APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A GROUND-BASED SIMULATION SYSTEM CAPABILITIES Tables A-I and A-II present the physical system capabilities of the Ames moving-base transport simulator and landing approach color television display.
TABLE A-I Ames Moving-Base Transport Simulator Maximum Maximum Motions Generated: Acceleration * Displacement * A9 degrees it011 1 rad/sec2 0.5 rad/sec2 +14 to -6 degree Pitch 24 in.
Heave (vertical) *O. 8 g (from ambient) * Assumes independent motion TABLE A-II Ames Landing-Approach Color Television Display Maximum Maximum * Motions Generated: Velocity Displacement : -- Roll 0.35 rad/sec -- Pitch 0.52 rad/sec Yaw 0.17 rad/sec 360, degrees Lateral’ 240 knots 2-l/2 miles Vertical 6000 ft/min 1,500 ft to 20 ft.
Longitudinal 240 knots 9 miles -- Runway length 10,000 ft * Model scale 1:1200 A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE INFLIGHT SIMULATOR The Boeing Model 367-80 is the prototype of the C/KC-135 jet transport/ tanker airplanes and the ‘707 series commercial transptirts. The 367-80 has been used as a development test bed for improved flap systems, autopilot devices, and other airplane equipment. A two-view drawing and basic specifications are pre- sented in Fig. B-l. As flown in this program, the 367-80 was equipped with fixed leading edge slats on the outboard section, Krueger flaps on the inboard section, and boundary layer control (BLC) trailing edge flaps. The BLC flaps are large chord with single pivot hinges. High pressure engine bleed air is blown over the upper surface of the flaps. The BLC system is shown in Fig. B-2 and discussed in detail in Ref. 7. This system was used during the program to simulate the high roll power and low roll time constant configuration. All other characteristics remained essentially unchanged from the base lateral configuration. The longi- tudinal BLC configuration was also documented.
Example of Control Command Derivation. Figure B-3 indicates the variables used in the computation of the control commands. The magnitudes of the elec- trical commands to the surfaces were obtained from precalculated differences between the response of the basic 367-80 airplane and the response of the simulated airplane. The calculations were based on the known stability and control de- rivatives of the 367-80 and the predicted derivatives of the simulated airplane.
Figure B-4 shows a simplified block diagram of the elevator system. The derivation of the elevator command equation illustrates the method used for each The first step is the requirement that all center of gravity control surface.
accelerations, both linear and rotational, be identical for the 367-80 and the Thus, for the pitch axis simulated airplane.
..
..
‘-80 = e LT Expanding this simple identity using a summation of pitching moments results in the following equation: cM %h
b
%h 8 t.1 Mgth AU cMa Aa cMa ‘M ,i fi
q.SC cl0se
ti cM& 8, ‘M 6
IYY
I IYY =I I i
CMi LT -8( ‘MAP AV ‘“Av AV ‘M 6e 6e ‘Mb be e m cM 8 LT ah - ab -80 4 /- ~FT~IN.
b-.129 FT 7 IN.-- mat IZ. TA JL
nz4
j/ ; r VERT. TAIL/1
z$s
I
8 FT 3 IN.
- I 2
I I AT
- I-
l e l -* I
HORIZONTAL TAIL: WING: VERTICAL TAIL: f-T2 2821.36 FT2 AREA G25 FT’ -4REA AREA 312 ASPECT RATIO ASPECT RATIO 1.4G ASPECT RATIO 6.0 3.37 SWEEP (0.25~) 35 DEG SWEEP (0.25~) 35 DEG SWEEP 31.U DEG TAPER RATIO INCIDENCE DEG 0.421 TAPER RATIO 2.0 0.43 DIHEDRAL 7.0 DEG DIHEDRAL 7.0 DEG TAIL \‘OLUME 0 0447 TAIL VOLUME MAC 20.05 FT 0.638 Figure B-7. - Boeing 367-80 lnflight Simulator Geometric Doto /-DUAL ENGINE BLEED PORTS DUAL DUCTS MODULATING AND SHUTOFF UNIVERSAL JOINTS FRONT MANIFOLD REAR MANIFOLD.
