An investigation of the effects of pitch-roll (de)coupling on helicopter handling qualities

Appendix A: The 1992 Flight Test Data Base L6y = 0.143 rad.sec -2. percent -1 M_ = 0.052 rad.sec -2. percent -1 The 1992 flight test campaign took place at the German Forces Flight Test Center in Manching (Germany) from Lp = -8.0 sec -1 June 15 to July 2, 1992. During these 3 weeks of testing, Mq = -4.0 sec -1 a total of 28 configurations were evaluated for which 46 validated HQRs and comments were obtained. Four In the remarks column, the configurations which were experienced test pilots participated in the tests: two pilots repeated in other tests are listed. Configurations starting from WTD-61 in Manching, one pilot from NASA Ames with "ASC" are flight test configurations, configurations (USA), and one pilot from DRA Bedford (GB).

starting with "VSC" are ground-based simulator con- figurations. The numbers following these configurations In the following table, the 1992 flight test configurations are the configurations numbers shown in the first column are listed. The first column lists the configuration number.

and listed in the tables throughout this report. In the table, The dimensions of the variables are given by: the following footnote symbols are used: L_ and M_- rad.sec -2. percent -1 1 The pilot seems to have slightly underrated this Lq, Mp, Lq, c, and M p, c - sec -i configuration.

IOpk/d?t=4sl, I_k/Ot=4sl, and C - dimensionless * No ground tracking data available.

The on-axis characteristics of the model were unchanged for all configurations. The on-axis parameters for the 1992 flight tests are given by: NO.

C Pilot HQR's Notes Type of L8 M 8 L M L M ] [0 [OADs]_ADS coupling _ q p p,c q,c D 10 Baseline .0000 .0000 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .000 .000 2 2V2 Cfr. ASC_A0, VSC_0 32 Control .0065 -.0036 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .048 .065 .80 3 3 Cfr. VSC_I 13 Control .0130 -.0072 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .097 .129 .80 4 5 Cfr. ASC_A1, VSC_2 14 Control .0260 -.0143 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .194 .258 .80 Cfr. VSC_3 15 Control .0520 -.0286 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .387 .517 .80 4 _ 5 Cfr. ASC_A2, VSC_4 12 Control .0780 -.0429 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .775 .80 Cfr. ASC_A3, VSC_5 36 Rate .0000 .0000 1.5 -.25 -8.0 -4.0 .058 .181 .33 3 3.

Cfr. VSC_6 17 Rate .0000 .0000 3.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .362 .33 Cfr, ASC_B0, VSC_7 18 Rate .0000 .0000 4.5 -.75 -8.0 -4.0 .175 .544 .33 5 Cfr. VSC_7 19 Rate .0000 .0000 6.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .234 .725 .33 5 Cfr. VSC_9 16 Rate .0000 .0000 9.0 -1.5 -8.0 -4.0 .351 1.087 .33 Cfr. VSC_10 44 Combined .0065 -.0036 1.5 -.25 -8.0 -4.0 .107 .246 .45 3 3 11 Combined .0130 -.0072 3.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .214 .492 .45 4/4 20 Combined .0130 -.0072 4.5 -.75 -8.0 -4.0 .272 .673 .42 5 21 Combined .0260 -.0143 3.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .310 .621 .52 6 24 Combined .0260 -.0143 4.5 -.75 -8.0 -4.0 .369 .802 .48 6 7 Pilot HQR's Notes

No. Typeof

coupling

I° c

L6 M8 Lq Mp Lp,_ Mq,_ _ ADS AOS A B C D

25 Combined .0260 -.0143 6.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .427 .983 .45 6 7

26 Combined .0520 -.0286 4.5 -.75 -8.0 -4.0 .562 1.060 .55

9 8

27 Combined .0520 -.0286 6.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .621 1.242 .52 10 81

28 Combined .0650 -.0358 6.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .718 1.371 .55 71

45 Washed-out .0260 -.0143 -2.0 .80 -12.0 -6.0 .004 .011 .44 4 4 42 Washed-out .0260 -.0143 -2.0 .80 -8.0 -4.0 .006 .017 .40 4 3 Cfr. ASC_C1 46 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -12.0 -6.0 .009 .022 .44 4 Cfr. VSC_38 40 Washed-out .0650 -.0358 -5.0 2.0 -12.0 -6.0 .011 .028 .44 43 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -8.0 -4.0 .013 .033 .40 Cfr. VSC_40/52 29 Washed-out .0650 -.0358 -5.0 2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .016 .042 .40 23 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -4.0 -2.0 .026 .067 .34 48 Washed-out .0650 -.0358 -5.0 2.0 -4.0 -2.0 .032 .083 .34 to L.o

Appendix B: The Ground-Based Simulator L_, M_, L6y, and M R - rad-sec -2- percent -1 Test Data Base Lq, Mp, Lq, c,, Mp, c, Lp, and Mq - sec -I The 1993 ground-based simulator campaign took place at I Opk/¢t=4s I, I dPpk/Ot=4s I, and C - dimensionless NASA Ames (Moffett Field, California) on a fixed base In the remarks column, the configurations which were simulator. During a 2 week period in February-March, repeated in other tests are listed. Configurations starting 1993, a total of 64 coupling configurations were evalu- with "ASC" are flight test configurations, configurations ated. Two experienced test pilots participated in the tests: starting with "VSC" are ground-based simulator con- one pilot from NASA Ames (USA) and one pilot from figurations. The numbers following these configurations the U.S. Army.

are the configurations numbers shown in the first column In the following table, the 1993 ground-based simulator and listed in the tables throughout this report.

configurations are listed, including the on-axis param- eters. The first column lists the configuration number.

The dimensions of the variables are given by: PRECEDING PAGE BLANK _OT _LMED Off-axis On-axis Pilot No.

Type of HQR's Notes

Iil osl l,os c

coupling L8 M_ Lq Mp Lp,_ Mq,_ L _ M8 Lp Mq 0 Baseline .0000 .0000 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .000 .000 2 Cfr. ASC_A0, ASC_10 Control .0065 -.0036 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .049 .065 0.81 3 Cfr. ASC_32 2 Control .0130 -.0072 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .097 .129 0.81 3 2V2 Cfr. ASC_A1, ASC_13 Control .0260 -.0143 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .194 .258 0.80 4 3 Cfr. ASC_14 4 Control .0520 -.0286 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .387 .517 0.80 4½ 5 !Cfr. ASC_A2, ASC_15 5 Control .0780 -.0429 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .775 0.80 7½ 5 Cfr. ASC_A3, ASC_12 5a Control .0978 -.0536 0.0 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .725 .972 0.80 6 Rate .0000 .0000 1.5 -.25 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .058 .181 0.33 3 Cfr. ASC_36 Rate .0000 .0000 3.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .362 0.33 3 4 Cfr. ASC_B0, ASC 17 8 Rate .0000 .0000 4.5 -.75 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .175 .544 0.33 4½ Cfr. ASC_18 9 Rate .0000 .0000 6.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .234 .725 0.33 5 Cfr. ASC_19 10 Rate .0000 .0000 9.0 -1.5 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .351 1.088 0.33 4½ 5 Cfr. ASC_16 11 Rate .0000 .0000 12.0 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .468 1.450 0.33 7 7½ Cfr. ASC_B2 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 1.82 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .220 0.55 4 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 3.64 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .234 .440 0.55 4½ P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 7.27 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .468 .878 0.55 4½ Off-axis On-axis Pilot NO.

Type of HQR's Notes coupling L M L M L8 Msy q P L8 M_ Lp Mq p,¢ q,c C E 15a P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 9.09 -2.5 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .585 1.098 0.55 7 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 1.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .121 1.00 3 Cfr. ASC_B4 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 2.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .234 .242 1.00 4 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 4.0 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .468 .483 1.00 5 Cfr. ASC_B6 18a P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 6.0 -3.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .702 .725 1.00 7V2 18b P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 5.0 -2.5 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .585 .604 1.00 71/2 Cfr. ASC_E8 19 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 0.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .000 o_ 3 Cfr. ASC_B7 20 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 0.0 -1.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .234 .000 _ 4 21 P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 0.0 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .468 .000 oo 4 Cfr. ASC_B9 21a P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 0.0 -2.5 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .585 .000 _ 6 21b P-R Ratio .0000 .0000 0.0 " -3.0 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .702 .000 oo 8 22-un Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .000 .000 3 22 Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 1.5 -.25 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .089 .283 0.33 4 22a Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 .94 -.16 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .057 .178 0.34 3 24 Red. on-axis ,0000 .0000 6.0 -1.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .358 1.133 0.33 6 25 Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 9.0 -1.5 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .537 1.700 0.33 8 tO Oc_ Off-axis On-axis Pilot No. Type of HQR's i Notes coupling L8 M8 Lq Mp Lp; Mq, c L8 M_ Lp Mq C E 25a Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 3.75 -.63 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .225 .708 0.34 4½ 27a Red. on-axis .0000 .0000 7.5 -1.3 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .465 1.417 0.35 7 28a Red. on-axis .0049 -.0027 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .048 .072 0.74 4 30a Red. on-axis .0196 -.0108 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .191 .287 0.74 4½ 31a Red. on-axis .0392 -.0215 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .381 .575 0.74 5 32a Red. on-axis .0588 -.0323 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .572 .862 0.74 6 32b Red. on-axis .0686 -.0376 0.0 0.0 -5.0 -2.5 .107 .036 -5.0 -2.5 .666 1.006 0.74 8 33-un Var. freq.

.0000 -.0000 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .000 .000 3 Var. freq.

.0065 -.0036 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .046 .085 0.56 3 Var. freq.

.0260 -.0143 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .182 .341 0.56 4 Var. freq.

.0520 -.0286 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .365 .681 0.56 5 37a .0908 -.0498 0.0 Var. freq.

0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .635 1.190 0.56 5/7 37b .1048 -.0575 0.0 Var. freq.

0.0 -6.0 -4.0 .115 .052 -6.0 -4.0 .734 1.373 0.56 7 38 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -12.0 -6.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .009 .022 0.44 4 Cfr. ASC_46 40/52 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .013 .033 0.40 3 3 Cfr. ASC_43 Washed-out .1236 -.0675 -9.5 3.8 -12.0 -6.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .019 .053 0.43 4 2

Off-axis On-axis

Pilot No. Type of HQR's Notes ADS I _ ADS C coupling La M8 Lq Mp Lp,c Mq, c Ln M_ Lp Mq C E 45 Washed-out .1854 -.1017 -14.3 5.7 -12.0 -6.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .030 .078 0.44 5½ 46 Washed-out .2471 -.1356 -19.0 7.6 -12.0 -6.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .040 .106 0.44 5 5½ 48 Washed-out .3707 -.2034 -28.5 11.4 -12.0 -6.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .060 .160 0.44 8 6+ 54 Washed-out .1043 -.0572 -8.0 3.2 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .026 .070 0.40 3+ 3/4 Cfr. ASC_C3 56 Washed-out .2085 -.1144 -16.0 6.4 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .052 .138 0.40 6 6 58 Washed-out .3128 -.1716 -24.1 9.6 -8.0 -4.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .077 .198 0.40 7 7 63 Washed-out .0621 -.0340 -4.8 1.9 -4.0 -2.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .032 .077 0.34 3 2½ 66 Washed-out .1655 -.0908 -12.7 5.1 -4.0 -2.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .076 .219 0.34 5 72 Washed-out .0351 -.0192 -2.7 1.1 -2.0 -1.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .022 .090 0.28 2 74 Washed-out .0702 -.0385 -5.4 2.1 -2.0 -1.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .108 .180 0.31 4 Washed-out .1403 -.0770 -10.8 4.3 -2.0 -1.0 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .141 .356 0.30 5½ 83 Washed-out .0470 -.0258 -3.6 1.4 -1.0 -0.5 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .128 .247 0.28 2 Washed-out .0627 -.0344 -4.8 1.9 -1.0 -0.5 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .134 .331 0.27 4 3 85 Washed-out .0941 -.0516 -7.2 2.9 -1.0 -0.5 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .145 .499 0.26 4 Washed-out .1254 -.0688 -9.6 3.8 -1.0 -0.5 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .267 .662 0.27 4½ 5 Washed-out .1881 -.1032 -14.5 5.8 -1.0 -0.5 .143 .052 -8.0 -4.0 .289 .918 0.26 7½ 7½ bo

In the remarks column, the configurations which were Appendix C: The 1993 Flight Test Data Base repeated in other tests are listed. Configurations starting The 1993 flight test campaign took place in June-July, with "ASC" are flight test configurations, configurations 1993, at the German Forces Flight Test Center in starting with "VSC" are ground-based simulator config- Manching (Germany). Five experienced test pilots urations. The numbers following these configurations are participated in the tests: one pilot from NASA Ames the configurations numbers shown in the first column and (USA), one pilot from DRA Bedford (GB), one pilot listed in the tables throughout this report. In the table, the from the U.S. Army, and two pilots from WTD-61 in following footnote symbols are used: Manching. A total of 40 different coupling configurations were evaluated. 1 Rating may be influenced by pilot fatigue.

