NASA Technical Memorandum

102889

USAAVSCOM Technical Report 90-A-008

Development and Evaluation of an Inverse Solution Technique for Studying Helicopter Maneuverability and Agility
Matthew S. Whalley

,,jrlc ,jr_4_,,

| ,_% c ,

July 1991

V
US Army Aviation Systems Moffett Field, CA Command 94035-1000 National Space Aeronautics Administration and

NASA Technical

Memorandum

102889

USAAVSCOM Technical Report 90-A-008

Development and Evaluation of an Inverse Solution Technique for Studying Helicopter Maneuverability and Agility
Matthew S. Whalley, Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California U. S. Army Aviation Systems Command,

July 1991

us Army Aviation Systems Corrrnand Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

N/LRA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035 - 1000

Contents

NOMENCLATURE

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

INVERSE Inverse Possible

SOLUTION Solution Procedure

ANALYSIS ................................... Solution Technique ...................

2 2 7

Shortcomings

of the Inverse

PILOTED

SIMULATION

EXPERIMENT

7 7 8 11 15 15

Configurations Tasks Facility Pilots Data

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

............................................... Description ........................................

............................................... Collection ..........................................

RESULTS 180-Degree Turn ......................................... ....................................... Experiment ..............................

15 15 15 19 24 24 27 30 30 32

Inverse Solution Piloted Longitudinal Simulation Pop-Up

....................................... ....................................... Experiment ..............................

Inverse Solution Piloted Lateral Simulation

Jink ............................................ ....................................... Experiment ..............................

Inverse Solution Piloted

Simulation

t ..

111

__rNT[NTIONALLy

BLA_ PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

CONCLUDING

REMARKS

35

APPENDIX Longitudinal Vertical

A -

MATH

MODEL

37' 37 38 40

Response

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

Response

......................................... Response ..................................

Lateral-Directional

APPENDIX

B - DEFINITION

OF

MANEUVERABILITY

AND

AGILITY

43

REFERENCES

49

iv

NOMENCLATURE
A
Cmax Cmin Ctrim

rotor disk area, ft 2 upper collective lower collective collective overshoot limit, in. limit, in.

Kovershoot

trim position, in. coefficient, nd

Lp L_o L_._ Lp, L_

roll damping coefficient, 1/sec roll control power, rad/sec2/in. normalizing roll control power coefficient, rad/sec/in. roll damping function intercept, 1/sec roll damping function slope, 1/sec/g pitch damping coefficient, 1/sec pitch control power, rad/sec2/in. normalizing pitch control power coefficient, intercept, 1/sec slope, 1/sec/g with roll angle, 1/sec2/rad with roll rate, 1/sec velocity, ft-rad/sec rad/sec/in. pitch pitch change change damping damping function function

Mq
M_ Mqb Mq,_

N, g,,
N,. g::

in yaw moment in yaw moment

yaw damping coefficient, 1/sec change in yaw moment with sideward longitudinal acceleration, g lateral acceleration, g load factor, g yaw control power, rad/sec 2/in. maximum maximum minimum maximum roll rate,

N,,
Nz

g,p
N zm.,,c

Nzm_ Nz_lnt
YzmLXChovl r

continuous load factor, g transient load factor, g transient load factor, g continuous load factor in hover, rad/sec ft/min

P q
T

R t T Too
U v

specific excess power, pitch rate, rad/sec yaw rate, rad/sec rotor radius, ft time, sec main rotor main rotor thrust, thrust

lbf out of ground

effect, lbf

main rotor thrust in ground effect, lbf body axis longitudinal velocity, ft/sec body axis lateral velocity, ft/sec total airspeed, ft/sec main rotor induced velocity, ft/sec body body axis vertical axis vertical velocity, ft/sec velocity for level flight, ft/sec

V
Vi w Wtrim

longitudinal damping, 1/sec lateral damping, 1/sec

z

height

above

ground,

ft

reference

Z acceleration

for trim flight, ft/sec 2

vertical damping, 1/sec collective control power, ft/sec2/in. collective control power function intercept, Z6_ Z6_,,_ Z6_tn collective maximum maximum ground

ft/sec2/in. ft/sec2/in. ft/sec2/in.

control power function slope, ft/sec2/in. 2 collective control power at a given flight condition, collective control power at a given flight condition, effect portion of Z force equation, ft/sec 2

z,.
X

sideslip angle, tad flight path heading, rad lateral stick input, in. collective stick perturbation longitudinal stick input, in. pedal input, in. lateral stick deadzone, in. maximum lateral stick input, maximum maximum maximum positive negative positive collective collective collective

from trim,

in.

6,

6.

in. perturbation perturbation perturbation in. from trim, in. from trim, in. from trim in hover,

in.