LPRIMARY NOZZLES PRIMARY NOZZLE7LER EJECTOR SHROUD\ FLAP -DUAL MANIFOLDS Figure B-2. - Boeing 367-80 Boundary Layer Control System &i, LT ‘thLT THRUST brLT RUDDER PEDAL WHEEL WLT INTERFACE CONSOLE beLT u All COLUMN
I
‘ANGLE OF ATTACK + ELEVATOR SIDE SLIP ANGLE + THRUST AIRSPEED AIRBORNE PITCH RATE -+ SPEEDBRAKES COMPUTER ROLL RATE + RUDDER YAW RATE ALTITUDE b WHEEL L COMMAND SIGNAI Figure B-3. - Simplified Diagram of the Computation System EVALUATION SAFETY PILOT PILOT FEEL SYSTEM POSITION TRANSDUCER AIRPLANE VARIABLES TRANSFER VALVE - MODULATING PISTON CONTROL VALVE lL!Jz$ Figure B-4. - Simplified Block Diagram of Elevator System --- __.
Noting that the motion variables are, by definition, equal for the 367-80 and the simulated airplane and that V -80 = VLT, the above equation may be solved for the control variable (6, in the pitch case): ‘I e LT e LT 6 t11 LT 6th LT * th,8() s %8() ab - -80 - ( 6”k8() 6, - -80 cM Mar cM 6, I a LT a-80 -80 ’ - 1” cM ci LT '-80 .
- 'M- )e 6 LT d-80 - cM Av-82Av A’ 1,T w 1 Simil;tr ~OI~II~I:III~~S C:;II~ 1~: (Ici~ivc~clI’oi’ llw S(j7-80 rudder, wheel, thrust, and spoi lc I,‘.
S;~CetyI)rovisions l’or I.hc: inllight silllul;ltion :IW provided both electronically The olcctronic equipment contains logic .circuits which disengage and m:lnu:illy.
The evaluation pilot has the the simul;ltion shoultl cr L’~:I in limits be c~scccclctl.
I.IIc simul;llion ;IS tlocs the safety pilot. For any of the c:lp:il)ility ol’ tliseng:lgin; above tliscngxl?;cmcnts, control reverts to lhe safety pilot who has been following In the event of ;i multiple iill control motions on 111~ norni~tl control system.
failure, the s:iTcty l)ilot. is ;~l)lc to rn;~nu;~lly ovcrritle the servo system and fly the Grcraft.
Limitations of the Inflight Si mulation. - The erlu:ltions of motion were lin- earized along with the ;ierotl~y~~amic tleriv:ttivts I)y using the small angle assumptions.
Any large rlepn rturc l’rom t 1-im contlitions rcsulterl in ;1 degraded simulation due to As working nunil)ers, limits off 10 knots from trim aerodynamic nonline;i ritics.
speed, f 20 tleyrees 0l I);tnli ;Itigle, f 10 tlegrees of sideslip, and f 0. 43 g’s were used. The simul~~tion c;~lxll)ility of the ;~iq)l;ine ~1s limited bv accelerations which the controls could produce (the simukltion was based on matching center of gravity For example, the spoilers operating from a partially deflected accelerations).
setting could protlucc +O. 07 or -0. 12 g’s.
There was no com~)ens:~tion ~)rovitletl t.o account for the gross weight change2 ) and minor center of gravity wrk~tions (3 I. 7 percent mnc or M, = f 0.12 l/set due to fuel l)urnoff.
The response characteristics of the control surfaces affected the accuracy of the simulation, This limitation included the frequency response of the servo sys- tem plus any nonlinearities in the linkages, and the effects of ail-loads. Signal accuracy from the aircraft sensors was important since these signals mere fed directly into the computer to form the commands for the control surfaces. Meas- urement of the significant variables such as angle of attack, sideslip angle, and airspeed was vital to the simulation accuracy. The important sensors were calibrated previously over the flight range used. The aircraft response to a standardized control input provided an overall check of total system response.
The 367-80 simulation system was not designed to produce accurate simulation in a turbulent environment. This factor made it necessary to fly the simulation in relatively calm air (gusts less than i 1 degree in a or f 2 degrees in P ).
