Document
N O T I C E
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM
MICROFICHE. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT
CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE
NASA T&;hnical Memorandum 81266 (NASA-TH-81266) FLYING-DUALITIES CHITERIA N81--21083 FOR WINGS-LEVEL-TURN SANEUVERING DURING AN AIR-TO-GROUND WEAPON DELIVERY TASK Final Report ( NASA) 96 p HC AO5/fiF AJ1 CSCL 01C Unclas G3/08 41975
Flying-Qualities Criteria for
WingswLevelmTurn Maneuvering
During an Airmto=Ground
Weapon-Delivery Task
Robert I. Sammonds and John W. Bunnell
April 1981 9-, ^^ Q
APSA
National Aeronautics and Space AdM nistration
Flying-Qualities Criteria for
Wings=Level=Tum Maneuvering
During an AirmtomlGround
Weapon-Delivery Task
Robert I. Sammonds, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California and John W. Bunnell, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
NAM
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Feld, California 94035 Page NOMENCLATTIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SIMULATION TEST PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Description of Simulator . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 2 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 3 Test Conditions . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 4 Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Simulator Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . .
.
Wings-Level Turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lead and Transport Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Control Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 11 Comparison With Conventional Airplane . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 12 CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX — PILOT RESUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED iii NOMENCLATURE A transport delay AFFDL Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory AFFTC Air Force Flight Test Center AFSC Air Force Systems Command ALPHA angle of attack lateral acceleration Ay,AY Az,AZ normal acceleration a,b real roots of quadratic equations b wing span C coarse task CAS control augmentation System CEP circular error probable C-H Cooper-Harper rating scale (see fig. 12) c mean aerodynamic chord DA aileron deflection DCOL longitudinal stick deflection differential tail deflection DDT DHT horizontal tail deflection DLAT lateral stick deflection pedal deflection DPEL DR rudder deflection fine task or force F FCOL longitudinal stick force lateral stick force FLAT v PRECEDING PAGE @LANK NOT FILMED g gravity HUD head-up display roll moment of inertia Ixx product of inertia IK y Iyy pitch moment of inertia I ZZ yaw moment of inertia Ky ,KB ,K gains in WLT mechanization BI gain in basic aircraft control system KQ acceleromete-: location ..ith respect to center of gravity Iacc M mass P,PB roll rate PIO pilot-induced oscillation PR pilot rating p pressure Q,QB pitch rate pitch acceleration Q,QBD yaw rate R,RB yaw acceleration RBD S reference wing area
d
Laplace operator, S dt time of bomb drop TB TL time of signal light time constant (lead term in transfer function) T1 time t VT true airspeed wings-level turn WLT vi angle of attack a S sideslip angle y dive angle control or surface deflection damping ratio C air density P equivalent time constant (required for the lateral acceleration T response to a unit step input to reach 63.2% of its steady-state value) bank angle heading angle frequency W bandwidth frequency W wn natural frequency Subscripts: aileron a CAL calibrated CAS control augmentation system (electrical) center of 3ravity c.g.
differential tail DT HT horizontal tail lateral LAT longitudinal LON Mech mechanical system PED pedal p pilot location rudder R vii stick ST s static total T Coefficients and Stabilitv Derivatives: change in rolling-moment coefficient due C 1 to roll rate change in rolling moment coefficient CLO due to sideslip angle Clda change in rolling-moment coefficient due to aileron deflection change in rolling-moment coefficient due to differential tail C16DT deflection C 16 change in rolling-moment coefficient di :o rudder deflection R change in pitching-moment coefficient due to pitch rate Cm change in pitching-moment coefficient due to horizontal tail CMSHT deflection Cn yawing-moment coefficient Cnr change in yawing-moment coefficient due to yaw rate change in yawing-moment coefficient due to sideslip angles Cns Cnd change in yawing-moment coefficient due to aileron deflection a Cn change in yawing-moment coefficient due to differential tail aDT deflection change in yawing-moment coefficient due to rudder deflection Cnd R CY side-force coefficient change in side-force coefficient due to sideslip angle CY B CYa change in side-force coefficient due to rudder deflection R viii FLYING-QUALITIES CRITERIA FOR WINGS-LEVEL-TURN MiANEUVERING DURING AN AIR-TO-GROUND WEAPON-DELIVERY TASK Robert I. Sammonds Ames Research Center and John W. Bunnell Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio SUMMARY A mov{ng-base simulator experiment conducted at Ames Research Center demonstrated that a wings-level-turn control mode improved flying qualities for air-to-ground weapon delivery compared with those of a conventionally controlled aircraft. Evaluations of criteria for dynamic response for this system have shown that pilot ratings correlate well on the basis of equivalent time constant of the initial response. Ranges of this time constant, as well as digital-system transport delays and lateral-acceleration control authori- ties that encompassed Level I through III handling qualities, were determined.
INTRODUCTION Dive bombing is the most common method of delivering free-fall, non- nuclear weapons against ground targets. Compared to the low-level attack mode, it offers the advantages of better target acquisition, reduced vulner- ability to certain types of hostile ground fire, and delivery of large-yield low-drag weapons. However, the delivery variables (airspeed, altitude, and attitude) are not as easily attainable as in low-level bombing and the attack is often less accurate. To secure a direct hit, the aircraft must arrive it a particular point in space with the correct airspeed, dive angle, and "g" loading, and with proper corrections made for existing wind conditions.
Motivation for improving the dive-bombing task is t%reefold: 1) to increase the aiming accuracy; 2) to decrease pilot workload; and 3) to decrease aircraft vulnerability by decreasing the time to acquire the target, aim, and launch the weapon.
Previous investigations (refs. 1 -3) have shown that certain advanced the combat potential of conven- control modes can provide a large increase in tional aircraft because of the control mode's effectiveness in increasing agility and preciseness of aircraft maneuvers. One of the most promising of these advanced control modes for use in the dive-bombing task (ref. 3) is wings-level turn (WLT).
This mode permits a heading change by commanding a lateral acceleration while holding the wings level (# - 0) and maintaining a zero sideslip (s - 0). This maneuver eliminates the pendulum motion of the fixed depressed reticle eight (pipper) that occurs during rolling maneuvers when the aircraft's roll axis and the sight do not coincide. Elimination of the pendulum motion allows for a more rapid and accurate acquisition of the target than can be accomplished with a conventional airplane, thus reducing time over the target by permitting increased delivery speeds.
Although existing flight and simulation data show the potential advantages of WLT capability, there is a lack of systematic research on the flying - qualities criteria required for use in design of this control mode. The pur- pose of the research reported herein was to conduct a systematic, parametric investigation of the variables affecting the performance of an aircraft during an air-to-ground weapon-delivery task using the WLT control mode and to com- pare these results with those for a conventional, current-generation (bank to turn) fighter aircraft. This program was conducted in Ames Research Center's six-degrees -of-freedom Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA). Evalua- tions were obtained for a range of equivalent system dynamic characteristics, digital transport delays, and control authorities. Results are presented in this paper in the form of pilot ratings, commentary, control usage, and time histories.
SIMULATION TEST PROGRAM Description of Simulator This investigation was conducted using the six -degrees-of-freedom Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA) shown in figure 1. This simulator, described in reference 4, was equipped to represent a fighter cockpit with a center stick, all necessary instrumentation (fig. 2, table 1), a head-up dis- play (fig. 3), and hydraulically actuated control loaders on all three axes.
The head-up display provided the pilot with a fixed depressed reticle sight, digital readouts of velocity and altitude, a vertical scale to indicate dive angle, bugs to indicate the desired release altitude and airspeed, as well as a conventional pitch ladder. The altitude and airspeed scales located on either side of the display were movable and indicated the rate at which each parameter was varying. The digital readouts of velocity and altitude were updated at varying time rates depending on the rate of change of each variable to make the digital presentation more readable. The control loaders were pro- grammed to give the cockpit control force-feel characteristics typical of an advanced fighter aircraft. The desired and the actual force-feel character- istics obtained are shown in figure 4 for all three axes.
The pilot in the cab was provided visual and aural cues as well as motion cues. The visual cues consisted of a black and white bull's-eye target - located on a terrain board (fig. 5) and displayed on a color TV monitor - viewed through a collimating lens mounted above the instrument panel. The visual scene was generated by a computer-driven, six -degrees-of-freedom TV camera that duplicated the aircraft tuotion with respect to the dive-bombing task, but restricted the pilot to a forward view (no side-window viewing capa- bility). Scale -sized buildings were placed near the target to add realism ro the scene. The performance capabilities of the visual display system (see in VFA-07, table 4.2.1-1 ref. 4) were modified in the pitch plane by biasing the pitch prism to obtain the necessary look-down capability for the dive - bombing Lark. The maximum pitch displacements, as used, were +10 0 to -400.
The downward limitation effectively limited the desired dive angle for the bombing runs to -30°. The aural cues consisted of engine noise modulated by engine rpm and introduced into the cab through stereo speakers.
Mod -1 ing A conventional six-degrees-of-freedom mathematical model was developed to represent a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft. This model was used as the baseline aircraft and had flying qualities similar to those of the F-15. The physical characteristics of this aircraft and the nominal stability deriva- tives used during the dive-bombing task are presented in tables 2 and 3, respectively. Block diagrams of the pitch, roll, and yaw control systems, including CAS modes, for this basic aircraft are shown in figure 6. Time histories of the aircraft response to longitudinal, lateral, and pedal step inputs are presented in figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively.
