements of MIL-F-8785C are applicable to the very large transport aircraft simulated.
- The large aircraft simulated in this study meet the requirements of NASA CR-159236 for effective time delay and pitch transient peak.ratio.. However, the requirements of this reference for the effective rise time parameter are believed to be too conservative for very large transport aircraft.
- These large aircraft simulation results are in very good agreement with the criterion of AFWAL-TR-82-3081.
%&32 vs. Csp - A value of the parameter LsA6bax, which is an indication of the roll accleration capability, as low as 0.09 rad/sec2 was considered to be satisfactory for the very large transports simulated. This compares to a value of approximately 0.12 rad/sec2 desired for smaller transports.
- A minimum satisfactory level of the parameter $1 was determined to be much lower for the large aircraft simulated in this study compared to the values determined in previous studies for smaller transport aircraft.
However, the magnitude of required for these large transports was determined to be the same as that $1/6w required for smaller transports; thus, produces satisfactory roll 91&q = 0.1 characteristics.
- Data obtained to date as well as other data indicate that MIL-SPEC requirements for the parameter t,+=300 are too conservative for very large transport aircraft. The results of the present study indicate that a t+=300 of less than 6 set should result in "acceptable" roll response characteristics, and a t,+=300 of less than 4.0 set should result in "satisfactory" roll response.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Military Specification Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, MIL-F-8785C, Nov. 1980.
2. Shomber, H. A.; and Gertsen, W. M.: Longitudinal Handling Qualities Criteria: An Evaluation. AIAA Paper No. 65-780, Nov. 1965.
Aerospace Recommended Practice: Design Objectives for Flying Qualities of Civil 3.
Transport Aircraft. ARP 842B, Sot. Automat. Eng., Aug. 1, 1964. Revised Nov. 30, 1970.
4: Sudderth, Robert W.; Bohn, Jeff G.; Caniff, Martin A.; and Bennett, Gregory R.: Development of Longitudinal Handling Qualities Criteria for Large Advanced Supersonic Aircraft. NASA CR-137635, March 1975.
5. Chalk, C. R.: Recommendations for SCR Flying Qualities Design Criteria.
NASA CR-159236, April 1980.
6. Smith, Rogers E.: Effects of Control System Dynamics on Fighter Approach and Landing Longitudinal Flying Qualities. AFFDL-TR-78-122, vol. 1, March 1978.
7. Neal, T. Peter; and Smith, Rogers E.: An In-Flight Investigation to Develop Control System Design Criteria for Fighter Airplanes. AFFDL-TR-70-74, vol. 1, Dec. 1970.
8. Ashkenas, I. L.: Summary and Interpretation of Recent Longitudinal Flying Qualities Results. AIAA Paper No. 69-898, Aug. 1969.
9. Hoh, Roger H.; Mitchell, David G.; Ashkenas, Irving L.; Klein, Richard H.; Heffley, Robert K.; and Hodgkinson, John: Proposed MIL Standard and Handbook- Flying Qualities of Air Vehicles, vol. 2: Proposed MIL Handbook.
AFWAL-TR-82-3081, vol. 2, Nov. 1982.
10. Hollernan, Euclid C.; and Powers, Bruce G.: Flight Investigation of the Roll Requirements for Transport Airplanes in the Landing Approach.
NASA TN D-7062, Oct. 1972.
11. Condit, Philip M.; Kimbrel, Laddie G.; and Root, Robert G.: Inflight and Ground-Based Simulation of Handling Qualities of Very Large Airplanes in Landing Approach. NASA CR-635, Oct. 1966.