AFFDL-TR-71-20 SUPPLEMENT 1 SURVIVABLE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM INTERIM REPORT NO. 1 STUDIES, ANALYSES AND APPROACH SUPPLEMENT FOR CONTROL CRITERIA STUDIES Robert 1, Kissinger Michael J. Wend! This document has been approved for public release, Its distribution is unlimited.FOREWORD This report was prepared by McDonnell Aireraft Company, St. louis, Missouri, 63166, under Air Force Contract ¥33615-69-C-1027, P405, “Development and Plight Test Denonstration of @ Survivable Flight Control System.” This contracted effort comprises a major portion of development under the Air Force Systems Conmend Program No. 6803, "Survivable Flight Control systen (sF0s)." The vork vas administered under the direction of the Air Force Plight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 45433, by Uajor Robert C. Lorenzetti, Technical Nansger. fhe report covers work performed between July 1969 and May 1971. Principal contributor so this supplement was Michael J, Wendl under the Girection of Robert L. Kisslinger, Senior Project Dynamics Engineer. The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Jovo Djuric, Bruno Fajar nd Roger H. Mathews to the information reported herein. The manuscript was released ty the authors in May 1971. This technical report has been reviewed end is approved. nee he Fer s ‘James W, Norris Program Manager, Survivable Flight Control System Flight Control Division Air Force Flight Dynamics LaboratoryABOTRACT a ‘The Survivable Flight Control System (SFCS) Progren is an advanced develop- ment program of which the principal objective is the development end fligst test denonstration of an SFCS utilizing Fly-By-Wire and Integrated Actuetor Package techniques. ‘The studies and enalyses conducted to date have suffi- ciently defined the systen requirencnts to provide e definition of an approach to the implenentation of the SFCS. The results of these studies and the definition of the approach are presented in the basic report. Details of the Control Lew Developnent, and Hydraulic Power Actuation studies ere pre- sented in report supplements 2 and 3, respectively. The results of the Control Criteria atudies are presented in this supplement 1. Kith the introduction of highly augmented flight control systems and fly-by- wire systems such a3 the SFCS, increased concern over the adequacy of exist- ing handling qualities specifications and performence criteria have been expressed. As a result, a control performance investigation has been con— in an attempt to define both the longitudinal snd lateral-directional, short period performance criteria requirenents, and determine if the control laws chould be based on mission modes or tasks rather then the traditional period handling quelities and control techniques. Based on an extensive Literature survey and a preliminary analysis, three candidate time history performance criteria were proposed. These were & normalized blend of pitch rate and normal acceleration, or C#, for the pitch xis} a blend of roll rete and roll acceleration for the roll axis; and a blend of laterel acceleration and sideslip, or D*, for the directional axis In order te verify the sbove candidate criteria, a six degree-of-freedon, Fixed base, large amplitude piloted simulation was conducted. The tasic approach was to define the minimum level of acceptable handling qualities by systematically evaluating various flight control system configurations and sion modes. Specifically, the following parameters were varied: time delays, time constants, nonlinearities, higher order effects, adverse or proverse yaw, and decoupled lateral-directional dynamics. In sadition, the mission modes included low sititude nigh speed instrument tracking, weapon delivery (bomb run), reconnaissance, ground attack (strafing run) and air-to- air combst, The performance indicators and systen effectiveness metrics in- eluded pilot comments, Cooper-Harper ratings, pilot effort index, time histories, and statistical data in the form of figures of merit, histograns and cumulative distributions. Documentation data from the control performance analysis and simulation studies resulted in elight modifications to the candidate criteria boundaries. Moreover, the reeulte of this study indicate that performance eriteria, ex- cept possibly for specialized tasks such as sir-to-air refueling and landing, need not be based on mission modes, but rether on the short period handling qualities presented in this report.SEoTION nr v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Summary Generel A. Define SFOS Handling Quality Requirenents Establish © Basis of Minimm Performance Requirenents for Pilot Oriented Closed Loop Stability and Gontrot 3. Eetablish Three Axis Flight Path Control. Performance Hequirenents for Gunnery and Bombing Aiming Accurecies Background 1, Miesion Node Fundamentals Literature Survey Supplier Meetings 1. ¢# Criteria 2, Lateral-Directional criteria Supplier Comment Surmary Studies and Analysis Longituéinal 2. Directional 3. Lateral 4, Weapon Delivery Simulation Crew Station Configuration and Hardware Computer Software Deseription 3. Simulation Mission and Test Configurations Scoring and Data Recording 5. Pilot Participation PACEvar vit Appendtx Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Simulation Results 1. Longitudinel Test Configurations 2, Lateral-Directional Test Configurations 3. Recommended Criteria Conclusions an@ Reconmenéations 2, Conelusions 2, Recommendations I Literature Search II Wormalized Lateral-Directional Equations IIL Tracking Equetions IV Hybrid Simulation Software V Hybrid Computer Data Output VI Written Instructions Prepared for Simulation Pilots VII Simulation Pilots’ Comments References 6 1 12 8 6T 87 88 89 133 a7 ash 165 169 115LIS? OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE, 20. abi 18. 19 Phase II Program and Objectives - F-l with Surrivable Flight Control System SFOS Equipment Location Of Time History Traces for Category 1 C# Time History Traces for Category 1 Sideslip Excursion Limitations Dutch Roll Frequency and Damping Requirements {Class IV, Category A and B, Level 1) Sideslip Time History Bavelope for Lateral Stick Force Input Sideslip Rate of Crange Time History Envelope for Lateral ck Force Input Directional Time History Criterion for Lateral stick Force Input Roll Axis Time Hiszory Responses for Lateral Stick Farce Input, ‘Time History Responses for Blevation Angular Tracking Error ‘Visual Display Terzain Map Longitudinal Flighs Control System Lateral-Directional Flight Control System Terrain Following/Avoidance Command Signals Special Trajectory Plot of Maneuvering Target Longitudinal Time History Response Traces for Time Delay Configurations Longitudinal Time History Response Traces for Prefilter Time Constan> Configurations Longitudinal Time History Response Traces for Nonlinear Prefilter Configurations Longitudinal ‘Time History Response Traces for Higher Order Prefilter Configurations PAGE 13 us wt 19 a1 25 29 a cu 39 39 43, a 46 aT 49. 50al. 22. 23. al. 25. 26. 2. 28. 29. 30. a. 32. 33. 3h. 36. 39. ho. Lateral-Directional Time History Response Traces for Roll ‘Mime Constant Configurations with Aileron Step Input Lnteral-Directional Time History Response Traces for Decoupled Configurations with Aileron Step Input ‘Time History Response Traces for Decoupled Configurations with Rudder Step Input Lateral-Directional Time History Response Traces for Decoupled Configurations with Rudder Step Input Time History Response Traces for Adverse/Proverse Yaw Configurations with Aileron Step Input Lateral-Directional Tine History Traces for Adverse/Proverse Yaw Configurations with Aileron Step Input Pilot Questionnaire Pilot Performance Date for Time Delay Configurations Pilot Performance Data for Prefilter Time Constant Configurations Pilot Performance Data for Nonlinear Configurations Pilot Performance Data for Higher Order Configurations Pilot Performance Date for Roll Time Constant Configurations Pilot Performance Data for Adverse/Proverse Yaw Configurations (o) and Decoupled Configuration (#) Plotted vs Df Magnitude at t = 1 Second Pilot Performance Data for Adverse/Proverse Yaw Configurations (0) and Decoupled Configuration (o} Plotted vs Df Magnitude at t = 3 Seconds Rating Summary - Cooper Harper Rating vs. Mission Mode for Parameters Investigated SFOS Pitch Axis Time History Criterion SFOS Pitch Axis Time History Criterion SFOS Roll Axis Time History Criterion SFOS Roll Axis Time History Criterion SFOS Yaw Axis Time History Criterion 51 52 93 oh 35 56 65 6 70 a B Th 16 17 9 80 an 82 83 85a. he. 3. Abe 4s. 46. at 48. ho. she 55. 56. ST. 58. 59. 60. 6. SFOS Yaw Axis Time Ristory Criterion Normalized Equations cf Motion Block Disgran F-4 Aircraft Dutch Roll Frequency Plot Coupling Paraneter Relationship to Dutch Roll Frequency Sideslip Variation with Dynamic Pressure Sideslip Integration Gain Value Line of Sight Error Retes with Respect to Gunline Coordinates (xp-s Yqzs Zqp) and the Line of Sight Coorainalés ($2"e,°4) Alroraft's Body Rates with Respect to the Guntine Coordinates (x. gz» Zq,) and the Body Axis (x, y, 2) Coordinat 8 Body Axis (x, ys 2) Coordinates with Respect to the Earth Axis (xtgy ¥gs %q) Coordinates Wind Axis Coordinates (V, ny L) with Respect to the Body ‘Axis Coordinates (x, y, 2) Fire Control Mode Geometry of the Relative Velocity Vector Geometry of the Elevation and Lateral Tracking Errors vith Respect to the Gunline Elevation Channel for Tracking Aeriel Targets Lateral-Directional Channel for Tracking Aerial Targets Flevation Channel for Tracking Stationary Ground Targets Lateral-Directional Channel for Tracking Stetionary Ground Targets Histogram (0) and Cumulative Distribution (#) Plots for Tas Histogram (0) and Cumiative Distribution (*) Plots for WD Histogram (0) and Cumietive Distribution (#) Plots for RECON Histogram (0) and Cumulative Distribution (*) Plots for GA 86 ak 128 129 130 33h 134 136 136 138 aa wa 143 23 as 15 152 153 15563. eu, 65. Histogram (0) and Cumuletive Distribution (#) Plots for CO Time History Response Date for LAHS, WD, RECON, GA and CO Modes of Operation (Recorder i) ‘ine History Response Data for LAIS, WD, RECON, GA ana CO Modes of Operation (Recorder 3) Tine History Response Data for LAHS, WD, RECON, GA and co Nodes of Operation (Recorder 3) 359 162 262 163LIST OF TABLES TABLE I Ir III v vr vIT vIIr Beg x XII Definition and Units for C* Equation Short Period Frequency and Damping Values Definition and Units for D* Equation Coupling and Model Parameters Simulated Mission Cooper-Harper Rating Scale Scoring Parameters Appearing on Printout Plots Pereneters Recorded on Analog Strip Charte Pilot Experience Summary Control Performance Criteria References 4 Aircraft Leterel-Directionel Data Aircraft Physicel Date PAGE qe 5 23 28 de 58 a 63 6 90 126 18.