The WLT flight-control mode was modeled as a transfer function, relat- ing lateral acceleration to rudder-pedal deflection, of the form A_ . (K../3.25) (T l s + 1)e-As az + 2r s + 1 6PED W 2 w n n The block diagram in figure 10 shows the m&nner in which the WLT mode was mechanized for the simulation. A proportional-plus-integral sideslip-angle feedback was included to ensure minimal sideslip. The commanded lateral acceleration was introduced directly to the sideforce equation and the calcu- lated yaw rate (including feedback terms) was used directly in the yaw equa- tions of motion. Although this technique did not simulate any real aircraft or aircraft design, it did facilitate the variation of important flying- qualities parameters anI allowed the study of pure, uncoupled responses, thus justifying the idealized simulation.
Test Coneitions The gain (Kv), time constant (TI), transport delay (A), natural frequency (Wd , and the damping ratio (y) of the Ay/dpED transfer function were subject to variation, either singly or in combination, during the experiment. The primary investigation was to evaluate the effect of the undamped natural frequency and the dampic.g ratio on handling qualities of the WLT control mode. The matrix for these runs is shown in table 4 for various values of bandwidth (wb). Bandwidth is defined as the frequency at which the amplitude of the Bode plot decreases by 3 db from a steady-state condition (see sketch in table 4).
Additional investigations were made to evaluate the effect of adding various amounts of lead (T1) to an obviously deficient system, various amounts of transport delay (A) to a system having good handling qualities, and three levels of commanded authority (KY ). The matrices for these programs are pre- sented in tables 5 and 6.
Task The test program was limited to an air-to-ground weapon- delivery task using a fixed depressed-reticle sight and an unguided bomb. The piloting task was to roll onto the target from a 90° heading offset at sit altitude of the bomb at a 3,048 m (10,000 ft), establish a -30° dive angle, and release specified set of release conditions (airspeed and altitude). For all runs, the desired release conditions were a dive angle (y) of -30% a velocity (VT) of 365.76 m/sec (1,200 ft/sec), and an altitude of 1,524 m (5,000 ft). The high release velocity was determined from p-reliminary runs in conjunction with the initial and release altitudes because it resulted in a difficult task - one that could be accomplished with a good system, but could not be accom- plished with a poor one. The average time for each run, from target acquisi- tion to bomb drop, was between 4 and 5 sec. A schematic of the dive-bombing task and a sketch of the target is shown in figure 11. Because the visual presentation in the cab did not provide for side-window viewing, the initial heading chang- and roll-in until target acquisition was an open-loop task that had to be learned by the pilots. They were given sufficient practice time to become proficient at this maneuver.
The bull's-eye target located on the terrain board (see figs. 5 and 11) consisted of concentric circles 50, 100, 5 00, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 ft (scale) in diameter. A normal run was made with respect to the center of the bull's-eye. However, in order to severely exercise the aircraft's WLT capa- bility, a secondary target, a large white dot, was located on the outer ring of the bull's-eye (see fia. 11) normal to the line of flight. Approximately half of the time, in a random manner, a light at the center of the bull's-eye signaled the pilot to bomb the secondary target. This signal was activated only after the pilot was aligned with the primary target, thus necessitating a heading change of about 12° in about 4 sec. Bombing runs to primary and secondary targets will be referred to hereinafter as the fine and coarse tasks, respectively. Although this alternate maneuver probably is not representative of an operational situation, it was selected as a means to subject the WLT mode to a severe heading-change maneuver to evaluate its gross maneuvering capabilities. A similar task could have baen induced using wind shears or gusts, but it was felt that the target-change maneuver would generate com- parable results.
Data Acquisition The parametric evaluation of the WLT control mode was accomplished by two USAF pilots (A and B) from the 3246th Test Wing (AFSC), Eglin AFB, and by one pilot (C) from the USAF Test Pilots School, Edwards AFB (see the appefl-' V -forpilotresumes).Eachpilotmadeatleasttworunsatbothprimaryand secondary targets for each set of parameters being evaluated, with the targets u eing selected in a random manner. Each pilot was allowed to make as many :uns as was required for an accurate evaluation of the task. At the end of each set of runs, for a given parameter, the pilots were instructed to give pilot ratings for both the fine and coarse tasks based on the Cooper-Harper (C-H) rating scale shown in figure 12 — giving reasons for the ratings, as well as comments on flying qualities and ability to accomplish the task. A maximum 1-H rating of 7 was established as the worst condition since there was never any danger of losing control of the a:i:-craft.
Pilots A and B were responsible for the parametric evaluations listed in table 4. Each of these pilots went through the matrix at least twice. Addi- tional repetitions were made for points having a spread of more than one pilot rating. Ratings for each pilot were averaged to obtain a single value for each parameter variation for each pilot. Average ratings for the two pilots combined were obtained from averages of each pilot for the configuration. The parameters in the matrix were selected randomly to avoid direct comparison with an adjacent point in the matrix. A baseline WLT condition having a natural frequency (wn) of 4.5 and a damping ratio (^) of 1.0 was specified and used for all practice and training runs. Pilot comments could then be com- pared with this baseline WLT configuration. Runs were also made with the conventionally controlled (bank-to-turn) aircraft for comparison.
These same pilots (A and B) were also responsible for evaluation of the matrix shown in table 5; however, because of time limitations, they only went through this matrix once. The third pilot (C), from Edward. AFB, was respon- sible for the control authority evaluation of table 6.
Pertinent input and response parameters were recorded both on eight- channel Brush recorders and on magnetic tape. lniti.i and release conditions and bomb scores were recorded at the end of each run; however, CEPs were not calculated from the bomb miss distances because of the small sample size for each condition (2-4 runs).
Table 7 shows the individual pilot ratings for each parameter investi- gated. Where more than one rating is listed, they are for repeat runs. Pilot ratings presented in the figures are either an average of each pilot's ratings or combinations of the two.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSI`I< As a prelude to the parametric evaluation of the WLT control mode, sev- eral preliminary simulations were conducted to establish the baseline airplane - configuration, the dive bombing task, and the mechanization of the WLT con- trol mode.
Simulator Validation Validation of the baseline ( bank - to-turn) airplane configuration was based on the subjective assessment of a number of pilots from the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Edwards AFB; Air Force Flight Dynamic Laboratory (AFFDL), Wright-Patterson AFB; and Ames Research Center. All were experienced at flying modern fighter aircraft (F-4, F-15, A-7, and T - 38) and with air-to- ground weapon delivery. Most were graduates of either the Air Force or the Navy test pilots school. All agreed that the baseline configuration was a good representation of a modern state - of-the - art fighter aircraft with good flying qualities. The F-15 pilots felt it to be comparable to on F-15.
The dive - bombing task was thought to be satisfactory for the evaluation of the WLT control mode, although there were some misgivings due to the lack - of side window viewing. However, the open-loop task of acquiring the target from a 90° heading offset was easily learned. The mechanization of WLT through the rudder pedals was thought to be natural and was readily accepted by all evaluation pilots. The simulator motion provided realistic onsets of the lateral accelerations being commanded, but constraints on the simulator motion restricted the instantaneous lateral. accelerations to t1 . 4 m/sect (±8.0 fr/sec2).
Wings - Level Turn
Frequency- The matrix shown in tabs. 4 can be broken down into an evalua-
tion of three underdamped ( C < 1), twa overdamped (C > 1), and one critically damped configuration having the following transfer functions:
K Y /3.25
^-^-. s C<1
2 2s
may
PED - 2 + 1 n n A K /3.25
-.1- 1
• y C PED (- + 11 n AKy/3.25 y_ . C > 1 l)(b bPED \a + + 1) where a and b are the real roots of the quadratic equation (see table 8).
Figures 13 through 15 show the variation of pilot rating as a function ases (C - 0.3, 0.5, and of natural frequency ( wn ) for the three underdamped <: 0.7). Figures 16 through 18 show this same variation as a function of the a) for thn two overdamped cases (; - 1.4 and 2.0). The low-frequency root ( critically damped case is included in each figure for comparison. Average pilot ratings are shown in figures 13 and 16 for pilot A, in figures 14 and 17 for pilot B, and in figures 15 and 18 for both together.
All cases show that pilot ratings improve with increasing frequency for a given damping ratio, indicating that increased quickness of response was favorable. This improvement in response is readily discernible in fig- ( b), which show time histories of pedal displacement and lat- ures 19(a) and eral acceleration for frequencies of 1 and 8 rad/sec and a damping ratio of 0.7. For the low - frequency case (wn - 1.0) there is considerable lag between pedal input and the lateral acceleration obtained. This response is signifi- cantly improved at the higher frequency ( wn - 8.0). Similar results were obtained for the overdamped cases.
It can also be seen in figures 13 through 15 that there is considerable variation in pilot rating due to the damping ratio ( ^), with the ratings improving with increased damping. Time histories ( figs. 20(a) and (b)), typical of this condition, show the improvement in aircraft response because of an increase in the damping ratio, with the frequency being constant.
Although the lag between pedal input and A y response appears similar for the different damping ratios it is obvious that the large overshoots occurring for the lower damping ratio would make it more difficult to put the pipper on the target and hold it there, thus increasing the pilot workload.
frequency root (b) in the transfer function for the over- Since the high - damped cases A K /3.25 y _Y -
+ 1) ( b
d PED + 1)
ca
is generally well separated from the low-frequency root (a), this transfer function can, in most cases, be treated essentially as a first-order system.