7
_)trim

longitudinal stick deadzone, in. maximum longitudinal stick input, climb angle, rad roll attitude, rad trim roll angle, tad heading, density, rad slug/ft 3 tad

P 0
_trim

pitch attitude, rad trim pitch attitude,

vi

SUMMARY
An inverse solution technique licopter using smooth, '_pilotlike" for determining the maximum maneuvering control inputs is presented. Also described performance of a heis a piloted simulation

experiment performed on the NASA Ames Advanced accuracy of the solution resulting from this technique.

Cab and Visual System to investigate the The maneuverability and agility capability

of the helicopter math model was varied by varying the pitch and roll damping, the maximum pitch and roll rate, and the maximum load-factor capability. Three maneuvers were investigated: a 180-degree accurate turn, a longitudinal pop-up, and a lateral maneuvering jink. The inverse solution technique yielded predictions of pilot-in-the-loop performance for two of the three maneuvers.

INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of this study, maneuverability is defined as the maximum achievable timerate-of-change of the velocity vector at any point in the flight envelope, and agility is defined as the maximum achievable time-rate-of-change of the acceleration vector at any point in the flight envelope. The development of these definitions is discussed in appendix B. The measures of maneuverability used in this study include maximum load-factor capability (both transient and continuous), maximum pitch rate capability, and maximum roll rate capability. The measures of agility used are the bandwidths questions must (damping) of the pitch and roll responses. the amount of maneuverability

Two separate and agility 1. What 2. What

be answered a specific

in order to predict mission: is required to achieve

(MA) required minimum minimum

to perform

level of task amount

performance

for specific that

maneuvers?

of MA is needed

performance?

As an example, consider how one would specify MA goals for a 180-degree level turn. One would first need to know how quickly and within what distance the turn would need to be performed in order for it to be effective in a particular mission. One would then determine how much roll-rate and load-factor capability was needed to satisfy the maneuver performance criteria. For a full set of MA design goals for a future rotorcraft to be developed, this process would have to be repeated for a complete set of mission maneuvers. This would be an iterative process as the tradeoits between the mission definition and final design costs were evaluated. It follows, then, that some fast and direct method of determining the amount of MA needed for specific would be beneficial. maneuvers is to use an inverse solution ap-

One way of determining

the MA required

proach. Several recent papers have addressed the inverse solution using various techniques (refs. 15). The inverse solution technique presented in this report is similar to one used by Thompson (ref. 6) to evaluate the agility of two different helicopters in some simple maneuvers. The technique has been extended here to predict the maximum maneuvering performance tion, and the extended technique has been implemented as a computer code. of a given configuraThis technique solves

for control time histories, given a precise fiightpath definition, by means of inverse solution of the helicopter equations of motion. By iterating on the task performance requirements, the maximum attainable performance can be determined if the MA capability of a helicopter is known. If the solution if performed in reverse, a more "goal-directed" approach can be taken to the problem of

Typacal approach

Inverse solution approach Specific MAdesigngoals

PolentlalMAdesigns

/1\
Figure 1. Typical approach agility design goals. determining

I -I
solution

I-I
r
approach

oluUon

Manei_el'ing performance chieved

Mneuverino performance required for specific mission

versus inverse solution

to determining

maneuverability

and

how much MA is required.

Typically,

one would

start

with a set of potential

MA

configurations and then solve the equations of motion in a forward manner, thus obtaining a set of maneuvering-performance data (fig. 1). This maneuvering-performance data would then be fitted to the requirements. By using the inverse solution approach, one can start with the specific mission maneuvers of interest, at the performance levels thought necessary, and then carry out the inverse solution analysis, thereby arriving at specific MA requirements. An additional advantage of this method is that the MA tradeoffs for specific performance needs can be carefully examined. This report (1) presents the inverse solution methodology and some issues associated with it,

(2) describes a piloted simulation experiment that was conducted to explore some of these issues, and (3) discusses some results of both the inverse solution analysis and the piloted simulation.

INVERSE

SOLUTION

ANALYSIS

The method used here for predicting the helicopter control time histories is based on a technique described in reference 6. The technique has been enhanced to calculate the maximum maneuvering performance for a given configuration performing a given maneuver. The process has been implemented as a computer algorithm. This section describes the inverse solution procedure and presents some possible drawbacks associated with its use. Inverse It is easiest used. to understand model, Solution Procedure by first recalling how a math model is normally response of

the inverse solution the equations

In a typical math

of motion

are solved to find the dynamic

the helicopter to a specified control input. By integrating the equations of motion of the helicopter, the fiightpath time history can be determined. The inverse solution starts with a specified flightpath, and solves the equations of motion for a unique control time history. Figure 2 shows the overall procedure used during this study for performing the inverse solution. The 180-degree turn, shown in figure 3, will be used as an example maneuver to illustrate the inverse solution technique. The turn is initiated at 85 knots and terminated at 70 knots, altitude is