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS CAL ~ Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory CD - Cumulative Distribution CDC = Control Data Corporation CH ~ Cooper-Harper CO ~ Combat (Air to Air) DAC - Dougles Aircraft Company FOM ~ Figure of Merit GA - Ground Attack LAHS - Low Altitude, High Speed MAC - Meonnell Aircraft Coupany MCAIR - McDonnell Aircraft Company Po ~ Percentage PEI - Pilot Effort Index PIO - Pilot Induced Osei2iation RCOY - Reconnaissance SFOS - Survivable Flight Control System STT - Systems Technology Incorporated WD - Weapon DeliverySYMBOLS: SYMBOL DESCRIPTION unrTs Acceleration components in body axis measured a's at acceleroneter Acceleration components in body axis measured e's at center of gravity Acceleration components in body axis measured a's at pilot station Wing span ra Dimensionless drag coefficient Dimensionless lift coefficient Dimensionless roll monent stability derivative due to roll rate Dimensionless roll moment stability derivative due to yaw rate Dimensionless roll mment stability derivative aue to sideslip angle Dimensionlees roli monent stability derivative due to aileron deflection Dimensionless roll moment stability derivative ave to rudder deflection Dimensionless roll moment stability derivative due to spoilez deflection Dimensionless pitching moment coefficient Dimensionless pitch moment stability derivative due to piteh vate Dimensionless pitch moment stability derivative due to angle of attack Dimensionless pitch moment stability derivative due to etabilater deflection Dimensionless yaw moment stebility derivative due to roll rate Dimensionless yaw moment stability derivative due to yaw rateDimensionless yay moment stability sideslip engle Dimensionless yew monent stability aileron deflection Dimensionless yaw monent stability rudder deflection Dimensionless yaw noment stability spoiler deflection Dimensionless side force stability roll rate Dimensionless side force stability yaw rate Dimensionless side force stability sideslip angle Dimensionless side force stebility sileron deflection Dimensionless side force stability rudder deflection Dimensionless side force stability spoiler deflection Center of Gravity Mean Aerodynamic Chord Length Longitudinal Response Criteria Normelizea c# Derivative of c* Dimensional Constants Directional Kesponse Criteria Derivative of D¥ Lateral Stick Force Longitudinal Stick Force Rudder Pedal Force derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative derivative due to due to aue to due to aue to aue to due to due to gue to due to te g's/sec deg deg/see ibs lbs ibsAcceleration due to gravity ft/sec™ Altitude of the elreratt tt Fraction during which 9 parameter magnitude falls in i-th interval Moment of inertia about X axis sing /2t Cross product moment of inertia in xz plane siug/ft” Mement of inertia about Y axis slug/et® Mement of inertia about Z axis slug/te Ratio of "commanded roll performance" to "applicable rell performance requirenent" Longitudinal pre! ter gains deg/1b Megnitude of the input for leteral directional axis Ibs Rudder flexibility constant ARI crossfeed gains Pitch rate gain constant Sideslip gain constant Relling acceleration due to roll rate sec Relling acceleration due to yaw rate Relling acceleration due to sideslip angle sec Relling seceleration due to aileron deflection see’ Rolling acceleration due to rudder deflection see’ Longitudinal limits for nonlinear prefilter los Line of sight coordinste axis unit vectors Mach mumberMass of the aircraft Normal load factor Yawing acceleration due to roll rate Yawing acceleretion due to yaw rate Yawing accelerstion due to sideslip angle Yawing acceleration due to aileron deflection Yewing acceleration due to rudder deflection Roll rate, the angular velocity of airplene about X axis Steady state roll rate Normelized roll rate transfer function Piteh rate, the anguler velocity of airplane about ¥ axis Crossover dynamic pressure Dynamic pressure Relative range Yaw rate, the anguler velocity of atrplene about Z axis Orthogonal coordinates system with the line of sight as X axis Wing aree Thrust Damped period of Dutch Roll Tongitudins? prefilter time constant Disturbed reticle lead computing optical sight system's time constant Lateral prefilter time constant slugs g's seem rad/sec rad/sec rad/sec qy/re® ae/re? ft rad/sec1, Roll axis model time constant sec a Velocity component of the airplane in the XK exis ft/sec v Totel velocity of the airplane ft/sec Yeo crossover velocity ft/sec VxeoVayoVae aetaoving etreraft's velocity components ft/sec \E Velocity component in earth axis in east ft/sec direction Vu Velocity component in earth axis in north ft/sec direction Relative velocity components in the line of ft/sec sight coordinates ‘Target velocity components in body coordinates ft/sec Target velocity components in earth coordinates ft/sec Wind axis coordinates y Velocity component of the airplane in¥ axis ft/sec ¥ Velocity component of the airplene in Z axis XYZ Body axis coordinates Xeetp.Ze Barth axis coordinates Xen.YousZ6b Gunline axis coordinates XX aky Latersl-divectional nomalized coupling peramcters 1 Flight path angular velocity (1aterel) due to i roll rate (Dimeneioniess) = Flight path angular velocity (leteral) due to yew rate (Dimensionless) Ya Plight path angular velocity (lateral) due to sec” sidestip angle Xs, Flight peth angular velocity (1ateral) due to aileron deflectionan, %p ong, ar Flight path anguler velocity (1ateral) due to rudder deflection Flight path angular velocity (lateral) due to roll angle Flight path anguler velocity (Iateral) due to yaw angle Angle of attack Sidesiip angle Steady state sideslip angle Nomslized sideslip angle transfer function Flight peth angle cormand Elevation component of the angular orientation of the gunline with respect to the body axis Inerenental change in the variable Incremental lateral load factor at pilot station Incremental longitudinal load factor at pilot station ‘Line delay Normalized aileron input trensfer function Neximm sideslip exeursion at the ¢.6. Alleron deflection Rudder deflection Stabilator deflection Spoiler deflection Longitudinal prefitter damping ratio Dutch Roll oscillation daxpine ratio Longitudinal damping ratio of the short period oseflletion Roll axis modal damping ratio Longitudinal prefilter daxping ratio secon) rad rad rad deg red sec rad rad rad rad vadegs8h Our. 8p SErL PLL R isa Pose! Fav lofsla Pitch angle red Elevation and traverse tracking errors rad Elevation and traverse angular components of red the line of sight of the target with respect to the gunline axis Elevation and traverse angular components of rad the lead angle ¥ith respect to the gunline axis Laplace operator see Air density slug/tt3 The sight's elevation channel stability constant Rudder prefilter tine constant sec Longitudinel prefilter high pass tine constant sec Bank angle rad Bank angle command ace, Ratio of the oscillatory component of bank angle to the average component of bank engle Ratio of amplitudes of the bank angle and sideslip angle envelopes in the Dutch Rel2 mode Yaw angle red Fhase angle of the Dutch Roll component of rad sideslip Angular velocity of the gunline red/sec Angular velocity components of the gunline — rai/sec in the line o* sight ecordinetes Angular velocity of the line of sight rad/sec Angular velocity components of the line of — rad/sec sight in the line of sight coordinates Angular velocity of the line of sight rad/sec vector to the attacking aircraft gunline Longitudinal prefiiter undamped frequency rad/sceOna Wrp sigg adr Undamped natural frequency of the short period oscillation Undamped natural frequency of the Dutch Roll oscilletion Components of the aircraft's body axis rotation in the line of sight coordinates Roll axis modal undamped frequency Longitudinal prefilter undamped frequency, Wormal acceleration Elevator deflection rad/sec rad/sec rad/sec rad/sec red/sec ats radCantracks Public ReleasSECTION I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ‘The Surviveble Flight Control System (SFOS) Program is a flight control advanced development program being conducted primarily by MCAIR under contract to the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory. The principal objective of this program is the development and flight test demonstration on an F-h aircraft of 8 Surviveble Flight Control System utilizing fly-by-wire and pover-by-ire techniques. Recent combat experience has shown that relatively minor damage, in the form of small arms fire, can result in aircraft loss due to loss of control. This is brought about ty either hits in the hydraulic distribution system which Grain the fluid, or kite which sever or Jam the non-redundant mechanical flight control linkages. The power-by-wire concept of integrating electric motor driven hydraulic pumps with the surface actuator reduces systen vul- nerability through elimination of dependence on long exposed runs of hydreu- lic plumbing. The fly-ty-wire concept of redundant end physically dispersed electrical control channels improves survivability ty eliminsting the single- failure points of the conventional mechanical contrel linkages. ‘Tae SFCS Program is being performed in two phases. Phase I, waich included flight test evaluation of a Simplex integrated actuator package, has been completed and is documented in Reference 1. The Phase II program and objec- tives are illustrated by Figure 1, and include the development and flight test evaluation of a flight control system employing fly-by-wire and pover- ay-wire concepts. Establish Confidence] by Demonstrating Safety and Reliability Studies end Analyses Fe Aircraft Modifications