Figures 16 through 18 show this variation clearly as there are no significant differences in the data obtained for damping ratios of 1.4 and 2.0.
Pilot ratings obtained for the critically damped case are considerably worse than for the overdamped cases and somewhat worse than the hest under- damped case (c - 0.7) for frequencies less than about 8 rad/sec. Although the reason for the poorer ratings for the critically damped case can probably be discerned from the data presented in tables 4 and 8, further discussion on this matter will be postponed until later in the report (see section on Bandwidth).
In general, pilot comments regarding these data indicate that the ratings are primarily related to the amount of observable lag in the system. The more apparent the lag, the worse the pilot rating. As the lag increases, the sys- tem response slowb and it becomes more difficult for the pilot to control the inputs without getting overshoots. In extreme cases. toe pilot either cannot get the pipper over to the target or cannot stop it, once it is moving, with- out incurring large overshoots. Although this apparent lag can he attributed to either frequency or damping, the pilots generally seem to prefer quickness (increase in w n ) to damping, feeling that they can overcome some lack of damping if the response is quick enough. However, there appears to be a limit to the amount of quickness and damping desired. For extreme cases of high damping and frequency, the pilots complained that the response was jerky and somewhat less than optimum. The very fast starting and stopping of the motion was disorienting. Indications of this degradation are evident in data pre- sented in figures 16 through 18.
It was hypothesized that the pilot-rating data might better Bandwidth- correlate on the basis of the system bandwidth, where bandwidth is defined as the frequency at which there is a 3 db drop in amplitude from the steady-state condition (see table 4). Smooth variations of the average pilot ratings were obtained with this variable for each damping ratio, but there was a definite and distinctive progressive degradation in flying qualities accompanying a decrease in damping. These data are presented in figures 21 through 23. Time histories in figures 24 sad 25 show that for a given bandwidth there are sig- nificant differences in the time response between pedal input and lateral acceleration as a function of the frequency and damping. Since the same band- width can be obtained for various combinations of damping and frequency (see table 4), the higher the frequency and damping for a given bandwidth, the better the pilot rating. It can also be seen from table 4 that the bandwidth decreases with increased damping for a given natural frequency. This varia- tion probably accounts for the poorer ratings shown in figures 13 through 15 for the S - 1.0 condition as compared to that for a damping ratio of 0.7.
Even though this decrease in bandwidth continues for damping ratios greater than 1, the disparity in the highest frequency roots (C 1 1.0) for systems with the same bandwidth can account for the differences in ratings. Thus, since bandwidth alone cannot be a criterion, phase margin must also be a factor. Preliminary work by Systems Technology, Inc. (ref. 5) has shown correlation of these data on the basis of bandwidth, defined as the lowest frequency for which the open-loop phase margin is at least 45° and the gain margin is at least 6 db. In this definition, the closed-loop system bandwidth is implicitly defined as the open-loop crossover frequency.
Since neither frequency nor bandwidth (as Equivalent time cores Cant- defined in table 4) fully correlates the data, a parameter other than fre- quency was sought. An evaluation of the pilot comments, recorded during the simulation, showed their concern for the initial time-response characteristics of each configuration on flying qualities. As a result, equivalent time con- stants were calculated for each test condition listed in table 4. For the overdamped and critically damped cases, the time constant was taken to be the time at which she response to a unit step input reached 63.2% of its steady- state value. For these cases the responses were given by t -^, t -w Ay ^Ky (l -e n - wn t e n 1 for - 1, and at^
8e-bt_be
A K 1+ b - a y y for ^ > 1, where a and b are the real roots of the quadratic equation (table 8). For the underdamped oscillatory response, time constant was based on the envelope of the response as calculated by ^W nt) _ /
A y = K y (l - e
.
This time constant was equivalent to the time to damp to 36 8% of the initial amplitude.
Pilot ratings in figures 26 through 28, presented as a function of these equivalent time constants, show excellent correlation for all data, both fine and coarse tasks. It should be pointed out that pilot ratings for both tasks are nearly the same, differing by only about half a rating. Time constants and average pilot ratings for the two pilots are shown in table 9.
These data show that there is a minimum equivalent time constant . 2 sec) at which optimum performance of WLT is achieved. Level I (0.15-0 performance (C-H : 3.5) was obtained for time constants less than about 0.4 sec for the fine task and less than about 0 . 35 sec for the coarse task.
The WLT ratings became unacceptable at time constants greater than about 1.5 sec. These results agree with pilot comments that the lag of the system was the most important factor determining their ratings. As previously men- tioned, the pilots felt they could tolerate some lack of damping if the response was quick enough; but if it was too quick, performance became jerky and disorienting and flying qualities deteriorated somewhat. The slight break in the curves (figs. 26 to 28) at the low time constants is indicative of this deterioration.
The distribution of all pilot ratings for pilots A and B (table 7) are shown in figure 29 for both fine and coarse tasks as a function of the equiv- alent time constant. The symbol legend denotes number of times each rating was repeated. These data show a band of approximately ±1 pilot rating for each time constant. This is indicative of the repeatability of ratings and the validity of results in figure 28.
Time histories — showing the effect of pedal input on lateral accelera- tion response as a function of the equivalent time constant — are presented in figures 30 and 31 for underdamped and overdamped cases, respectively.
Although the time constant in these figures is a function of m n and a con- stant damping ratio, the data are directly comparable on the basis of the time constant without regard to either the damping ratio or frequency stipulated.
These data show that the system's response quickens with decreasing equivalent time constants.
The equivalent time constant is effective as a correlating parameter for these data. Apparently this is because it directly represents the time lag for the overdamped cases as well as the time to damp to some percentage of the initial amplitude for the underdamped cases (particularly those with low damping).
Lead and Transport Delay Tests were conducted to examine the effect of adding lead to an obviously deficient system and of adding transport delay to a previously good system
(figs. 32 and 33, respectively). Figure 32 shows the average pilot ratings as
a function of the lead time constant for the transfer function A (K /3.25)(T l s + 1) APED 2 ++ 1 n n where C - 1.0, wn - 4.5. These data show that adding small amounts of lead was beneficial, but that too much (T l - 0.6) became degrading. A T l - 0.3 resulted in fast response with essentially no overshoot and the best pilot rating of any system tested, whereas a Tl - 0.6 resulted in jerky response and a discernible degradation in the rating. Time histories for lead time constants of 0 and 0.3 sec (fig. 34) clearly show improvement in system response due to addition of the 0.3 sec lead term to the transfer function.
Unfortunately, data showing system response to addition of the 0.6 sec lead was not recoverable from the magnetic tape.
The effect of adding a transport delay to a good system is shown in fig- ure 33 for the transfer function A (K /3.25)e-As (a+1)(b+1) A PED where C - 1.4, wn - 15, a - 6.30, and b - 35.70. These data show that add- ing even small amounts of delay resulted in degraded performance as noted by the increase in C-H ratings with increased delay. Time histories of these responses (fig. 35) show this clearly. This agrees with previous findings that the more lag or delay in a system the more difficult the tracking task becomes. Unfortunately, time histories for the 0.49 sec transport delay were not recoverable from the magnetic tape.
Equivalent time constants calculated for both lead terms and transport delays (table 10) are plotted in figure 36, superimposed on the data band of figure 28. The time constants obtained using various amounts of lead agree well with the data trend established in figure 28 for both fine and coarse tasks. These data clearly show the degradation in performance for systems that are too quick (Tl - 0.6, T - 0.07) and further emphasizes that there is some minimum equivalent time constant for optimum performance.
The equivalent time constants calculated for various transport delays basic + A) are also in relatively good agreement with the basic data except (T for the transport delay of 0.49 sec 0.68). Both pilots rated this sys- (T - tem unacceptable (C-H - 7) because of large overshoots and PIOs for both
fine and coarse tasks. This poor rating is almost certainly a result of low
stability margin contributed by the time delay. Although both phase and gain margins are positive for this case, the phase margin is marginal for good stability. Then, with the addition of the pilot's own time delay, the system's stability degenerates further with the resulting large overshoots and PIOs.
The pilot rating shown for a delay of 0.105 sec (T - 0.29) for the coarse task also appears to be in disagreement with the basic data. This data point, how- ever, is influenced by a C-H rating by pilot A that appears to be poorer than would be expected from figures 33(a) and 35(b). Pilot B's rating would make this data point fall more in line with the basic data.
Control Authority During an earlier simulation, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the authority required for WLT maneuvering during the air-to-ground weapon- delivery task. Three levels of maximum commanded side acceleration were pro- vided (0.5, 0.75, and 3.0 g). The authorities of 0.5 and 0.75 g's were selected as reasonable or desirable for a control mode of this kind, whereas 3.0 g was selected as sort of an open-ended value so the actual acceleration being used could be determined.
The control system was mechanized to give full pedal travel for each of these authorities (see table 4). Results of these tests are in figure 37, where each curve is a cumulative frequency distribution of the lateral accel- erations used during the coarse task maneuver for a configuration having an equivalent time constant of 0.71.
These cumulative distributions were calculated from the commanded lateral accelerations used over a designated time interval for increments of time equal to 0.001 sec. The designated time interval was taken as the time between the minimum side acceleration, occurring after the target change signal was initiated, until the time of the bomb drop. This time interval relates to the time the Ay input was effective in creating a heading change and differs from the time of'pedal input due to lag in the Ay response. Typical time histo- ries showing the relationship of the pedal input and Ay response for each of the three control authorities are presented in figure 38.