Because control positions were a strong function of the aircraft motion variables, gusty conditions would have resulted in errors. These errors would be due primarily to physical separation of the sensor from the actual surface position.
For example, a vertical gust first encountered by the nose-boom-mounted angle- of-attack sensor would feed a signal to the spoilers to change the lift and the elevator to correct the pitching moment. A finite time later the gust would reach the wing and later the tail, resulting in a motion which would not be the correct gust response of the simulated airplane.
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTIONS Tables C-I and C-II present the longitudinal characteristics of the configurations evaluated on the airborne and ground-based simulators, Tables C-III and C-IV present the later characteristics. Representative large transport physical char- acteristics and aerodynamic coefficients for the base configuration are shown in Table C-V. Characteristics which were not varied significantly during the study are presented in Tables C-V and C-VI.
TABLE C-I LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS INFLIGHT SIUMLATION M, I126 Inflight La L6, rj$ Mb Simulation l/set rad/sec2'in . rad/sec/in.
:onfiguration l/sec2 l/set 26 0.650 0.942 4.0 -0.128 -0.587 .0504 -.00635 0.497 5.5 -0.506 -0.587 .0167 -.00262 128 0.907 0.703 0.521 -0.506 -0.587 .0252 -.00010 76 0.907 0.703 4.0 0.521 .0252 -.00164 81 0.907 0.703 3.5 0.521 -0.506 -0.587 .0252 -.00313 83 0.907 0.703 4.5 0.521 -0.506 -0.587 -.00625 42 0.907 0.703 3.5 0.521. -0.506 -0.587 .0504 -.00316 144 0.865 4.0 0.521 -0.506 -1.174 .0252 1.071 0.725 2.75 0.552 -1.012 -1.174 .0504 -.00635 91 1.330 0.525 1.75 1.5 to 0.645 -1.398 -0.598 .0625 -.00276 50 1.14 2.0 *Windup turn slope at R = 1.0 TABLE C-II LONGITUDINA4L CHARACTERISTICS GROUND-BASED SIMULATOR fiIa 1 /se2 Range 0.302 0 . (I,’ 1’1 - * i - . (II II ‘1-l . .
0.302 -0.34;: . w19 -* (l!ll!)rJ >‘i 0. 666 0.302 -0.340 . (I“ 10 - I -. (rrrl!,: 0. 1lx -0. 555 7> 0.722 0. 716 4.0 . 02 1!I 0.302 -0.506 -. 0111!1> O.lGG -0. 335 101 0.534 0. 629 4.25 4.0-4.5 . (I” 10 0.302 -0.735 - I -. 0019~ 137 0. 16Ci -0.5r5 0.957 0. 546 G.0 -* orll:,~ -0. 55.5 0.302 -0.980 . WI!) 19 1.075 0. 1ii6 0.485 6.0 3.- 0.571 +o. 245 . 0” 10 -. (I(1 1!,I: -0.~35 - . A3 0.295 0.1(X 2.200 7.5 .!
0.571 0 -. lbl)l!lJ 59 0. 10; -0. 53s .0141 0.575 1.100 5.5 5.5-5.5 f\ 0 . 0'2 19 -. CIOl!FJ 0. 166 -0. .cJ35 : 0.571 0. 575 1.100 4.35 3.5-5.0 I 1 r.