2 Flown with tailwind; incorrect trim position may In the following table, the 1993 flight test configurations have influenced rating.

are listed. The first column lists the configuration number.

The dimensions of the variables are given by: 3 Only one practice run and one evaluation run; rating may change after learning phase.

L6x and M_- rad.sec -2. percent -1 4 Configuration may have been underrated.

Lq, Mp, Lq, c , andMp, c - sec -1 5 Pilot indicated uncertainty over rating, "might IOpk/¢t=4sl, I_k/Ot=4s I, and C - dimensionless also be a 5."

The on-axis characteristics of the model were unchanged * Only ground tracking, but no on-board data for all configurations (and identical to the 1992 config- available.

urations). The on-axis parameters for the 1992 flight tests are given by: ** Neither on-board nor ground tracking data available.

L6y = 0.143 rad.sec -2- percent -1 M6x = 0.052 rad.sec -2. percent -1 Lp = -8.0 sec -1 Mq = -4.0 sec -1

PREC_NG P_QE IBL_N_ _OT F_L_o_ErJ

%o tO NO.

C Pilot HQR's Notes Type of L M L L_ M_ q p p,c coupling clo 1ol.

A0 Baseline .0000 .0000 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .000 .000 3 4 3. 3 3 Cfr. ASC_10, VSC_0 E0 -.0036 -.0036 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .048 .036 1.45 3.. 4-.

(Control) _ A7 Control .0000 -.0072 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .097 .000 4 (3) A4 Control .0072 -.0072 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .097 .071 1.45 4 (3) A1 Control .0130 -.0072 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .097 .129 0.80 3 Cfr. ASC_13, VSC_2 A8 Control .0000 -.0286 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .387 .000 o_ (3) A2 Control .0520 -.0286 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .387 .517 0.80 (4) Cfr. ASC_15, VSC_4 A9 Control .0000 -.0429 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .000 71 61 A6 Control .0429 -.0429 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .426 1.45 5 (4) A3 Control .0780 -.0429 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .775 0.80 5 5 Cfr. ASC_12, VSC_5 E5 (Control) -_ -.0780 .0429 .00 0.0 -8.0 -4.0 .581 .775 0.80 E6 Rate .0000 .0000 .50 -.25 -8.0 -4.0 .058 .060 1.00 2..

(4.)

B7 Rate .0000 .0000 .00 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .000 52 4 41/23 Cfr. VSC_19 B4 Rate .0000 .0000 1.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .121 1.00 4 4 Cfr. VSC_I 6 B0 Rate .0000 .0000 3.0 -.50 -8.0 -4.0 .117 .362 0.33 4 (4) (2) Cfr. ASC_17, VSC_7 Rate .0000 .0000 .00 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .468 .000 oo 5 44 4 5 B9 Cfr. VSC_21 .0000 .0000 4.0 -2.0 -8.0 B6 Rate -4.0 .468 .483 1.00 6 5 Cfr. VSC_18 Pilot HQR's Notes

No. Type of L 8 M_ C M L M 0 _ ADS C

coupling , , q p p,c p,c _ ADS C D F G H B2 Rate .0000 .0000 12.0 -2.0 -8.0 -4.0 .468 1.45 0.33 6+ Cfr. VSC_I 1 E8 Rate .0000 .0000 5.0 -2.5 -8.0 -4.0 .585 .604 1.00 6.

6..

Cfr. VSC_18b B3 Rate .0000 .0000 15.0 -2.5 -8.0 -4.0 .585 1.81 0.33 71,_ 7 DO Washed-out .0072 -.0072 -.55 .40 -8.0 -4.0 .003 .005 0.73 4..

CO Washed-out .0130 -.0072 -1.0 .40 -8.0 -4.0 .003 .008 0.40 (4) 3 D6 Washed-out .0143 -.0143 -1.1 .80 -12.0 -6.0 .004 .006 0.80 4 D5 Washed-out .0072 -.0072 -.55 .40 -4.0 -2.0 .006 .009 0.62 41/2 D1 Washed-out .0143 -.0143 -1.1 .80 -8.0 -4.0 .006 .009 0.73 5 3 C1 Washed-out .0260 -.0143 -2.0 .80 -8.0 -4.0 .006 .017 0.40 41/2 4 Cfr. ASC_42 D2 Washed-out .0286 -.0286 -2.2 1.6 -8.0 -4.0 .013 .018 0.73 4 3 C2 Washed-out .0520 -.0286 -4.0 1.6 -8.0 -4.0 .013 .033 0.40 5 D9 Washed-out .0858 -.0858 -6.6 4.8 -12.0 -6.0 .026 .037 0.80 6 D3 Washed-out .0572 -.0572 -4.4 3.2 -8.0 -4.0 .026 .037 0.73 4- C3 Washed-out .1040 -.0572 -8.0 3.2 -8.0 -4.0 .026 .067 0.40 6 4 Cfr. VSC_54 D4 Washed-out .0858 -.0858 -6.6 4.8 -8.0 -4.0 .039 .055 0.73 7 5 C4 Washed-out .1560 -.0858 -12.0 4.8 -8.0 -4.0 .039 .100 0.40 7 6 D8 Washed-out .0572 -.0572 -4.4 3.2 -4.0 -2.0 .052 .073 0.62 5- Pilot HQR's Notes NO.

Type of L_ M 8 L M L M coupling , _ q p p,c p,c I _ ADS I _ ADS C D F G H F7 .052 .147 0.46 53 5-.

Mod. Freq. .0572 -.0572 -4.4 3.2 -2.0 -2.0 0.177 .496 0.41 4V23 F9 Mod. Freq. .0572 -.0572 -4.4 3.2 -.50 -.50 F1 .093 .092 1.00 6.° Mod. Freq. .0000 .0000 .13 -.13 -1.0 -1.0 .109 .108 1.00 4 F0 Mod. Freq. .0000 .0000 .25 -.25 -2.0 -2.0 F3 .374 .370 1.00 5 Mod. Freq. .0000 .0000 .50 -.50 -1.0 -1.0 .435 .433 1.00 6..

F2 Mod. Freq. .0000 .0000 1.0 -1.0 -2.0 -2.0

printed below was taken from the 1993 flight test Appendix D: Pilot Questionnaire campaign, but differs only slightly from the questionnaire After each evaluation flight, the pilot completed the used during the 1992 flight test campaign.

following three page questionnaire. The questionnaire Pilot Questionnaire "Slalom Tracking with Coupling" Manching Juni/Juli 1993 Pilot: Test No. ASC / / / A. Task Performance • Have you performed the task O aggressive? O moderate? O relaxed?

• Tracking preciseness in gates ?

O low O high O medium • Maintaining of height and speed?

• Describe the cues which you have used.

B. Pilot Workload • Mental or/and physical effort to perform task?

• How much spare capacity?

• Any other factors that affected piloting task (e.g., pilot conditions, training, environment, cockpit...)?

• Describe reasons for pilot workload.

-_ 35 C. Helicopter On-axis Characteristics • Roll response?

- preciseness - sensitivity - damping • Pitch response?

• Harmony of pitch and roll response?

• Speed control?

• Height control?

• Turn coordination?

• Was controller feel and sensitivity useful to obtain response?

D. Helicopter Off-axis Characteristics • Roll --> pitch coupling?

- short term - mid / long term • Pitch -> roll coupling?

- short term - mid/long term • Heave / speed coupling?

• Yaw coupling?

E. Overall Cooper-Harper Rating? Use rating card!

! / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 • Describe main reasons for rating.

_ 37 References National Forum on the American Helicopter Society, Washington, D.C., May 1977.

1. Handling Qualities Requirements for Military 12. Watson, D. C.; and Hindson, W. S.: In-Flight Rotorcraft. Aeronautical Design Standard Simulation Investigation of Rotorcraft Pitch-Roll ADS-33C, Aug. 1989.

Cross Coupling. Presented at the Royal Aero- 2. Cooper, G. E.; and Harper, R. P., Jr.: The Use of nautical Society International Conference on Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Helicopter Handling Qualities and Control, Handling Qualities. NASA TN D-5153, London, Nov. 1988.

Apr. 1969.

13. Ockier, C. J.: Flight Evaluation of the New Handling 3. Garren, J. F.: Effects of Gyroscopic Cross-Coupling Qualities Criteria Using the BO 105. American Between Pitch and Roll on the Handling Helicopter Society 49th Annual Forum, Qualities of VTOL Aircraft. NASA TN D-812, St. Louis, Mo., May 1993.

Apr. 1961.

14. Pausder, H.-J.; and Blanken, C. L.: Investigation of 4. Garren, J. F.: Effects of Coupling Between Pitch and the Effects of Bandwidth and Time Delay on Roll Control Inputs on the Handling Qualities of Helicopter Roll-Axis Handling Qualities.

VTOL Aircraft. NASA TN D-1233, Mar. 1962.

Eighteenth European Rotorcraft Forum, Avignon, France, Sept. 1992. (Also, Piloting 5. Houston, R. J.: An Exploratory Investigation of Vertical Flight Aircraft: A Conference on Flying Factors Affecting the Handling Qualities of a Qualities and Human Factors, San Francisco, Rudimentary Hingeless Rotor Helicopter. NASA Calif., Jan. 1993.)

TN D-3418, 1966.

15. Pausder, H.-J.; Bouwer, G.; von Grtinhagen, W.; and 6. Houston, R. J.; and Ward, J. F.: Handling Qualities Holland, R.: Helicopter In-Flight Simulator and Structural Characteristics of Hingeless-Rotor ATTHeS--A Multipurpose Testbed and Its Helicopter. Conference on V/STOL and STOL Utilization. AIAA Paper 92-4173, AIAA/AHS Aircraft, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, Calif., NASA SP-116, Apr. 1966.

Hilton Head Island, S.C., Aug. 1992.

7. Talbot, P. D.; Dugan, D. C.; Chen, R. T. N.; and 16. Lewis, M. S.; Mansur, M. H.; and Chen, R. T. N.: Gerdes, R. M.: Effects of Rotor Parameter A Piloted Simulation of Helicopter Air Combat Variations on Handling Qualities of Unaug- to Investigate Effects of Variations in Selected mented Helicopters in Simulated Terrain Flight.

Performance and Control Response Charac- NASA TM-81190, Aug. 1980.

teristics. NASA TM-89438, Apr. 1987.