The curves in figure 37 show the probability of exceeding given levels of authority for each of the three authorities selected. The lowest level of authority (0.5 g) proved inadequate for either the fine or coarse task. Even though the maximum authority of 0.5 g was used nearly 50% of the time, the pilot could produce a heading change that was only about half of that required (coarse task) to complete the task of acquiring the target before passing the release altitude of 1,524 m (5,000 ft). Figure 38(a) shows the time history
for this case. Full pedal input was reached in about 1 sec after the signal
for a target change, but the full side acceleration of 0.5 g was not obtained for another 1.5 sec because of lag in the system.
For an authority of 0.75 g, pilots still could not translate the pipper through a heading change sufficient to acquire the target in the time allotted to complete the task. It was possible, however, to accomplish the fine task with this amount of authority. Figure 38(b) shows the time history for this case.
With an authority of 3.0 g, the pipper could easily be translated to the target without using the full limit of authority. The time history of this maneuver (fig. 38(c)) shows that a maximum lateral acceleration of 2.5 g was used, but only momentarily.
Figure 37 shows that for 50% of the time the probability is that no more than 1 g will be required. The time history data also show that the heading change was completed in sufficient time to do some fine tracking on the target, as evidenced by the oscillatory nature of the pedal input. However, the lag in this particular configuration prevents lat- eral acceleration from following rapid changes in pedal input. A quicker sys- tem would have shown a closer correspondence between pedal input and side fig. 34(b)).
acceleration (see It becomes readily apparent from the data in figures 37 and 38 that the authority required to accomplish the desired heading change to acquire the target is dependent on the equivalent time constant (T) of the system being investigated. The control power and time response required to make a partic- ular heading change, based on the second-order model used in this investiga- tion, can be seen graphically in figure 39 for a time interval of 5 sec and a release velocity of 710 knots. Since the heading change required for tnis task was about 12% authorities of 0.5 and 0.75 g's for a system having an equivalent time constant of 0.71 sec were clearly inadequate for the task.
An authority of 3 g would have been adequate even for a marginally acceptable configuration with T - 1.5 sec. Figure 39 shows that the time constant (T) significantly affects the authority required. This figure can also be used to estimate control authority and time-response requirements for incremental heading changes and time durations that differ from the particular task inves- tigated in this experiment.
Comparison With Conventional Airplane Pilots A and B, who evaluated the WLT control mode, also evaluated the conventionally configured (bank-to-turn) airplane for both fine and coarse tasks for the same release conditions — an altitude of 1,524 m (5,000 ft), a dive angle of -30% and a release velocity (V T ) of 365.76 m/sec (1,200 ft/sec).
Individual pilot ratings (table 7) for the coarse task were in close agree- ment, and the task was rated as being essentially impossible to accomplish (C-H . 6-7). Although this basic aircraft had flying qualities similar to the F-15, it was nearly impossible to bank the airplane, make the necessary heading change, and level out on the target in the time allotted for the task due to both the control authority of the aircraft and the pendulum effect of the pipper. These results for the conventionally configured aircraft illumi- nate the benefits of WLT for it was shown that the task was easily accom- plished when using WLT with good response characteristics (T `' 0.15-0.2).
One should remember that the task was made particularly difficult so that advantages or disadvantages of different control modes and parametric varia- tions would become obvious.
Pilot ratings for the fine task varied from 3 to 5 (table 7) and depended largely on the ability or luck of the pilot being able to roll out onto the target with the pipper properly aligned. Normally, if more than one bank maneuver was required to compensate for the pendulum effect of the pipper, the task became very difficult. Pilot A felt the task was difficult but could be done easily with the right guesswork as to the amount of bank modu- lation needed to overcome the pipper's pendulum effect. He gave this task a rating of 5. Pilot B described the aircraft's damping and control sensitivity as "nice" and said that he could accomplish the task with a minimum of com- pensation. He gave this task a rating of 3.
It was the general feeling of pilots A and B that WLT with good response characteristics was a significant improvement over the basic aircraft for the air-to-ground weapon-delivery task. WLT greatly simplified the lateral track- ing task and allowed more attention to be devoted to the longitudinal task, in comparison with the basic aircraft.
CONCLUDING REMARKS six -degrees-of-freedom motion simulator investigations at Ames Piloted Research Center demonstrated that the WLT control mode was very useful 1) in decreasing pilot workload during an air-to-ground weapon-delivery task, and 2) in improving airplane flying qualities in comparison with those of a conventional aircraft, particularly if any significant amount of heading change was required to acquire the target.
The parametric evaluation of frequency and damping requirements for the WLT control mode showed that pilot ratings for various combinations of damp- ing ratio and frequency response correlate extremely well on the basis of time required for lateral acceleration response to a unit step input to reach 63.2% of its steady-state value. This equivalent time constant correlated the data for underdamped, overdamped, or critically damped responses.
The data show improved pilot ratings with decreased time constant (response is quickened), but there is a minimum time constant (T - 0.15 sec) for optimum performance. A further decrease in the time constant results in excessive quickness that degrades ratings because of jerkiness and pilot dis- orientation. In general, equivalert time constants less than about 0.4 sec resulted in pilot ratings of 3.5 or better for both fine and coarse tasks.
The effect of adding lead to the basic transfer function can be iiiter- preted in terms of the equivalent time constant, with these corresponding to the ones obtained from the frequency and damping variations. Any addition of a transport delay to a basically good system degraded the performance and increased the pilot ratings (i.e., made them worse). Most pilot comments regarding degradation in performance pertained to various amounts of trans- port delay or lag in the system. only for cases having low damping and low- frequency response did oscillatory motion become a problem. For cases having either high damping and high-frequency response or excessive amounts of lead the problem became One of excessive quickness.
The variation in control authority of 0.5, 0.75, and 3.0 g for a config- uration having an equivalent time constant of 0.71 sec showed that both the lower authorities were inadequate to accomplish an abrupt target acquisition task and that 0.5 g was even inadequate for precise target tracking. For the highest authority (3.0 g) a maximum of 2.5 g was used, but only momentarily.
For 75% of the time there was a probability that one would not exceed 2 g, and for 50% of the time the probability one would not exceed 1 g. Since the control authority required is also dependent on the equivalent time constant, a quicker response time (smaller time constant) would lead to a lower control authority necessary to accomplish the heading-change maneuver.
APPENDIX Pilot Resumes experience and qualifications of This section contains brief resumes of the pilots taking part in this investigation.
Pilot A Position: Test pilot, USAF/Eglin AFB Flight time: (h) Single engine 176 Multiengine 2801 Other 56 Total 3033 Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratings Instrument rating Commercial pilot certificate Airplanes: RF-4C, F-4C, T-38, A-7D, T-37 Pilot B Position: Test pilot, USAF/Eglin AFB Flight time: (h) Single engine 180 Multiengine 1750 Other 50 Total 1980 Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratings Instrument rating Airplanes: F-4, T-38, T-37, A-7 Pilot C Position: Instructor, USAF Test Pilot School/Edwards AFB Flight time: (h) Single engine 230 Multiengine 1360 Other -- Total Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratings Instrument rating Airplanes: F-100, F-4, A-7, A-37 REFERENCES 1.
Carlson, E. F.: Direct Sideforce Control for Improved Weapon Delivery Accuracy. AIM Paper 74-70, Washington, D.C., 1974.
2. Swortael, Frank R.; and Barfield, Finley A.: The CCV Fighter Program — Demonstrating New Control Methods for Tactical Aircraft. AIM Paper 76-889, Dallas, Texas, 1976.
3. Brulle, Robert V.; Moran, William A.; and Marsh, Richard G.: Direct Side Force Control Criteria for Dive Bombing. AFFDL-TR-76-78, Vols. I and II, Sept. 1976.
4. Sinacori, John B.; Stapleford, Robert,L.; Jewell, Wayne F.; and Lehman, John M.: Researcher's Guide to NASA-Ames Flight Simulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA). NASA CR-2875, 1977.
Hoh, Roger H.; Myers, Thomas T.; Ashkenas, Irving L.; and Ringland, 5.
Robert F.: Development of Handling Quality Criteria for Aircraft with Independent Control of Six Degrees of Freedom. Proposed AFWAL technical report (Systems Technology, Inc.), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (in press).
TABLE 1.- COCKPIT INSTRUMENTATION Attitude indicator, 2 axis Horizontal situation indicator Angle of attack indicator Altimeter Instantaneous vertical speed indicator Normal acceleration, g units Engine rpm Indicated airspeed, knots Mach number Speed brake position indicator Longitudinal acceleration, g units Turn / bank indicator Sideslip angle indicator Lateral acceleration, g units Clock TABLE 2.- AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Gross weight. . . . . . . . . 15,843 kg (34,928 lb)
Reference wing area (S) . . . 56.49 m 2 (608 ft2)
Mean aerodynamic chord (E). . . 4.88 m (16.00 ft) Wing span ( b) . . . . . . . . . 13.02 m (42.70 ft) . 26.5% - c Center of gravity location. .
Roll moment of inertia (IXX). . 34,264 kg - m 2 (25,270 slug-ft2)
211,114 kg-m (155,700 slug-ft2)
Pitch moment of inertia (Iyy) 2
. 237,960 kg-m 2 (175,500 slug-ft2)
Yaw moment of inertia ( I Z2 ) .
