Date post: | 04-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | martin-schweighart-moya |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 21
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
1/21
Page 1
Military Air Systems
Status of Handling Qualities Treatment withinIndustrial Development Processes and Outlook forFuture Needs
Dipl. Ing. R. Osterhuber, Dr. Ing. M. Hanel, MEA25 Flight Control
Dr. Ing. Christoph Oelker, MET4 Flight Test
November 2008
Status of Handling Qualities Treatment withinIndustrial Development Processes and Outlook forFuture Needs
Dipl. Ing. R. Osterhuber, Dr. Ing. M. Hanel, MEA25 Flight Control
Dr. Ing. Christoph Oelker, MET4 Flight Test
November 2008
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
2/21
Page 2
Military Air Systems
Agenda
Introduction
Handling Qualities (HQ) in Industrial Development Process
HQ Criteria Applied in Industry
Flight Testing of Handling Qualities
Conclusions
Questions
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
3/21
Page 3
Military Air Systems
HQ in Industrial Development Process
The Role of the FCSToday Handling Qualities are nearly completely defined by the
Flight Control Laws
New features like auto trim in all axes and carefree are provided
Handling Quality Design via Flight Control Laws allows to
normalize Handling Qualities over the whole flight envelopeand configurations
to optimise Ride Qualities (via feedback loops) and Handling
Qualities (via Command Path) separately
to optimise for different tasks which are
o
flight path control driven (cross acquisition, AAR, TOL, formation flying)
o
nose angle driven
fine tracking
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
4/21
Page 4
Military Air Systems
Industrial Development Process
Final AC HQFlight TestCLAW/CP Design
HQ Requirements
Cockpit Controls/SSICAVisuals (HUD, HDD)
L1
L2
. ..
. . K P..
..
.
.
.
.Tef .
Requirements wrong
Design not accurate/ models not exact
Design not accurate/ models not exact
Undesired interaction
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
5/21
Page 5
Military Air Systems
HQ Criteria applied in Industry (1)
Time Response Criteria based on Experience andExperimental Derivation for Design like
CAP, Frequency and Damping, Pole Criteria
Gibson criteria (Dropback Criterion, Tgamma, etc.)
Frequency Response Criteria based on simple PilotModels for APC/PIO- prevention
Gibson -Spider and related criteria (phase rate criterion,
relative/absolute amplitude, etc.)
Neal-Smith
OLOP - criterion
Second order (PT2) for roll ratchet analysis
Pilot Opinion used in manned simulation and flighttesting
Cooper- Harper Rating Scale
PIO- Rating Scale
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
6/21
Page 6
Military Air Systems
HQ Criteria applied in Industry (2)
Average Phase Rate Criterion
Flight Path Time Delay Definitions
Relative amplitude limits
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1
nz / [g / r ad]
1.0 10.0 100.0
n
Level1
Level1
Level3
Level 2
Level2
&3
Level2
10.0
3.6
1.0
0.28
0.16
[rad/s]
1.3775
1.8974
0.64
2
n
nz/
10.0
3.6
0.28
0.16
0.10
2
n
nz/
SP
1.3 2.00.25 0.35
0.01
1.0
L1
L2-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40
open loop phase (deg)
relativeopenloopamplitude(dB
)
/stickdeflection
(-150, 1 dB)
(-180, 1.5 dB)
L3
L1
(-140, 2 dB)
L2(-75, 10dB)
(-100, 6 dB)
(-80, 16 dB)
(-85, 2 dB)
(-75, 4 dB)
L2
A (-110, 0 dB)
(-80, -2 dB)(-55, 0 dB)
L1(-100, 18 dB)
(-45, 0 dB)
*-45, 6 dB
* For applicability limitssee 3.2.2.1.4.
*
*
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0.5 1 1.5
ellipses
(0.3, 60)
(0.375, 50)
(0.5, 40)
(0.66, 85)
(0.7, 145)
(0.8, 195)
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
7/21
Page 7
Military Air Systems
Qualitative RatingHandling Qualities Rating Scale (Cooper-Harper, NASA 1969)
HQ Criteria applied in Industry (3)
satisfactory
?
adequate ?controllable
?
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
unacceptable
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
8/21
Page 8
Military Air Systems
Qualitative Rating PIO Rating Scale (US Test PilotSchool)
HQ Criteria applied in Industry (4)
6Disturbance or normal control may cause divergent oscillations.
Pilot must open control loop by releasing or freezing the stick.