8. Corliss, L. D.; and Carico, G. D.: A Flight 17. White, F.; and Blake, B.: Improved Method of Investigation of Roll-Control Sensitivity, Predicting Helicopter Control Response and Damping, and Cross Coupling in a Low-Altitude Gust Sensitivity. American Helicopter Society Lateral Maneuvering Task. NASA TM-84376, preprint number 79-25, May 1979.

USAAVRADCOM TR-83-A-16, Dec. 1983.

18. Whalley, M. S.: Development and Evaluation of 9. Watson, D. C.; and Aiken, E. W.: An Investigation an Inverse Solution Technique for Studying of the Effects of Pitch-Roll Cross Coupling on Helicopter Maneuverability and Agility. NASA Helicopter Handling Qualities for Terrain Flight.

TM- 102889, USAAVSCOM TR 90-A-008, AIAA Conference on Guidance, Navigation, and July 1991.

Control, Monterey, Calif., Aug. 1987.

19. Heffley, R. K.; Jewell, W. F.; Lehman, J. M.; and I0. Watson, D. C.; and Hindson, W. S.: In-Flight Van Winkle, R. A.: A Compilation and Analysis Simulation Investigation of Rotorcraft Pitch-Roll of Helicopter Handling Qualities Data. NASA Cross Coupling. NASA TM-101059, Dec. 1988.

CR-3144, Aug. 1979.

11. Chen, R. T. N.; and Talbot, P. D.: An Exploratory 20.

Mouritsen, S. K.: Helicopter Roll-Pitch Coupling Investigation of the Effects of Large Variations Feedback Model and Comparisons with in Rotor System Dynamics Design Parameters Handling Qualities Flight Test Data. Presented on Helicopter Handling Characteristics in Nap- at the AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics of-the-Earth Flight. Presented at the 33rd Annual Conference, Scottsdale, Ariz., Aug. 1994.

21. Ockier, C.J.:Evaluation oftheADS-33C Handling 23.Tischler, M.B.;and Cauffmann, M.G.:Frequency

Qualities Criteria inForward Flight Using the Response Method forRotorcraft System

BO105. DLRInstitute ofFlightMechanics, Identification: Flight Applications toBO105

IB 111-93/19, Braunschweig, Mar.1993. Coupled Rotor/Fuselage Dynamics. J.Am.

Helicoptor Soc., vol.37,no.3,July1992.

22. Wulff,G.;and Z611ner, M.:DIVA/MIMO Flight Test

Data Analysis forthe X31-ADemonstrator. 24.Ockier, C.J.;and vonGrtinhagen, W.:BO105 Flight

Test Data Base fortheEvaluation ofADS-33C

AIAAPaper 91-2852, presented attheAIAA

Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Criteria. DLRIB I 11-93/20, Braunschweig, Mar.1993.

NewOrleans, La.,Aug.1991.

Table 1.1. ADS-33C maximum values forroll-

due-to-pitch and pitch-due-to-roll coupling

Parameter I[ Level 1 Level 2

_+0.25 _+0.60 Opk _+0.25 _+0.60 t_y 4O Table 7.1.Handling qualities ratings and principal pilotcomments forcontrol coupling configurations

No.1

Characteristic comments 2

PilotHQRs

G

0.0_0 10

2 2.5

Nocoupling, good on-axis response

A0

3 4 3

(Tiredness and unfamiliarity withsystem and task mentioned

bymost pilots)

-0.0036 32 3

Slight coupling

1 3

-0.0072 13 4 5

Mild coupling, roll response notchy, on-axis oscillation during tracking

2 3

Very predictable, no response problems, altitude control reason for HQR

A1 3

Slight increase in workload, mildly unpleasant coupling, minimal compensation

14 4

-0.0143

Low compensation required, short term coupling only

3 4

Predictability a little low, height control a problem, couldn't figure out strategy for coupling

15 43 5

-0.0286

Moderate coupling, jerky roll response, poor control harmony

4 4.5 5

Tendency to get into roll oscillation (possibly PIOs)

I

A2

-0.0429 12 8

Very unpredictable roll rate response, large inputs required, tendency to overcontrol

5 7.5 5

Lack of predictability, tremendous amount of pitch oscillations, NOT tolerable workload

A3 5 5

Considerable pilot compensation required, moderate to large roll-to-pitch coupling, relatively easy to counter and anticipate, tried diagonal inputs

-0.0536

5a 6

..... H: : - .... - ..... - .

1Top line: ATTHeS tests 1992. Middle line: Ground-based simulator. Bottom line: ATTHeS tests 1993. Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A, B, and C.

2Ground-based simulator comments are those of pilot C only.

3Analysis of task performance and pilot comments suggests that appropriate Cooper-Harper level may be worse than indicated.

"_ 41 Table 7.2.Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forcontrol coupling configurations with

different direction ofcoupling (1993 flighttestresults only)

Characteristic comments No. 1 Pilot HQRs M_ L_

clF

0.0000 0.0000 - 2 3 No coupling, good on-axis response (best ratings shown) -0.0036 -0.0036 E0 3 4- Only mild uncommanded aircraft responses noted, some mid-term compensation required to maintain desired performance, coupling '"sneaks up on you" (approximately 3 seconds after stick inputs) E5 9 2 +0.0429 -0.0780 Workload not tolerable just to retain control, severe pitch-due-to-roll coupling backward from all other configurations, wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix C.

2Only one practice and one evaluation run was made, pilot was still in the learning phase.

Table 7.3. Handling qualities ratings and principal pilotcomments forrate coupling configurations

No.1

Characteristic comments 2

PilotHQRs

2 2.5 2 Nocoupling, good on-axis response (best ratings shown)

3 3 Lowcoupling, does notinfluence rating

Initialresponse nice and solid, predictability good, nonoticeable objections,

some altitude problems

-0.50

17 5 5 Jerky rollresponse, quite "large coupling when aggressive

7 3 4

Predictability good, nooscillations

B0

Jerky response, increased workload, coupling notaproblem

-0.75 18

5 6 Twostep rollresponse, unpredictable

8 4.5

-1.00 19 5 4

Moderate coupling, sluggish on-axis response withtime delay, used some lead

compensation

9 5

Lowered aggressiveness, tremendous increase in workload, used small inputs

and off-axis lead

-1.5 16 5

Cross coupling was predictable butannoying, large stickmovements required,

some compensation used

10 4.5 5

Reduced aggressiveness, lead compensation, lowpredictability oninitial

response, moderately objectionable

-2.0

!1 7 7.5

Very lowpredictability, very objectionable pitch oscillations, NOTtolerable

workload

B2 6+

Verynotchy response withunpredictable rollacceleration, lotsofcompensation

needed

-2.5

B3 7.5 7

Considerable workload, complex multi-axis coupling, unpredictable response,

"likeriding ontopofaball"

1Top: ATTHeS tests 1992. Middle: Ground-based simulator. Bottom: ATTHeS tests 1993. Expanded definition of these configurations iscontained inAppendices A,B,and C.

2Ground-based simulator comments are those ofpilotConly.

Table 7.4.Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forrate coupling configurations from the ground-based simulation--ADS-33C slalom task No. 1 Characteristic comments I-iQgs

up

CIE

2.5 Very minor coupling, can obtain desired performance--a little extra workload.

Response is predictable and can be precise for this task.

-1.5 10 3 4 Even though the coupling is apparent, there is no problem performing the task.

Mildly unpleasant. Coupling didn't really affect performance--fairly easy to get desired performance. Compensation in pitch (high-frequency small-amplitude inputs) to maintain airspeed.

-2.0 11 4 4.5 Coupling has the effect of making the on-axis appear a little slow, but no real problem. Airspeed control is the most difficult aspect of the task.

1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix B.

Table 7.5. Handling qualities ratings and pilotcomments forcombined control and rate coupling configurations (all

data from1992 flighttests)

Pilot HQRs Characteristic comments MSy Mp No. 1 0.0000 0 10 2 2.5 No coupling, good on-axis response (best ratings) -0.0036 -0.25 44 3 3 Mild mid-term coupling, minimum increased workload -0.0072 -0.50 11 Some cross coupling apparent, unnatural on-axis response -0.0072 -0.75 20 Moderate amount of cross coupling that was fairly predictable, considerable workload to compensate for coupling -0.0143 -0.50 21 6 7 (Very) large but controllable coupling, unpredictable response -0.0143 -0.75 24 6 7 Huge cross coupling requiring lots of compensation, coupling mainly mid/long term, task becomes pitch-axis task, very objectionable -0.0143 "1.0 25 6 7 Large and complex coupling requiring reduced pilot gain and extensive compensation -0.0286 -0.75 26 9 8 Too much coupling, poor task performance, no spare capacity, got out of phase with multi-axis coupling, at times I felt not in control at all -0.0286 -! .0 27 10 8 Coupling required full attention, aggressiveness must be reduced to keep the helicopter right side up, coupling cannot be compensated for -0.0358 -!.0 28 7 2 Strong multi-axis coupling, no spare capacity, maximum tolerable workload, roll due to pitch very difficult to anticipate and coordinate, low predictability 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix A.

2Analysis of task performance and pilot comments suggests that configuration may have been underrated.

Table 7.6.Handling qualities ratings and pilotcomments forcontrol coupling configurations withdifferent pitch-due-

to-roll overroll-due-to-pitch ratio(alldata fromthe1993 flighttests)

C No. 1 HQRs Characteristic comments M_ /_

CID

-0.0072 0.0000 A7 4 Slightly sluggish and unpredictable response, minor long term coupling, no roll-due-to-pitch coupling, slightly ratchety response -0.0072 0.0072 1.45 A4 4 Mild pitch-due-to-roll coupling which requires moderate compensation, no roll-due-to-pitch coupling noted -0.0072 0.0130 0.80 A1 3 Slight increase in workload, mildly unpleasant coupling, minimal compensation required, no roll-due-to-pitch coupling problem noted -0.0429 0.0000 oo A9 72 62 Need to provide lead to counter moderate coupling, extensive compensation required (one pilot noted some roll-due-to-pitch coupling) -0.0429 0.0429 1.45 A6 5 Moderate short-term pitch-due-to-roll coupling, light roll-due-to- pitch coupling noted, increased workload to avoid off-axis response -0.0429 0.0780 0.80 A3 5 5 Considerable pilot compensation required, moderate to large pitch- due-to-roll coupling, moderate roll-due-to-pitch coupling, relatively easy to counter and anticipate, tried diagonal inputs 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix C.

2pilot complained of jet lag and/or unfamiliarity with the aircraft.