L., 0 . 043s -. 003!ll 19 0.575 0. lG(i -0. 535 1.100 5.25 4.75-6.0 0.571 11 0 -0.5s: 0.571 . (j2Q -. 0019J 30 0.575 0.213 1.100 4.0 12 -0.049 . 0435 -. 00391 0.166 -0.585 0.571 21 0.61s 1.045 4.0 13 -0.122 .0433 -. 00391 0.166 -0.585 0.571 23 0.675 0.958 4.5 14 -0.122 .0646 -. 00391 20 0.675 0.245 -0.585 0.958 4. 5 0.571 -0.245 15 .0219 -. 00195 52 0.772 0.166 -0.585 0.843 3.25 3.0-3.5 0.571 16 -0.506 -0.242 0.571 .0219 -. 00195 44 0.817 0.166 0.605 3.25 17 -0. SOG 0.107 -0.585 0.571 .0141 -. 00195 112 0.928 0.707 5.25 5.0-5.5 19 -0.506 .0176 -. 00195 88 0.133 -0.535 0.571 0.928 0.707 3.75 19 -0.506 .0219 +. 00195 59 0.928 0.166 -0.585 0.707 2.7 2.5-2.9 0.571 20 -0.506 .0319 0 0.928 0.166 -0.585 0.707 0.571 2.5 I 69%9 21 -0.506 .0219 -. 00195 0.928 0.166 -0.585 0.707 3.4 2.75-4.0 0.571 22 -0.506 0.571 .0438 -. 00391 34 0.928 0.166 -0.585 0.707 3.3 2.5-4.5 -0.506 0.928 -0.585 0.707 0.571 23 0.166 -.00588 30 3.25 .0658 L *Windup turn slope at n = 1.0 m w TABLE C-II-Continued LONGITUDINALCHARACTERISTICSGROUND-BASEDSIMULATOR Short Period Pilot Ratings
r 1
fround- FS* La Ma Mmax MB
M& Lb 0
Based n T- Zonfig. l/set l/sec2 l/set rad/sec2 rad/sec2/in. rad/sec/in. rad/sec Average Range lb/g 3.0-3.25 24 0.571 -0.506 -0.585 0.240 .0316 -.00195 47/60 0.928 0.707 3.1 25 0.571 -0.506 -0.585 0.240 .0273 +.00165 62 0.928 0.707 3.25 26 0.571 -0.506 0.245 -0.585 .0273 0 66 0.928 0.707 3.5 27 0.571 2.25 2.0-2.5 -0.506 -0.585 0.245 0646 +.00391 26 0.928 0.707 28 0.571 -0.506 -0.585 0.245 :0646 -.00391 29 0.928 0.707 3.0-3.25 3.1 29 0.571 -0.506 -0.585 0.332 .0439 -.00195 33 0.928 0.707 2;33 2.0-2.5 30 0.571 -0.506 -1.173 0.166 .0219 -.00195 110 1.089 0.865 3.25 31 0.571 -0.506 -1.173 0.166 .0438 -.00391 55 1.089 0.865 3.25 32 0.571 -0.506 -1.173 0.245 .0273 -.00165 112 1.089 0.865 3.25 33 0.571 -0.506 -1.173 -.00195 53 0.332 .0439 1.089 0.865 2.5 34 0.571 -0.980 -0.585 0.166 .0219 -.00195 102 1.151 0.569 3.25 3.0-3.5 35 0.571 -0.980 -0.585 0.166 .0438 -.00391 51 1.151 0.569 2.0 36 0.571 -0.980 -0.585 0.245 .0646 -.00391 43 1.151 0.569 2.75 37 0.571 -0.980 -0.585 0.332 .0439 -.00195 47 1.151 0.569 2.0 38 0.571 -0.980 -1.173 0.166 .0219 -.00195 148 1.290 0.733 3.5 39 0.571 -0.980 -1.173 0.166 .0438 -.00391 74 1.290 0.739 3.0 40 0.571 -0.980 -1.173 0.245 0438 -.00391 96 1.290 0.739 2.65 2.0-3.25 0.571 -1.470 -1.173 0.166 :0219 -.00195 194 1.466 0.645 3.5 42 0.571 -1.470 -1.173 0.166 .0438 -.00391 97 1.466 0. 