5
Divergent oscillations tend to develop when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.Pilot must open loop by releasing or freezing the stick.
4
Oscillations tend to develop when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or attempts
tight control.
Pilot must reduce gain or abandon task to recover.
3
Undesirable motions easily induced when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.These motions can be prevented or eliminated, but only at sacrifice to task
performance or through considerable pilot attention and effort.
2
Undesirable motions tend to occur when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.
These motions can be prevented or eliminated by pilot technique.
1No tendency for pilot to induce undesirable motion.
PIORDescription
6Disturbance or normal control may cause divergent oscillations.
Pilot must open control loop by releasing or freezing the stick.
5
Divergent oscillations tend to develop when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.Pilot must open loop by releasing or freezing the stick.
4
Oscillations tend to develop when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or attempts
tight control.
Pilot must reduce gain or abandon task to recover.
3
Undesirable motions easily induced when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.These motions can be prevented or eliminated, but only at sacrifice to task
performance or through considerable pilot attention and effort.
2
Undesirable motions tend to occur when pilot initiates abrupt maneuvers or
attempts tight control.
These motions can be prevented or eliminated by pilot technique.
1No tendency for pilot to induce undesirable motion.
PIORDescription
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
9/21
Page 9
Military Air Systems
Flight Testing of Handling Qualities (1)
Open-Loop
Tasks
(3211, Pull-up, Push-over, 360 Roll, Roll Reversals)
Closed-Loop, one
Axis
( and Nz, Rollangle or Heading Capture, HQDT)
Closed-Loop, all Axes
(Formation Flying, AAR, HQDT)
agile Manoeuvring
free Manoeuvring
operati
onal
Relev
ance
DesignR
elevance
Wichmann et al.: High-Alpha
Handling Qualities
Flight
Research on the
NASA F/A-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle,
NASA-TM-4773, 1996
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
10/21
Page 10
Military Air Systems
Phase 1 (Control Law Familiarization)
Familiarization with Control Law Characteristics
Low Gain open and 1 axis Closed Loop Tasks (no HQ Ratingsrequired)
Efficient Approach of early Identification of Control Law Snags
Phase 2 (PIO Resistance Testing and PIO Ratings)
Application of Handling Qualities During Tracking
(HQDT)
Technique
Attitude Capture HQDT, Formation Flying HQDT,Target Tracking HQDT, Air-to-Air Refueling (Basket Tracking HQDT)
Phase 3 (Operational Handling Qualities Testing)
Closed Loop Testing
Clinical Attitude Captures, Formation Flying, Offset Landings,
Air-to-Air Refueling, Air-to-Air Tracking
Tasks with well defined Performance Criteria Cooper-HarperRatings
Flight Testing of Handling Qualities (2)
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
11/21
Page 11
Military Air Systems
Experience with the Established IndustrialDevelopment Process (1)
Time Response Criteria are easy to handle andsuccessfully provide valid guidelines for design andverification
Frequency Response Criteria for APC/PIO- Preventionsuccessfully provide guidelines for clearance and
verification
Problems/ Design Iterations, if
requirements are not adequate/missing models are not adequate or missing
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
12/21
Page 12
Military Air Systems
Experience with the Established Industrial DevelopmentProcess Problem Examples of the Past/Future Needs (2)
Interface Problem and missing Pilot as Sensor - Modellingincluding Visual system: Deficient Handling due to unchangedHUD- Quickener Design after increasing the aircraft onset
Criteria of Display Dynamics as function of aircraftagility (i.e. Tgamma) needed
Missing/Deficient Pilot Modelling: Roll Ratchet solved byimproved modelling and Command Path Redesign
Further Improvement of Modelling neededMissing/Conflicting Criteria/Missing Pilot Models:
Agility/Tracking
Big Amplitude Criteria needed, HQ boundaries for
different pilot technique (High/Low Gain Pilots)Missing Requirements: Handling during Aerobraking
Dropback Problem had to be solved via On-Ground CommandPath Scaling
On Ground Tracking Criteria needed
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
13/21
Page 13
Military Air Systems
Phase 1 open loop testing a necessary step to support systemidentification/ model estimation
Phase 2 PIO resistance testing essential to prove robustness of
pilot-aircraft system before testing operational HQ
Experience with HQDT
not always satisfactory as high gain/ high amplitude
inputs lead to reduction of pilot bandwidth
More appropriate testing methodology for industrial environment required
Phase 3 operational testing successfully performed in various tasks
satisfactory results
results consistent with phase 2 results
FQ/ HQ testing covered sufficiently with existing methodology,except HQDT
For clinical high gain/ high amplitude pilot-in-the-loop-testing bettermethods than HQDT are required
Experience with the Established Industrial
Development Process Flight Test (3)
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
14/21
Page 14
Military Air Systems
Summary
A well defined development process w.r.t HQ exists in industry
Available HQ criteria based on experience and simple pilotmodels successfully provide design and clearance requirements
HQ testing inflight covered sufficiently with existingmethodology, except HQDT
In some areas (roll ratchet, display dynamics, pilot technique)better (pilot) modelling required
In some areas (big amplitude maneuvring, pilot technique)accurate/new requirements would reduce design iterations
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
15/21
Page 15
Military Air Systems
Questions ?