Provide Data and Criteria for Future Flight Control ‘Systems Laboratory Tests FIGURE 1 PHASE II PROGRAM AND OBJECTIVES. F-4 WITH SURVIVABLE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMFly-ty-vire (FEW) is a primary flight control systen which uses en electrical signalling path to provide the desired aircraft response to pilot commends, without « echanicel connection between the cockpit controller and the control surface actuator. Tt can incorporate aircraft motion sensors such that air eraz motion, rather then control surface position, ia the controlled variable. To be accepted ty the aerospace industry ss nore than a research tool, the reliability of the BW system must meet or exceed the reliability of the mechanical system it is replacing, while showing advantages in other reas. The benefits foreseen for an FEW aysten include: © Enhanced survivability © Superior aiming, tracking, and weepon delivery © Reduced pilot workload © Plight control design end installetion savings © Decreesed cost of ownership © More atrtrane design freedom Poxer-by-wire (PBH) is the transmission of pover from the aircreft engines to the flight control surface actuators by electrical rather then hydraulic means. Hydraulic pover is generated by electric motor driven hydraulic purp(s) integral to the actuators. Power-ty-vire equipment has been called “integrated actuator packages” in this country, and simply "packaged actuatore” in England. ‘The redundancy and dispersion of a fly-by-vire system and the get-home-and- land capability provided by an actuator with an energency-only electric motor driven pump could be combined to provide e measurable improvenent in flight control survivability. An F-4 Simplex Actuator Package with this emergency- only PRY capability was successfully flight tested in Phaze I of tne SFCS Progran, with results reported in Reference 1. However, @ survivable flight control systex requires use of power-by-wire integrated actuator packages which are capable of full-time operation independent of the aircraft central hydraulic systens and their exposed plumbing. The Survivable Stabilator Actuator Package (SSAP) to be flight tested in Phase IIc of the SFCS Program will be a duplex PEW actuator capable of full-time operation throughout the Bl flight envelope, The SSAP vill be controlled ty the fly-ty-wire system installed and flight tested in Phases IIA and IIB of the program. ‘Tne location of the fly-by-vire system components, the SSAP, end the ot! SFCS equipment in the F-l test aircraft is shown in Figure 2. The results of the SFCS studies and analyses to date, and the definition of ‘the SFCS approach are presented in the basic report. The details of the Control Criteria Studies are presented in this supplenent. The details of ‘the Control Law Develorment, and liydraulic Power and Actuation Studies are presented in report supplenents 2 and 3, respectively.NOILV907 LNSWdINDa Soss z aunold un wosre Ava iGIND OSHA Je wave 30810 awn 01 on ina) auamemon Me Taiiva st" AND. S05 wn wapaser, Wo54 wow wasnig ania va avove 30 ‘oun woe Saliva ost oun ome ah ‘nosevas wots "2S WOLYHEVE onal oar ! an (aves gonna OLY e TOLLS MAA Me | 3 | a (ye anuynioy sis tonne! suum 13¥4 ox Public ReleaseSECTION IT GENERAL Past prograns for development of longitudinal and leteral-directional nendling qualities have been directed tovard establishing limiting values of treai- tional perfornance parameters (frequency, derping, time constants, etc.) which pilots feel are consistent with desired levels of precision and control during maneuvering flight. The vork performed to date, which has been used to upiate appliceble uilitary specifications hac been directed mainly toward the specification of handling qualities for aircraft which did not include the use of aircraft motion feedbacke in the prizery flight control mode. With the introduction of highly sugnented flight control systema and fly-by- wire systens auch es the SFCS, increased concern over the adequacy of exist- ing specifications and performance eriteria has been expressed. As a result, a control performance investigation has been conducted in an acterpt to define short period performance criteria requirements for the SCS. Perfor mance criteria which ate expressed in the time domain and functionally com bine the high and low speed transient characteristics desired by the pilot were investigated and results of the associated effort are presented in this report. Applicability to future FEW designs was one of the objectives of the study effort and it was determined that if the formulated criteria is not explicitly dependent on traditional airfrene pureneters, its use could be applicable to advancea designs. Multi-loop systems of this type will cause significant masking of the basic airfrane characteristics and further divorce the fighter aireraft transient response characteristics desired by the pilot for specific inputs, from conventional control surface uasge. Since candidate criteria developed during this investigation are an expres- sion of fighter pilots' desired handling quality requirements, and are not dependent on airframe characteristics or flight control systen mechanization. they ere applicable to future SPOS designs. The specific goals and objec tives of the investigation were to: 1. DEFINE SFCS HANDLING QUALITY REQUIREMENTS BY INVESTIGATING: to what degree C¥ handling qualities criteria is compatible vith the required mission loop closures how higher order and nonlinear characteristics effect application of C* criteria if lateral-directiona? handling and flying qualities can be incor- porated into @ new criterion if control laws should be teased upon mission modes or tasks rather than the traditional short period handling qualities and control techniques e. if interaxis coupling is desirable and if so to what degree 2. ESTABLISH A BASIS OF MINIMUM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PILOT ORTEWTED CLOSED LOOP STABILTTY AND CONTROL.3. ESTABLISH THREE AXIS FLIGHT PATH CONTROL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GUNNERY AND BOMBING AIMING ACCURACIES BY: analytically defining, formulating and stuiying the parameters which significantly affect tracking stability and veapon delivery precision. b. evaluating compatibility of C* criteria and leteral-directional criteria vith mission tasks.SECTION TIT BACKGROUND MISSION MODE FUNDAMENTALS Mission mode dynarics can be considered in tems of an equivalent block diagram in vnich three serial elements consisting of the weapon platform (airframe and SFOS), the nission mode outside geometry with inside dis- plays, and the pilot, forn a "closed loop" which functicnally performs the mission mode tasks such as tracking, terrain following, precision flying, ete. Successful accomplishment of these tasks involves adequate stability and speed of response of the closed loop dynamics which in turn places individual requiresents on each of the three serial elements. In ‘the pest, some weapon systems vhich did not have adequate displays and/or weapon platforn dynamics, have relied heavily on pilot adeptibility and skill for closed loop compensation and accomplishment of the stated Rission objectives. This technique has a tendency to increase pilot work and also requires extensive training of pilots to perform specific tasks to required accuracy. Current interest in mission mode concepts is re- Jated to the relexation of superior pilot skill requirement with more em- Phasis on improvement of remaining two elements in the closed loop. The subject of this report addresses itself to this closed loop problem and utilizes analysis tools such as the Improved Model for Aerial Gunnery Effectiveness (IMAGE) computer program and hybrid man-in-the-loop simule~ tion for investigation of platforn dynamics to establish candidate cri- terie in the time history domain. LITERATURE SURVEY ‘The performance criteria investigation wes initiated with a literature survey of available information to determine the epplicabllity of subject results toward the accomplishtent of the outlined objectives. Tt was found that fighter aircraft handling quality characteristics as provided dy standard flight control eystens were adequately covered in the liter~ ature. In comparison, a noticeable absence was evident of information pertaining to highly augmented eircraft flight control systems end their handling and flying cheracteriatics. Only « few articles discussed non- tra@itional types of criteria such as those formuleted in frequency rogponse or time history response domains. Appendix I presents @ bibliography of articles which vere reviewed during ‘the course of this study and a few are presented in summary form. A number of articles were especially helpful in the area of statistical approaches and test procedure to employ in order tc obtain valid results. Tn order to establish a basis of minimum perforance requirenents for pilot oriented closed loop stability and control, MIL-F-87855, Reference (2), and the associated USERS REFERENCE GUIDE, Reference (3), were re- viewed to determine applicability to highly sugnented aircraft flight control systens such as the SFCS. It was found that the informational content of this specificstion ig applicable as a guide tovands SFCS de- sign and development but the clagsicsl terminology as presented inReference (2) is somewhat ambiguous. It is felt thet systen response characteristics (response to specific inputs or multiple input combine- tions expressed in the frequency or time domain) could be an additional means of specifying effective requirements and should be considered for use during the SFCS program.SECTION IV SUPPLIER MEETINGS A series of meetings was held with industry personnel and comments vere ob- tained during discussions with Avionic suppliers prior to SFCES procurenent. The main purpose of these meetings wes to benefit from experience gained by the suppliers in the area of handling qualities during past programs in which new concepts of control were mechanized and investigated, Items discussed ineluded: cH CRITERIA Supplier experience with the applicability of the C* criterion was ex- plored to determine results obtained and the degree to which mission mode tasks can be accomplished with a mechanization that provides a re- sponse which meets C¥ criteria. Areas of discussion included the C* envelopes of acceptability in terms of delay time, initial transient, and frequency/danping characteristics. Inquiries were made to determine if the suppliers had performed studies to show the effect of higher order terms and nonlinearities on the pilot feel and the precision fly- ing capability. 