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

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19810012554 2020-03-31T16:10:33+00:00Z

NASA T&;hnical Memorandum 81266

(NASA-TH-81266) FLYING-DUALITIES CHITERIAFOR WINGS-LEVEL-TURN SANEUVERING DURING ANAIR-TO-GROUND WEAPON DELIVERY TASK FinalReport ( NASA) 96 p HC AO5/fiF AJ1 CSCL 01C

N81--21083

UnclasG3/08 41975

Flying-Qualities Criteria forWingswLevelmTurn ManeuveringDuring an Airmto=GroundWeapon-Delivery TaskRobert I. Sammonds and John W. Bunnell

April 1981

9-, Q ^^

APSANational Aeronautics andSpace AdM nistration

Flying-Qualities Criteria forWings=Level=Tum ManeuveringDuring an AirmtomlGroundWeapon-Delivery TaskRobert I. Sammonds, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CaliforniaandJohn W. Bunnell, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Air Force Wright

Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio

NAMNational Aeronautics andSpace Administration

Ames Research CenterMoffett Feld, California 94035

1

Page

NOMENCLATTIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SIMULATION TEST PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Description of Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Test Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Simulator Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Wings-Level Turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Lead and Transport Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Control Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Comparison With Conventional Airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

APPENDIX — PILOT RESUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

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

Ay,AY lateral acceleration

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

DDT differential tail deflection

DHT horizontal tail deflection

DLAT lateral stick deflection

DPEL pedal deflection

DR rudder deflection

F fine task or force

FCOL longitudinal stick force

FLAT lateral stick force

v

PRECEDING PAGE @LANK NOT FILMED

0

g gravity

HUD head-up display

Ixx roll moment of inertia

IKy product of inertia

Iyy pitch moment of inertia

IZZ yaw moment of inertia

Ky ,KB ,KBI gains in WLT mechanization

KQ gain in basic aircraft control system

Iaccacceleromete-: location ..ith respect to center of gravity

M mass

P,PB roll rate

PIO pilot-induced oscillation

PR pilot rating

p pressure

Q,QB pitch rate

Q,QBD pitch acceleration

R,RB yaw rate

RBD yaw acceleration

S reference wing area

dS Laplace operator,dt

TB time of bomb drop

TL time of signal light

T1 time constant (lead term in transfer function)

t time

VTtrue airspeed

WLT wings-level turn

vi

r

a angle of attack

S sideslip angle

y dive angle

6 control or surface deflection

C damping ratio

P air density

T equivalent time constant (required for the lateral accelerationresponse to a unit step input to reach 63.2% of its steady-statevalue)

2

bank angle

heading angle

W frequency

W bandwidth frequency

wnnatural frequency

Subscripts:

a aileron

CAL calibrated

CAS control augmentation system (electrical)

c.g. center of 3ravity

DT differential tail

HT horizontal tail

LAT lateral

LON longitudinal

Mech mechanical system

PED pedal

p pilot location

R rudder

vii

No

ST stick

s static

T total

Coefficients and Stabilitv Derivatives:

C1

change in rolling-moment coefficient due to roll rate

CLO change in rolling moment coefficient due to sideslip angle

Clda change in rolling-moment coefficient due to aileron deflection

C16DTchange in rolling-moment coefficient due to differential tail deflection

C16 change in rolling-moment coefficient di :o rudder deflectionR

Cm change in pitching-moment coefficient due to pitch rate

change in pitching-moment coefficient due to horizontal tailCMSHT deflection

Cnyawing-moment coefficient

Cnrchange in yawing-moment coefficient due to yaw rate

Cnschange in yawing-moment coefficient due to sideslip angles

Cndchange in yawing-moment coefficient due to aileron deflectiona

Cn change in yawing-moment coefficient due to differential tailaDT deflection

Cnd R

change in yawing-moment coefficient due to rudder deflection

CYside-force coefficient

CYB change in side-force coefficient due to sideslip angle

CYa change in side-force coefficient due to rudder deflectionR

F F

t

viii

e^

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 LaboratoryAir Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

SUMMARY

A mov{ng-base simulator experiment conducted at Ames Research Centerdemonstrated that a wings-level-turn control mode improved flying qualities

for air-to-ground weapon delivery compared with those of a conventionallycontrolled aircraft. Evaluations of criteria for dynamic response for this

system have shown that pilot ratings correlate well on the basis of equivalenttime constant of the initial response. Ranges of this time constant, as wellas 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 attackmode, it offers the advantages of better target acquisition, reduced vulner-

ability to certain types of hostile ground fire, and delivery of large-yieldlow-drag weapons. However, the delivery variables (airspeed, altitude, and

attitude) are not as easily attainable as in low-level bombing and the attackis often less accurate. To secure a direct hit, the aircraft must arrive ita 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) toincrease 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

control modes can provide a large increase in the combat potential of conven-

tional aircraft because of the control mode's effectiveness in increasing

agility and preciseness of aircraft maneuvers. One of the most promising ofthese advanced control modes for use in the dive-bombing task (ref. 3) iswings-level turn (WLT). This mode permits a heading change by commanding alateral acceleration while holding the wings level (# - 0) and maintaining azero sideslip (s - 0). This maneuver eliminates the pendulum motion of thefixed depressed reticle eight (pipper) that occurs during rolling maneuverswhen the aircraft's roll axis and the sight do not coincide. Elimination ofthe pendulum motion allows for a more rapid and accurate acquisition of thetarget than can be accomplished with a conventional airplane, thus reducingtime over the target by permitting increased delivery speeds.

Although existing flight and simulation data show the potential advantagesof 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, parametricinvestigation of the variables affecting the performance of an aircraft duringan 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 toturn) fighter aircraft. This program was conducted in Ames Research Center'ssix-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 inthis paper in the form of pilot ratings, commentary, control usage, and timehistories.

SIMULATION TEST PROGRAM

Description of Simulator

This investigation was conducted using the six-degrees-of-freedom FlightSimulator for Advanced Aircraft (FSAA) shown in figure 1. This simulator,described in reference 4, was equipped to represent a fighter cockpit with acenter 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 diveangle, bugs to indicate the desired release altitude and airspeed, as well asa conventional pitch ladder. The altitude and airspeed scales located oneither side of the display were movable and indicated the rate at which eachparameter was varying. The digital readouts of velocity and altitude wereupdated at varying time rates depending on the rate of change of each variableto make the digital presentation more readable. The control loaders were pro-grammed to give the cockpit control force-feel characteristics typical of anadvanced 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 motioncues. 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 -

2

viewed through a collimating lens mounted above the instrument panel. Thevisual scene was generated by a computer-driven, six-degrees-of-freedom TVcamera that duplicated the aircraft tuotion with respect to the dive-bombingtask, 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 rothe scene. The performance capabilities of the visual display system (see

VFA-07, table 4.2.1-1 in ref. 4) were modified in the pitch plane by biasingthe 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 thebombing runs to -30°. The aural cues consisted of engine noise modulated byengine rpm and introduced into the cab through stereo speakers.

Mod -1 ing

A conventional six-degrees-of-freedom mathematical model was developed torepresent 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. Thephysical 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 stepinputs 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

6PEDaz + 2r s

+ 1W 2 wn 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-anglefeedback was included to ensure minimal sideslip. The commanded lateralacceleration 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. Theprimary investigation was to evaluate the effect of the undamped natural

3

frequency and the dampic.g ratio on handling qualities of the WLT controlmode. The matrix for these runs is shown in table 4 for various values ofbandwidth (wb). Bandwidth is defined as the frequency at which the amplitudeof the Bode plot decreases by 3 db from a steady-state condition (see sketchin table 4).