. . . -1,091 kg-m 2 (-805 slug-ft2)
Product of inertia ( I }Z ).
(2) . . . . . . . . . . P&W F-100-PW-100 Engines TABLE 3.- STABILITY DERIVATIVES (M - 1.09, a - 0.75% and Alt. - 5000 ft) -0.263 0.031
Fic- CnS
C -.0025 Cn6, .00005 j C Fa .00044 I C .000287 n ` 6DT .
00065 f Cn -.0016 C^^DT 6R C 6 .000056 C -.017 R Y, -.30 .0023 C nr CY6R `` 4.- TABLE TEST MATRIX - TRANSFER YNCTIOH Bandwidth for Combinations of Frequency and Damping Ratio 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.3 .5 .7 wn 0.5 0.71a 0.64 1 1.42 1.27 1.01 0.64 0.41 0.27 2 2.84 2.54 2.02 1.29 .82 .53 3 4.26 3.81 3.03 1.93 1.22 .80 4.5 6.39 5.72 4.55 2.90 1.84 1.20 6.06 6 3.86 2.45 1.60 8 8.08 5.15 3.26 2.13 10 6.44 4.08 2.67 7.72 4.90 12 3.20 15 6.12 4.00 19 7.75 5.07 23 6.13 7.46 a Bandwidth frequency.
W ~ -3 d6
I
TABLE 5.- TEST MATRIX -- LEAD AND TRANSPORT DELAY wn Z Tl I A 4.5 1.0 0 -- 4.5 1.0 .1 -- 4.5 1.0 .3 -- A 4.5 1.0 .6 -- (K /3.25)(Tls + 1)e-As 15 1.4 -- 0 -- .105 6PED-^^+ 2 + 1 15 1.4 15 1.4 -- .24 n n 15 1.4 -- .49 TABLE 6.- TEST MATRIX - CONTROL AUTHORITY wn ^K, C A K /3.25 0.7 __1 ^ ! I _-I_ .
— 2 .7 .75 j + 1 PED ® + 2 .7 .50 j w L n n o^ -2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 6PED• in.
in -°- ^Y'1 Y1 ft, 1 w1 h nnn %D 14; h a in ,i -Wen el .0 a Y'1 Y1 vD 1 Y1 Y1 d M i d M hnhhn hY'1VD frO I vD Y Mt .4 'A ^ a a a a N Y1 w1 ^'1
1° Y1
^ n ^h ^ 1 Y1 aW+a alVM N ^D ^D V1n V1 Y aa
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
nnh.oh w1vDn 1 V1 d U'1 ee'1 w1 v5 V1 N M V'1 •M^nv • V'1 d N vD vD M V ► M Y1 M V1 N M ► % n en wD n w'1 Ida ad as ^? as MN.M vD N'1 Y'1 %0 r .M Vn nnnnn hw1VN V1 P . .I r^ M V1 a v ► w l d %n co N PY
a d
a
.I V1 Y1
/ ar'fd r . nnvDn ► Y'hJ^
a a MNN N vD^' +M
1 v ► V1NN N n n n vD n Y1 w1 vD w1 &M aa aMd +7 M n n ^ ero M V'1 v1 Y1 f+4 1 aMaMM^1M 1; It N N nnnnvl^n^ldY'1 aa.+ U \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ v mi n nn n•QvD Ma^1 1 V1 MV1a 4 L"LM n C4 d1 M'1 V'1Y .?
1 d M N N ^ d a V O
y
r V I N d M N C N N N N N N n n t.Y1v1 V1 w'1 v1 w1 M ^ >K 1.MM.^M n nn. p n ^N N N MN V1 Y1V1•D 6"1 Mu M <
9.t a M N ID
V1 ^i v'1 0D w1 •O V1 M Q e • 1 MN C4 It nnnw'1u'1 v1Ja aM r M a aNY'1.'e n nn •OHO ^ M 1 M Y1d vD a aV
z
H N M
n ► a M s s
H O
M N U1 LM n M
v / e' ^r M M N N N N M 'D Ln a 4 V, -s e M .
1aM.r1r4 V'1N M n r. n Yom/ n n e+l .p 4n V, m V1 S
a
J^ N N ^D LA eM n 1 M n n n vD e. ^p 'm 'm Ln 'a M r a cc ..7 r- 1 V1 nnn nn &n.t1 V% in V1 00 M•
V'1 M J a
F O v1 nr.
1 J V1 en V1J6,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ `
<
ne.n^p .pnn n^pn 1 v'1 Y1J^ J `D 1 M 1/'1 V1 in v nr.n.p e. •p•pn 1 w1 LM 11 ^O• a Ln n I. r% 1^ . n n n en n ^ a en M J O v1 P. r. ^p^p^p ^p 3 1.
^ ^ V'1 nnnn^n•On vlhn na•
a ^ ey
N ^fJ < 00 < O 4 3 O< < ^e < M < OD
• + 1N en? enr)N en C4 en 04 NITN NN
M e 9 e
r1m e n N.7^T m g t N cn Men en Tm e/1N
%
M N e+1 O N n f^ ell V1 LM NmMC4mNmC eMC4 N MN C4 N
N cnm -t Nm ene + 1N in en C4 Mt en N W
N C1 N 1n V1 V1 V1 V1 OD
N e • 1NNNN NMN N
17 M LNellM co Mm en N N N
S
r-1 Ln M N N N N N N N N en N u9 N N N N r'f ell N N u'1 00 14 N N ca \ \ \ 1l1 L 1 M M N Q N N N -C4 \ \ b erl ri e•1 N N ^ ^ L N rl tti u `^ sr O I tir k; O
a
^a ao
N d I en d o^ , d. d
— 3
N— N
TABLE 7.- Concluded.
(b) Transport delay, A A T Pilot A Pilot B wn 0.19 2/2 2.8/2.5 15 1.4 0 4/3 15 1.4 0.105 .29 5/3 1.4 .24 .43 5/3 4.5/3.5 1.4 .49 .68 7/7 7/7 (c) Lead time constant, T1 Pilot Ti T Pilot A B wn 0.48 4.3/4 5/4 4.5 1.0 0 0.1 .37 2/2 5/4 4.5 1.0 4.5 .3 .16 2/2 2/2 1.0 .07 4/3 3/3 4.5 1.0 .6 (d) Basic airplane Pilot Coarse Fine A 7 5 B 6 3 8.- REAL ROOTS OF QUADRATIC DENOMINATOR TABLE + 2Cw n s + wn2] [(s + a)(s + b) - s 2 a b a b wn 2.0 0.27 3.73 1 1.4 0.42 2.38 .84 4.76 .54 7.46 .80 11.20 3 1.26 7.14 16.79 4.5 1.89 10.71 1.21 1.61 22.39 6 2.52 14.28 2.14 29.86 8 3.36 19.04 37.32 4.20 23.80 2.68 3.22 44.79 12 5.04 28.56 4.02 55.98 6.30 35.70 70.91 5.09 19 7.98 45.22 6.16 85.84 28 7.50 104.50 40 tf1 M1 Cr1 N e+1 O^ 0• .D tI1 1^ W tnNN NNN ^p^Dcnvt^td a0 N to t` .7 O N ao CO O U N 1-^D%DLnLn In c + 1M NNN M1` Hhd ON m 00 %OOO C0 r+1 N N r 1 ^••) O^ O^ to ^D to ^?
^^4 ^4 V1 N N O^ ^C c!1 C' .?
W LA f^ ^o 7 . 7 en N N N 1n U' -T CO M O% M m ON IT 00 U
z
rl f` %^.4S.;S N NN N HH ^T N 1l1M 1\%D00 -1 C)% W COSY ^^DrTenN NHH H Q ra H .7 T O% 00 .7 S
a
w r^11 IT NNN N ddW O s t` 00 pA4 Ln 00 U o .T M C'n N N D d if1 t- N OD % .D n 11 00 M N N r1 rl 9 r` N H N H z CO f1 N N r^ ^p f+.
tf) d M N N H %D y
z
N OO M 00
8 O U
n ^D'T.T M N m M r4 00 N •7 00 ^7t^ ^TMN .i H H
z
w M ^l LP C0 w r .a Lf) H .'7 Ln t!1 t^ d
w U
O in O^ O O O t` s 0000 7 W r d N .i r7 H O0 M M-7 W t^ ^D 1D Lr u9 M 00 O0 CO U %D t!1 u•1 t^ M f` .- • 1 ^T UP u1 M .T 9 O ^"^ N ^D CO O N u•1 O^ M to .-i H rl r-1 N N TABLE 10.- TIKE CONSTANTS AND AVERAGE PILOT RATINGS FOR LEADS AND TRANSPORT DELAYS (a) Lead (T1) T1 t C/F Wn 4.5 1.0 0 0.48 4.65/4 4.5 1.0 .1 .37 3.5/3 4.5 1.0 .3 .16 2/2 4.5 1.0 .6 .07 3.5/3 (b) Transport delay (A) A wiz T C/F 15 1.4 0 0.19 2.4/2.25 15 1.4 .105 .29 4.5/3 15 1.4 .24 .43 4.75/3.25 1.4 15 .49 .68 7/7 Figure 1.- Ames Flight Simulator tur Advan i -co AJrcratt (FSAA).