2. LATERAL-DIRECDIONAL CRITERIA Concepts of inter-axis decoupling and the desired lateral-directional handling quality characteristics were discussed with the suppliers. It was indicated that an attempt was to be made to formulate a criterion in the time donain which is useable throughout the flight envelope. 3. SUPPLIER COMMENT SUMMARY Discussions vith 15 individual representatives from five leading suppliers helped generate the following list of comments and general conclusion relative to the subject matter involved: a. At least one supplier felt that the C* criterion concept is of very little value. The main objection stated was that the criterion is inherently not unique. Some adverse characteristics in one C¥ term can be averaged out by another term through addition, to yield an apperently acceptable C* response that does not provide acceptable handling qualities. ais conclusion was based in large part on theory and hed not been substantiated through either simulation or flight test. b. ‘Three out of five suppliers felt that the C* criterion couplenents the SECS concept of design and as such is very applicable to this type of control. One supplier had successfully used the criterion for development of a high authority flight control system which is currently being flight tested. In this case, the criterion was applicable with the added constraint that specified minimum valuesof short period frequency and damping vere met or excesded vith the augmented system. In general, these suppliers all felt that the c¥ criterion should be constrained in some manner to uske it more useful for general application to fighter aircraft flight controls. From availeble information, past developrent prograns depended heavily on pilot satisfaction of handling qualities in the rol2 and yay axes, At least one supplier indicated that the feasibility of use of a roll axis time history criterion has been established. Most suppliers felt that a need exists for an equivalent directional time history criterion. Current practice indicates that pilots dew sire zero "ball" movenent during turning maneuvers. One supplier felt that there is some trade-off benefit to mechenizing a separate configuration for air-to-air and another configuration for air-to-ground, This could be accomplished by automatic or manual switching of the feedback gain parameters to achieve the desired flight path characteristics for a particular mode. In general, the discussions with suppliers indicated sone reserve- tions of routine application of C* criterion. These are due in large part to the unknown effect on pilot ratings of a number of re~ Sponse abnormalities which vould not violate the C¥ criterion. In 4ddition, no lateral-directional counterpart of the longitudinal C* criterion is presently in use by the suppliers. All discussions and Information presented by suppliers ves helpful in formulation of candidate criteria used during man-in-the-loop testing with plicts during six-degree-of-freedom fixed base simulation. 10‘SECTION ¥ STUDIES AND ANALYSIS The problem of generating meaningful performance criteria is one of deter- mining vhat levels and types of handling qualities are required by pilots and how they help accomplish hie mission mode tasks. The pilot determines if a particular flight control system provides the desired perfornance im- Provenent, by assessment of sircraft dynamic motion resulting from conmand and disturbance inputs. It can be shown that pilots are quite sensitive to three axis motion cues and utilize these, in large part, to fly the aircraft. Studies conducted during the course of the SFOS progran and described in these sections are based on the assimilation of the eppropriate motion cues into meaningful criteria which provide that the transient flight dynanics are acceptable to the pilot. The C¥ criterion is an example of specifying short period handling qualities in terms of aircraft parazeters fomilier to the pilot. The concept implicitly includes the traditional short period frequency and dexping requirements and is more general in its application. Current design philosophy for fly-by-wire and highly eugnented flight control systems inherently includes sensor feedback and electronic compensation to provide a response vhich will meet the C# criterion. MCAIR pilots have en- dorsed the general concept of fly-by-wire and feel that the studies des- cribed here vill help in the development of a superior weapon system. 2. LONGITUDINAL The definition of the O* expression as used during the SFOS analysis and studies is shown in Table I. This equation is equivalent to Equation 1, page 12, Reference (li), which can ve written as, ge Ore pee SEE TK Ee where the symbols Ka, Kp, and K, are dimensional constante. The 6 term in above equation represents normal acceleration increment at the pilot station caused by the moment emm from vehicle center-of-gravity. In the C# equation of Teble I, the contributions due to Wz end @ are lumped inte one term (Anz) which represents the total normel seceleration sensed at the pilot station. On page 1h of this reference, it is stated that "The lower portion of the C*/S, envelopes have been modified for the first few tenths of a second to account for the effect of forvard trenenission dynamics (actuators, mechanicel linkages, shaping networks, etc.).” In order to establish & quantitative interpretation of this statement, Equation 9 of this reference, wo® _) (+ 62.2) + 2.90 TITS) AZ ¥ Sealy A+ Une was used to generate time history response traces for unity step inputs. The above transfer function equation vas programed on a MCAIR analog computer and short period damping and frequency requirements from Refer- ence li, page 3, Category 1 were tabulated (Table IZ and used to generate the time history response traces shown in Figure 3 and 4 for unity step "TABLET DEFINITION AND UNITS FOR C* EQUATION Gan +k; np * Kaa An, P = Incremental Normal Load Factor at Pilot Station © = Piteh Rate Kp = C2Ve, Piteh Rate Gain Constant p= Dimensional Constant Veo ~ Crossover Vel Cy gis sec? ttdeg Radians rad eg Assumption Veg = 400 ft/secL AYOD3LV9 HOd SIOVUL AHOLSIH 3WIL +9TABLE IT SHORT PERIOD FREQUENCY AND DAMPING VALUES ‘Configuration iT Configuration’ ‘Number i ‘a Number in 045 u 145 | 6.65 0.40 037 40 050 0.60 88 1.00 inputs. As can be seen fron Figure 3, the periphery of the tine history response traces generated in this menier is reesonsly well defined with the existing C* criteria in all areas except on the lover boundary. Here there is a significant difference, since the criteria envelope allovs a transportation Ing of as much as 0.20 seconds. Since previcus investiga~ tons have shown this anount of lag to be significant, it was decided to investigate this characteristic during the similetion phase and determine Sts effect. on pilot performance. Concern over the adequacy of the OM criterion and its routine applica tion has resulted in an analysis to determine the compatibility of nonlinear dynamics and higher order effects with the C* concept. ‘The existing criterion allows a lightly damped, high frequency mode super- imposed on the dominant response node which might be contained in the acceptable region but vhich is othervise unacceptable due to the low stability margin vhich is causing the low damped oscillation. In @ similar manner, a highly nonlinear response might meet the C* envelope and yet be undesirable when present in the aircraft. To circumvent these difficulties, several methods were investigated and one was selected as having the most promise for use as a criterion, [ts formu lation is based on constraining the C* rate of change response in an acceptable manner and is to be used in addition to the existing C* re- sponse criterion. ‘Tre proposed C* rate of change criterion shown in Figure 4 vas generated by establishing a boundary line around the periphery of the differen- tiated response traces resulting from, ach ow x om at Wits + 15where ks = 1000 and frequency and denping values used are given in Table II, Seléction of k5 = 1000 fs a convenient value which results in an acceptable approximation of the above high pase tranefer function to @ pure differentiation required for generating the C* rete of change time history responses as shown in Figure l. Thie envelope of acceptability is expressed in normalized C# unite per second for the ordinate and in "real time" seconds for the abscissa. DIRECTIONAL The need for establishing time domain criterie for the roll/yaw axis is based in part on the strong correlation of pilot reting and flight sensi- tivity to leter@l-directional aircraft motion which occurs in the time donain. Pilot comments and discussions on methodology of providing ratings indlcates that clessicel terms such as frequency, dexping, and time constant parameters can be relatively abstract to pilots who, Instead, place strong emphasis on aircraft notions and tow they vary during flight. This is further evident when it is realized thet pilot unfamiliarity with engineering terminology apparently does not detract from the capability to recognize undesirable characteristics, formulate opinions on their severity and express these in standard terminology. Design engineers who have used the traditional handling quelity peran- eters to date, have been more constrained in recent years, in providing adequate answers because aircraft and flight control system response characteristics have deviated from simple representation and evaluetion data presented to show compliance with military requirements kad to be approximated to fit the prescribed format, ‘These shortcomings can be allevieted if time history response date related to specific input com mands ere used for comparison with epplicable criteria. Additional need for time history criteria is also evident in computerized design techniques which employ optimal or modern control. techniques to establish compensation and control law definition to satisfy a prescribed cost functional which contains the short perioa handling quality criterie as function of time. Lateral-directional studies were directed toward establishing a separate tine history criterion for the roll axis and yaw axis. The intent vas to define the transient response cherecteristics in each axis due to @ lateral step comand input from the pilot. a, Directions] Reeponse to Aileron Command Input MIL-F-87858 requirements for maximum sideslip excursion occurring during aileron step command inputs include « definition of limite for AByax/k a8 shown in Figure 5, which are not to be exceeded for various operating levels end phases. The parameter Afyay is defined es the meximun eideslip excursion et the ¢.g. occurring within two seconds or one-half period of the Dutch Roll, (Tg/2), whichever is greater, for a step aileron control command. Since preliminary 6FCS designs show that the (1q/2) = 2.0 second(constant) requirenent generally predominates, the "damped period of Dutch Roll" equation eppearing on page 65, Reference 2,16] 144 12|— Flight Phase Catagories B&C AB max! - Deg 10 |-Flight Phase Category A- T T T All Flight Phase Categories Level 2 y T T J bevelt Level 1 0-40-80 =120——=160—~—200=«~— 240280820860 Yp- Dea FIGURE 5 SIDESLIP EXCURSION LIMITATIONS. 