645 2.5 43 0.571 -1.470 -1.173 0.332 .0438 -.00195 85 1.466 0.645 3.5 44 0.925 0.098 -0.585 0.166 .0219 -.00195 35 0.660 1.24 6.5 5.5-7.5 45 0.925 0 -0.245 0.107 .0141 -.00195 25 0.520 1.195 5.75-8.5 7.1 46 0.925 0 -0.585 0.107 .0141 -.00195 60 0.695 1.115 5.75 5.0-6.5 47 0.925 0 -0.585 0.166 .0219 -.00195 38 0.695 1.115 5.0 j 48 0.925 -0.122 -0.245 0.166 .0219 -.00195 20 0.635 1.040 4.5 /I 49 0.925 -0.122 -0.585 0.166 .0219 -.00195 43 0.805 1.000 3.5 3.0-4.0 / *Windup turn slope at n = 1.0 TABLE C-II - Concluded LONGITUDINAL CHARACTERISTICS GROUND-BASED SIRIULATOR Short Period Pilot Ratings I FS*
T
3’6 31fj hIa
C I 1
Lb % l/sec2 l/set ratl/sec’/in. rad ‘scc,‘in. lb/g racl/sec Avemge ( Range 1 -0.245 -0.245 0.107 . 0141 -. 00195 38 0.725 0.920 -. OOl!KJ -0.245 -0.585 0,107 .0141 74 0.833 0.930 -. 00391 -0.24.5 -0.585 0.166 .0438 30 0.883 0.930 0.107 -. 00195 -0.506 -0.245 . 0141 53 0.882 0.762 -0.506 -0.585 0.166 .0219 -. 0019FJ 56 1.036 0.799 -0.506 -0:585 0.166 . 0434 -. 00:191 28 1.036 0.799 -0.506 -0.585 0.245 0646 -. 00301 24 1.036 0.799 -0.980 -0.585 0.166 :0219 -. 00193 75 1.242 0.668 0.166 -0.980 -0.585 .0438 -, 00391 38 1.242 0.668 *Windup turn slope at n = 1.0 TABLE C-III LATERAL CHARACTERISTICS INFLIGHT SIMULATION Infli ght Lmax TR t @l &2 Pilot Rating
r I
Weff limulation max Config rad/sec2 set set Average de deg deg 1 1.14 0.150 30 1.0 1.20 7.25 4.5 2 1.14 0.240 30 1.0 1.89 10.02 3.4 3 1.14 0.250 50 1.4 1.40 9.10 4.0 0.267 30 0.60 0.9 1.90 8.95 2.9 0.267 50 1.14 2.10 12.01 3.75 1.0 0.323 30 0.36 4.00 20.72 0.7 2.0 - TABLE C-IV LATERAL CIIARACTERISTICS GROUND-BASED SIMULATION Ground- JJlWi rR bW t Pilot Ratings 1: Based eff 42 % max % rad/sec2 config set set lb/d:g Average deg Range deg deg 1 .05 30 1.14 0.10 1.0 4.0 0.28 4.0 .05 50 1.14 0.10 1.0 4.0 0.28 5.0 3 .05 90 1.14 0.10 1.0 4.0 0.28 6.0 0.10 30 1.14 0.20 1.9 6.6 0.28 5.0 5 0.10 30 1.42 0.10 2.2 6.8 0.28 3.75 6 0.10 50 1.14 0.20 1.9 6.6 0.28 4.75 4.5 to 5.0 7 0.10 50 1.42 0.10 2.2 6.8 0.28 4.5 8 0.125 1.42 50 0.10 2.8 9.0 0.28 4.0 9 0.125 90 1.42 0.10 2.8 9.0 0.28 5.25 10 0.15 30 1.14 0.10 3.0 12.0 0.28 3.0 11 0.15 1.14 30 0.20 2.8 10.0 0.19 3.0 2.5 to3.5 0.15 12 30 1.42 0.10 3.3 10.9 0.28 3.0 13 0.15 50 0.72 0.20 2.5 8.0 0.28 4.0 0.15 50 0.72 0.20 2.5 8.0 0.28 7. o* 1% 14 0.15 50 1.03 0.18 3.0 9.2 0.28 4.0 15 0.15 50 1.14 0.20 2.8 10.0 0.28 3.0 to4.0 3.7 0.15 1.14 50 0.20 2.8 10.0 0.28 7. o* 5.5* to a. 5* 1% 16 0.15 50 1.42 0.10 3.3 10.9 0.28 3.25 to 4.0 3.6 17 0.15 50 1.42 0.18 10.2 0.28 3.1 3.5 18 0.15 1.42 50 