Additional investigations were made to evaluate the effect of addingvarious amounts of lead (T1) to an obviously deficient system, various amountsof transport delay (A) to a system having good handling qualities, and threelevels 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 taskusing a fixed depressed-reticle sight and an unguided bomb. The piloting taskwas to roll onto the target from a 90° heading offset at sit altitude of3,048 m (10,000 ft), establish a -30° dive angle, and release the bomb at aspecified 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). Thehigh release velocity was determined from p-reliminary runs in conjunction withthe 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-bombingtask and a sketch of the target is shown in figure 11. Because the visualpresentation in the cab did not provide for side-window viewing, the initialheading chang- and roll-in until target acquisition was an open-loop task thathad to be learned by the pilots. They were given sufficient practice time tobecome 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, 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 ft(scale) in diameter. A normal run was made with respect to the center of thebull'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 ringof the bull's-eye (see fia. 11) normal to the line of flight. Approximatelyhalf of the time, in a random manner, a light at the center of the bull's-eyesignaled the pilot to bomb the secondary target. This signal was activatedonly after the pilot was aligned with the primary target, thus necessitatinga heading change of about 12° in about 4 sec. Bombing runs to primary andsecondary targets will be referred to hereinafter as the fine and coarse tasks,respectively. Although this alternate maneuver probably is not representativeof an operational situation, it was selected as a means to subject the WLTmode to a severe heading-change maneuver to evaluate its gross maneuveringcapabilities. A similar task could have baen induced using wind shears orgusts, but it was felt that the target-change maneuver would generate com-parable results.

4

Data Acquisition

The parametric evaluation of the WLT control mode was accomplished bytwo 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-for pilot resumes). Each pilot made at least two runs at both primary and

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 givepilot 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. Amaximum 11-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 intable 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 foreach parameter variation for each pilot. Average ratings for the two pilots

combined were obtained from averages of each pilot for the configuration. Theparameters in the matrix were selected randomly to avoid direct comparison

with an adjacent point in the matrix. A baseline WLT condition having anatural frequency (wn) of 4.5 and a damping ratio (^) of 1.0 was specified andused for all practice and training runs. Pilot comments could then be com-

pared with this baseline WLT configuration. Runs were also made with theconventionally controlled (bank-to-turn) aircraft for comparison.

These same pilots (A and B) were also responsible for evaluation of thematrix 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 conditionsand bomb scores were recorded at the end of each run; however, CEPs were notcalculated 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 ratingsor 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

5

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 wasbased on the subjective assessment of a number of pilots from the Air ForceFlight Test Center (AFFTC), Edwards AFB; Air Force Flight Dynamic Laboratory(AFFDL), Wright-Patterson AFB; and Ames Research Center. All were experiencedat 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 theNavy test pilots school. All agreed that the baseline configuration was agood representation of a modern state -of-the-art fighter aircraft with goodflying 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 evaluationof the WLT control mode, although there were some misgivings due to the lackof side-window viewing. However, the open-loop task of acquiring the targetfrom a 90° heading offset was easily learned. The mechanization of WLTthrough the rudder pedals was thought to be natural and was readily acceptedby all evaluation pilots. The simulator motion provided realistic onsets ofthe lateral accelerations being commanded, but constraints on the simulatormotion 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 criticallydamped configuration having the following transfer functions:

KY /3.25

^-^-. s22s C<1PED - 2 + may 1

n n

A K /3.25

-.1- • y4 C 16

PED (- + 11n

AKy/3.25y_ . C > 1

bPED \a + l)(b+ 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 functionof natural frequency (wn) for the three underdamped <:ases (C - 0.3, 0.5, and0.7). Figures 16 through 18 show this same variation as a function of thelow-frequency root (a) for thn two overdamped cases (; - 1.4 and 2.0). Thecritically damped case is included in each figure for comparison. Average

6

pilot ratings are shown in figures 13 and 16 for pilot A, in figures 14 and 17for pilot B, and in figures 15 and 18 for both together.

All cases show that pilot ratings improve with increasing frequency fora given damping ratio, indicating that increased quickness of response wasfavorable. This improvement in response is readily discernible in fig-ures 19(a) and (b), which show time histories of pedal displacement and lat-eral acceleration for frequencies of 1 and 8 rad/sec and a damping ratio of0.7. For the low-frequency case (wn - 1.0) there is considerable lag betweenpedal input and the lateral acceleration obtained. This response is signifi-cantly improved at the higher frequency (wn - 8.0). Similar results wereobtained for the overdamped cases.

It can also be seen in figures 13 through 15 that there is considerablevariation in pilot rating due to the damping ratio ( ^), with the ratingsimproving with increased damping. Time histories (figs. 20(a) and (b)),typical of this condition, show the improvement in aircraft response becauseof an increase in the damping ratio, with the frequency being constant.Although the lag between pedal input and A y response appears similar for thedifferent damping ratios it is obvious that the large overshoots occurring forthe lower damping ratio would make it more difficult to put the pipper on thetarget and hold it there, thus increasing the pilot workload.

Since the high- frequency root (b) in the transfer function for the over-damped cases

A K /3.25_Y - y

d PED ca + 1) (b + 1)

is generally well separated from the low-frequency root (a), this transferfunction can, in most cases, be treated essentially as a first-order system.Figures 16 through 18 show this variation clearly as there are no significantdifferences in the data obtained for damping ratios of 1.4 and 2.0.

Pilot ratings obtained for the critically damped case are considerablyworse 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 thereason for the poorer ratings for the critically damped case can probably bediscerned from the data presented in tables 4 and 8, further discussion onthis matter will be postponed until later in the report (see section onBandwidth).

In general, pilot comments regarding these data indicate that the ratingsare primarily related to the amount of observable lag in the system. The moreapparent 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 theinputs without getting overshoots. In extreme cases. toe pilot either cannotget 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 attributedto either frequency or damping, the pilots generally seem to prefer quickness(increase in wn ) to damping, feeling that they can overcome some lack of

7

damping if the response is quick enough. However, there appears to be a limitto the amount of quickness and damping desired. For extreme cases of highdamping and frequency, the pilots complained that the response was jerky andsomewhat less than optimum. The very fast starting and stopping of the motionwas disorienting. Indications of this degradation are evident in data pre-sented in figures 16 through 18.

Bandwidth- It was hypothesized that the pilot-rating data might bettercorrelate on the basis of the system bandwidth, where bandwidth is defined asthe frequency at which there is a 3 db drop in amplitude from the steady-statecondition (see table 4). Smooth variations of the average pilot ratings wereobtained with this variable for each damping ratio, but there was a definiteand distinctive progressive degradation in flying qualities accompanying adecrease in damping. These data are presented in figures 21 through 23. Timehistories in figures 24 sad 25 show that for a given bandwidth there are sig-nificant differences in the time response between pedal input and lateralacceleration as a function of the frequency and damping. Since the same band-width can be obtained for various combinations of damping and frequency (seetable 4), the higher the frequency and damping for a given bandwidth, thebetter the pilot rating. It can also be seen from table 4 that the bandwidthdecreases with increased damping for a given natural frequency. This varia-tion probably accounts for the poorer ratings shown in figures 13 through 15for 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 greaterthan 1, the disparity in the highest frequency roots (C 1 1.0) for systemswith the same bandwidth can account for the differences in ratings. Thus,since bandwidth alone cannot be a criterion, phase margin must also be afactor. Preliminary work by Systems Technology, Inc. (ref. 5) has showncorrelation of these data on the basis of bandwidth, defined as the lowestfrequency for which the open-loop phase margin is at least 45° and the gainmargin is at least 6 db. In this definition, the closed-loop system bandwidthis implicitly defined as the open-loop crossover frequency.