7x “a* Ty 2) i= was used as a means of superimposing this requirement on a plut gen- erated from the minimur Dutch Roll frequency and damping data (Table YVi,page 23, Reference @) for comparison of the assumptions inherent in'the use of e constant value for Ta/2. Figure 6 shows the combina- tion plot and identifies the various areas of acceptability ror level 1, categories A and B operation. Category C was not included in the analysis effort, and the study results discussed here are not intended to be applicable to the landing and teke-off flight conditions. En- phasis on selected mission modes described in this report resulted in program software limitations that aid not allow testing at the terminal flight conditions for which adequate data is available fron previous investigetions. From the above figure, it can be seen that only ® small pert of the acceptable area is eliminated if 1t is assumed that all values lie above the Line for (1a/2) = 2.0. This retionalizetion and the fact that highly augmented systets can help provide frequencies which fall in the upper area, mokes the assump- tion @ reascnably valid one. The ebove plot, Figure 5, for Afyax/k can be made independent of the “coordination” pareneter (yf), if a constant value of S8yax/k = 2.0 is used. A direct mapping inthe time domain follows with point A of Figure 7 reflecting these two data point values, The lines which intersect point A and form the acceptable eres for sideslip due to aileron step coumand inputs were established "a priori" in the following way, Line 1 - The somewhat pessinistic assumption of AByay/k = 2.0 ia offset by a maxinun allovable deviation of #/k = 42 during + < 2,0 seconds. Line 2 - An average value of one degree per second is assumed as the average deviation for t > 2.0 seconds In order to eliminate undesirable characteristics such as those generated by higher order and nonlinear dynamics, it is necessary to ead an associated rate of change criterion to the above response criterion. The resultent plot is shown in Figure 8, and together they represent the equivalent time history boundaries for the MIL-F-87853 specified sideslip excursion with aileron step command inpute. D¥ Concept From discussions with electronic equipment suppliers during the ini~ tial phase of the SFCS progrem, it was learned thet in at least one development program lateral acceleration at the pilot station vas used as @ criterion paraneter for evaluating directional response characteristics due to aileron inputs. This coupled with comentsUndamped Natural Frequency - Wag Red/Sec 60 50 & s —— Category A Flight Phoses (Minimum wag = 1.0 Rad/Sed) — — Category 8 Fright Phases (Minimum ang = 0.4 Rad/Sec) i 1 ! I t I 1 ! 1 U7 ie oe Lv feo Bi oF 35 04 35 36 27 Damping Raio- 4 FIGURE 6 DUTCH ROLL FREQUENCY AND DAMPING REQUIREMENTS (CLASS IV, CATEGORY A AND B, LEVEL 1) 19Dog 1 2 3 4 5 Time Seconds FIGURE 7 SIDESLIP TIME HISTORY ENVELOPE FOR LATERAL STICK FORCE INPUT 20Degisec “4 $5 + 2 3 4 Time Seconds FIGURE 8 SIDESLIP RATE OF CHANGE TIME HISTORY ENVELOPE FOR LATERAL STICK FORCE INPUTnade by MCAIR pilots that lateral ecceleration is a principal motion cue parameter at high speeds, resulted in the formulation of the D* concept. The D* expression is a functional combination into one mathematical equetion of aircraft sideslip, which is considered the principal lov speed handling quelity paraxeter, end lateral accele~ ration, which is @ more important consideration during high speed flight. D* is defined as, DE Any. + K3B Where K, is a crossover gain constant vhich is related to dynamic pressuré as shown in Table ITI, In contrast to the C* concept where the equivalent gain constant is a function of velocity, the D* equation employs a crossover dynamic pressure to establish when low and high speed flying qualities are rated equally. (1) Crossover Gain Constant The crossover gain constant for the C* equation is also a di- nensionalizing constant relating steady state pitch rate to normal acceleration in the following way, (tig)88/Cagg) = (Kadv where the units for K are as given in Table I. In a similar vay, the steady state lateral acceleration end sideslip angle are related by the expression, (ny)98/(Bgq) = (Ks where the definiticn end units of K, are as given in Table III. The crossover gain for C* is explicitly constan: whereas K, is constant because the parameter Gy is reasonebly invertant Yaroughout the Fu flight envelopeé Prelininary investigations indicate that this pareneter is relatively constant for @ umber of fignter aircraft currently in use. (2) Crossover Dynamic Pressure Of the references included in the literature survey and review ed during the progran, very little flight test information was found to be directly applicable toward assessment of a cross over dynamic pressure value. Consequently, it was necessary to estimate | representative value based on pilct experience with ‘the Fh aircraft, and available information in Reference 3. The final value chosen during the analysis was based on the follow ing considerations: (a) The F4 primary flight control system mechanization includes an Aileron Rudder Interconnect (ARI) which is activated at 230 knots Indicated Airspeed (@ Sea Level, Dynamic Pressure 22TABLE I DEFINITION AND UNITS FOR D* EQUATION © Definition Any = Incremental Lateral Load Factor at Pilot Station B® Sideslip Angle Kg = C3 agg Sideslip Gain Constant cy mensional Constart Qo = Crossover Dynamic Presaure -9.91x 10-3 1.73% 10 =3.19x 10"! @ Assumption eo 7 350 1b/ft? 23(b) (3) = 180 pounds per square foot) to compensate for the ad~ verse yawing effect inherent during the landing flight conditions. Since the ARI is principally used during take off end landing (Phase C), it is felt that the value of dynamic pressure at Phase C initiation should be consider- e@ a lower bound for the crossover dynamic pressure used in Phase A and B. From Fl aircraft flight test deta obtained during rolling pull-out maneuvers, it can be shown that the meximm sideslip angle decreases from high adverse values at low speeds, to low proverse values at high speeds, with the transition point occurring in a dynamic pressure range of sbout 600 te 700 pounds per square foot. These values are indicative of the upper bound values for the crossover dynamic pressure. Amedian value of 350 pounds per square foot vas selected as the crossover dynamic pressure for use in the SFOS program in part because it is compatible with the above limits. This choice is also based on date as presented in Reference 2 and 5 for the F-84 and F-86 aircraft, In doth cases, data for the maximum leteral load factor during fish tail and rolling pull-out maneuvers show thet the pilots generated constant (maximum) sideslip values at low speeds end constant (maximum) lateral acceleration fet high speeds with transition occurring in ebout the seme dynsmic pressure range. D* Criterion Candidate Having assessed the physical importance of sideslip and lateral acceleration as described in the shove sections, an effort was made to combine these parameters into one criterion. It was reasoned that the lateral acceleration and sideslip angle contributions should be equal at cross- over dynanic pressure flight conditions in order for the criterion to represent high and low speed flight. If the ‘two are equal then the candidate sideslip criteria dis- cussed in Section V.2.b can be considered to represent one-half of the acceptibility level for both. The D¥ equation can be expressed, in modified form, as, Cae ey Rack cena and the sideslip boundaries can be doubled to form the new criterion es shown in Pigure 9. 