'^, `A
a
4L:ur^y
r- -4 u cE N G u L J U3 C It -^^
t
i
t '^
C U N QI OD W
^^ 4 rl ?jo
"'Aa
r
b
MOVING AIRSPEED SCALE, MOVING ALTITUDE SCALE, 10-knot INCREMENTS 200-h INCREMENTS LADDER'.^0 PITCH l INCREASING INCREASING _^p^ VELOCITY ALTITUDE ^5
T Zp ,^y/
20' .
ALTITUDE RELEASE BUG DIVE ANGLE AIRSPEED FIXED INDICATOR RELEASE DEPRESSED (-280 TO -32") BUG BUG RETICLE ad RE F.
50 m ► CIRCLE 2 mil AIM DOT.
Figure 3.- HUD schematic.
40.
--- DESIRED AFT STICK -- ACTUAL LIMIT B W V cc C 0 U.
BREAKOUT t 0.061b Y v GRADIENTS, Win.
A 8.5
E
-20 B 4.0 FORWARD STICK LIMITS, in.
STICK FWD 2.90 LIMIT AFT 5.43 -40 La) RIGHT STICK LIMIT W Q Cc 0 0 U.
t 1 lb BREAKOUT Y v GRADIENTS, lb/in.
H
A 5.0
y
B 3.67 -20 LEFT STICK STICK LIMITS ± 4 in.
LIMIT X40 -4 -2 0 2 4 STICK POSITION, in.
(a) Longitudinal stick.
(b) Lateral stick.
Figure 4.- Force-feel characteristics.
!60 ---- DESIRED ACTUAL
/I
RIGHT I PEDAL / LIMIT
I
.0 W cc O W J W d W O O BREAKOUT t 7 l ac -40 GRADIENT 451b/in.
PEDAL LIMITS . 3.25 in.
I
-80 LEFT PEDAL 1 LIMIT / I / -120 c) -160 1 I ' 1 -4 4 -2 0 2 RUDDER PEDAL POSITION, in.
(c) Rudder pedal.
Figure 4.- Concluded- G O L U O .-I u M 4.
G b L+ cti O G L L ti E-+ if1 ^J L 4k.,JNAJ. YA ;rte t W W r+..
W LL
^a
CO
^a
v
J J H J J
z
W 00 N M O ^ ^ r
^ ^ N
4W ca Q J J to to d
O
J W
aL
O
F= ci
CC J Q ^ p g V N LU i u
a¢^
^I« _
•o z O m *• y ^+ u O r ao 0 '" Q >, v u ri W W I O ^0 t0 CL O I u ► .
UA I h -+ u O J O O ccI u .,r 1 V + ^I HI al mi Ln
m I
h t ^9 ++ I o u PO z ( cr CV, u ^' W +^ 1
a
J ^o QI LL a « w I l a H) U W + W I 0. N c I N d I 1 1 J
lam ^ Q IW
J w0 c
p O J a
N 5 5 W «N ^ J J I t
^ Ids
IQ W
1 1 I v « _c
^ Sr cq a
(nu
c N
U
O
V
Q N L---- -----^ i
z
to i cil H O M Y LD 1 V F- O 2 J ?
N c^ y ^.
LL
v ^, a •o
c^PQ
a
W W
I I
I I
cc Iq
a H
W a
r- t--^
_
O X V
s
Vi
ul
i
-I + v L_ _J u ^ r^J a cg I
I c
r v
u
u ^^
I a a
i I I ^ I I ^ C4 I
I "'
I L_ M
y N
I I I U -12
Z Z ^ W
A U
oa
a
b
o ^
MACH NO. AND DYNAMIC PRESSURE YES pt = (1 + 0.2M2)3.1 MACH<1 ps NO 166.96M7 (7M12-1)2.5 Ps pt a \ p X ps (h) s /
p s FROM STD. ATMOS. TABLE
qc - p t ps F (pt/ps)
RC Of
ARC ., i (qc)
DRC1 = 0.2 (ARC F RC - 1) LIMIT: 0 < DRC1 - 1.0 ^- T - 3.232 DRC 1 + 0.6464 (c) Pitch ratio changer mechanization.
Figure 6.- Coatinued.
ac
a
O 8
> 4 J o.
J 2 4 6 8 MACH FUNCTION, pt/p= v a: a 0 4 v Q U.
2 > J IL J 32 40 8 16 24 0 IMPACT PRESSURE. p -p., 1001b/ft2 t (d) Pitch ratio changer multiplying facrors.
Figure 6.- Centin ► ied.
v W ^ O J g,^ + Y J Q V W Z 00 O J W y Q W F- F- J ^ J ,J N Wad Q HUJ LL to U d u ^
a
^ a W JE- O ^ u q J _J r' -4 p + RI U 0LL G W 1+ a u ^p u a a^ v a L Ln .i w W 0 C^ x o v
v
O Y r M J W Uj cr co N ^ H J O P1 LL a.
Z
2 .<
W ~ H i- N CC LL Jd
v
W
A W O W
±, ^O + t d u m 'O ro a a ro N u G 44 o ^ U .0 1 u d .a $4 ^ a a ^ w
v
; H
uj V
J
W + ± N ^o VCAL AND a TEMPC = 3.3 (8001VCAL)2 -2.1 LIMIT TEMPC: 0 < TEMPC < 5.0 AP = 3.75 for a < 1.0 0.0 1.0 <a < 7.0 0.375 (a - 7) a > 7.0 FPSAL = TEMPC - AP LIMIT FPASL: 1.25 < FPASL (g) Lateral CAS limit schedule.
Figure 6.- Continued.
6HMECH TEMPA - 10 if S H < 2.0 - 6.667 if S H > 2.0 TEMPB = 40 + 4.286 + 3) if S H < 2.0 (S H - 40-4.167(8 -2) if 6H>2.0 H LIMIT TEMPS: TEMPA < TEMPB G 40 CAMLAT - TEMPS/8 (h) Lateral ratio changer.
Figure 6.- Continued.
^ W W H ^
2~
J „ 0 t b t N O L u I u ^o cc C^
O N
10 C
^ QI I?
FI a N IQ 0 ^~ QI u ^ cc
L OI
M 0 M 1
L
t0 is I_J
J
Q tlJ
m '
I m .b
IQ L C
c0 Ol
y
N 7 1 ~ C HI O +1 W u c^ I N C J It 61 O U tlf M ^O N L----- -----j a v N M rl 00 W C r rJ U U W W oD C ,-1 b x b ,4 -4 N u u a
U
F- b
J
W cc ~
W —
H
Z
W H ^
F y - J
d
0 J
Z
S
b
u d ao O D, C ao .^ u ^ q O O W U CS ^ O u .o ^, w ^ ^ Z
=+ ^±
CL VCAL, knots RCASOUT = 800 - VCAL 3.875 RCASLIM = 3.875 for M < 1.0 2.208 for M > 1.0 LIMIT RCASOUT: 0 < RCASOUT < RCASLIM 6H (deg) CAMDIR 0.6086HMECH for M < 1.5 for M 0 > 1.5 LIMIT CAMDIR: -15 < CAMDIR < 7.5 (k) Yaw ratio changer.
6.- Concluded.
Figure ^— I "C--01 -5 -3.
1mv:1;.i; 11P I Ifl ! 11O."i 1VI, 4 4 +H ....
... .... ....
tt FIT I I HIM LA iL .j =ti iiio it W , 1.5 -5 -3.5 & .... .... ..
..
. . .... .... ... ...
.. .. . .... ...
it — .. TT.
-25 .0 ... .... . .. .... ....
O Ca -2.5 -25 F7 t .... .... ...
I_ A[1-- .
2.5 25'" : 1 "'"' !!1, 1 : " Figure 7.- Aircraft response to longitudinal step input.
^I sw_q^ —10 At Q 0
0 -- W
m , i —10 T 1 T r-- T I -- . -4 { =42 fit ^• —250 0 ---- CL Fieure 8.- Aircraft response to lateral step input.
^*- I WC --H -32.2 -10 —7T .4, 'Itt
I
< 0 Uj t.
CO ;1111:^ 414 -10 -25 d L —5
L
'__ I --I --- L 1: _ Aircraft response to pedal step input.
Figure 9.- YY J 3: LLI U ~ Q Q QO } t3 E yF- N ^ Q t
+•+
r q O + M r u N N + N 13 os N N C Y Y 1- + s u ey
'" I 3
B e .1 d Y > a N M 'M y OO C O Q J Q CC gW
o v
N
o
QZ
Q ^ O W
H W J +1 V d O M
U U
^ q W CL Io
t
t
F
O Z
r
a
Y^ H
N
W J m
\ W^
J
V
W Z i f' H N W g W _ m a}c Ex Ex
¢^ d
W Z ^ ~ y Q ^ > m J Z w $ J 0 ro J W ^ W W u 4 Q W W
O
2 > W O O W X E r E ^ CA u^i E$
^
► -O°D•a O ac V U.O O f-• W O G W C Q W Q ^- ¢ f' CL A.
W OQ Q F- 2 W ccO W cc J f" Q 1- 6 PILOT COMMENT CARD
1. INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OF CONFIGURATION
Z. AIRCRAFT RESPONSE TO CONTROL INPUTS
(RESPONSE TIME, OVERSHOOT, DAMPING, SETTLING TIME, ETC.)