Equivalent time cores Cant- Since neither frequency nor bandwidth (asdefined in table 4) fully correlates the data, a parameter other than fre-quency was sought. An evaluation of the pilot comments, recorded during thesimulation, showed their concern for the initial time-response characteristicsof each configuration on flying qualities. As a result, equivalent time con-stants were calculated for each test condition listed in table 4. For theoverdamped and critically damped cases, the time constant was taken to be thetime 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

-w t -^, tAy ^Ky(l -e n - wnt e n 1

for - 1, and

A K 1+ 8e-bt_beat^

y y b - a

8

R

K

4

for ^ > 1, where a and b are the real roots of the quadratic equation(table 8). For the underdamped oscillatory response, time constant was basedon the envelope of the response as calculated by

/^W nt)

Ay = Ky (l - e_

This time constant was equivalent to the time to damp to 36 . 8% of the initialamplitude.

Pilot ratings in figures 26 through 28, presented as a function of theseequivalent time constants, show excellent correlation for all data, both fineand coarse tasks. It should be pointed out that pilot ratings for both tasksare nearly the same, differing by only about half a rating. Time constantsand average pilot ratings for the two pilots are shown in table 9.

These data show that there is a minimum equivalent time constant(0.15-0 . 2 sec) at which optimum performance of WLT is achieved. Level Iperformance (C-H : 3.5) was obtained for time constants less than about0.4 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 about1.5 sec. These results agree with pilot comments that the lag of the systemwas the most important factor determining their ratings. As previously men-tioned, the pilots felt they could tolerate some lack of damping if theresponse was quick enough; but if it was too quick, performance became jerkyand disorienting and flying qualities deteriorated somewhat. The slight breakin the curves (figs. 26 to 28) at the low time constants is indicative of thisdeterioration.

The distribution of all pilot ratings for pilots A and B (table 7) areshown 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 ratingwas repeated. These data show a band of approximately ±1 pilot rating foreach time constant. This is indicative of the repeatability of ratings andthe 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 presentedin 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 timeconstant without regard to either the damping ratio or frequency stipulated.These data show that the system's response quickens with decreasing equivalenttime constants.

The equivalent time constant is effective as a correlating parameter forthese data. Apparently this is because it directly represents the time lagfor the overdamped cases as well as the time to damp to some percentage of theinitial amplitude for the underdamped cases (particularly those with lowdamping).

9

Lead and Transport Delay

Tests were conducted to examine the effect of adding lead to an obviouslydeficient system and of adding transport delay to a previously good system(figs. 32 and 33, respectively). Figure 32 shows the average pilot ratings asa function of the lead time constant for the transfer function

A (K /3.25)(T l s + 1)

APED62

2 ++ 1n n

where C - 1.0, wn - 4.5. These data show that adding small amounts of leadwas beneficial, but that too much (T l - 0.6) became degrading. A T l - 0.3resulted in fast response with essentially no overshoot and the best pilotrating of any system tested, whereas a Tl - 0.6 resulted in jerky responseand a discernible degradation in the rating. Time histories for lead timeconstants of 0 and 0.3 sec (fig. 34) clearly show improvement in systemresponse 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 leadwas 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

APED (a+1)(b+1)

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 bythe increase in C-H ratings with increased delay. Time histories of theseresponses (fig. 35) show this clearly. This agrees with previous findingsthat the more lag or delay in a system the more difficult the tracking taskbecomes. Unfortunately, time histories for the 0.49 sec transport delay werenot recoverable from the magnetic tape.

Equivalent time constants calculated for both lead terms and transportdelays (table 10) are plotted in figure 36, superimposed on the data band offigure 28. The time constants obtained using various amounts of lead agreewell with the data trend established in figure 28 for both fine and coarsetasks. These data clearly show the degradation in performance for systemsthat are too quick (Tl - 0.6, T - 0.07) and further emphasizes that there issome minimum equivalent time constant for optimum performance.

The equivalent time constants calculated for various transport delays

(T basic + A) are also in relatively good agreement with the basic data exceptfor the transport delay of 0.49 sec (T - 0.68). Both pilots rated this sys-tem unacceptable (C-H - 7) because of large overshoots and PIOs for bothfine and coarse tasks. This poor rating is almost certainly a result of lowstability margin contributed by the time delay. Although both phase and gainmargins are positive for this case, the phase margin is marginal for good

10

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 taskalso 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 poorerthan 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 evaluatethe 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 wereselected 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 accelerationbeing 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 lateralaccelerations used over a designated time interval for increments of timeequal to 0.001 sec. The designated time interval was taken as the time between

the minimum side acceleration, occurring after the target change signal wasinitiated, 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 fromthe 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 ofauthority for each of the three authorities selected. The lowest level of

authority (0.5 g) proved inadequate for either the fine or coarse task. Eventhough the maximum authority of 0.5 g was used nearly 50% of the time, thepilot 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 therelease 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 signalfor 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 allottedto 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 thiscase.

11

With an authority of 3.0 g, the pipper could easily be translated to thetarget without using the full limit of authority. The time history of thismaneuver (fig. 38(c)) shows that a maximum lateral acceleration of 2.5 g wasused, but only momentarily. Figure 37 shows that for 50% of the time theprobability is that no more than 1 g will be required. The time history dataalso show that the heading change was completed in sufficient time to do somefine tracking on the target, as evidenced by the oscillatory nature of thepedal 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 sideacceleration (see fig. 34(b)).

It becomes readily apparent from the data in figures 37 and 38 that theauthority required to accomplish the desired heading change to acquire thetarget is dependent on the equivalent time constant (T) of the system beinginvestigated. 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 arelease velocity of 710 knots. Since the heading change required for tnistask was about 12% authorities of 0.5 and 0.75 g's for a system having anequivalent 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 acceptableconfiguration with T - 1.5 sec. Figure 39 shows that the time constant (T)

significantly affects the authority required. This figure can also be usedto estimate control authority and time-response requirements for incrementalheading 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 theconventionally configured (bank-to-turn) airplane for both fine and coarsetasks for the same release conditions — an altitude of 1,524 m (5,000 ft), adive angle of -30% and a release velocity (VT) 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 tothe F-15, it was nearly impossible to bank the airplane, make the necessaryheading change, and level out on the target in the time allotted for the taskdue to both the control authority of the aircraft and the pendulum effect ofthe 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 thatadvantages 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 dependedlargely on the ability or luck of the pilot being able to roll out onto thetarget with the pipper properly aligned. Normally, if more than one bank

12

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 sensitivityas "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 theair-to-ground weapon-delivery task. WLT greatly simplified the lateral track-

ing task and allowed more attention to be devoted to the longitudinal task, incomparison with the basic aircraft.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Piloted six-degrees-of-freedom motion simulator investigations at Ames

Research Center demonstrated that the WLT control mode was very useful1) in decreasing pilot workload during an air-to-ground weapon-delivery task,

and 2) in improving airplane flying qualities in comparison with those of aconventional 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 timerequired for lateral acceleration response to a unit step input to reach 63.2%

of its steady-state value. This equivalent time constant correlated the datafor 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 inexcessive quickness that degrades ratings because of jerkiness and pilot dis-

orientation. In general, equivalert time constants less than about 0.4 secresulted 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 tothe ones obtained from the frequency and damping variations. Any addition ofa transport delay to a basically good system degraded the performance andincreased the pilot ratings (i.e., made them worse). Most pilot commentsregarding 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 havingeither high damping and high-frequency response or excessive amounts of lead

the problem became One of excessive quickness.

13

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 thelower authorities were inadequate to accomplish an abrupt target acquisitiontask and that 0.5 g was even inadequate for precise target tracking. For thehighest 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 thecontrol authority required is also dependent on the equivalent time constant,a quicker response time (smaller time constant) would lead to a lower controlauthority necessary to accomplish the heading-change maneuver.

14

APPENDIX

Pilot Resumes

This section contains brief resumes of experience and qualifications ofthe pilots taking part in this investigation.