242 Time Seconds we a 4 a «0 (Deg/Sec} 4 12) 1 2 3 4 5 Time - Seconds FIGURE 9 DIRECTIONAL TIME HISTORY CRITERION FOR LATERAL STICK FORCE INPUT¢. Directional Response to Rudder Command Input Analysis of the yaw axis response characteristics for rudder pedal inputs vas limited due to the unevailebility of sufficient informa~ tion in Reference 3 for establishing criterion boundaries as was possible for the lateral control input criterion. Consequently, no criteria boundary could be formulated and directional response in- vestigations for criterie development vere relegated to the simula tdon phase in which several configurations were tested. From pre~ liminary discussions vith flight test persomnel, it vas concluded that during yew axis control and flight maneuvers, pilots have differences of opinion in terms of rudder pedal usage. Some feel thet all yewing maneuvers are generally conducted with "feet on the floor", and they do not need a very responsive yaw exis. Others indicate some usage of rudder pedals, for mission modes where con- trol of velocity vector is important and small angie positioning of sircraft heading 1s critical. In general, it was felt thet a mini- mun transient response level was required to insure the: adequate maneuvering capability ves provided for use by those pilots who de- sired it. LATERAL, Pilot comments indicate that roll axis handling qualities ere principally influenced by roll power, roll sensitivity, and roll transient dynamics. ‘The Reference 3 users guide associates a mmber of requirements with the roll transient dynamics in un effort to maintain adequate speed of re- sponse vith minimum coupling of Dutch Roll oscillations into the roll axis. It was the intent of the roll axis anelysis effort to combine current specifications dealing vith: © Maximum Roll Rate Time Constant © Peak Roll Rate Oscillations © Ratio Of Oscillatory Component To Average Roll Rate Component into a time history envelope of acceptability which reflects in composite form the desired dynamic properties for a fly-by-wire type aircraft. Roll Rete Criterion Candidate - The normalized lateral-directional equations of motion shown in Appendix II were mechanized on an analog computer and the tine history response traces for step aileron command inputs vere recorded. Coupling and modai parameters given in Appendix B Were used as a guide in selecting representative values for use during simulation but no attempt was made to duplicate exact values correspond~ ing to stated flight conditions. Selection vas also based on following considerations:Modal Parameters It was assumed that random combinations of acceptable Dutch Roll frequency and demping values as specified in Reference 3 were compatible with arbitrary selection of roll time constant valves as shown in Reference 3. Coupling Parameters These parameters were varied at random with the constraint that the Reference 3 requirements for roll rete oscillation and ratio of itch Roll component to average rcll component were not exceeded. For all combinations investigated, it appeared thet the latter re~ quirement is the more stringent and coupliance with it usually satisfies the peak roll rate requirement too. ‘The date shown in Table IV give specific values for the coupling and model parameters used in the normelized equations (B20 and B21, Appendix IT) to generate the time history data chown in Figure 10. The roll rate criterion was formulated by drawing a periphery en- velope around the outside edges of the response traces as is indi-~ cated in the figure. The resultant plot constitutes the roll rate criterion candidate to ve used during the SFCS progrex for control lew development and equipment design. WEAPON DELIVERY Air-to-air and air-to-ground combat modes are the most severe fligh phases in « tactical environment since they require rapid maneuvering, precision tracking, and precise flight path control. In order to in- vestigate the performance characteristics encountered and to attain = better understanding of the transient dynamics involved, a closed loop analysis of the overall tracking loop was performed. The elevation and traverse errors between the attacking aircraft's gun- Line end its line of sight to the target were developed and are shown in Appendix iT. These equations are derived in terms of the attacking air- craft's velocity, angle of attack, sideslip and body rate, the tracking range and the target's velocity components defined in earth coordinates. Hise shown in Appendix II is the formulation of linearized block diagrams of the elevation and lateral fire control modes for tracking beth aerial and stetionary ground targets. After formulation of trecking loop equations an analysis was performed to identify which parameters significantly affect tracking stability and weapon delivery precision. Root locus techniques were used to sta~ bilize the tracking loop for pilot model gain and gun angle varistions, and time responses obtained using » digital progran (Reference 7) for two flight conditions. aTABLE IZ COUPLING AND MODAL PARAMETERS Configuration Number Note: X4X3 0 for al configurations. 28Normalized Roll Rate - Py (Deg/Sec) Time - Seconds a a é 2 Lower Boundary 0.1 1 2 3 4 5 Time - Seconds FIGURE 10 ROLL AXIS TIME HISTORY RESPONSES FOR LATERAL STICK FORCE #NPUT 29,Flight Path Program The digital program described in Reference 7 includes a six-degree- of-freedom airframe with flight path geometry and pilot math model. Tt de programed to aim the attacking aircreft guns at a target, stationery or moving, starting from some initial offae= position, to a final position satisfying the fire control mode requirements and approaching zero error in elevation and traverse channels, ‘The pilot model representation used in the study was a pure gain vhich vas varied with flight condition, This representation was selected instead of a more refined model vith frequency and phase sensitivity, Deeause it was previously established thet equivalent accuracy in closed loop tracking stability was obtained with the simpler rep- resentation. Digital Computer Results Time history traces were obteined for two flight conditions and two gun angle positions, Ye. The effect of longitudinel feedback vari~ ations on weapon delivery precision vas investigated by obtaining time history responses for the elevation angular error for different longitudine] configurations. Figure 11 shows the time history re~ sponse for the elevation angular tracking error for several of the configurations. ‘The time responses were obtained for the target aircraft flying straight and level et the velocity equal to the pursuer's velocity with the attacking aircraft initially 100 feet below and 2000 feet Dehind the target. The range rate was zero for all the traces ob- ‘tained. From Figure 11it can be seen that the elevation enguler error is a direct function of the configuration characteristics and that it varies proportionally vith the gun angle. The tracking performance is measured by how fast the tracking error approaches 1C mils or less and the length of time it stays below that value. For the configu- retions with higher order oscillations in longitudinal response, the angular error is very oscillatory, which vould indicate that the pilot would have a harder tine in keeping the error below 10 mils. From the studies and time history traces, the following conclusions can be stated for weapon delivery accuracy: © Aircraft short period pitch and Dutch roll damping have signifi~ cant affects on the tracking accuracy. © Increased damping improves tracking markedly. © Dutch Roll damping has a more pronounced effect on tracking than the short period pitch damping.Elevation Angular Error - Degrees | Elevation Angular Error Degrees Time - Seconds “Time - Seconds FIGURE 11 TIME HISTORY RESPONSES FOR ELEVATION ANGULAR TRACKING ERROR 31© Lateral tracking stability ie improved when the gun angle ia elevated above the instantaneous aircraft roll axis. © The optimum gun elevation angle is from 0 to 2 degrees above the vaterline exis. The effects of parameters such as stick dead zone, backlash, pre~ load, end coulomb friction were not analytically studied, but the simulator pilots indicated that the best control harmony, considered necessery for precise tracking with minimum effort, ie obtained with these parameters held as low as possible. 2SECTION VI SIMULATION To investigate the pilot's perfomance using © man-in-the-loop simulation, a conprehensive test plan was formulated using the analysis and study results obtained ebove as a guide. From the beginning, it was realized that a very couplete hybrid mechanization yas necessary to achieve high visual fidelity and maximum crew station realisn with the fixed bese simulator equipment. To satisfy this requirement, e major portion of the software and flight con- trol systen data was progremmed on a digital computer which interfaced throvgh an analog computer to the crew station hardware. Each pilot vas required to fly a baseline mission vith verious configurations and then provide = COOPER HARPER rating for each of five scored mission phases. Won-scored intermediate phases such as climbs and dives were included as transition modes to aid in blending the scored phases into one unified miss{on vhich took approximately ‘ten (10) minutes to complete. These transition moder also provided addition al opportunity to the pilot for open loop evaluations using rudder kicks and stick raps. Pilot comments on specific tests configurations which were in~ vestigated and a large anount of associated scoring data constituted the essential means of establishing the performance level achieved by the pilots in each category of runs. CREW STATION CONFIGURATION AND HARDWARE A fixed base crew station was used in the SFCS flight simulator which vas equipped with both center stick and side stick controllers and instrunen— tation for three-axis aircraft maneuvering throughout the flight envelope. a. Primary Flight Instruments Included in the SFCS flight simulator were the necessary instruments for control of aircraft altitude, angular rate, and velocity during flight. The solution of the equations-of-motion and coordinate transformet{one generated signals to drive the following instruments: © ATTITUDE/DIRECTION INDICATOR (ADI) © AIRSPEED/MACH METER © ANGLE-OF-ATTACK INDICATOR © BAROMETRIC ALTIMETER © RATE-OF-CLIMB IKDICATOR © NORMAL LOAD FACTOR © ENGINE TACHOMETERS 33.The following warning lights vere provided to the pilots: © FUEL LEVEL LOW ~ Fuel has been consumed so that weight is less than 33,000 Ibs. © ALTITUDE WARNING - Indicates that the altitude is less than 3000 feet. © DUCT OVERHEAT - The high epeed operational flight envelope of the aircraft has been exceeded when this light is illuminated. © MASTER CAUTION - This light is activated whenever one of the three Lights above are active. © SPEED BRAKE - Indicates that the speed brake has teen extended. © SCORING LIGHT - Flashing light indicates thet the entry conditions have been seticfied for that particuler mode. Depression of the score activation button on the center stick or side stick initiates the scoriag mode, and illuninates the Light in a stendy (non- flashing) manner. During transition modes the light is extin~ guished. Flight Controls The flight controls instelled in the cockpit include the following: © RUDDER PEDALS - Rudder pedal displacements caused by the pilot are sensed and transmitted to the hybrid computer in equivalent elec- trical form. A rudder fee] system in the form of a mechanical