Table 7.7.Handling qualities ratings and pilotcomments forrate coupling configurations withdifferent pitch-due-to-

rolloverroll-due-to-pitch ratios

Characteristic comments 2 Mp Lq C No. 1 Pilot HQRs -0.25 0.50 i .00 E6 2 Configuration not difficult to master, no short-term coupling noted, long-term coupling difficult to separate from thermal activity -0.25 1.50 0.33 6 3 Initial response nice and solid, no noticeable objections -0.50 0.00 oo 19 3 Precision easy even when aggressive, predictable initial response, no oscillations B7 53 4 4.54 Moderate mid-term coupling, no roll-due-to-pitch coupling, objectionable step/jerky response -0.50 1.0 1.00 16 3 Hardly a sense of off-axis coupling, no oscillations, mildly unpleasant B4 4 4 Very mild coupling, jerky roll response, roll-due-to- pitch coupling not noted as problem, moderate increase in pilot workload -0.50 1.82 0.55 13 4- Initial response sluggish, no overshoots/oscillations, the harder one works, the worse it gets -0.50 3.0 0.33 4 7 3 Predictability good, no oscillations, didn't modify control strategy B0 4 Jerky response, increased workload, coupling not a problem, no roll-due-to-pitch coupling noted -1.0 0.00 oo 20 4 A little disharmony, "bobbles" on roll-out, mid-term response somewhat undesirable, "if you're more aggressive it's a handful" -1.0 2.0 1.00 17 4 Precision not good, "wallowing," better precision when not as aggressive -1.0 3.64 0.55 14 4.5 Initial response somewhat illusive, mid-term response a nuisance, "wallowing," tried lead but eventually just closed loops on errors -1.0 6.0 0.33 9 5 Lowered aggressiveness, predictable, problem with off- axis response, lack of control harmony, tremendous increase in workload

Table 7.7. Continued

C No. 1 Characteristic comments 2 Pilot HQRs Lq

IDIE

J F

-2.0 0.00 21 4

Seems sluggish, a lot of activity in pitch, moderate coupling B9 5 4 Moderate pitch-due-to-roll and no roll-due-to-pitch coupling, slightly unpredictable, need to compensate for coupling -2.0 4.0 1.00 18 5 Moderate coupling, backed-off on roll rates, predictability pretty low, lead in pitch produced problems with height control B6 6 5 Lead required to compensate for coupling, moderate roll-to-pitch coupling, pitch-to-roll coupling overshadowed by roll-to-pitch a little jerky, objectionable response 0.55 7.27 -2.0 15 4.5 Control harmony a problem, tried not to excite off-axis response, feels like flying pitch axis instead of roll axis -2.0 12.0 0.33 11 7 7.5 Very low predictability, tried backing off, very objectionable pitch oscillations, tried using lead but didn't always work, not tolerable workload B2 6+ Very notchy response with unpredictable roll accelerations, lots of compensation needed, very little roll-due-to-pitch coupling noted but might have been covered up by pitch-due-to-roll -2.5 0.00 oo 21a 6 Can't back off easily, low predictable initial response, poor harmony, nuisance response, mid-term has a different character, "weird" -2.5 5.00 1.00 18b 7.5 Lateral control easier with pitch inputs, "scary" if flown with roll, precision low, backed off on aggressiveness, extremely high workload E8 6 6 Very objectionable roll oscillations, very high workload, had to think before making an input, "could be an olympic event" -2.5 9.09 0.55 15a 7 Oscillations in pitch became objectionable, low predictability, with motion it would be scary, backed- off -2.5 15.00 0.33 B3 7.5 7 Complex multi-axis coupling, large pitch-due-to-roll coupling, moderate roll-due-to-pitch coupling, maximum workload, response unpredictable, "like riding on top of a ball"

Table 7.7. Concluded

Characteristic comments 2 Pilot HQRs Mp Lq C No. 1 -3.0 0.00 o¢ 21 b Out of phase, lots of pitch "bobble," very low predictability of initial response, mid-term response highest workload, would be nasty with motion -3.0 6.00 1.00 18a 7.5 E:_treme compensation required, roll tracking with pitch inputs, if aggressive beyond task demands might have lost control ! Top line: Ground-based simulator. Bottom line: ATTHeS tests 1993. Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A, B, and C.

2Ground-based simulator comments are those of pilot C only.

3Course was flown with tailwind, which might have had some adverse effect on roll oscillations and HQRs.

4Only one practice and one evaluation run; pilot said, "Given another run I might have been able to...attain desired [performance]" which would have resulted in HQR 4.

5Only one practice and one evaluation run; pilot said, "Needed more time to establish whether HQR was either 4 or 5."

Table 7.8. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilot comments for rate coupling configurations with reduced on-axis bandwidth (Lp = 5.0 rad/sec and Mq = 2.5 rad/sec) (data only for pilot C in fixed-base simulator) Characteristic comments 0.00 22un 3 Precision a little lower, seemed slow or sluggish, more planning required prior to gate -0.16 22a 3 Could get aggressive, predictability of initial response good, no objectionable oscillations, aircraft a little loose during tracking -0.25 22 4 Some oscillations during tight tracking, no harmony problem, "wallowing," minor but annoying deficiencies -0.63 25a 4.5 Initial response OK, mid- to long-term response'very objectionable, precision for tracking gets better with tighter control but predictability goes down, more than annoying deficiencies -1.00 24 6 Precision low, can be more aggressive but it doesn't help, oscillations when tight in controls, very objectionable, extreme compensation -1.30 27a 7 Extreme workload, low predictable initial response, primarily flying pitch, controllability not in question -1.50 25 8 Couldn't be aggressive, no predictability of response, mid/long term response very objectionable, major deficiencies, control in question I Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix B.

Table 7.9. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forcontrol coupling configurations with reduced on-axis damping (Lp=5.0rad/sec and Mq = 2.5 rad/sec) (data only for pilot C in fixed-base simulator) Characteristic comments

II II.°. I

0.0000 22un 3 Precision a little lower, seemed slow or sluggish, more planning required prior to gate -0.0027 28a 4 Initial response OK, predictable, a little sluggish, mid-term response couples into pitch which couples into altitude, minor annoying oscillations in fine tracking which are hard to dampen out -0.0108 30a 4.5 Harder to fly if more aggressive, some oscillations in mid-term response, moderate coupling which is easy to compensate for, more than annoying deficiencies -0.0215 31a 5 Oscillations if aggressive, make small slow inputs, low predictable initial response, lots of pitch-due-to-roll, minor roll-due-to-pitch, difficult to coordinate -0.0323 32a 6 Tremendous workload, precision extremely low, constant oscillations, flew pitch axis for roll task, control strategy---correct at low rates, mentally stay out of the loop as best as possible -0.0376 32b 8 Control system not adequate for task, extreme workload, no precision, extremely low predictability of initial response, extremely poor harmony, may have lost control a couple of times 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix B.

Table 7.10. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilot comments for rate coupling configurations with reduced roll axis bandwidth (Lp = 5.0 rad/sec and Mq = 2.5 rad/sec) (data only for pilot C in fixed-base simulator) HQRs Characteristic comments

II II

0.0000 33un Predictable response, harmony good, a little bit of planning required, doesn't fall apart if more aggressive, a little sluggish, mildly unpleasant -0.0036 33 3 Predictable initial response but seemed sluggish, no problem in mid- to long-term response, control harmony pretty good, seems like heavy aircraft, some mildly unpleasant deficiencies -0.0143 35 4 Obvious coupling but predictable, figure out phasing lead input to eliminate coupling, no mid-term or oscillation problems -0.0286 36 5 Performance goes down with more aggressiveness, initial response pretty predictable when backing off, oscillations when aggressive, mild coupling -0.0498 37a 5/7 Precision low, low predictability of initial response, easier to fly task with pitch then correct with roll, persistent Dutch roll oscillations objectionable at higher aggressiveness, moderately objectionable/major deficiency, controllability not questioned -0.0575 37b 7 No precision, unpredictable response, had to back off to maintain control, mid- and long-term response has very objectionable on and off axis oscillations, very difficult to pilot, no harmony 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendix B.

Table 7.11. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forwashed-out coupling configurations with L6x/M_ = -1.8 (pilots C and E only) Characteristic comments (pilot C only) M_ Mq, c No. 1 HQRs

CIE

45 4 Jerky tracking, increased workload due to coupling 46 4 Jerky roll response due to cross-coupling, reduced pilot gain to avoid roll oscillation 38 4 42 4 Jerky tracking, on-axis influence, mid-term coupling CI 4.5 Reduced predictability of on-axis response, jerky response, coupling appeared with large rapid inputs -0.0286 -4.0 43 6 Poor performance, moderately objectionable multi-axis coupling 40 3+ 3 Couldn't identify any initial response problem, no oscillations, couldn't identify nuisances C2 5 Trying to avoid problems by reducing the input rate, very mild coupling, objectionable ratcheting in roll response, increased workload 54 3+ 3/4 Some mild coupling, no mid- to long-term problem, no oscillations, height control a problem C3 6 Greatly increased effort due to low predictability and moderate off-axis response, very jerky response, very objectionable -0.0858 -4.0 C4 7 Very difficult multi-axis coupling, very jerky/ratcheting response, severe coupling which increases with pilot gain, "like riding a mechanical bull" -0.0286 -2.0 23 5 Very jerky, oscillations during tight tracking, mild pitch-due-to-roll coupling -0.0358 -2.0 48 5 Only adequate performance, increased workload due to coupling, moderately objectionable coupling 1Top line: 1992 flight tests. Middle line: Fixed-base simulator. Bottom line: 1993 flight tests. Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A, B, and C.

_J Table 7.12. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forwashed-out coupling configurations with L6x/M6y = -1.8 (pilot D only) HQR Characteristic comments

II No1 II

-0.0143 -6.0 45 4 Very little coupling, lack of control power determines rating -0.0286 -6.0 -0.0072 -4.0 ! ,, , CO 3 No coupling apparent, very very slight notchiness in roll -0.0143 -4.0 42 3 Some slight mid-term coupling apparent C1 4 Slightly uneven roll response, small amount of roll-due-to-pitch coupling -0.0286 -4.0 43 4 Very little coupling, very quick rise time and only moderately steady roll rate C2 -0.0358 -4.0 -0.0572 -4.0 C3 4 Quite a bit of roll-due-to-pitch coupling, strange response, notchy roll response, slightly unnatural accelerations felt during maneuvering -0.0858 -4.0 C4 6 Lots of ratcheting, unpredictable roll response, lots of short term coupling, strange acceleration cues during acquisition -0.0286 -2.0 -0.0358 -2.0 lTop line: flight tests 1992. Bottom line: flight tests 1993. Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A and C.

Table 7.13. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forwashed-out coupling configurations with L_/M_ = -1.0 (1993 flight test data) Characteristic comments -0.0143 -6.0 D6 4 Small oscillations in both axes are minor deficiency, mid- to long-term coupling oscillations -0.0858 -6.0 D9 6 Low-frequency wave in off-axis response "like riding an ocean wave," high frequency washout of coupling was "like hitting a boat wake," jerky and unpredictable short-term coupling, very objectionable but tolerable deficiency -0.0072 -4.0 DO 4 Moderate increase in workload, jerky coupling response -0.0143 -4.0 DI 5 Considerable workload to obtain desired performance, objectionable jerky on- and off-axis response, jerky short-term coupling 3 No cross coupling apparent in any axis, nice and precise -0.0286 -4.0 D2 4 Very mild short-term pitch-due-to-roll coupling, jerky roll response is minor annoying deficiency 3 Nice primary response, slight amount of notchiness noted at very high aggression levels only, no coupling noted -0.0572 -4.0 D3 4.5 Slight compensation necessary to overcome roll notchiness, very slight short- term coupling -0.0858 -4.0 D4 7 Increased effort above tolerable level, very objectionable coupling with slow washout, couldn't find any control combination to null out coupling, very low roll predictability 5 Ratcheting roll response increased with aggression, some short-term roll-due- to-pitch coupling 4.5 Increased workload, stepped/jerky response, mildly objectionable jerky response, marginally desired performance 5 Moderate pitch and mild roll oscillations which appeared to wash out in less than 1 sec., jerky off-axis response, considerable workload, the jerky washout of the cross coupling was very objectionable 1Expanded definition of configuration is contained in Appendix C.

2Top line: Pilot C. Bottom line: Pilot D.

Table 7.14. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilotcomments forrate coupling configurations withmodified

frequency domain characteristics (Lp, c = Mq, c and M6y = L6x) (1993 flight test data)

Characteristic comments HQRs Mp Mq, c No. 1

clF

-0.125 1.0 F1 Tried all levels of aggression with same mediocre but passable result, pitch axis seemed more responsive than roll, weak coupling hard to pin down, confusing, objectionable deficiencies -0.250 2.0 F0 4 Annoying jerky roll response which seemed to result from mild pitch-due-to- roll coupling, minor annoying deficiency -0.500 1.0 F3 5 Very difficult to provide lead since the pitch response appeared to build slowly, low predictability of off-axis -1.000 2.0 F2 6 Moderate increase in workload, unusual coupling, complex coupling that appeared to feed back to other axis that made pitch appear to "dig in," very objectionable oscillations 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A, B, and C.