Pilot A

Position: Test pilot, USAF/Eglin AFBFlight time: (h)

Single engine 176Multiengine 2801Other 56Total 3033

Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratingsInstrument ratingCommercial pilot certificate

Airplanes: RF-4C, F-4C, T-38, A-7D, T-37

Pilot B

Position: Test pilot, USAF/Eglin AFBFlight time: (h)

Single engine 180Multiengine 1750Other 50Total 1980

Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratingsInstrument rating

Airplanes: F-4, T-38, T-37, A-7

Pilot C

Position: Instructor, USAF Test Pilot School/Edwards AFBFlight time: (h)

Single engine 230Multiengine 1360Other --Total 1590

Ratings: Single- and multiengine ratingsInstrument rating

Airplanes: F-100, F-4, A-7, A-37

15

REFERENCES

1. Carlson, E. F.: Direct Sideforce Control for Improved Weapon DeliveryAccuracy. 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. AIMPaper 76-889, Dallas, Texas, 1976.

3. Brulle, Robert V.; Moran, William A.; and Marsh, Richard G.: Direct SideForce Control Criteria for Dive Bombing. AFFDL-TR-76-78, Vols. I andII, Sept. 1976.

4. Sinacori, John B.; Stapleford, Robert,L.; Jewell, Wayne F.; and Lehman,John M.: Researcher's Guide to NASA-Ames Flight Simulator forAdvanced Aircraft (FSAA). NASA CR-2875, 1977.

5. Hoh, Roger H.; Myers, Thomas T.; Ashkenas, Irving L.; and Ringland,Robert F.: Development of Handling Quality Criteria for Aircraftwith Independent Control of Six Degrees of Freedom. Proposed AFWALtechnical report (Systems Technology, Inc.), Wright-Patterson AFB,Ohio (in press).

16

TABLE 1.- COCKPIT INSTRUMENTATION

Attitude indicator, 2 axisHorizontal situation indicatorAngle of attack indicatorAltimeterInstantaneous vertical speed indicatorNormal acceleration, g unitsEngine rpmIndicated airspeed, knotsMach numberSpeed brake position indicatorLongitudinal acceleration, g unitsTurn /bank indicatorSideslip angle indicatorLateral acceleration, g unitsClock

TABLE 2.- AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Gross weight. . . . . . . . .Reference wing area (S) . . .Mean aerodynamic chord (E). .Wing span ( b) . . . . . . . .Center of gravity location. .Roll moment of inertia (IXX).Pitch moment of inertia (Iyy)Yaw moment of inertia ( IZ2 ) .Product of inertia ( I}Z ). . .

Engines (2) . . . . . . . . .

15,843 kg (34,928 lb)56.49 m2 (608 ft2)

. 4.88 m (16.00 ft)

. 13.02 m (42.70 ft)

. 26.5% -c

. 34,264 kg-m2 (25,270 slug-ft2)211,114 kg-m2 (155,700 slug-ft2)

. 237,960 kg-m2 (175,500 slug-ft2)

. -1,091 kg-m 2 (-805 slug-ft2)

. P&W F-100-PW-100

TABLE 3.- STABILITY DERIVATIVES(M - 1.09, a - 0.75% and Alt. - 5000 ft)

Fic- -0.263 CnS 0.031

C -.0025 Cn6, .00005

j C Fa .00044 IC .000287

` n

6DT

C^^DT. 00065 f

Cn -.0016

6RC 6R

.000056C Y, -.017

Cnr -.30 .0023``

CY6R

17

W

0~ -3 d6

I

TABLE 4.- TEST MATRIX - TRANSFER YNCTIOHBandwidth for Combinations of Frequency and

Damping Ratio

wn

1.3 .5 .7 1.0 1.4 2.0

0.5 0.71a 0.641 1.42 1.27 1.01 0.64 0.41 0.272 2.84 2.54 2.02 1.29 .82 .533 4.26 3.81 3.03 1.93 1.22 .804.5 6.39 5.72 4.55 2.90 1.84 1.206 6.06 3.86 2.45 1.608 8.08 5.15 3.26 2.13

10 6.44 4.08 2.6712 7.72 4.90 3.2015 6.12 4.0019 7.75 5.0723 6.1328 7.46

aBandwidth frequency.

18

F

TABLE 5.- TEST MATRIX -- LEAD AND TRANSPORT DELAY

r

A (K /3.25)(Tls + 1)e-As

6PED-^^+ 2 + 1n n

wn Z Tl I A

4.5 1.0 0 --4.5 1.0 .1 --4.5 1.0 .3 --4.5 1.0 .6 --

15 1.4 -- 015 1.4 -- .10515 1.4 -- .2415 1.4 -- .49

TABLE 6.- TEST MATRIX - CONTROL AUTHORITY

A K /3.25_-I_ .

—__1

PED ® + + 1w 2 Ln n

wn ^K,C

2 0.7^ !

2I

.7 1 .75 j2 .7 .50 j

4

2

o^

0

-2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

6PED• in.

19

1°N

a.I

f+4

Uv

y

<

zHH

a1n

..7

F

O

n

O

V'1

O

>KM

9.t

^i

Q31

v

M

O

-°- ^Y'1 Y1 ft,1 w1 a in ,i -Wen el .0 a1 Y'1 Y1 vD Y1 Y1 d M i d M

'A ^ a a a a

Y1 Y11 Y1 aa aW+a alVM N\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1 V1 d U'1 ee'1 w1 v5 V1 N M V'1

V'1 d N

M V► M Y1 M V1 NIda ad as ^? as MN.Mr^ M V1 a v► w l .M Vn d %n co

a d N PY

V1

/ a a ar'fd MNN N1 v ► aa aMd V1NN N

+7 M

M V'1 v1 Y1 n

1 aMaMM^1M 1; It N N\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \1 V1 MV1a 4 L"LM .? min C4 d1

1 d M N N

r VIN d M N C N N N N N N1.MM.^M ^N N N MN V1

a M N

v'1 0D w1 •O1 e• 1 MN C4 It

1 M a M Y1d aNY'1.'e► a M N M

M N U1

/ e' ^r M M N N N M N

1aM.r1r4 V'1N M V1J^ N N

a^fJ < 00 <

1 M

1 V1M

v1

1 J1 v'1

J

1 M1 w1

Ln

^ v1

^ V'1

^ eyO 4

h nnn %D 14; h

in

hnhhn hY'1VD frO I vD Y

Mt .4

w1 ^'1^ n ^D ^h ^D V1n ^ V1 Y

nnh.oh w1vDn •M^nv•

vD vD

M► % n en wD n vD N'1 Y'1 w'1 %0 rnnnnn hw1VN V1 P. .I

Y1r. nnvDn vD^'► +M Y'hJ^n n n vD n Y1 w1 vD w1 &M

n ^ eronnnnvl^n^ldY'1 aa.+n nn n•QvD Ma^1 M'1 V'1Y

^ d a V

n n t.Y1v1 V1 w'1 v1 w1 M ^n nn.p n Y1V1•D 6"1 Mu

ID V1

V1 M

nnnw'1u'1 v1Ja aM rn nn •OHO vD a ^ M aV

s sLM n M

'D Ln a 4V, -s e M .n r. n Yom/ n n e+l .p 4n V, m S

^D LA

eM

n n n vD e. ^p 'm 'm Ln 'a a M rcc

nnn r- nn &n.t1 V% in V1 00 M•

J a

nr. V1 en V1J6,< \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ `ne.n^p .pnn n^pn Y1J^

`D

1/'1 V1 in vnr.n.p e. •p•pn LM 11 a ^O•n I. r% 1^ . n n n en a en n ^

J

P. r. ^p^p^p ^p 31.nnnn^n•On vlhn na•

3 O< <^e N < <M

20

i

N d I en d o^

00

, d. dN— N

^a

0

ao

0

— 3

OD

M e•9 e+1N en? enr)N en C4 en 04 NITN NNr1m e n N.7^T m gt N cn Men en %Tm e/1N

M N e+1O

N n f^ ell V1 LMNmMC4mNmC eMC4 N MN C4 NN 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 N17 M LNellM co Mm enN N NS

r-1 LnM N N N N N N N Nen N u9 N N N N r'f ell

N N

u'1 00

14 N Nca \ \ \

1l1 L 1 M

Q

M N

N N Nb -C4 \ \

ri e•1 N erl^ N^ L Nrl ttiu `^srO

I

tir

k; Oa

21

TABLE 7.- Concluded.