spring operates in paralle? with the rudder pedal linkage to pro- vide a reaction force feel and to recenter the rudde pedals in the simulator. © THROTTLE QUADRANT - A conventional throttle quadrant mounted in the left hand console of the crew station cockpit incorporates mechanical stops for the DIZ, MILITARY and AFTERBURNER power settings and provides throttle angles fron 20 to 120 degrees. The electrical signal from the throttle quedrant serves ns an input to the programed equations-of-motion end represents a comand signal to a simulated twin engine, symmetrical thrust, pover plant. © SPEED BRAKE - A switch located on the inboard throttle extends and retracts the speed breke in ¢he simulated aircraft aad initiates computation of aerodynamic drag for retardation of aircraft motion during flight. © CENTER STICK CONTROLLER - Lateral stick displacement by the pilot generates equivalent spoiler and aileron motions. A mechanical feel system, similer to that used for rudder pedals, provides the lateral stick feel sensed by the pilot. A specifically designed force feel/nyaraulic actuation system is used to generate a center- ing force in the longitudinal axis. Signals proportional to out- 4put displacement from this system result in stabilator deflec- tions. The stick grip has an operational trim switch used to manuslly trim the stick longitudinally. ‘The trigger button, bomb release button, and score activation button are located on the center stick grip. The trigger button is used to manually termi- nate the ground attack scoring, while the bonb button is used to terminate weapon delivery mode. When the scoring light is flesh~ ing, the pilot depresses the scoring button to initialize the scoring mode. 0 SIDE STICK CONTROLLER - A side stick controller ie installed in the crew station. Lateral displacements produce spoiler and aileron motions while the longitudinal displecements result in stabilator deflections. A feel system in the form of e mechanical spring is installed to provide lateral and longitudinal feel to the pllote. The pitch vernier thumbwheel (spring loaded) which generates input command to the pitch axis control system is located on the side stick. A trigger button, bomb button and score button are located on the side stick grip. They perform the same function as those located on the center stick which were described above. © SFOS TRIV PANEL - A trim pene?, mounted in the left console, con tains three electrical trim pots (non-spring loaded) for pitch, roll and yay channels and one yew vernier thunbyneel (spring Joaded) which generates input commands to the yaw axis. Seat Cushion A pneumatic seat cushion device is incorporated in the cockpit and its inflation ig regulated in proportion to the normal acceleration at the pilot seat generated through the airframe, During its opera- tion the pilot is pressed against e restraining seat belt harness by the air cushion device and is subjected to the varying force levels during the flight. A similar device is used Tor generating left-and~ right motion cues. Forces proportional to the lateral acceleration at the pilot station as generated during flight regulate the pressure in the twin cushion device for lateral motion. Longitudinal Feel Systen for Center Stick An artificial feel system 1s installed in the flight simulator to provide realistic stick forces to the pilot. The system consists of ‘the following components: (1) a transducer which senses mechanicel force inputs, (2) anslog equipment used to compute the force output of the longitudinal feel systen, and (3) en auxiliery hydraulic cylinder attached to the longitadina? control coiuan of the flight simulator. Signals proportional to the transducer output and the desired stick force are amplified and applied to the control valve of the auxiliary hydraulic cylinder. The auxiliary cylinder acte as a spring with 36fixed spring constant and movenent of the cylinder results in a farce Waich the pilot feels at the grip. Visual Display System ‘The display equipment used in the simulation includes a large scale terrain map (10 ft. by 4O ft.) shown in Figure 12 with s camera sys- tem which transmits the visual terget over the complete field of view to the crew station. The map scale is 1000/1 which givee ecuivalent translations of 10,000 feet by 40,000 feet and an equivalent eleva~ tion renge of 95 feet to 9600 feet. For the air~to-ground nodes of operation the target consists of a “bulls-eye" located or. the model landing etrip. An image of this target is displayed on s well screen inside the crew station room using @ television projector. During the dive combing mode of operation, a €1 mil depressed piper colli- mated at infinity is also projected on the wal! screen fer target tracking. In the strafing mode and air-to-air combat moce, the piper is automatically moved back to @ waterline reference point corresponding to gunline harmonization. ‘The equipment employed in the target aircraft image generation Is housed in two locations in the simulation arca. ‘The model tunnel area consists of a 3-axis gimballed aircraft model and a fixed tele- vision camera. The equipment located in the crew station room con- sists of a gimballed target projector for presentation of the maneu- vering target aircraft. Crew Station Hardware Usage Written instructions to pilots as summarized in Appendix ¥I indicates ‘their participation to be grouped into two phases consisting of en evaluation phase and a documentation phase. During the evaluation phase, the hybrid simulation setup including the g seat, trim penel and side stick controller was evaluated by MCAIR pilots wyo commented on their use for the documentation phase of the study as ‘ell as sub~ Sequent SFCS simulation efforts. Accordingly, all three features remained operational in the crew station for the remainder of the study with conditional usage based on the following reasoning: o Limited use of the trim panel by participating pilots regulted due to inherently good trim characteristics of the SFCS and emphasis on non-trim handling quality investigations. © Extensive use of side stick controller vas relegated to later SFCS simulation phases, as reported in Supplement 2, due to avai labil~ ity of Supplier's prototype hardyare. he side stick controller used in crew station was @ converted design aid unit which vas functionally representative but not entirely equivalent to the de~ sign generated in the time period after completion of this study.FIGURE 12 VISUAL DISPLAY TERRAIN MAP a”© Use of ¢ seat cushion was available for pilot usage and MCAIR Pilot data vas taken with g seat cushion operational. Mechanical Problems limited its usage during some runs and at times pilots elected not to use it because of the increased fatigue factor involved. COMPUTER SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION Operation of the hybrid simulator required interfacing the software digi- tal program with the crey station hardware and display equipment using a PACE 231 analog computer and Adage A-D/D-A Converter. Since most of vhe digital software for real time man-in-the-loop simulation is pro- grammed in FORTRAN IV computer language on a Control Data Corp (CDC) 6600 digital computer, the analog computer's function ie principally that of master control for all equipment and buffering of tine history recorders. ‘The digital software used in this simulation includes equations represent- ing a six-degree-of-freedom airframe, a three axia flight control systen, @isplays, and scoring computations. a, Airframe Characteristics A set of large perturbation, oix-degree-of-freedom differential equations of motion is used to describe the nonlinear motion of air- craft during flight. Additional equations are utilized to describe the atmospheric properties, body accelerations and velocity compo- nents. The entire set of equations used for airfrene simulation are presented in Appendix IV. The aerodynamic derivatives used in the equations-of-notion are con- puted in the digital computer every 20 milliseconds. The representa tion of the aerodynamic derivatives are functions of Mach number, altitude and angle-of-attack. Tables are developed trom basic propulsion data to simulete tne thrust developed by two engines. These data are functions of Mach number, altitude and throttle setting. Idle, Military and efter- burner power levels are progranmed and are available to the pilot for simulated flight maneuvers. b. Longitudinal Flight Control systen A block diagram of the longitudinal flight control system used in the simulation is shown in Figure 13. As ehown in the figure, the force input signal is shaped by a prefilter model before being gummed with the feedback signal. The error signal is applied to the simulated stabilator actuator which in turn generates the input to the airframe. The feedback signal, which is the sum of pitch rate and normal accel- eration forvard of the aircraft ¢.g., is used to provide inveriant ircraft response with changing flight conditions. The desired va: ations in aircraft flight path time history response are generated by selection of the proper prefilter model. 