Table 7.15. Handling qualities ratings and characteristic pilot comments for washed-out coupling configurations with modified frequency domain characteristics (Lp, c = Mq, c and M_ = L6x) (1993 flight test data) Characteristic comments M6y Mq, c No. 1 HQRs

clF

-0.50 1:9 52 5 -0.0572 Multi-axis coupling with different sensitivity and damping in each direction, confusing control inputs, objectionable oscillations, jerky response, "weird" F7 4.5 2 -0.0572 -2.00 Moderate roll-due-to-pitch coupling, nonsymmetric sensitivity in roll, annoying but tolerable, slightly jerky response, pitch-due-to-roll coupling canceled out in short term 1Expanded definition of these configurations is contained in Appendices A, B, and C.

2Rating based on only one practice and one evaluation run (pilot might still be in training phase).

Table 8.1. Frequency domain pitch-roll coupling parameters fortheBO105 at80knots (2flights) and anattack

helicopter at60knots

Helicopter Type ofcoupling Coupling ratio Coupling ratio Averaged coupling

at (oBW, dB at (_o180, dB ratio, dB

BO 105 (flight I) Pitch-due-to-roll -13.0 -17.7 -16.2 Roll-due-to-pitch - 10.9 2.9 -5.5 BO 105 (flight 2) Pitch-due-to-roll -14.0 -16.3 -15.6 Roll-due-to-pitch -13.2 0.9 -6.2 Attack helicopter Pitch-due-to-roll -20.1 -22.9 -21.2 Roll-due-to-pitch -7.8 -12.2 -8.3 10 r- COMBINATION TASK / • PILOT A • PILOT B

F

,_ 7 [: • 6 • Q • - ,, 7<z,/TT -.80 -.60 -.40 -.20 0 .20 .40 .60 .80 Lq/Lp Figure 2.1. Pilot ratings from fixed base simulation in a combination dolphin slalom task vs. Lq/Lp (from ref. 11).

o1 ,- 10 ¢:: 10 I I I I x m ADS LRvel l I ADS Level 2 I ADS Level 3 ¢1: ADS Level l ll ADS Level 2 t I ADS Level 3 e 8 o I ! I I J I1.

I I ¢, _ -_---_'_ • eg "r 4 o o a. 2 . ! i , I 2 "in "• i o I I f o 0 (3 i I Kit I , 1 J , , i (3 0 0 o 0.2 0.4 o.6 o'.e 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 epk/Ct = 4s epk/at - 4s (b) Pilot ratingsforthe easy slalom with articulated rotor (a) Pilot ratings forthe easy slalom with hingelessrotor 10 10 I I "_.1 I I i i "_1 ADS Level I II ADS Level 2 : ADS Level 3 ]==____ 6 ..... i .... F - -]_ - - " -R • • ,,I -.,j...-_r_V • ! • t

i x a q

..,.---,'_! I 4 4 _-;¥ -_ 1 t o I I I I o 1 I o - ADSLevell I ADSLevel2 I ADSLavel3 o o (3 , ,I, , , I , , L , , l , i J I I I I (3 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 epk/at. 4s Opk/ at - 4s (d) Pilot ratings for tha difficult slalom with articulated rotor (c) Pilot ratingsfor the difficultslalom with hingeless rotor Figure 2.2. Pilot ratings vs. epk/_ for an "easy" and a "difficult" slalom (from ref. 9).

0.7 LEVEL 3 0.6 LEVEL 2 0.5- o Left roll • Right roll 0_k 0.4 -

$

_t=gs0.3 - 0.2- O o qbOo °o o o 0.1 - o LEVEL 1 , I , I , I , I J 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Lateral cyclic stick displacement (%) Figure 2.3. Results of the pitch-due-to-roll coupling criterion for a conventionally controlled BO 105 (from ref. 13).

1.6 0 • 1.4- 1.2- 1.0- 0.8 - LEVEL 3 t=4s 0.6 o Nose down LEVEL 2 0.4- • Nose up 0.2- LEVEL 1 , I i I , I , I , I , 0.0 2 4 6 8 10 Longitudinal cyclic stick displacement (%) Figure 2.4. Results of the roll-due-to-pitch coupfing criterion for a conventionally controlled BO 105 (from ref. 13).

5?

.I v 35 , , ,

• °.s/ 4

-- -1.5/ .....

"4

-.151 ..... I

._. .._ o rr i ¢- o .10.v ___'_-" ,I 13_ -.02 .05_.

>- 0 2 4 6 Time (sec) Figure 2.5. Typical time history of the response of a roll step input to the left with a conventionally controlled BO 105.

Figure 4.1. The DLR in-flight simulator A TTHeS.

\

I I t I I I I I I

T

c _'_-20

t

rn -30 l I I I I I t I I t -40 -- 10 _ 0 I I I I I I I I I if_ -10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) Figure 4.2. Response of A TTHeS with a decoupled command model (baseline model) to a lateral control step input.

0.3 ll Selected on-axis con-] figuration for pitch-roll I coupling study I Numbers are averaged I o Cooper-Harper ratings (_ 0.2 -e- {3.

5.5 "o _ 0.1 e- o Q.

6.5 O0 i I i I i I A 1 2 3 4 Bandwidth, e) Bw_(rad/sec) Figure 5.1. Rate command configurations evaluated during the bandwidth-time delay study (from ref. 14).

PCMD

6y _ __-

8x

Model

qM

Following

Control

System

BO 105

qCMD

8y

PM

Figure 5.2. Cross-coupling models of pitch and roll axis.

-' 61 .. ................................ On-axis response (roll) °_ (_ (4)

&

/ 1 ) 0 _ -"(3).-.___ Time Figure 5.3. Roll and pitch rate responses to a lateral step input for different types of coupling: (1) control coupling, (2) rate coupling, (3) washed-out coupling, and (4) combined control and rate coupling.

-30 .................................................................................. _ On-axis response (roll) -o -40 v "o = -50 c _(3) (_ -60 i i I i f I r i I -70 "°4.

._: :O.n-axis respons e (roll) "'4..

-9O ''" 1 "" -180 c- n -270 i I I I I r I I I I I I I I -360 0.5 1 5 10 20 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 5.4. Bode plot of the roll and pitch rate responses a to a lateral cyclic input, p/Sy and q/Sy, for three different types of coupling: (1) control coupling, (2) rate coupling, and (3) washed-out coupfing.

rn _v -10 "_ -20 -30 -90 o_ _(2) -180 (1 )_ (D u) (3)_ _c: -270 n -360 J ........ J 0.5 1 5 10 20 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 5.5. Bode plot of the pitch rate to roll rate response (lateral cyclic input), q/pl&y, for three different types of coupling: (1) control coupling, (2) rate coupling, and (3) washed-out coupling.

START__ 10 m I _ END 10m I "4"-_, Length: 1550 m (=50 sec at 60 kts), width: 20 m ), GATES DESIRED PERFORMANCE ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE 3 sec • Track within 3 m of gate centerline • Track within 3 m wide gate • Maintain speed: 60 kts + 10 kts • Maintain speed: 60 kts + 5 kts 90 m/295 ft • Maintain height: • Maintain height: 5 sec - ATTHeS: 100 ft ¢ 20 ft - A-I-FHeS: 100 ft ± 10 ff - VMS: 30 ft ± 20 ft - VMS: 30 ft ± 10 ft 150 m/490 ft Figure 6. 1. The slalom-tracking course used for the VMS ground-based and A TTHeS in-flight simulations.

'70

v '10 _55 E >- -16 0 500 1000 1500 x (m) Figure 6.2. Typical task performance through the slalom-tracking course (A TTHeS baseline configuration, no interaxis coupling, and Level 1 handling qualities).

gate transition 12- gate "O gate __= sequence _6 Tracking ,, O I i I I I I I i I 1 2 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 6.3. Power spectrum of the lateral control inputs for the slalom of figure 6.2.

Baseline Configuration Control Coupling, M6y= -0.0036 Pilot C, HQR = 2 Pilot C, HQR = 3

(a) (b)

Control Coupling, M =-0.0143 Control Coupling, M = -0.0072 PilotC, HQR = 4 5y PilotC, HQR =4 5y

(c) (d)

2O Control Coupling, M = -0.0429 Control Coupling, M = -0.0286 Pilot C, HQR =5 6y Pilot D, HQR = 8 5Y c- O °m O 13.

or) .c_ 40 "O .m c- O

(f)

(e)

__1 2O 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 7. 1. Representative control input positions for control coupling configurations (all data from the 1992 flight tests).

¢0 o3 03 O0 ,,..._ ,t--

" _----_L

q rr q n-- o 0

o,_o /

o, o (, -1-

,,,_. [_

E . o o_.=° -8 .C 13_ i

0 8

.0=., t- O U_ o C_l o N o_ ii O' v o. n- q n- _.--- &o o, o o, _o -1- _ -_ _= -r I1>, r-_ E o ffl "0 ---" E Q_ cO v Q.. o to -i o t- O- E E (,.- 0 U_ L • 0 & & o I.D O_ t,_ CO 0 03 (,D _03 0 (_%) epnl!u6elhl (_%) epnl!u6elhl (_°/o)epnl!uBe_

1992 Flight test data

1993 Flight test data

_. 80 Control Coupling, M,5 - -0.0429 Control Coupling, &. -0.0429 v Pilot D, HQR = 8 --Y- Pilot C, HQR = 5 My= O °_ o 60 13_ o O0 ._ 40 "0 -,j c

(a)

(b)

.,_1 I i , , 0 0 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 8O Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Control Coupling, M 6 = -0.0429 Lateral inputs Pilot Cy HQR = 5 ......... Longitudinal inputsJ Control Coupling, M5 = -0.0429 v Pilot Dy HQR = 8 "0 .B [.- o')

!d)

A

0 2 4 6 8 rad/s 10 0 4 6 8 rad/s 10 Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 7.3. Comparison of the 1992 and 1993 flight test control inputs and power spectra of the control coupling configuration with M&y = -0.0429 rad.sec -1 .percent -1 .

8O Control Coupling, -0.0429 Control Coupling, ,5 0.0429 Pilot C, HQR = 5 M6Y= Pilot C, HQR = 9 MY = t- O .m O EL o .m c °-- "0 t- O

(a) (b)

i i i 20 i 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral inputs Control Coupling, ,__ 0.0429 Pilot C, HQR = 9 My= ......... Longitudinal inputs Control Coupling, MS= -0.0429 -y Pilot C, HQR = 5 v .

e- C_ i 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) Control Coupling, 0.0429 Control Coupling, MS= -0.0429 -y Pilot C, HQR = 9 M6Y= Pilot C, HQR = 5 v Q- O3 c- < c- O .m EL

(e)

(f)

-20 , -25 0 25 -25 0 25 Bank Angle, _ (deg) Bank Angle, _ (deg) Figure 7.4. Comparison of the control coupling configurations with conventional and unconventional direction of coupling (both results from the 1993 flight tests).

• 1992 Flight tests • 1993 Flight tests • 1993 Flight tests, inverse coupling LEVEL 3 o Ground based simulator tests <> n- o O -1- "5 LEVEL 2 .m 13.

LEVEL 1 Figure 7.5. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameters for control coupling configurations.