(b) Transport delay, A

wn A T Pilot A Pilot B

15 1.4 0 0.19 2/2 2.8/2.515 1.4 0.105 .29 5/3 4/315 1.4 .24 .43 5/3 4.5/3.515 1.4 .49 .68 7/7 7/7

(c) Lead time constant, T1

wn Ti T Pilot A Pilot B

4.5 1.0 0 0.48 4.3/4 5/44.5 1.0 0.1 .37 2/2 5/44.5 1.0 .3 .16 2/2 2/24.5 1.0 .6 .07 4/3 3/3

(d) Basic airplane

Pilot Coarse Fine

A 7 5B 6 3

TABLE 8.- REAL ROOTS OF QUADRATIC DENOMINATOR[(s + a)(s + b) - s 2 + 2Cwns + wn2]

wn a b a b

1 1.4 0.42 2.38 2.0 0.27 3.732 .84 4.76 .54 7.463 1.26 7.14 .80 11.204.5 1.89 10.71 1.21 16.796 2.52 14.28 1.61 22.398 3.36 19.04 2.14 29.86

10 4.20 23.80 2.68 37.3212 5.04 28.56 3.22 44.7915 6.30 35.70 4.02 55.9819 7.98 45.22 5.09 70.9123 6.16 85.8428 7.50 104.50

22

1n

U'zHHW

QHra

Ha

ddW

pA4

Dd

N

zH6Hyz8mH

Hzw

H.'7

dw1

O^

Wr7

H

40 tf1 M1 Cr1 N e+1 O^ 0• .D tI1 1^W

^p^Dcnvt^td tnNN NNN

O a0 N to t` .7 N ao CO OU

N 1-^D%DLnLn In c+1M NNN

ON m 00 %OOO M1` HhdO^ O^ to C0 ^D to ^? r+1 N N r 1 ^••)^^4 ^4

V1 N N O^ ^C c!1 C' .?W

f^ ^o LA 7 .7 en N N N

-T CO M O% M m ON IT 00U

rl f` %^.4S.;S N NN N

^T N 1l1M 1\%D00 -1 C)%COSY ^^DrTenN NHH

.7 T O% 00 .7 Swr^11 IT NNN N

O s t` 00 Ln 00U

o .T M C'n N N

if1 t- N OD %.D n 11 00rl 9 r` M N N r1

N H

CO f1 N N r^ ^pf+.

%D tf) d M N N

N OO M 00O U n ^D'T.T M N

M r4 00 N •7 00^7t^ ^TMN .i

M ^l LP C0w r .a Lf)

Lnt!1 t^

O U in

O O O t` s0000 7rd N .i

O0 M M-7W

t^ ^D 1D Lr u9

M 00 O0 COU

%D t!1 u•1

t^ M f` .-•1 ^T

UP u1

9 O ^"^ N M .T ^D CO O N u•1 O^ M to.-i H rl r-1 N N

23

TABLE 10.- TIKE CONSTANTS AND AVERAGEPILOT RATINGS FOR LEADS AND TRANSPORTDELAYS

(a) Lead (T1)

Wn T1 t C/F

4.5 1.0 0 0.48 4.65/44.5 1.0 .1 .37 3.5/34.5 1.0 .3 .16 2/24.5 1.0 .6 .07 3.5/3

(b) Transport delay (A)

wiz A T C/F

15 1.4 0 0.19 2.4/2.2515 1.4 .105 .29 4.5/315 1.4 .24 .43 4.75/3.2515 1.4 .49 .68 7/7

F

24

Figure 1.- Ames Flight Simulator tur Advani -co AJrcratt (FSAA).

'^, `A a4L:ur^y

r-0-4u

cENGu8LJ

U3

It -^^ C

t '^i t

^^ 4 rl ?jo

CU

NQI

OD

W

rb

"'Aa

MOVING AIRSPEED SCALE, MOVING ALTITUDE SCALE,10-knot INCREMENTS 200-h INCREMENTS

LADDER'.^0l

PITCH

INCREASING INCREASINGVELOCITY _^p^ ^5 ALTITUDE

1470 T Zp,^y/

20' . ALTITUDERELEASE

BUGAIRSPEED FIXED DIVE ANGLERELEASE DEPRESSED INDICATORBUGBUG RETICLE (-280 TO -32")

50 m►ad RE F.CIRCLE

2 mil AIM DOT.

Figure 3.- HUD schematic.

r,

27

WQCc0 0U.YvHy

-20

40. --- DESIRED AFT STICK

-- ACTUAL LIMIT

20

WVccC 0U.YvE

-20

-40 La)

B

BREAKOUT t 0.061bGRADIENTS, Win.

A 8.5B 4.0

FORWARD STICK LIMITS, in.STICK FWD 2.90LIMIT AFT 5.43

40

RIGHT STICK20 LIMIT

X40 -4

BREAKOUT t 1 lbGRADIENTS, lb/in.

A 5.0B 3.67

LEFT STICK STICK LIMITS ± 4 in.LIMIT

-2 0 2 4 6STICK POSITION, in.

(a) Longitudinal stick.

(b) Lateral stick.

Figure 4.- Force-feel characteristics.

---- DESIREDACTUAL

!60

120

80

/II

RIGHTPEDAL

/ LIMIT

I.0 40W0ccOWJ

0Wd

WOO

ac -40

-80

-120

I

LEFTPEDAL 1LIMIT /

I /

BREAKOUT t 7 lGRADIENT 451b/in.PEDAL LIMITS . 3.25 in.

-160 1

c)

I ' 1-4 -2 0 2

4

RUDDER PEDAL POSITION, in.

(c) Rudder pedal.

Figure 4.- Concluded-

29

GOLUO.-I

uM4.

G

bL+

ctiO

G

L

Lti

E-+

if1

^JL

4k.,JNAJ. YA ;rte t

W

r+..WLL

W

COH J

JJJ

^ ^ Or

ca

JdJWaL2

OF= ciJ

QCC

g V

^I«LU

a¢^ _z •o

^a^a

vzW 00

N M^ ^ N

4W

to toQ J

O

iu

3pN

O I

ccI

O

y ^+uao 0>, v

uri W^0 t0u ►.-+ u

u .,r

t ^9u POu

+^ 1a^o

w

W

^I +

mi

z ( cr^'J

W

QI LL a

l aH)

U

«

I

Ilam ^c

55 p O

J

SrIQ

(nu c

v ^,

m

O*•

Q'" r

WUA

CL

O

I O

J O O I h

1V

HIalm I

Lnh

++ CV, I o

I 1

+c

I1w0 Q

1 JIWJ

^ I Ids«N

t1

a^ cq 1 I v «

L---- -----^ ito

Y LD

i

1

1

y ^.LL c^PQ

W

0. N

N d0J

N

_c

N

H O

N

V F-

O 2J ?

100

aW

^ J

W

V UO QNz

cilM

c^

a •o

31

Iqacc

H

W

ZU-12 0

Z ^WA oaU

o^ b a

I II I

aWW

r- t--^

O X Vul Vi+ -I

L_ _J

r^J

I

I c

Ii

II ^

I

I C4I "'IL_ M

a_

si

v

u ^

a cg

r v

u ^^ua a

I ^

y N

I

I

I

32

(1 + 0.2M2)3.1

n r ^-

MACH NO. AND DYNAMIC PRESSURE

YES pt =MACH<1 ps

NO

166.96M7Ps (7M12-1)2.5

pt a

\ ps / X ps (h)ps FROM STD. ATMOS. TABLE

qc - pt ps

F RC Of (pt/ps)

ARC ., i (qc)

DRC1 = 0.2 (A RC F RC - 1)

LIMIT: 0 < DRC1 - 1.0

T - 3.232 DRC 1 + 0.6464

(c) Pitch ratio changer mechanization.