38eater Fitna Stet" | vata | ance Ts FIGURE 13 LONGITUDINAL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM, it “to FIGURE 14 LATERAL DIRECTIONAL FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM 39,Lateral-Directional Flight Control Systen he lateral-directionai flight control eysten show in Figure Uh uses yaw rete and lateral acceleration feedback to impreve the Dutch Roll aynemics end turn coordination. A canceller in the yaw rate fecdback loop washes out the yav rate resulting fron a steacy state turn. A prefilter is included following the rudder pedal force input to shave the you rete response. Roll rate feedback is used to improve speed of response, roll damping and 4/8 ratic. A high gain prefilter model is used to mask the basic airfrane response. Variations in roll rate response are achieved by varying the prefilter time constant. A rcll to yaw crossfeed is used in order to reduce the eideslip re- sulting from a rolling maneuver, Variations of proverse or adverse sideslip are obtsined by varying the crossfeed gains. Display Equations The equation of motion for the target model, and a coordinate trans formation from the simulated earth geometry to the tracking tunnel coordinate system were required for generating the displays used in the crew station. The transformation equatious inzluded Huler angles of the target and aircraft, along with relative geometry angles 25 computed in an earth referenced coordinate eysten with its center located in the aircrart. SIMULATION MISSTON AND TEST CONFIGURATIONS One of the goals of the SFCS control performance study and simulation wes to investigate if control lavs should be based upon mission modes or tanks rather than the traditional kandling qualities and control tech- niques. In fulfi2iment of this requirement, the airfrane software with flight control system mechanization as described above wes programmed to provide a series of relatively conetant sircraft respoase characteristics in the flight environment of the simulated mission. Groups of configura— Long were tested with a realistic mission profile to Jetermine hoy pilot performance in each mode is affected by simulated airframe response char- acteristics. Basic aircraft configuration used during simulation testing is described in Appendix IV; specifically alreraft physical date on gross weight, c.g. location, moments of inertia, and wing characteristics. F-l aircrart aerodynamic deva used In the slx-degree-cf-sreedom computer progran is given in Reference 11- The data and the values for the flight control system parameters as given below constitute the nominel configuration (Configuration lumber 1.01) from which flight control system variations were made as described in the next section. Side stick controller testing during evalustion phase resulted in its use for demonstration purposes and sone data taking. Acceptibility of SSC feel system dynamics was an arcaof further investigation in the follow-on simlation effort and it wi felt a more complete investigation can be made at that time. Limited testing of side stick controller toward criterion development vas scheduled for documentation phase but most testing was to be performed with center stick in which feel system dynamics more fanilier to the pilots were used as 8 reference. a. Simulation Mission ‘The simulated mission starts vith initial conditions corresponding to level flight at 1000 feet altitude and 0.85 Mach number as indi- cated in Table ¥. A manual terrein following systen representative of the APQ-99 was mechanized in the pitch axis and a terrain avoidance system with command inputs as shown in Figure 15 was mechanized in the roll axis. This terrain following/avoidence software generated steering signals in the digital computer which were transmitted to the ADI ball in the crew station for deflection of vertical /horizontal indicator needles during LARS operation. The pilot vas instructed to "fly the needles" to minimize the pitch and roll errors and was scored on how well he is able to keep both need2e near zero deflection. The scoring interval was automatically terminated after 50 seconds of flight. In preparation for the weapon delivery (dive bombing) phase, the pilot had to elinb to 10,000 feet altitude and turn to a nending of 45 de~ grees vhile making throttle adjustments to reach 300 knots calibrated airspeed. At this time a visual display was activated and a 45° dive boubing maneuver tovards a ground target vas initiated. Eleva tion error, azimith error, sideslip angle, and angle of attack vere scored during the WD mode. ‘The specified bon’ release conditions were 3500 feet altitude at 450 knots calibrated airspeed. The seor- Ing was terminated when the pilot pressed the bonb release button. Subsequent to pullout and heading changes as shown in the table, a precision cruise phase was initiated in which the pilots maintain con- stant attitude (p = q = r= 0), altitude (h = 10,000 ft), airspeed (.65M), and heading (y = 180 degrees) for 30 seconds. These task parameters vere also recorded and scored to determine performance levels achieved with different configurations. After decreasing altitude, 2 ground attack (atrafing) phase was initiated fron 5000 ft. altitude at a heading of 45 degrees East. The pilot task included holding the pipper on the displayed ground target and pressing the trigger when in firing range. ‘The scoring parameters monitored in this phese were the elevation, azimuth, total angular errors, and the sideslip angle. In the air-to-air (CO) combat phase, a target model was activated as soon as the pilot maneuvered the aircraft to the specified flight environment entry conditions with altitude above 19,800 feet, heading Worth and Mach number above 1.1. The target model then performed a canned evasive maneuver, shown in Figure 16, which resulted in de~ creasing airspeed and altitude changes with termination of simleted aPhase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phese 7 Phases Phase & TABLE ‘SIMULATED MISSION y= 90° (wy H = 1000 = 100 ft M= 35205 LAHS Fly Pitch/Roll Needles - Scored ‘Climb and turn to: = 445° (NOa5E) > 5° H = 10,000 * 1000 fr V = 300225 KCAL, WD Dive Bombing - Scored Climb and turn to: y = 180° (5) +159 H = 10000 £200 8 M85 RECON Fly Recon Mode - Scored Wthp=qersdf = 180° H = 10,000 #¢ M= 85 Dive ang turn to: y= +45? (NO4SE) +5? H = 5000 £500 GA Dive and Strafe- Scored Climb and turn to: y= 0° (N) + 20° H = 21,900 + 2100 7 M=1254 AIR TO AIR COMBAT - Scored 2soai6aq -9 ‘puewuog aBuy weg STVNDIS GNVWWOD JONVOIOAV/ONIMOTIOS NIVHUAL st aunts spuodeg - aut seaifog - ‘puounuog aBuy Wied WEIL20,009, 15,000 10,000] 20,009 FIGURE 16 ‘SPECIAL TRAJECTORY PLOT OF MANEUVERING TARGET 48 25,000_X (NorthCO flight phase after €0 seconds of scoring. Performance parameters processed by the digital computer included elevation and azimuth angular errors, total angular error, and range to the target. The mission was terminated automatically st the end of air-to-air combat scoring. Test Configurations Test configurations vere chosen to conplizent analysis results and to provide the simulation pilote with performance characteristics which vould aid verification of criteria boundaries esteblished during analysis. A totel of thirty-three (33) test configurations was in vestigated, with 15 longitudinal cases and 18 lateral-directional cages. Testing procedure, folloved during simulation, included mul~ tiple runs per pilot for each configuration. Referring to Figures 13 and 1i the nominal values for all the para~ meters are: HT Mn Or My #108 we Sy Fm 35s Hy Oy ayo OH by 2 Ore Ry 8 Onn ty Oy oy +39) Ke <1, KL 2 03, ty 2 35, ig =O eee or ee ie °p Kp = function of Flight Condition with aerodynamic derivatives given in Reference 11. (1) Longitudinal Configurations Compatibility of C* criterion with mission loop elesures and application due to time delays, lower C* boundary, nonlinearities and higher order terns were investigated in the pitch axis. The step response data presented show the time history character- istics as generated with flight control systen variations in relation to the C¥ and C* rate of change criteria. © ‘Time Delay Response Variations (Switch 2 only closed) Variations due to time delay (aT) were determined by holding the output of the digitally generated prefilter signal at zero for the specified (AT) length of time. Time histories for two values of delay time are shown in Figure 17. © Prefilter Time Constent Response Variation (SW 1 omly closed) Effects of lover boundary response variations were generated by varying the prefilter tine conctent (T,)., Four djfferent values vere investigated and the resulting Cy and dcy/dt time history responses are shown in Figure 16. 4520 15 Cy 10 Lower Boundary AT = 0 (Nominal) oe AT = 01 AT=024 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time Seconds sort \ 477 Upper Boundary \ 4.07 —\ AT = 0 (Nominal acy At=01 > ~ AT = 0.24 a ° Lower Boundary L ° 7 2 3 4 5 Time- Seconds FIGURE 17 LONGITUDINAL TIME HISTORY RESPONSE TRACES FOR TIME DELAY CONFIGURATIONS 4620 18 cy 10 05 Bory 40 Upper Bounsary Vereea T= 028 Lower Boundary T= 10 | T= 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time - Seconds FIGURE 18 LONGITUDINAL TIME HISTORY RESPONSE TRACES FOR PREFILTER TIME CONSTANT CONFIGURATIONS arfa) © Nonlinear Response Variations (SW 4 only closed) Nonlinear response variations were obtained with variation of Limits (Ly and bg) and the high pace time constart (Ty,). Corresponding tine history responses for step ingut aré show in Figure 19. © Higher Order Response Variations (SW 2 and 3 only closed) Variations of higher effects on C# were obtained by variation of prefilter gamping (t). ‘The normalized time history re- sponses for Cy and dcy/dt are shown in Figure 20. Lateral-Directicnal Configurations Iateral-directionel handling oualities were invertigated with variations in roll prefilter time constant, decoupled reszonces, and adverse/proverse yaw cheracteristics. © Roll Time Constant Response Variations (SW 6 only closed) Variations in voll rate response vere obtained by varying the prefilter time constant (Tp). Five different values of the time constant were investigated end the corresponding time history responses for aileron step command input are shown in Figure 21 for nommalizea roll rate (Py) and normalized roll acceleration (2). © Decoupled Responses (Switch 6 only closed) Decoupling between the lateral and directional axes was accom plished by modifying the airfrane equations of motion and setting the coupling aerodynamic coefficients to zero. Tine history traces for aileron step command inputs are shown in Figure 22. Similar traces for rudder step command inputs are shown in Figure,23 for sideslip angle and sideslip rate. ‘The corresponding D} and DY responses are shown in Figure 2h. Decoupled aircraft dynemics were investigated to determine if any improvement will result when the lateral-directionel serodynanic coupling is reduced to a minimum. Only a token effort was made in this area as shown in the final results, but the basic concept was to investigate dichotomous operation of the roll and yaw axis. 0 Adverse/Proverse Yaw Response Variations (Switeh 5 and 6 closed) Effects of adverse/proverse yaw variations were investigated vy changing the roll to yaw crossfeed gains. Time history traces for aileron coumand inputs are shown in Figures 25 and 26,