0.30 2.7 9.4 0.28 4.0 19 0.15 50 1.59 0.20 12.0 0.28 4.5 3.1 20 0.15 1.14 to4.5 75 0.20 2.8 10.0 0.28 4.3 4.0 21 0.16 50 1.59 0.20 3.3 12.9 0.28 4.35 2.75 to 6.0 0.16 50 1.59 0.20 12.9 7.75* 7.0 to8.5* 3.3 0.28 2lg 22 0.20 50 1.03 0.18 3.9 12.3 0.28 3.4 23 0.20 50 1.42 0.10 4.4 14.2 0.14 3.0 0.20 1.42 24 50 0.10 4.4 14.2 0.21 3.1 tEvaluated with turbulence TABLE C-IV - Continued LATERAL CHARACTERISTICS GROUND-BASED SIMULATION
Ground- Fw
LEELX b t Pilot I atings Based max 91 ++2 “eff I b, Config rad/sec2 set lb/deg Average Range deg deg deg 25 0.20 50 0.10 4.4 14.2 0.28 3.35 3.0 to4.0 26 0.10 0.20 50 4.4 14.2 0.42 3.9 27 0.20 50 1.42 0.10 4.4 14.2 0.64 4.1 0.20 90 1.42 0.10 4.4 14.2 0.28 4.0 29 0.25 30 1.14 0.20 4.8 16.7 0.28 3.0 30 1.14 0.20 16.7 0.28 0.25 4.8 3. o* 2% 30 0.25 50 1.14 0 5.3 18.5 6.28 3.5 31 0.25 50 1.14 0.20 4.8 16.7 0.28 2.75 2.5 to3.1 3.5* to 4.0* 0.25 50 1.14 0.20 4.8 16.7 0.28 3.75* 3lg 32 0.25 50 1.14 0.50 3.5 16.0 0.28 2.75 33 0.25 50 1.14 13.0 0.28 3.0 to3.5 0.75 3.2 3.3 0.25 50 1.42 0.18 5.2 17.0 0.28 3.0 35 0.25 50 1.42 0.30 4.6 15.8 0.28 3.5 0.25 75 1.14 0.20 4.8 16. 7 0.19 4.0 0.25 75 1.14 0.20 16.7 0.19 5. o* 4.8 36g 0.267 50 0.60 0.20 4.2 13.3 0.19 3.5 3.0 to4.0 38 0.28 50 0.72 0.20 4.6 15.1 0.28 2.0 39 0.30 1.03 0.18 18.6 0.28 2.75 50 5.9 I 0.30 50 1.14 0.20 5.7 20.1 0.19 3.5* I 0.30 50 1.42 0.10 21.2 0.28 6.5 3.4 42 0.30 75 1.42 21.2 0.10 6.5 0.28 3.5 43 0.30 90 1.42 0.10 21.2 0.28 3.5 6.5 44 0.35 50 1.42 0.18 24.0 7.2 0.28 2.5 45 0.35 50 1.42 0.30 6.2 22.0 0.28 3.0 46 0.40 50 1.14 0.20 26.8 7.5 0.28 3.5* 0.40 50 1.42 0.10 28.1 0.28 2.85 2.75 to 3.0 8.7 48 0.40 75 1.14 0.20 26.8 0.28 2.65 2.25 to 3.0 7.5 *Evaluated with turbulence TABLE C-IV - Concluded LATERAL CHARACTERISTICS GROUND-BASED SIMULATION Ground- FW LWC TR t Based ‘“eff max 8, Config rad/sec2 set set 1b/deg de 49 0.40 75 1.42 0.10 8.7 28.1 0.28 3.0 50 0.40 90 1.42 0.10 28.1 0.28 8.7 2.9 51 0.43 30 0. 60 0.20 6.8 21.0 0.19 1.65 0.47 50 0. 60 0.20 7.4 22.8 0.28 3.0 0.47 50 0. 60 0.20 22.8 0.28 3.1* 7.4 52g 53 0.47 50 0. 72 0.28 0.20 7.8 24.4 3.0 3.5* 0.47 50 0.72 0.20 7.8 24.4 0.28 5% 54 0.50 50 1.42 0.10 10.8 35.0 0.28 2.9 55 0.60 1.42 50 0.10 13.0 42.0 0.28 2.8 0.80 50 1.42 0.10 17.4 56.0 0.28 3.1 57 0.90 1.42 0.28 50 0.10 19.5 63.0 4.0 1.0 50 1.42 0.10 21.6 70. 0 0.28 4.75 *Evaluated with turbulence TABLE C-V LARGE TRANSPORT DESCRIPTION --~ ___ Physical Characteristics = 500,000 113 Weight Center of gravity @ 0.25 mat Wing area = 5,500 ft?