Figure 6.- Coatinued.

33

2 4 6 8 10MACH FUNCTION, pt/p=

0

8 16 24 32 40IMPACT PRESSURE. pt-p., 1001b/ft2

(d) Pitch ratio changer multiplying facrors.

Figure 6.- Centin►ied.

12

ac

aO 8

> 4Jo.J

6va:a

0 4vQU.

022>J

IL

J

0

34

L

WLn

C^o

r

OYJ MWUjcrco

^ HN

J O P1LL

du ^^ a^ u

q-4 pRI U

1+u ^pua a^

v a

.i w0x

vv

aW

JE- OJ _J r'

0LL G14

+W

a

v W

g, O J+YJQV

W

Z00 OJ W y

Q

WF- F-

J ^J ,J

NQ Wad

HUJLL

to

U

22Z a.

.<W ~

Hi- N

Jd

CCLL

35

vWA W O W±, ^O +

t

8dum 'O

ro aa

ro Nu G44 o^ U.0 1

u

d.a $4^ a0 00a ^

wv

; H

uj W V J +

± N^o

F

36

VCAL AND a

TEMPC = 3.3 (8001VCAL)2 -2.1

LIMIT TEMPC: 0 < TEMPC < 5.0

AP = 3.75 for a < 1.00.0 1.0 <a < 7.00.375 (a - 7) a > 7.0

FPSAL = TEMPC - AP

LIMIT FPASL: 1.25 < FPASL

(g) Lateral CAS limit schedule.

Figure 6.- Continued.

t37

6HMECH

TEMPA - 10 if SH < 2.0- 6.667 if S H > 2.0

TEMPB = 40 + 4.286 (S H + 3) if S H < 2.0- 40-4.167(8 H -2) if 6H>2.0

LIMIT TEMPS: TEMPA < TEMPB G 40

CAMLAT - TEMPS/8

(h) Lateral ratio changer.

Figure 6.- Continued.

38

I

cc

10 CI?

cc

IQ^ L0 M1 L

isJI m

IQ L1 ~N

W

J It

C^O^ QI

FI

^~ QI

OI

Q I_Jm '

yHIc^ I

-----j

UW

b

0^ W

2~„0 t

0W

H Jb t

NOL

uu^oN30aN0u

M

t0

tlJ

Cc0

O

N61

tlf14MNaN

00

CrrJ

oDC

,-1x,46

-40N

uua

L-----

UW

b

.b

Ol7C+1uCOU

^O

vM

rlW

UF-0b

39

JW

cc ~W —

^ ^ Z

=+ ^±CL

HZW

Fy-d0 JZS

H ^J

bu dao OD, Cao .^u^ qO OW UCS ^Ou .o

700^, w

40

VCAL, knots

RCASOUT = 800 - VCAL 3.875165

RCASLIM = 3.875 for M < 1.02.208 for M > 1.0

LIMIT RCASOUT: 0 < RCASOUT < RCASLIM

6H (deg)

CAMDIR 0.6086HMECH

for M < 1.5

0 for M > 1.5

LIMIT CAMDIR: -15 < CAMDIR < 7.5

(k) Yaw ratio changer.

Figure 6.- Concluded.

41

^— I "C--01

I I HIM tt LA21

it W,

&

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

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

it —

..TT.

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

Ca

50

-25

F7t

0.... .... ...

11P I Ifl ! 11O."i 1VI,1mv:1;.i;

+H44

... .... .... .... FIT

=ti

1

44

iiio

-3.

1.5

-3.5

0iL.j4

5

-5

-5

0

5

-25

.0

O 0

25

-2.5

0

2.5 I_ A[1-- .25'" : 1 "'"' !!1, 1 : "

Figure 7.- Aircraft response to longitudinal step input.

42

Q 00

25

^I sw_q^

At

—10

0-- W

m

10

—10

-- . -4

=42 fit

2 T 1 T, i

r-- T

I

{

^• 0

2

—250

0 ----

CL

250

Fieure 8.- Aircraft response to lateral step input.

43

I --

^*- I WC --H-32.2

I

—7T

.4,'Itt

t.

;1111:^ 4141

-10

0< 0

UjCO

10

-10

10

-25

dL

—5

'__ IL 1: _ -- I ---

0L

Figure 9.- Aircraft response to pedal step input.

YY

J

3: LLI

U ~Q Q

QO

E yF- } t3N ^

Q

t

+•+

r+r N

+ N 13 os

ey

N N1- +

Y Y

'" I 3

Y >

NM 'M

Q J QCC gWo

QZQ ^ oOWH

W Jd +1 VO M

U U^W

q

CLIo

qOMuN

CsuBe

1.1d

a

yOOC

3

1

O

vN

45

ttFOZ

Y^N

a}c

J

O

raHWJ mVHW

¢^Wy QW ^QWO0WX

d00wrou

3

\W^JW Z i

Nf'

_ m g W

Ex ^ Z Ex ~J Z ^

$> m

40 JW W

W W2 >

CA

O

E r E ^

u^i E$

►-O°D•aO ac V

U.OO f-•

W O G W

Q W C Q^- ¢

CLA. f'

W OQ

Q F-2 WccOW cc

J f"Q

1- 6

PILOT COMMENT CARD

1. INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OF CONFIGURATIONZ. 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 SMALLPOSITION CORRECTIONS)

S. COOPER-HARPER RATING• OVERALL TASK• PARAMETER BEING EVALUATED

6. SUMMARY COMMENTS(REASONS FOR C-H RATINGS AND ANY SPECIAL COMMENTS PERTAINING TOTHE EVALUATION)

HANDLING OUALMES RATING SCALE$JWWAWNK^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 performanceGoad Pilot compensation not a factor for

_ Negligible deficiencies desired performanceFair Some mildly

LMmnmal pilot compensation required for

unpleasant de f iciencies desired performance 3

Minor but annoying Uesired rwrtormance requires moderate

Is [t DeficienciesMt,s}actory without warrant

improvement improvement

deficiencies pilot compensationModerately objectionable Adequate performance requiresdeficiencies cons,deratlle pilot Compensationvery object[onrtile but Adequate perlornunce tw1wres extensivetolerable deficiencies pilot compensation

Adequate performance riot attainable withMalor def'oenc ies r.nax [mum tolerable pi lot compensation

Is adequateperforma,ce

DtfiUencies

attain ate le with a requirepilottolerable lott improvement

work loarlt

(:ont r o l irbihty not in question

Considerable pilot compensation is legwreddeficiencies

fur control

Intense pilot cornprnsal-on -s required toMa jor defy,. YnCieb

retain utntx of

r.

is

it contrullablerI m pro vemenimandatory Major deficiencies Control will be lost during soine portion

requ,led operation

Pilot R.1 NASA `Niidec'[tr..

rons I^.., r i r3,.v r o,

T!J „..— Name, ;- 1b3 sorµ3sea tn.. r, tr • •r •,y r<N z. ,ury

Figure 12.- Pilot cormtent card and rating scale.

47

t

O 0.3

O 0.5O 0.7A 1.0

LEVEL IISATISFAC i ORY)

Ay Ky/3.25

bPEQ :7

n2 + its + 1 n

I

aZ

PQ 7

a)OJ

W ^C7vccW

Q 3

5

6.5

O

PR-3.5

O

L

III (UNACCEPTABLE)

LEVEL I

3PR m 3.5

5

II (UNSATISFACTORY)

6.57 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.