8O

o_

Baseline Configuration v Rate Coupling, Mp = -0.25 (1992) r- Pilot C, HQR = 2 Pilot C, HQR = 3 o .B (/) o (3

J

._E 4O %,-,r "o

__=

E_ E O

._J (a)

(b)

--- 80 Rate Coupling, Mp = -0.75 (1992) Rate Coupling, Mp= -0.50 (1992) t- Pilot C, HQR = 5 O O Pilot C, HQR = 5 a. 60 o .c_ 40 "o t- O -J

.(c)

_. 80 Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.0 (1992) Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.5 (1992) Pilot D, HQR = 4 Pilot D, HQR = 5 t- o o-- u_ o 60 13.

o t- 40 "o t- o

. (e) (0

_ 20 _. 80 Rate Coupling, Mp= -2.0 (1993) r- Pilot D, HQR = 6+ Pilot D, HQR = 7 Rate Coupling, Mp = -2.5 (1993) .9 o 60 n "o t- o 1

(g)

_J

(h)

I ,

o 20 i0 60 80 0 i0 4;0 6'o

Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 7.6. Representative control input positions for rate coupfing configurations (data from 1992 and 1993 flight tests).

?0 o ..13 II ¢-.

O') II

_,-,-

_a: v

E v O v O O _"r"

_--,- p_.',- _"r

o,'d o,'o"

"G" II ..,-, li --., ,-,_o ,-,_o _h'- xE.

o3 o3 t- t- t- I3..

O

o 8

o 13" o o rr

--.r_.____

rr o to O ..£ O i..o II o"}

.2o

V O'_ II

_,.,. v

O 0 _..%. rr co oz o O

ol-

,r o - _-.,-

o,d

"8" 0...1 _h- _,D'O n v E c

E o>, q)

Q.

Q.

-i O O o o LL rr nr" O4 t_ O co o_') 0'3 O I..O 04 Ob ._ CO o _ ,,e,- o') .£o 03 o .-:..< (_%) epnl!uGelhl (_%) epm,!u6elAi (_%) epnl!u6elhl (_%) epnl!uBelAI :3 01992 Flight tests "_ l • 1993 Flight tests _,Slalom-tracking task <>Ground-based sim.,/ LEVEL 3 _Ground-based sim. - ADS-33 Slalom task <> • <> • {/} n- O "1" O o_ o • _ ® LEVEL 2 13_ o o d 4 <all • d d i _ 0 O" o" LEVEL 1 I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0pk/_t=4s Figure 7.8. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameter for two different slalom tasks with rate coupling configurations.

500 ff - 500 ft 500 ft

/

T,0.1

- =

J_'" • Figure 7.9. Modified ADS-33C slalom course (evaluated on the ground-based simulator only).

,.-.. 80 I Baseline Configuration t Combined Coupling v c- Pilot C, HQR = 2 O ] MSy= -0.0036, Mp = -0.25 .I Pilot C, HQR = 3 to o 60 n ._o Or) "" 40' ,_ "'o ¢-

(a) (b)

.J 2¢ _. 80 Combined Coupling Combined Coupling c- MSy= -0.0072, Mp = -0.75 MSy= -0.0143, Mp = -0.75 O Pilot C, HQR = 6 Pilot C, HQR = 5 to o 60 n (D Or) = 40 "o t- O

(c) (d)

....I 2O Combined Coupling o_ Combined Coupling t- MSy= -0.0358, Mp = -1 .O O MSy= -0.0286, Mp = -0.75 Pilot C, HQR = Pilot C, HQR = 9 tO 13..

,¢ "0 °_ t-

O (e) (f)

....I 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 7.10. Representative control input positions for combined control-rate coupfing configurations (data from 1992 flight tests).

Combined Coupling I Lateral inputs ......... Longitudinal inputs M (3_ -0.0036, M p= -0.25 Pilot C, HQR = 3 Baseline Configuration lot C, HQR = 2

v 9

"O _- 6 E_

J

(a) (b)

Combined Coupling Combined Coupling M (3,, -0.0072, M p= -0.75 M (3y -0.0143, M p= -0.75 Y Pilot C, HQR = 6 Pilot C, HQR = 5 v 9 "0 'm " 6

(c) ,-- _ (d)

Combined Coupling Combined Coupling 12 M(3y= -0.0358, M p= -1.0 M a_ -0.0286, M p= -0.75 Pilot C, HQR = 9 Pilot C, HQR = 7 o_ v 9 E 6

/eli

(f)

7 , --, .....

2 4 6 6 8 10 0 2 4 0 8 10 Frequency (radlsec) Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 7.11. Representative power spectra of the control inputs for combined control-rate coupling configurations (data from 1992 flight tests).

992 Flight tests) • Pilot A / • • Pilot B | • Pilot C / • • LEVEL 3 • Pilot D J

• • • •

(/) n- O 6 • • -1- (:> 5 LEVEL 2 13- mD LEVEL 1 I I I 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Figure 7.12. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupfing parameters for combined control and rate coupling configurations.

0o0 m OH-6A UH-1H -0.2 _ 0 -0.4 CH-53D -0.6 -0.8 !

-1.0 BO-105C -1.2 m I s I , I , I l I i I I I 0 20 40 60 80 1O0 120 140 Airspeed, knots Figure 7.13. Ratio of off-to-on axis derivatives for several helicopters vs. airspeed (data from ref. 20).

?5 --4 Pitch rate Roll rate ............... Roll rate ...............

Pitch rate 0 ._.0 CD ."4 "0 _Q C) II 3 3 3 3 x x x x ,,< -- Pitch rate -- Roll rate o ............... Roll rate ._, o .............. Pitch rat___% 3 3 __ I=*_ • ..................... _ _ @ £ 3 3 x x _-. 80 o_ v • Rate Coupling, Mp = -0.5, C =m Rate Coupling, Mp= -2.0, C =oo c- Pilot C, HQR = 5 Pilot D, HQR = 4 O .m o 60 , n ._(2 O0 (0 ._ 40 "13

(a)

(b)

.J o_ Rate Coupling, Mp= -2,0, C = 1.0 Rate Coupling, Mp = -0.5, C = 1.0 v Pilot D, HQR = 5 Pilot C, HQR = 4 c'- o 60 IX o O0 _- 40 D t- O

(c) (d)

-.J 2O _-. 80 Rate Coupling, Mp = -0.5, C = 0.3 Rate Coupling, Mp= -2.0, C = 0.3 Pilot C, HQR = 4 Pilot D, HQR = 6+ c'- o-- o 60 0..

o .m "I3 t- O

(f) (e)

-J i i i i i 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 7.15. Control input posfions for two rate coupling configurations with different amounts of off-to-on axis coupling ratios, C (data from 1993 flight tests).

?7 Rate Coupling, M p -- -0.5, C = oo Rate Coupling, M p--- -2.0, C = oo Pilot C, HQR = 5 Pilot D, HQR = 4 I Lateral inputs ......... Longitudinal inputs v "13 -1 C

(a)

(b)

Rate Coupling, M p-- -0.5, C = 1.0 Rate Coupling, M p = -2.0, C 1.0 Pilot C, HQR = 4 Pilot D, HQR = 5 12' o_ v "O --1 .m _" 6

(c)

(d)

T 15" Rate Coupling, M p = -2.0, C = 0.3 Rate Coupling, M p = -0.5, C = 0.3 Pilot D, HQR = 5 Pilot C, HQR = 4 v 9 "o " 6

0 !e) l

2 4 6 0 8 10 0 10 2 4 6 8 Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 7.16. Power spectrum of the control inputs for typical rate coupling configurations with different amounts of off-to- on axis coupling ratios, C (data from 1993 flight tests).

?8 _C=oo e ........-e C=1.0 .... ,0 _ LEVEL 3 n" O "3- .......................................................... il;::Y .......... III;7S ........................... " ......

o

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

13..

LEVEL 1 I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Ok/4>t:4_

Figure 7.17. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameters for cases with different off-to-on axis coupling ratios, C (data from fixed-base simulator).

DC=0o oC= 1.0 o C = 0.33 O o LEVEL 3 n-" ........................................................................................................................................................... O. ..............................................................................................................

O O O -r O [] o-- LEVEL 2 B..

[]

<8>

LEVEL 1 O 1 I I I 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

O_k/<bt:4s

Figure 7.18. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C couplingparameter for cases with different off-to-on axis coupling ratios, C (data from 1993 flight tests).

"_ 79 I o----e Lp= 8.0, Mq= 4.0, Pilot C 9 -/[3 ......£]Lp=5.0, Mq=2.5, PilotC 8 / • Lp= 8.0, Mq= 4.0, Pilot E LEVEL 3 _ 6 .,.D ...................

.5 EL2 3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ...................................................................................

LEVEL 1 1 / I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Figure 7.19. Comparison of the pilot HQRs with the ADS-33C coupfing parameters for rate coupling configurations with different on-axis damping (fixed-base simulator data).

I G_-O Lp= 810, Mq= 4.0, Pilot C 9 - / z_ ........... .ALp= 6.0, Mq= 4.0, Pilot C / [] ......_ Lp= 5.0, Mq= 2.5, Pilot C 13 LEVEL 3 8 I_/ • Lp= 8.0, Mq= 4.0, Pilot E /,0 ..............

.................................................................................................................................................................................................... _:_.:_i ....................... j.-.:'_...........................

_ 6 ....... E_"" ................ • 5 Z_ LEVEL 2 t ............ [] ................. _.S:-::::_ _:_ i.:i:1 ....................................................................

• LEVEL 1 I I I 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Figure 7.20. Comparison of the pilot HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameters for control coupling configurations with different on-axis damping (fixed-base simulator data).

8O PILOT D PILOT C .-. 80 Washed-out Coupling (1993) o_ Washed-out Coupling (1993) M_. = -0.0072, Mq, c = -4.0 t- M_ =-0.0072, Mq,c=-4.0 O Hda = 4 H_R = 3 o 60 O.

.o Or) °_ "0

(a) (b)

Washed-out Coupling (1993) Washed-out Coupling (1993) M_ =-0.0143, Mq,c=-4.0 t- O HM_(_R -030143, Mq,c =-4.0 H_R = 5 o 60 O- "10 c- O

(d)

(c)

.-. 80 o_ t Washed-out Coupling (1993) Washed-out Coupling (1993) M8 = -0.0286, M q,c= -4.0 C M_v=-0.0286, Mq,c=-4.0 H_R = 4 HQR = 3 c_ o 60 c- O

(e) (f)

Washed-out Coupling (1993) Washed-out Coupling (1993) M_. = -0.0858, Mq,c = -4.0 C HM_(_R -050858, M q,c= -4-0 Hda = 7 o 60 a..

.o O9 "0 .-- C

(g) (h)

20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 7.21. Control input positions for typical washed-out coupling configurations. All data for M&x/L &y-- -1.0 and Mq,c = -4.0 sec-1, except for (a) which has M &x/L _ = -1.8 (data from 1993 flight tests).

_ 81 o _'o_ .Q c" (3) ' V ._ ....

V V V "" I/rr

_,,o_

_ ,_, (30

._ _-,-

m I 5"

_-_

cxl

8_

0 0 0 0 0 "5 I-. ._o,.

v o II 8_ 13 II >, ,._ II >,

o

o I

ff

¢- 13.

o- o I II J Ii i.i o o

w_o_

o0

==_-,-

==_-r _ _-,-

-_.-_= 8 oo

8_

0o.

r,.o "13 CI -,5o, --= o,' I'-

-_o _o, v

0 I1>, "1_ I1>,

o

o>, I 13...

IJ_ I o I..I3 O4 Ob _ O3 0 I'_ O4 (3) (0 O3 0 t..O _1 (3) _0 _ 0 (_%) epnl!u6elAI (_%) epnl!u6elAI (_%) epnl!u6elAI (z%) epnl!u6eiAI ("4 Washed-out Coupling (1993) Msy= -0.0858, Mq,c= -4.0 E >- -16

56o ldOO 15oo

x (m)

(. 85 "o fl) Q) cl _o 70 _ 100 e-- -1- 75 Washed-out Coupling (1993) IV_y= -0.0858, Mq c= -4.0 E Z -16

o 5bo 16oo

X (m) Figure 7.23. Comparison of the task performance of pilots C and D for a washed-out coupling configuration (data from 1993 flight tests).