= 28.75 ft mat Span = 215.0 ft = 17.5 x lo6 slug-ft2 1xx = 30.0 x lo6 slug-ft2 I YY = 45.0 x lo6 slug-ft2 I zz I = 0.95 x lo6 slug-ft2 xz Trim Conditions = 117.0 knot Velocity = (197.5 ft/sec) Angle of attack = 2.7 degrees = 46.4 lb/ft2 Dynamic pressure TABLE C-VI SIMULATED LARGE TRANSPORT DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS (BASE CONFIGURATION) Short period n = 0.93 rad/sec c= 0.71 Phugoid “n = 0.18 rad/sec c= 0.14 Dutch roll % = 0.50 rad/sec c= 0.33 q/3= 1.3 Spiral t l/2 =20 set Rolling mode = 1.1 set TR
II
TABLE C-VII LARGE TRANSPORT DESCRIPTION (BASIC AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS) c = YAW: 0.18 /rad DRAG: CD = 0.45 (unaugmented) 0 “0 -0.158 sec/rac 1.07 /rad ‘D, = cnb= -0.267 sec/rai ‘n+ = 1.94 LIFT: CL0 = c = 0.021 /rad sec/rad 0.804
cLB =
x3 c = sec/rad -0.120 /rad -0.396 CL& = nhr /rad CIA= = 6.8 SIDE FORCE: -0.83 /rad (unaugmented) /rad zyB- 0.57 sec/rad
‘Lb,= ios4
Y+ = c = sec/rad 0.03 sec/rad PITCH: c = -0.555 rn.
Y$
a
z = -0.081 /rad cm = -0.0545 /rad yaa iH /rad 0.246 /rad c = -2.07
ma
/rad c = -2.3 AUGMENTATION -0.30 set b/b = mse GAINS: -2.4 sec/rad c = b/+= -2.07 set m* e /rad 6r/a = 0.178 ROLL: Cl = -0.40 B Wwit. ) a = 0.30 set/ rad Cl * set -1.0 VI aa/+ = = /rad 0.00229 Cl ha/p = 1.83 6, -0.24 sec/rad Cl. = + /rad Cl = 0.10 W GO REFERENCES W. M. Eldridge, and H. L.
1. Crane, Use of A Large Jet Transport as an Inflight Dynamic: Simulator, (Preprint) 28th Meeting of the AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel, May 1966.
2. D.‘ H. Perry, W. G. A. Port, and J. C. Morrell, A Flight Study of the, Side- step Maneuver During Landing, R &. M No. 3347, British A. R. C. , 1964.
3. Seth B. Anderson, Hervey C. Quigley, and Robert C. Innis, Stability and ’ ’ Control Considerations for STOL Aircraft, (Preprint) No. 65-175, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, October, 1965.
George E. Cooper, “Understanding and Interpreting Pilot Opinion, ” 4.
Aeronautical Engineering Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, March 1957, pp 47-51 and 56.
G. A. Patterson and LCDR W. Spangenberg, The Provision of Adequate 5.
Lateral Control Power for Landing Approach Conditions, AGARD Report Number 419, January, 1963.
6. W. J. Kehrer: Longitudinal Stability and Control of Large Supersonic Aircraft at Low Speeds, (Preprint) No. 64-586, International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, August, 1964.
L. B. Gratzer and T. J. O’Donnell, “Development of A BLC High-Lift 7.
System for High-Speed Airplanes,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 2, No. 6, November-December 1965, pp 477-484.
NASA-Langley, 1966 CR-635 I$