48

1

3

5

7

5

azQ 7

F-OJa 1

C7a

U1 3

a

AV KY/3.25

6PED2O 0.3

2_ +

2^s +1 0 0.5

wn wnO 0.7

A 1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12w n, rad/sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 14.- Effect of natural frequency on pilot rating, Pilot B.

49

1

3

NO 5CLNaZ 7HQH0

' IrW FQcc 3W

Q

LEVEL

5

7

Ay Ky/3.25

bPED s22 3 O 0.3wn2

+ S+ 1

wn q 0.5Q 0.7

1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12wn, red/sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 15.- Effect of natural frequency on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.

50

1

3

5

7

5

azF

7

OJ

W 1

QO`W

> 3Q

AyKy/3.25a 1.0

SPED \a + 1^ -1 + 11 p 1.4J`\ JJ

d 2.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12a. rad/sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 16.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilot A.

51

5

Q2P47a=

OJIL 1W

QWQ3

t

Ay Ky/3.25 0 1.0s p 1.4

SPED(e

+ 1)(b + 1) d 2.0

I

3

7

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 128, fed/sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 17.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilot B.

52

1

7

3

NO 5JdN

2CD 7HQOr

O 1_JdW

Q 3W

Q5

KY/3.26

APE 0 (:+1 =+1A 1.0

\a /\b / a 1.42.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12a, red/sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 18.- Effect of low-frequency root on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.

53

^— AI Y

c 1.2 24 DPED'- Qz,..O 0 0 0

J -1.2 ¢ -24 T^U.W J

Q -2.4Q

-48O Ja -3.6 -72 a ►W

~ 0 1.0 2.0 3.0J TIME, t, sec

TS

J

4.0 5.0

(a) wn - 1.0.

Figure 19.- Effect of frequency on the time history of the lateralacceleration response to pedal input, C - 0.7.

r

54

7--- DpED

b) , ,

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

N

1.2,x

24

O 0 0O 0

WLL -1.2

aW -24

W0

Q -2.4

JW

v -48

oUja -3.6

aJ

-72WQ 0J

(b) wn - 8.0.

Figure 19.- Concluded.

K-*

55

i 1.2 24

O p 0 0

U. -1,2 W -24

AUDP

QQ -2.4

Q -48

W° -3.6 -j

W -72

T L8)

Q 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0TIME, t, sec

(a) C - 0.3.

Figure 20.- Effect of damping ratio on the time history of the lateral

acceleration response to pedal input; wn - 4.5, C < 1.0.

56

N

6 1.k 24

O 0 p 0

uj

J -1.2Q

W -24LLW0

Q -2.4

JW

Q -48,

GLUa -3.6

J-72

WQ 0J

4.0 6.01.0 2.0 3.0

TIME, t. sec

b)

"V

(b) - 0.7.

Figure 20.- Concluded.

57

t

1

O 0.3O 0.5

0.7O 1.0p 1.4d 2.03

LEVEL I

p ^

PR 3.5

O5 p II

6.5

7

O O I11b)

0 2 4 6 8 10BANDWIDTH, red/sec

50ZQ 7oCHOJCL 1

W

QWQ 3

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 21.- Effect of bandwidth on pilot rating, Pilot A.

58

r

O 0.3O 0.5Q 0.7

1.0V 1.4A 2.0

3

5

7

5

02

~ 7

1-OJd 1W

QW

Q 3

0 2 4 6 8 10BANDWIDTH, rad/ac

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 22.- Effect of bandwidth on pilot rating, Pilot B.

59

t

1

3

NO 5JdN27

F-

0 1JaW

Q 3acW

Q5

7

O 0.3O 0.5O 0.7n 1.0p IAd 20

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.

60

1.2 24 -+- DPED

Z Z^0 0 O 0 r

-1.2 W -24 TLU.

D W ^^ r

-2.4 8-48- TB

O J

-3.6 Q -72 s?W

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0g TIME, t, we

(a) t + 0. 7, wn • 2, wb - 2.02.Figure 24.- Effect of bandwidth on the time history of the lateral

acceleration response to pedal input, wb • 2.0.

61

Ic 1.2 24

O 0C

0

vWLL-1.2

QW-24

Wo-J

Wa -48

0W-3.6

J-72

u,i L b)0

J

.^ AY

-- DPED

1 ^T^ ^` I

^..—^ TB

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(b) , - 2.0, n ' 8, wb - 2.13.

Figure 24.- Concluded.

62

Ay

—^ DPED

i

J —24 T

W -

v -48Q

TB—722.

Q 0 1,0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

J TIME, t, sec

c 1.2

zO 0

t=UW-J —1.2WCQ —2.4

OLUCL ?.6

N

X24

z 0O

(a) C - 0. 7, wn - 3, 'lb s 3.03.

Figure 25.- Effect of bandwidth on the time history of the lateralacceleration response to pedal input, wb - 3.0.

63

C!1.2, 24

O 0 p 0

W-1 -1.2W

Q-24

WW

Q -2.4

JW

Q -48

cLUa -3.6

,,

-72W

~ 0Qa

AV

---- DPED

b)

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(b) G - 2.0, wn ' 12, wb - 3.20.

Figu 25.- Concluded.

64

wn

Ay Ky/3.25 O 0.5-4.5O 0.5-4.5

'PED s22^s Q 1-8

,,,,n2 W n 6 1-12v 1-19

d 1-28

2 r

mm LEVEL I

PR - 3.5

4 ^ FAM

o46 II

6 v CDd OO

co 0 0-0—o vo0

ao^ 80JCL

co 2 v LEVEL I

cc Qzr^F1 dW

Q dd

PR 3.5

4 O Q

,uQ Z1

A O II

, d;7

6 0

M O o volv

8 L) 1 i l 1 _I

1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4

TIME CONSTANT, r, sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Fig,,-t. .f .- jjtec t of response time constant on pi

65

M

Ay KY/3.25Wn

= O 0.5-4.5 0.3

6PED=2 + 2^t

+ 1 O 0.5-4.5 0.5c n2 wn 0 1-8 0.7

A 1-12 1.0V 1-19 1.4

2 d 1-28 2.0LEVEL I

AA8-

--BLS—^ PR = 3.5

4 d ^JOcv^ 0^ j d II

6

6.5

Z 0 9 0Q

a)111

0 8JCL

4 2Qcc

LEVEL 1

a F4 dPR = 3.5

4 8

OVS o 0o°110

d6 0 ^i 11

0 - 6.5001 VOgl O

8

III

.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4 6 10

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 s Ky/3.25O 0.5-4.5 0.3

APED 52+ Yes + 1 O 0.5-4.5 0.5

wn wn Q 1-8 0.7A 1-12 1.0v 1-19 1.4

2 LEVEL 1d 1-28 2.0

^dPR = 3.5

4 v^

ao'W

8 ( d 11

N6O Q

0 6.5

A V 0 0N0 IIIZ 8)

i- 8d

2 LEVEL Iri^dd

wPR = 3.5

Q 4 170v

vit

^b o6 Q L7 d

6.5

go •o vom oIII

81b)

I I k I I

.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 4 6 10TIME CONSTANT, r, sec

(a) Fine task.

(b) Coarse task.

Figure 28.- Effect of response time constant on pilot rating, Pilots A and B.

67

NO OFREPEATS

070 604630 2d 1

2

A47 v

d p

4 d dd d ddb d^ dd d ^ d7

d

6 O Del dd

m Avm 060 00z alr8Q

0 2 r7d d

a d ^]d

11^wCd d

4 d VAVAWOW IM d

AA 'd 10 d

ddCT^7^7^d d

6 d ^QdAA

8 b}.1 .2 .4 .6 1 2 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.