• Pilot C, Max/Lay= -1.8 • Pilot C, Max/Lay= -1.0 [] Pilot D, Max/Lay= -1.8 LEVEL 3 o Pilot D, Max/Lay= -1.0 -_ Fixed base simulator tests

ql

ca 7

n- O 6 • • [] "1-

o 5

• • O 13.

• i3 _ [] LEVEL 2

1........... ........... ........................... .................................................. .....................................

LEVEL 1

I I I I 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 May Figure 7.24. Pilot ratings vs. May for the washed-out coupling configurations with Mq,c = -4.0 sec -1.

Pilot C, IV_x/L_y = -1.0 Pilot D, Max/Lay -- -1.8

LEVEL 3

Ii Pilot C, M_x/Lay = -1.8 Pilot D, Max/Lay= -1.0 Control coupling _0 7 n- .......................... •........................... $......................... _..................................................................

O 6

LEVEL 2

• • • o •

E

........................................................... C_ ...................................................................................................................................................................................

D[# o 1 *

LEVEL 1

I I I I 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Opk/_t=4s Figure 7.25. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameters for washed-out coupling configurations.

---. 80' o_ Washed-out coupling, v Washed-out coupling, t- O MSv= -0.0572, Mp,c = -0.5 .I MSv= -0.0572, MR c = -2.0 Pil6t C, HQR = 4r/:; Pildt C, HQR = 5 o_ o 60 13_ ._ o9 t_ .__ 40 "0 t- O

(a) (b)

..J 2O 0 0 20 40 60 20 40 60 80 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Lateral Stick Position (%) , Washed-out coupling, l ......... Lateral inputs Lon£1itudinal inputs I MSv= -0.0572, Mp c = -0.5 Pil6t C, HQR = 5 ' Washed-out coupling, MSv= -0.0572, Mp,c=-2.0 v Pil6t C, HeR = 4V2 "13 n 3 .m t-

(c)

0 ¸

_ !d)

0 2 4 6 8 0 0 8 10 2 4 6 Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 7.26. Control input positions and power spectra for the washed-out coupling configuration with Lp, c = M q,c (data from 1993 flight tests).

-:i l o Control coupling, modified freq.

• Washed-out coupling, modified freq.

LEVEL 3

¢0

rr "1- o oD

• • LEVEL 2

13_

LEVEL 1

I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Opk/_t=4s Figure 7.27. Comparison of the HQRs with the ADS-33C coupling parameters for control coupfing and washed-out coupling configurations with modified frequency characteristics.

80"

Control Coupling, M6,-- -0.0286 Y Pilot C, HQR = 5 v ¢..

O .I t_ o 60 13.

_40- °I 0"} t- ._J 0 20 40 60 80 Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 8.1. Typical figure eight cyclic control path for a control coupling configuration.

i i

.___ Lateral Lateral _ Lateral pilot dynamics i Command -" ' (incl. gain, time delay) i * response Input i E Coupled

i Helicopter

I Long. pilot dynamics i Longitudinal (incl. gain, time delay) i response ................................................ ., Figure 8.2. Simplified model of the pilot as a two-axis single loop feedback system.

,£O 03 ro v v E q n,, q n- o. r_ 2 o a o, O o a o 0 "r II -r II II -r g II s" _ o

o

_ = o --, v _ 0 o "5 o ¢- "_ o o o ¢- u_ ._ "1 c- 8_ O -J o _._ eJ 4- oc0 _ .,-:- o OO3 (_%) epn_4u6elhl (z%) apm,!uSe_ (_%) epnllu6epl (_%) epnl!uBelhl o _ O'_ CO o v q a_ o. n- o. n- o. n, 9 0 o o o 0 E o a II 'T" II "I- II -r _E 2 , "i- v 0 0 0 o o o o o O >, c _

i

e'- t- ¢'_ r- O t- o o o • -- Q) o

<

< u_ _'_ Q_ -J < OJ Ob _ o3 Ou3 0_'3 (_%) epn_4uBel/_ _%) apn_4u6e_ (z%) epm,!u6elhl (_%) epm,!U6el/_ O_ O_ Lateral ! . . i L Lateral _ Lateral p,lot dynam,cs t i response Coupled

Commandlnput i I(incl. gain, time delay) I [_ i

Helicopter rQ___l Long. pilot dynamics _ i Longitudinal y response Figure 8.5. Simpfified model of the pilot using a feedforward control strategy.

80 ¸ Control Coupling, Ma,-- -0.0780 Y Pilot C, HQR = 5 o_ v c" .I 13_ {.)

o_ O9 i c- .m "0 "m c- O 2O 0 20 40 60 Lateral Stick Position (%) Figure 8.6. Typical cyclic control crossplot for diagonalized inputs.

9O Longitudinal input power spectrum Lateral input power spectrum 15' Baseline Configuration Baseline Configuration Pilot C, HQR = 2 Pilot C, HQR = 2 '12 v "o "O

.__=

E _'_1 =E

(a)

(a)

Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.5 (1992) Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.5 (1992) Pilot C, HQR = 5 Pilot C, HQR = 5 _"q 2 (i) 9 "o "o • 7 4 c "E 6 c_

(b)

(b)

O_ 15 31 Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.0 (1992) Rate Coupling, Mp = -1.0 (1992) Pilot C, HQR = 5 " C, HQR = 5 o_ v _9 C

• 61

c_ lot (C)

(c)

j . . -,, , ,, , ,,- , 15. 3, Rate Coupling, Mp =-2.0 (1992) Rate Coupling, Mp = -2.0 (1992) ' Pilot D, HQR = 6+ Pilot D, HQR = 6+ _12.

o_ o_£2-_ v ¥, "o _61

gfl

(d)

(d)

O! .....

.... -- ,_'_ ,_ _ Rate Coupling -Rate Coupling, Mp = -2.5 (1993) 3- Mp = -2.5 (1993) Pilot D, HQR = 7 _., Pilot D, HQR = 7 _2.

"o "E 6 c_ c_ gl.

(e)

, , _ -- _ , 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 lO o Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 8.4. Lateral and longitudinal power spectra for selected rate coupling configurations (notice differences in scale between lateral and longitudinal spectra; data from flight tests).

" 89 I I I I O I o Control coupling t i O Rate coupling O 9 i o Combined coupling r OQ_ 0 - Open - 1992 Flight test Closed - 1993 Flight test - I Flagged- Fixed-base sim.

o o o </ _I,; o i (/) o- <> 0 0 0 0 Ef 6 i J I i oO o d:

0 o _" /g'

13.

d

o_ #eo []

[ ci 2 [ ADS LEVEL 3 ADS LEVEL 1 ADS LEVEL 2 I I , I I I I 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Figure 8. 7. Four-second ADS-33C time domain coupling parameters vs. individual pilot ratings for the control, rate, and combined coupling cases with an L q,M p and or L &x/M _ ratio close to that of the BO 105.

9!

1.5 D Control coupling O Rate coupling o Combined coupling Open - 1992 Flight test Closed - 1993 Flight test Flagged - Fixed-base sim.

_ _o _

<Y

4½

et=4s I

b "qv : 4'/2 0.5 4'/,_' 4 v

............. _ _f<f ................. _<_i

_ 2#__._ ADS i 3 4 i ADS LEVEL 3 ADS LEVEL 2 _,-_ _lt." LEVEL 1 i 3i_1_ 4 _ i 3 2_" _ ,_. 5 i , 2 4 lira V3 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0p k Figure 8.8. Two-sided representation of the ADS-33C time domain coupling parameters for all control, rate, and combined coupfing cases. Individual pilot ratings and the ADS-33C level boundaries are shown.

1.5 6.80 o Control coupling O Rate coupling 7O o Combined coupling o

,o

5.7 ° _'_'_ 8.5 ° 6_ 6° 4'/2 6.8 _6.1 Ot=4s

7_o

6.5 ° 6._ [] 0.5 4 ° 4.6 5.P 4.5 ° _4, e 3,_ 40 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1 _

3<>

_._ :]0 3.7

@

2.25 _ O) 140 I I 4.291 6¢ 8_ 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 _t=4s Figure 8.9. Two-sided representation of the ADS-33C time domain coupling parameters for aft control, rate, and combined coupfing cases. Averaged HQRs and suggested level boundaries are shown.

10 i i i i i Oi , Rate coupling

Io C°n'r°c°u0n0 I

Combined coupling Open - 1992 Flight test on o Closed - 1993 Flight test F agged - Fixed-base s m.

o o o _ • o n_ 0 o o o o -1- _o5 I I I I I I I 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth Figure 8.10. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch bandwidth frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the control, rate, and combined coupling cases with an L q,Mp and or L &x/M_ ratio close to that of the BO 105.

10 ...... ,o o Control coupling 0 Rate coupling 9 O o Combined coupling Open - 1992 Flight test Closed - 1993 Flight test Fagged - Fixed-base sim.

ooo_ • o 0 oo o o _' n, 6 o -1- o.

I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.11. Magnitude (in decibels) of q/p at the pitch bandwidth frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the control rate, and combined coupling cases of figure 8. 10.

I i O i [] Control coupling I O Rate coupling O o Combined coupling Open - 1992 Flight testl o O Closed - 1993 Flight test

d" • o"

F agged - F xed-base s m.

o o o0" • o n," 0 o o o o O6 -1-

o6o d d #

_o5 13.

d <>" o"

I I I I I I I 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency Figure 8. 12. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch neutral stability frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the control, rate, and combined coupling cases with an L q_ p and or L 6x/M6y ratio close to that of the BO 105.

I I I I 0 I 10 I I Rate coupling

Io C°n'r°'c°uo"no 1

Combined coupling Open - 1992 Flight test] o_ Closed - 1993 Flight test / Fagged - F xed-base simj o" ¢o" ooo0" ¢ o (D 0 oooo o" n" 6 -1- "5 .-=5 n I I I "1 I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8. 13. Magnitude (in decibels) of q/p at the pitch neutral stability frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the control, rate, and combined coupling cases of figure 8. 12.

9.5 10 i i i i i i i O Rate coupling I • Washed-out (Pil. C)

r

• Washed-out (Pil. D) <> 6 O <> A& O_li, • n" 6 O -r --o5 • • 0 •<_ O m=o 13.

4 • AI • • nu, <> • <> ................................................................................................ Jim ..............................................................

3 • • 0 • 2 0 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.14. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch bandwidth frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the washed-out coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases (flight data only).

O Rate coupling • Washed-out (Pil. C) • Washed-out (Pil. D) O 7 O• O0 0 • • • • n'6 O -1- _o5 13.

1 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.15. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch neutral stability frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the washed-out coupfing cases and some selected rate coupling cases (flight data only).

0 i I i i e i i o Rate coupling (all flight tests) • Modified frequency, rate coupling (Table 7.13) • Modified frequency, washed-out couplin_l ITable 7.14) o o o o 6 • 0 • I _o 5 _L I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.16. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch bandwidth frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the modified frequency cases and some selected rate coupling cases.

I I t i • Modified frequency, rate coupling (Table 7.13) o Rate coupling (all flight tests) 7.14) • Modified frequency, washed-out coupling (Table • o • n" 6 O -1- --o 5 O •o o 0 f °_ n • 0 o o o 1 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.17. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch neutral stability frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the modified frequency cases and some selected rate coupling cases.

:' 9?

i i t r i i i

Io coup,og ;, flight test;)

I" Reduced bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.7) O Reduced bandwidth, rate coupling (Table 7.8) I & Reduced roll bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.9) 8 • • 7 • o • n. 6 0 • 1 A o 1" _o 5 0 0 0 Qill 13.

l • 4 • • 0 • 0 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.18. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch bandwidth frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the reduced on-axis bandwidth frequency cases and some selected rate coupling cases.