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
16/21
Page 16
Military Air Systems
Backup Folien
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
17/21
Page 17
Military Air Systems
Overview of Results on Closed Loop HQ Testing(Phase 3)
Formation Flying
crisp precise Aircraft Response
Control Sensitivity in Pitch and Roll satisfactory
Air-to-Air Tracking fine Tracking Stick Freeze Exercise
for low Gain
Pilots
high Gain Pilots need Compensation
Air-to-Air Refueling very much alike flying in close Formation
crisp Aircraft Response well liked
Hook-up Rates (successful hook-ups vs. total
attempts) greater 80%
Offset Landings
precise and predictable within desired Touch-downBox
Overall satisfactory HQ Evaluations
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
18/21
Page 18
Military Air Systems
PIO Resistance Testing (1)
(Handling Qualities During Tracking Technique)
Normal Pilot Tracking Technique
no adverse conditions
adopt lowest Gain
Consistent with reasonable
Task Performance
Special
Conditions
Stress, Excitement, Anxiety
high Gain Technique
aggressive Inputs/ Flying
Purpose of PIO Resistance Testing
detect HQ Deficiencies in Flight Test before In-Service Flying
expose potentially hazardous Characteristics in safe Environment
deliberately drive Pilots to make aggressive but controlled Inputs
Key Objective of Handling Qualities During Tracking (HQDT)
Amp
litude
Frequency
most
flying
aggressive
flying
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
19/21
Page 19
Military Air Systems
Definition of HQDT Tasks
Horizon Tracking (longitudinally, laterally,
various Attitude Off-sets)
Wind-up-Turn Tracking
(50 mils Off-set) Formation Flying Tracking (attain Zero Tracking Error)
Air-to-Air Refueling Basket Tracking
Distinctive Requirement of HQDT Piloting Technique
track Precision Aim as aggressively and as attentively as possible correct the smallest Tracking Error as rapidly as possible
Expected Result
Increase of Pilot Bandwidth (Pilot injected Frequency Spectrum)
emulate Pilot Control Strategy when experiencing Stress, Fear, orAnxiety
PIO Resistance Testing (2)(Handling Qualities During Tracking Technique)
30 ft
line of sight
30 ft
line of sight
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
20/21
Page 20
Military Air Systems
Build-up of HQDT Technique
Step 1
track with non-aggressive,
small Amplitude, low Frequency
Step 2
progress to aggressive low
Amplitude high Frequency
Step 3
increase Amplitude at high
Frequency until bang-bang Control is achieved
applicable Performance Measure always minimum Tracking Error
Pilot evaluation with qualitative comments and PIO
ratings for each
step
PIO Resistance Testing (3)(Handling Qualities During Tracking Technique)
Am
plitude
Frequency
most
flying
aggressive
flying
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3
7/30/2019 03-R Osterhuber DGLR HQ Workshop 081112
21/21
Page 21
Military Air Systems
Experience with PIO Resistance Testing
(Phase 2)
In accordance with customer requirement Handling Qualitiesduring Tracking (HQDT) method utilised
Aim is to challenge pilot-aircraft-system in flight with high gain/ high
amplitude tasksMethod well known from USAF
Test Pilot School
HQDT method divided into 3 steps (Build-up of Complexity) Step 1 and Step 2 with low and high frequency small amplitude inputslead to expected increased pilot bandwidth
Step 3 (high frequency and high amplitude) lead to Bang-Bang
type
inputs with reduction of pilot bandwidth (not fully understood yet)
Step 3 increase of bandwidth by minor pilot compensation/ anticipation
Attitude, 3g Tracking HQDT, and AAR HQDT performed withoutProblems
Formation HQDT difficult to achieve
Overall PIOR satisfactory