68

NAyy

c 1.224 --_ DPED

O 0 z0 p.-

W a TL 1 TBLL-1.2 W -24

o W-J v -48C aw Ja -3.6 -72 al

wQ 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0J 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.

69

Ay

DPEDcj 1.2 24

ZO p

Op

HW

^a

LL -1.2 W -24WQ-J

JWv -48

QWa -3.6

aJ

-72WHaJ

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(b) i - 0.71, mn - 2.0.

Figure 30.- Continued.

70

04Ay

--- DPED24

Zo 0 i

a ^ ^W -24

w TL

v -48QJQW -72 c)

Q 0 1.0 2.0 3.0

J TIME, t, sec

c 1.2

Z0 0

UWLL -1.2Uj

Q -2.40Wa -3.6

TB

4.0 5.0

(C) z = 0.48, wn = 3.0.

Figure 30.- Continued.

71

A

D°ED

1.0 2.0 3.0 - 4.05 0TIME, t, sec

N

c 1.2 24

Z0 0 p oUW

U.

rQ

W -24W0

Q -2.4W

Q -48

0W

-3.6JQ -72W d)rQ 0J

(d) T - 0.18. wn - 8.0.Figure 30.- Concluded.

72

N

1Ci 1.2 24 --' DPED

zO p

O p

f-

-1.2W -24 T^ TB

U.

O Ua -2.4 v -48O QW Ja -3.6 -72

aW l

a 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(a) T - 2.84, wn = 1.0.

Figure 31.- Effect of equivalent time constant on the time history

of the lateral acceleration response to pedal input, c - 1.4.

V r-

73

Ay1.224 --- DpED

O 0 O 0w Q 1 TBLL -1.2 W -24LU

-J v -48 TLo aW Ja -3.6 -72

blW

Q 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0J TIME, t, sec

(b) T - 0.47, wn - 6.0.

Figure 31.- Continued.

14

NyeA AV

c 1.2 24 --- DPED

0 0 0 0

Ujv Q

-1.2 W -24U.

O W TLQ -2.4 U-48

LOO Ja -3.6 -72 ^)

W

Q 0 1.0 1J

v—J r^ TB

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

TIME, t, so(

(c) r - 0.15, wn o 19.0.

Figure 31.- Concluded.

75

f0

9ZQ

7

^ s)

OJa 1Wc^QQW

3Q

5

7

O FINE TASKWn - 4.5, ; - 1.0

1 LEVEL

O 03

i PR - 3.5—

O COARSE TASK

O

O

0

8.5

EL i O

PR - 3.5

I I

6.5

I11

1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

LEAD TIME CONSTANT, T1, sec

(a) Pilot A.

(b) Pilot B.

Figure 32.- Effect of lead time constant on pilot rating.

76

1

2H`= 3cc

I--00_J J

a °- 5Wt7 N

aW 6.5

OC]

O FINE TASKD COARSE TASK

Q -7' ^f III( < < < , ,0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

LEAD TIME CONSTANT, T 1 , sec

(c) Pilots A and B.

Figure 32.- Concluded.

77

O FINE TASKO COARSE TASK

1 wn=15,^=1.4

LEVEL I

3

O 0PR = 3.5

5

O^ tl

U2Q 7

°Ca)

0JCL 1WQw 3Q

5

7

0

6.5

1!I O

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.

78

1 O FINE TASK

LEVEL 10 COARSE TASK

0 1-- 3 0a - PR=3.5

a I 1^N n5

W ?

a6.5

7 I11

C)

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 5 .6TRANSPORT DELAY, A, sec

(c) Pilots A anti B.

Figure 33.- Concluded.

79

r A►c 1.2 24 --' DPED

O 0 zO 0

W Q '

LL -1.2 W -24 T 1LQ

Q -2.4

-jW

Q -48

LULU

a- -3.6J< -72W a)Q 0 1.0 2.0 3.0J TIME, t, sec

(0 T1 - 0, T - 0.48.

Figure 34.- Effect of lead time constant on the timeacceleration response to pedal input; { -

TB

80

NU

c 1.2- 24

O pC,

p

w Q-J -1.2 W -24WQJ

JWv --48

LWQ

°--3.6

QJcc -72wQ 0J

—^ DPED

b}

1.0 2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(b) T 1 = 0.3, T = 0.16.

Figure 34.- Concluded.

81

N

1.2 24

O 0 ZO 0U

wLL -1.2

QW -24

WQ

G -2.4

JW

v -48OWa -3.6

GJ

-72WrQJ

0 1.0 2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

TIME, t, sec

(a) A=O. 1 =0.19.

Ay

-- DPED

Figure 35.- Effect of transport delay on the time history of the lateralacceleration response to pedal input; , m 1.4, mn - 15.

82

1.0 2.0 3.0

TIME, t, sec

4.0 5.0

N

c 1.2 24

z0 0 2f

00 0

U1.2

QW -24

W

Q -2.4

JWQ -48

0LUa -3.6

J-72

W~ 0QJ

Ay

DPED

b)

(b) A = 0.105, 1 = 0.29.

Figure 35.- Continued.

83

NAy

1.2 24^' j

00 O 0 /

TS `_`

-- )DE

LL -1.2 W -24W JOQ -2.4

W

Q -48

w J TLa -3.6 aQc -72W c! .

Q 0 1,0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

J TIME, t, sec

(c) A - 0.24, t - 0.43.

Figure 35.- Concluded.

84

AY (KY/3.25)e As(T1s+ 1) wn Ti A

PD s2 20 44.5 1.0 0.1-0.6 —wn2 + wn + 1 G 15 1.4 — 0.11-0.49

2 LEVEL I C^f/d

PR 3.54

BASIC DATA BANDO

N 6 6.5ie ►

111 d /j///^..a 8cc

0 2 da

LEVEL I //

w PR 3.54

I d // BASIC DATA BANDcc

-^i`^; -- 6.5III d %i/i, .

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.

85

wn = 2.0 red/w, = 0.7, cab = 2.02 red/sec, r - 0.71 sec

100 r* r^ I n\

z \ MAXIMUM CONTROLQ AUTHORITY, Y

max

w 0.59V 60X \ \ _ _ _ 0.759w -- 3090 40M

m 20co0 I \CL

0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8

CONTROL AUTHORITY, 9

Figure 37.- Cumulative frequency distribution of commanded side

acceleration, Pilot C.

t

06

6 .6 SIGNAL LIGHT

A

e. Al

2O 4 4

WUjUj-J2

U.

j 2W

WQ V_j

W 0Q QA. -2 N -.2 a)

2.6

2.2 Q

1.8 C

H1.4

Q

1.0

BOMB DROP

SIGNAL LIGHT BOMB DROP6 1.2

c w

2

O 4-2 .8

UjU a

2 uj .4U. WW UO V-+ 0 a 0

W QCL -2 H -.4

2.6

2.2 Q

1.8 C

F-1.4 h-J

a1.0

6 3 ALTITUDEc a

ZO 4 2

W cc

J 2U.

1^

WUO v

Q 0 W 0

Wcn c)

SIGNAL LIGHT12.6

BOMB EOP 2.2

Ay DR S2

1.8 0

H1.4

aCL -2 L -1 - 1 1 1 11 1.0

10 11 17 13 14 15 16

TIME, sec(a) AY max - 0.5 g.

(b, AYmax - 0.75 g.

(c) AYmax - 3.0 g.

Figure 38.- Time history of wings-level-turn response to pedal input, Pilot C.

87

an 20.001,Iv

r (sec) = 0.25

15 / /0.71

aLSw REQ'D / 1.50

Q10

v //Z 5 ^----O'W1 1 1 l 1 1

= 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

A g (VT = 710 knots)1 ^ Ymax , ,

0 1 2 3 4 5Rmax- dog/see

Figure 39.- Control power and tine response required for particular

heading change, ^.u.

^38