3. CONTROL FORCES AND SENSITIVITY
(FORCES, DISPLACEMENTS AND HARMONY)
6. MISSION PERFORMANCE
(ABILITY TO ACQUIRE TARGET AND TO MAKE EITHER LARGE OR SMALL
POSITION CORRECTIONS) S. COOPER-HARPER RATING • OVERALL TASK • PARAMETER BEING EVALUATED 6. SUMMARY COMMENTS
(REASONS FOR C-H RATINGS AND ANY SPECIAL COMMENTS PERTAINING TO
THE EVALUATION)
HANDLING OUALMES RATING SCALE
$JWWAW NK^TM6R ONWIM OM "e MCAT W iftea fO MCAT 0!lAATIOM' TOM am MaYMM an"Tow QATIMO - Excellent Pilot compensation not a factor for H[,Ihly desrrablc desired performance Goad Pilot compensation not a factor for Negligible deficiencies desired performance _ Fair Some mildly Mmnmal pilot compensation required for unpleasant de desired performance f iciencies L Minor but annoying Uesired rwrtormance requires moderate deficiencies pilot compensation Is [t Deficiencies Moderately objectionable Adequate performance requires Mt,s}actory without warrant deficiencies cons,deratlle pilot Compensation improvement improvement very object[onrtile but Adequate perlornunce tw1wres extensive tolerable deficiencies pilot compensation Adequate performance riot attainable with Malor def'oenc ies r.nax [mum tolerable pi lot compensation r l Is adequate (:ont o irbihty not in q u estion DtfiUencies performa,ce Considerable pilot compensation is legwred require attain ate le with a deficiencies pilot lot tolerable fur control t improvement work loarlt Intense pilot cornprnsal-on -s required to Ma j or defy,. YnCieb utntx of retain r.
is I m pro vemeni Control will be lost during soine portion Major deficiencies it contrullabler mandatory requ,led operation r 3 ,.v r o, Pilot i dec'[t rons r.. T! J „..— R.1 NASA `Nii I^.., r Name, ;- 1b3 sorμ 3 sea tn.. r, tr • •r •,y r<N z. ,ury Figure 12.- Pilot cormtent card and rating scale.
t Ky/3.25 Ay 0.3 O bPEQ :7 + its + 1 O 0.5 n n 0.7
O
A 1.0 LEVEL I I
ISATISFAC i ORY)
PR m 3.5
II (UNSATISFACTORY)
a Z 6.5
P
Q 7
III (UNACCEPTABLE)
a) O J W ^
LEVEL I
C7
v
cc W
O
Q 3 PR-3.5
5 O
L
6.5
O O
III
b) 0 2 4 6 S 10 12 can, red/MC (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 13.- Effect of natural frequency on pilot rating, Pilot A.
KY/3.25 A V O 0.3 6PED2 2^s +1
_ + 0
0.5 w n wn 0.7 O A 1.0
a
z
Q 7 F- O
J
a 1 C7 a U1 3
a
0 2 4 6 8 10 w n, rad/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 14.- Effect of natural frequency on pilot rating, Pilot B.
Ay Ky/3.25 b PED 3 O 0.3 s22 + S+ wn 0.5
q
wn2 Q 0.7 1.0 N O 5 CL N a Z 7 H Q H LEVEL W F
' I r
Q cc 3 W Q 0 2 4 8 10 12 wn, red/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 15.- Effect of natural frequency on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.
Ay Ky/3.25 a 1.0 SPED \a + 1^ -1 + 11
p
1.4 JJ J`\ d 2.0 a
z
F O J W 1 Q O` W > 3 Q 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 a. rad/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 16.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilot A.
t 0 1.0 A y Ky/3.25 s p 1.4 SPED + +
1)(b 1)
d 2.0 (e I Q P a= O J IL W Q W Q3 2 4 6 8 10 12 8, fed/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 17.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilot B.
KY/3.26 A 1.0 A PE 0 ( : +1 =+1 1.4
a
\a /\ b /
2.0 N
O
J
d N CD 7 H
Q
Or
O 1
_J
d W
Q 3
W
Q
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 a, red/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 18.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.
I ^— A Y c 1.2 DPED '- Q z,..
O 0 0 0
TS
¢ -24 T^
J -1.2
U.
W J
J
Q -2.4 -48 Q
O J
a -3.6 -72 a ► W ~ 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 J TIME, t, sec (a) wn - 1.0.
Figure 19.- Effect of frequency on the time history of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, C - 0.7.
N x --- 1.2, 24 DpED
O 0 0
0O a W -1.2 W -24 LL W J W -2.4 v -48 Q a o J Uj a -3.6 -72 b) , , W 4.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0 Q J TIME, t, sec (b) wn - 8.0.
Figure 19.- Concluded.
AUDP 1.2 24 i
O p 0 0
-1,2 -24
U. W
Q
-2.4 -48
Q
Q T L W -j ° -3.6 -72 8) W 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Q
TIME, t, sec (a) C - 0.3.
history of the lateral time Figure 20.- Effect of damping ratio on the acceleration response to pedal input; wn - 4.5, C < 1.0.
N "V 6 1.k
O 0 p
uj Q -24 J -1.2
W
LL J W W -48, -2.4
Q Q
G J LU -72 a -3.6 b) W 6.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
Q 0
J TIME, t. sec - 0.7.
(b) Figure 20.- Concluded.
t O 0.3 O 0.5 0.7 O 1.0 p 1.4 d 2.0
Z
Q 7 oC H O
J
CL 1 LEVEL I W Q p ^ W
Q 3
PR 3.5
O
p II
6.5 O 7 O I11 b) 4 6 8 10 0 2 BANDWIDTH, red/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 21.- Effect of bandwidth on pilot rating, Pilot A.
r
O 0.3
O 0.5 Q 0.7 1.0 V 1.4 A 2.0 ~ 7 1- O J d W Q W
Q
4 6 8 10 0 2 BANDWIDTH, rad/ac (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 22.- Effect of bandwidth on pilot rating, Pilot B.
t O 0.3 O 0.5 0.7 O
n
1.0 p IA d 20 N
O 5
J d N F- 0 1 J a W Q ac W Q 0 2 4 6 8 10 BANDWIDTH, red/sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 23. Effect of bandwidth on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.
-+- DPED 1.2 24 Z Z^ O 0
0 0 r
-1.2 TL -24 W U.
r
D W ^^
TB -2.4 8-48-
O J
-3.6 Q -72 s?
W 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 g TIME, t, we (a) t + 0. 7, w 2, w 2.02.
n • b -
Figure 24.- Effect of bandwidth on the time history of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, w b • 2.0.
I
.^ AY 1.2 c -- DPED O 0 0 C
^
v
W Q LL-1.2 W-24 1 ^ W T ^ ^` I o W ^..—^ -J a -48 TB J W -3.6 -72 L b) u,i 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 J 5.0 TIME, t, sec (b) , - 2.0, 2.13.
n ' 8, w b - Figure 24.- Concluded.
Ay
N
—^ DPED X c 1.2 24
z
z 0
O 0 O t= i U W J —24 T —1.2 -J W W - C -48 Q —2.4 v Q
O
TB LU —72 2. CL ?.6 0 1,0 4.0 Q 2.0 3.0 5.0 J TIME, t, sec (a) C - 0. 7, w n - 3, 'lb s 3.03.
Figure 25.- Effect of bandwidth on the time history of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, wb - 3.0.
AV ---- DPED 1.2, C!
O 0 p 0
Q W -24 -1.2 - 1 W W W J W -48 -2.4
Q
Q
c ,, LU -72 a -3.6 b) W 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 ~ 0 Q a TIME, t, sec 12, wb - 3.20.
wn ' (b) G - 2.0, 25.- Concluded.
Figu wn O 0.5-4.5
A y Ky/3.25
O 0.5-4.5 'PED
s 2 2^s
Q 1-8 1-12
,,,, n2 W n 6
v 1-19 1-28 d mm LEVEL I 2 r PR - 3.5
^ FA
M II o v CDd OO 0 0-0— co
o vo0
a o^ J CL LEVEL I co 2 v cc Qzr^F1 d W dd Q PR 3.5 4 O Q
, u Q
Z1 II A O , d;7
6 0
M O o volv
8 L) 1 i l 1 _I
2 4 1 .2 .4 .6 1 TIME CONSTANT, r, sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Fig,,-t. .f .- jjtec t of response time constant on pi Wn Ay KY/3.25 = 0.5-4.5 O 0.3 =2 + 2^t 0.5-4.5 6PED O 0.5 + 1
c n 2 w n
0 1-8 0.7
A 1-12 1.0
V 1-19 1.4 d 1-28 2.0 LEVEL I
AA8-
--BLS—^ PR = 3.5
d ^JO
cv^ 0
^^ j d II
6.5
Z 0 9 0
Q 111 a)
J
CL LEVEL 1 Q cc
a
F4 d
PR = 3.5
O VS o 0
o°110
d
6 0 ^i 11
-
0 6.5
001 VO g l O III 4 6 10 .1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 TIME CONSTANT, r, sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 27.- Fffect of response time constant on pilot rating, Pilot B.
bb Wn ^ Ay Ky/3.25
s O 0.5-4.5 0.3
APED 52+ O 0.5-4.5 0.5
Yes + 1
wn Q 1-8 0.7
w n
1.0 A 1-12 1.4 v 1-19 d 1-28 2.0 LEVEL 1
^d
PR = 3.5 v^
a
o'W
d 11
8 (
N6
O Q 0 6.5 A V 0 0 N III Z 8) i- 8 d LEVEL I
ri
^d
d PR = 3.5 w 4 170v Q
v
it
^b o
6 Q L7 d 6.5
go •o vom o
III 1b) I I I k I 1 2 4 6 10 8 .1 .2 .4 .6 TIME CONSTANT, r, sec (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 28.- Effect of response time constant on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.