0 Rate coupling (all flight tests) • Reduced bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.7) I • Reduced bandwidth, rate coupling (Table 7.8) • Reduced roll bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.9) • • 7 • o • (/) £E 0 • • • O 6 "1- 0 5 0 0 0 l• 13_ • • 0 iO I I I I I I i -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.19. Magnitude of q/p at the pitch neutral stabifity frequency vs. individual pilot ratings for the reduced on-axis bandwidth frequency cases and some selected rate coupling cases.

I I I I I I I O Rate coupling o Control coupling o Combined coupling _" 7,7 Y_O oc : Pilot HQRs 1 A 1992 Flight test _,.Ty, 7 ° B 1993 Flight test 8_o 0 _'_4 ½,5 _t_ 7 []6 c Fixed base sim. test 0 5 v 8,9 rv 6"° _ 07½ 4,5 0 5.6 0 6,7 4,5 -5 5,6_4½ 5D 4.4 ° 5,_s

O,½

rn 4_3,4 5,5 v v -10 - II, [34'3 r- $ 4 ¢- ..Q -15 - x 3E :½,3 4,5 4.403

@

-20 - O" {3.

4r- 1

b

-25 - -30 - LEVEL LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 4,4½ [] -35 - 4_ 2/2½ I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15" -10 -5 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.20. Two-sided representation of the pitch bandwidth frequency criterion for all control, rate, and combined coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

I I I I I I I O Rate coupling o Control coupling o Combined coupling _c. Pilot HQRs A A 1992 Flight test B 1993 Flight test c Fixed base sim. test 6,7 O v >., O c- -5 -I cr" >., -10 ..(3 u') $ 3_3_2½,3 c-- -15 4,5 I (/) X ,p, O f=- 41- I

@

3'3 _3 4, -20 ET (3.

-25 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1 -30 4,4½ -35 212½

- D os] <¢ -

I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.21. Two-sided representation of the pitch neutral stability frequency criterion for all control, rate, and combined coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

I I I '1 I I I I o Rate coupling I n Washed-out (Pil. C)

r

• Washed-out (Pil. D) 7,7'/b 7_I 6 $ 5 ° $ $ $ 56[_ 4 5r'] 6,60 m -5 "o v

%

¢..

"o "13 E $ _-10 r_ 4D X 4,4, [_ 13'4 3,303 o'- 4_14 5_ 3 -20 4D -25 4[3 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL -30 4,4V2 0 50 4.4,5 0 -35 2/2V2 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth(dB) Figure 8.22. Two-sided representation of the pitch bandwidth frequency criterion for all washed-out coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

lOl I I I I I I I

(dB)

o Washed-out (Pil. C) Jo Rate coupling J 7_ • Washed-out (Pil. D)

".. ','%

5D _b 7 I_ls 5D s ° m4. 6 O3 "o v >, o O r- -5 4.5 4 rn --I 6,6 0 O P 5,6 >, 44V; [_13'4 , 2 25 -10 41_1_'_ 5.5 $ $ --.1 m 3 c -15 .I x 4D 4½ FI

@ -2o

4D ET -25 2o -30 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 4,4 '/2 -35 2,2½ 0 51 _50 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.23. Two-sided representation of the pitch neutral stability frequency criterion for all washed-out coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

I I I I I I I (dB) • Modified frequency, rate coupling (Table 7.13) o Rate coupling (all flight tests) / • Modified frequency, washed-out coupling (Table 7.14) 7,7Y_ 0 'l 55_ 504_ l . $

4P

.-. -5

5. b

m v c- 5,5 ° $ -10 l- t 6A rl l/) x 3,3 o -15 5A

@

4,4 3 13" O -20 4&

2O

-25 LEVEL- LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 -30 1,4½ 5 0 4'4'5 0 O -35 2/2½ I I I I I I -15 -10 -5 (riB) 0 -35 -30 -25 -20 q/p @ pitch-axis bandwidth (dB) Figure 8.24. Two-sided representation of the pitch bandwidth frequency criterion for all modified frequency coupling cases and some selected rate coupfing cases. Individual oilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

"_ 103 I I I I I I I O Rate coupling (all flight tests) I • Modified frequency, rate coupling (Table 7.13)

k

• Modified frequency, washed-out coupling (Table 7.14) 7.7% Q,.

$ $ 't

P

$ "o

v 42

-5 61_ o ¢- o" -10 >, _ _'_, 5.5 ..(3 II, -15 t- 6A .m x -20 £

@

cr" 5A -25 2o 4A -3O LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 4.41/2 -35 2,2V2 I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.25. Two-sided representation of the pitch neutral stability frequency criterion for all modified frequency coupfing cases and some selected rate coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

I I I I I I I O Rate coupling (all flight tests) • Reduced bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.7) n • Reduced bandwidth, rate coupling (Table 7.8) 7,7Yz 0 8• • Reduced roll bandwidth, control coupling (Tab e 7.9) 7 A $ $

0.1

-5 5,_ o "C} 4A v c- -o -10 .m "O t- ..Q (I) B "_ -15 !

m

@

CT o. -20 2O -25 LEVEL 2 LEVEL_ LEVEL 1 -3O 4,4½ 5 0 4'4'5 0 -35 2,2V2 I I I I I I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 q/p@pitch-axis bandwidth(dB) Figure 8.26. Two-sided representation of the pitch bandwidth frequency criterion for all reduced on-axis bandwidth coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

":_ 105 I I I I I I I O Rate coupling (all flight tests) • Reduced bandwidth, control coupling (Table 7.7) I • Reduced bandwidth, rate coupling (Table 7.8) 7• - • Reduced roll bandwidth, contro coup ng (Tab e 7.9) 8•6• _ 7,7'/2(_ 6 $ t rn "o v >, -5 4,5 o 6,_ c c- a) 5,_'/'-4• _'_o >, -10 ..Q 11, $

4• t

u -15 ¢-

3P

x 4 • 4,z £ -20

@

Er -25 2o -30 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 4.4½ -35 2, 1 I I I I i I I -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 q/p @ pitch-axis neutral stability frequency (dB) Figure 8.27. Two-sided representation of the pitch neutral stability frequency criterion for all reduced on-axis bandwidth coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases. Individual pilot ratings and suggested level boundaries are shown.

-30 - Flight 1 ...........Flight 2 -35

..P__

y (dB) -40, T -T--T T -45 Cl -50 y (dB) -55 -60- I I I I I I I I I _'_'"""/ " _/ "i -15 _g...

P -20 (dB)

i i/

_25 ¸ """°°" "'"%, i -30 I I I I I I I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 8.28. Ampfitude of the frequency response of p/&y, q/6y, and q/p for two data sets obtained from two separate flight tests with the BO 105 S-123 (80 knots).

-30 -- Flight 1 ....."......_. "'"....... Flight -40

_q_

X (dB) -50, I I I I | I I I I 7; -40

__P

X

F

N ! I (dB) -45 '.z,,V -50 +15 v +10 +5

.2_

q (dB) -5 -I0 -15 I I I l I I I I t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 8.29. Ampfitude of the frequency response of q/6x, P/&x, and p/q for two data sets obtained from two separate flight tests with the BO 105 S-123 (80 knots).

,o. /O%o.,,,°*/'%% ......................................................................... / en ,,," -o -20 'ko," v "¢D c- -40 -- q/p ........... p/q I I i I I i I J I I I I I i t I I I I I I i Iil I I I I I I I -6O f."- .......... ,-.*°"°°_ ""-°..

...-100 (D "{3 \,..: ...... -......: m -200 c- 8_ -300 I I I I I I I I t l I I I I I I I -4OO 1.0 0.8 (- $ 0.6 c- O o 0.4 I I I 0.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency (rad/sec) Figure 8.30. Bode plot of q/p (sofid line) and p/q (dashed line) of an attack helicopter at 60 knots.

I I I I I I I O Rate coupling [] Control coupling o Combined couplin£1 7,7_ BoC: Pilot HQRs 1 A 1992 Flight test

%,0_,,½ ,%°

8.100 B 1993 Flight test • 55 c Fixed base sim. test • C_17-17 ½, 5 5_4 '/_,5 6,7 O A4½ _'

G Prl ''j_Y

.O_ 4,_ I 0 7½ 4,5 0 O 5,6 63 6,6<) '½ -5 5'6" O 4,4 5,605 04½ D.,3 4_,4 m -10 "o _ 5.5 o- Q.

_o

_<>'

_ -15

4 _5[]1½'3

b_

-20 -25 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 1 -30 4,4½ - [] -35 2/2 Y2 I I I I I I I -20 - 15 -10 -5 -35 -30 -25 0 average q/p (dB) Figure 8.31. Individual pilot HQRs of all control, rate,.and combined coupling cases in the frequency domain format using an averaged coupling parameter llO I I I I I I I o Rate coupling [] Washed-out (Pil. C) • Washed-out (Pil. D) [_6 7,7½ %_ O 51__ sO i_1 s sO7 $ 0 6rn 4.5 114- 6.

-5 51-1 6_4 0 5.6 5,60 [] _, 5,5 m -10 4 _3 [_3,4'_ 4,41/_ • 12r

\

_ -15 m 3 _._o s_ _ I

b

D

-20 4° -25 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 - _30 1,4½ 50 4'4'50 - O -35 2,2V2 I I I I I I I -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 -35 -30 average q/p(dB) Figure 8.32. Individual pilot HQRs of all washed-out coupling cases and some selected rate coupling cases in the frequency domain format using an averaged coupling parameter.

"_ 111 10 , sBO 105 _-10 •% OAttack Helicopter > -20 -30 I -o( I I I I I I -OO -30 -20 -10 0 average q/p (dB) Figure 8.33. Suggested level boundaries of the pitch-roll coupling criterion using an averaged coupling parameter. Data points shown are for the BO 105 at 80 knots and an attack helicopter at 60 knots.

Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE oMB No o7o4-o188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 1995 Technical Memorandum 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS An Investigation of the Effects of Pitch-Roll (De)Coupling on Helicopter Handling Qualities 505-59-36 6. AUTHOR(S) C. L. Blanken, H.-J. Pausder,* and C. J. Ockier* 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army Aviation and Troop A-950055 Command, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA TM-110349 Washington, DC 20546-0001 and U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 USAATCOM TR-95-A-003 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Point of Contact: C. L. Blanken, Ames Research Center, MS 210-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; (415)604-5836 *Deutsche Forschungsanstalt fiir Luft- und Raumfahrt, Forschungsbereich Flugmechanik/Flugftihrung, lnstitut for Flugmechanik, Abteilung Flugmechanik der Drehfliigelflugzeuge, Lilienthalplatz 7, D-38108 Braunschweig.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Unclassified--Unlimited Subject Category - 08 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) An extensive investigation of the effects of pitch-roll coupling on helicopter handling qualities was performed by the U.S. Army and Deutsche Forschungsanstalt ftir Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), using a NASA ground-based and a DLR in-flight simulator. Over 90 different coupling configura- tions were evaluated using a high gain roll-axis tracking task. The results show that although the current ADS-33C coupling criterion discriminates against those types of coupling typical of con- ventionally controlled helicopters, it not always suited for the prediction of handling qualities of helicopters with modem control systems. Based on the observation that high frequency inputs during tracking are used to alleviate coupling, a frequency domain pitch-roll coupling criterion that uses the average coupling ratio between the bandwidth and neutral stability frequency is formu- lated. This criterion provides a more comprehensive coverage with respect to the different types of coupling, shows excellent consistency, and has the additional benefit that compliance testing data are obtained from the bandwidth/phase delay tests, so that no additional flight testing is needed.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Helicopter controllability, Coupling, Handling qualities 16. PRICE CODE A06 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18