NO OF REPEATS 0 6
v
A47
0 2
d 1
d p
4 d dd d ddb d^ d
d d ^ d7 d dd
6 O Del
m A vm 060 0
z
al
r8
Q 0 2 r7d d a d ^]d 11^wC
d d
4 d VAVAWOW IM d AA 'd 10 d ddCT^7^7^
d d
d ^QdAA 8 b} .1 .2 .4 1 2 .6 4 6 10 EQUIVALENT TIME CONSTANT, r, sac (a) Fine task.
(b) Coarse task.
Figure 29.- Effect of equivalent time constant on the distribution of the individual pilot rating for each pilot.
N Ay y --_ DPED 1.224
c
.-
O
0 z0 p TB a 1 W TL LL-1.2 -24 W W o - J -48 v a C w J a -3.6 -72 al w 1.0 Q 0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 J TIME, t, sec (a) t - 1.43, ,an - 1.0.
Figure 30.- Effect of equivalent time constant (;) on the time history of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, c, - 0.7.
Ay cj 24 1.2 DPED
Z
O p p O H ^ W a -1.2 W -24 LL W J Q W -J -48
v
a Q W J a -3.6 -72 W H 4.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 a J TIME, t, sec (b) i - 0.71, m n - 2.0.
Figure 30.- Continued.
Ay --- DPED 24 c 1.2 Z 0 0
Z 0 i
o U
a ^ ^
W -1.2 -24 LL
W
Uj w TL v -48 Q -2.4 Q TB J W Q a -3.6 W -72 c) 1.0 4.0 0 2.0 3.0 5.0 Q J TIME, t, sec (C) z = 0.48, wn = 3.0.
Figure 30.- Continued.
N A 1.2 c D°ED
Z
0 0 p o
r U W Q -24 U.
W W W -2.4 -48
Q
Q W J -3.6 Q -72 W d) r Q 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 - 4.05 0 J TIME, t, sec (d) T - 0.18. w n - 8.0.
Figure 30.- Concluded.
N
Ci 1.2 --' DPED
z
O p p O f- TB -1.2 -24 T^ W U.
U O a -2.4
v
-48 Q O J W a -3.6 -72 a l W 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 a 3.0 5.0 TIME, t, sec (a) T - 2.84, w n = 1.0.
Figure 31.- Effect of equivalent time constant on the time history of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, c - 1.4.
Ay 1.224 --- DpED O 0 O 0
w Q 1 TB
LL -1.2 -24
W
LU - J -48
v
TL a o W J a -3.6 -72 bl W 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Q
J TIME, t, sec (b) 0.47, wn - 6.0.
T - Figure 31.- Continued.
Nye A AV c 1.2 --- DPED 0 0 0 0
v ^
Q Uj
W -24 v—J r^ TB
-1.2 U.
W O TL U-48 Q -2.4
O J
LO -72 ^) a -3.6 W 4.0 5.0 3.0 0 1.0 1 2.0 Q
J
TIME, t, so( (c) r - 0.15, wn o 19.0.
Figure 31.- Concluded.
O FINE TASK Wn - 4.5, ; - 1.0 O COARSE TASK 1 LEVEL
O 0
3 O
PR - 3.5—
i
O
f0
Z
8.5 Q ^ s)
O
J a 1 W EL i O c^ Q Q W Q PR - 3.5 I I 6.5 I11 1 .5 .6 0 .2 .3 .4 LEAD TIME CONSTANT, T1, sec (a) Pilot A.
(b) Pilot B.
Figure 32.- Effect of lead time constant on pilot rating.
O FINE TASK D COARSE TASK
H
`= 3 O cc C] I-- _J J a °- 5 W
N
t7
a
W 6.5 Q -7' III
^f
( < < < , , .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 0 .1 LEAD TIME CONSTANT, T 1 , sec (c) Pilots A and B.
Figure 32.- Concluded.
O FINE TASK O COARSE TASK wn=15,^=1.4 LEVEL I
3 O 0
PR = 3.5 ^ tl O
U
6.5 O Q 7 1!I °C a)
J
CL 1 W Q w Q PR = 3.5 6.5
O
^ ^ J .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 TRANSPORT DELAY, A, sec (a) Pilot A.
(b) Pilot B.
Figure 33.- Effect of transport delay on pilot rating.
1 O FINE TASK 0 COARSE TASK LEVEL 1 0 1-- 3 0 - PR=3.5 a a I 1
^N
n
W ?
a 6.5 7 I11 C) .4 5 .6 0 .1 .2 .3 TRANSPORT DELAY, A, sec (c) Pilots A anti B.
Figure 33.- Concluded.
TB A ► r 1.2 24 --' DPED c O 0 0 zO W Q ' T 1 LL -1.2 W -24 L Q -j W -2.4 -48 Q Q LU J LU a- -3.6 < -72 a) W 1.0 2.0 3.0 Q 0 J TIME, t, sec (0 T 1 - 0, T - 0.48.
Figure 34.- Effect of lead time constant on the time acceleration response to pedal input; { - N U 1.2- 24 c —^ DPED O p p C, w Q -J -1.2 W -24 W J Q W J v --48 Q Q
J
LW °--3.6 -72 cc b} w 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Q 0
J
TIME, t, sec (b) T 1 = 0.3, T = 0.16.
Figure 34.- Concluded.
N Ay 1.2 24 -- DPED O ZO U Q w
LL -1.2 W -24
J W Q W -2.4 -48 v
G
G O W J a -3.6 -72 W r 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Q J TIME, t, sec (a) A=O. 1 =0.19.
Figure 35.- Effect of transport delay on the time history of the lateral m 1.4, mn - 15.
acceleration response to pedal input; ,
N
Ay 1.2 c DPED
z
2f 0 0 0
U
Q
W -24 1.2 W J W ^ Q -2.4 Q -48 J LU -72 a -3.6 b) W 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 ~ 0 Q J TIME, t, sec (b) A = 0.105, 1 = 0.29.
Figure 35.- Continued.
N
Ay 1.2 24
- -
)DE
j
^'
TS `_` / 0 O 0 -1.2 W -24 LL
W J
W O Q -2.4 -48 Q w J TL a -3.6 aQc -72 c!
W .
1,0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 5.0 Q J TIME, t, sec - 0.43.
(c) A - 0.24, t Figure 35.- Concluded.
wn A
(KY/3.25)e As(T1s+ 1)
A Y
Ti
44.5 1.0 0.1-0.6 —
PD s2 20
n
+ 1
G 15 1.4 —
0.11-0.49
wn2 + w
LEVEL I C^f/
d
PR 3.5
BASIC DATA BAND
O
N 6.5
d
/j///^..
i
e ►
a
cc
0 2 d
LEVEL I //
a
w PR 3.5
cc
I d // BASIC DATA BAND
-^i`^; -- 6.5
%i /i, .
d
III
8 b1
.01 .02 .04.06 .1 .2 .4 1 .6 2 4 6 10 TIME CONSTANT, r, :ec (a) Fine task.
(b) Costse task.
Figure 36.- Effect of response time constant (including transport delay) on pilot rasing.
b
wn = 2.0 red/w, = 0.7, ca = 2.02 red/sec, r - 0.71 sec
100 r* r
^ I n\
\ MAXIMUM CONTROL
z
Q AUTHORITY, Y max w 0.59 V
\ \ _ _ _ 0.759
X
w -- 309
M m 20 co
I \
CL 2.8 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 CONTROL AUTHORITY, 9 Figure 37.- Cumulative frequency distribution of commanded side acceleration, Pilot C.
6 . 6 SIGNAL LIGHT BOMB DROP 2.6 e.
Al A 4 2.2 Q O 4 U j W Uj j 1.8 C -J2 2 U.
W W H
Q
V
_j 1.4 W Q Q Q A. -2 a) 1.0 N -.2 SIGNAL LIGHT BOMB DROP 2.6 6 1.2 w c O 4-2 .8 2.2 Q
a
U
Uj 2 uj .4 1.8 C U.
W W U F- O V a
1.4 h-
-+ 0 0
J
a
Q W H 1.0 CL -2 -.4 SIGNAL LIGHT ALTITUDE 3 12.6 a c Z BOMB E 2.2 S2 O 4 2 A y DR OP cc W J 1 1.8 U.
W
^ U
H
O
v
1.4 Q 0 W
a
W cn c) 11 1.0 1 1 1 L - CL -2 -1 14 15 16 10 11 17 13 TIME, sec (a) AY max - 0.5 g.
- 0.75 g.
(b, AYmax (c) AYmax - 3.0 g.
Figure 38.- Time history of wings-level-turn response to pedal input, Pilot C.
an 20 .001, Iv r (sec) = 0.25 / /0.71 Sw REQ'D / 1.50 aL Q10
//
v
Z 5 ^----
O' 1 1 W1 1 1 l = 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
A g (VT = 710 knots)
Yma x ^ , , 0 1 2 3 4 5 Rmax- dog/see Figure 39.- Control power and tine response required for particular heading change, ^.u.
^38