START

1
I mance define requirements conditions boundary so as to meet the task perfor-

match perform thea boundary polynomial

conditions X(t), fit of

z(t),

V(t),

and

/_(t)

to

I trim the helicopter to match

initial conditions

I
i calculate_at he J _, V, z, and t new,
calculate inertial velocities and accelerations from X, z, and V I

guess new

#b and

1
[calculate _b using _b, 0, 8, and inertial velocities I

1
calculate body axis translational rates and and rotational rates using _b,e, and _b accelerations

[ solve

the

equations

of

motion

for

new

values

of

_b and

1 .otcoover_ece ?I
I calculate rotational accelerations

I
calculate control inputs I

oo[
t _

'final

l yes END

Figure 2. Inversesolution procedure.

m_

Rollin

Lateraloffset

/--oro
soft Figure 3. 180-degree turn.

constant at 50 ft, and the sideslip angle is held to zero throughout the maneuver. For the analysis, the 180-degree turn is broken into three segments: a roll-in portion, a steady-rate-of-turn portion, and a roll-out portion. The roll-in and roll-out are assumed to be of equal time length. The first step is to define the flightpath boundary conditions in terms of four flightpath state

variables. Four variables are required because there are four controls, and a unique mapping from flightpath to controls is desired. The four variables used to define the 180-degree turn are flightpath heading (X), altitude (z), airspeed (V), and sideslip angle (/_). The boundary conditions for the flightpath variables are defined as shown in table 1. A polynomial curve fit of the flightpath state variables is then performed for each of the three flightpath segments. The equations shown for the boundary conditions in table 1 are used to ensure that a smooth, continuous curve results. Care must be taken in defining the boundary conditions so that there are no discontinuities in the higherorder derivatives of the curve fit. If discontinuities exist in, for example, the third derivative of the flightpath heading, a discontinuous control time history will result. This is undesirable because one of the intents of the inverse solution procedure is to produce natural control time histories, control time histories which mimic the control strategy that a pilot would use in performing same task. In general, the aircraft equations of motion would be solved simultaneously for the i.e., the

aircraft

attitude and control time history. However, the decoupled math model used for this study allows the process to be broken into two steps. First, one solves iteratively for the helicopter attitude, and then solves directly for the control time history. A description of the math model is included in appendix A. The following iterative process is used at each time step to derive an attitude the polynomial curve fit of the flightpath boundary conditions: 1. Calculate X, z, V, and was done earlier. _3 at the new time interval as defined time history from

by the polynomial

curve

fit

that

Transform

the flightpath

variables

into inertial

velocities equations:

(Ynorth,

Ye_t,

Ydown)

and inertial

accelerations

(Vnorth, yeast, l/down) using the following

?
Vnort h

(2)
")' co6 X (3)

=
---

V 2 cos 7
V cos

Ve_t Vdown l_north l/_.t lldo,,_

= = = = =

V cos 7 sin X _,=-Vsin7 V cos 7 cos X - V'_ sin 7 cos X - VX cos 7 sin X V cos 7 sin X - V_f sin 7 sin X + V:_ cos 7 cos X = --17sin7V_,cos7

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

3.

Make

an initial

guess

at and 0. This curve

is done either

by using the previous time intervals.

values

or by

extrapolating 4.

from a second-order

fit of the previous velocities:

three

Calculate

using , 0,8 and the inertial

al cos + bt sin + cl = 0 where al = V.orth sin sin 0 + V_t bt

Cl =

(9)

cos

--Ynorth
Ydown

COS

"4- Yeast

sin sin 8

sin cos 0 - V sin and rotational rates and accelerations rates into the body axis

5.

Transform

the inertial

translation

rates and accelerations the inertial velocities. 6. 7.

(u, v, w, 6, _), and tO) and the rotational

(p, q, and r) using , 0, and

Solve the equations Check for convergence

of motion between repeat

(eqs. (AS) and (A29)) these new values steps 4-6 until accelerations. (A30),

for new values

of and 0. values. If they

of _b and 0 and the guessed

have not converged 8. Calculate

sufficiently, the body (eqs.

they do converge. Finally, solve the remaining body axis force

axis angular (A1),

and moment To obtain turn,

equations the

(A25),

and (A7))

for the control

time histories. one iterates time to reach

maximum

maneuvering until

performance limit

of a particular is reached. cyclic (which

configuration,

on the task boundary complete the maneuver their travel limits.

conditions

some aircraft until both

In the case of the 180-degree and the total inputs and the collective

the time to roll in and roll out of the maneuver are adjusted

are the same)

the lateral

Table 1. Boundary Variable t X I Point 0 I 0

conditions Point t#, 1

for the 180-degree Point 2

turn Point 3 tl XI 0 0 0
/

t!--tm

+l--$m

0 0 V

0 0
tmVi-3t,.VI+2t/V 2(tl-t,.)

0 0

- 3+,,,..v, ++,,,+V I K I +2t 2(ty-,P.,,..)

t I-tin

I -- t',m

0 0

0
Z

0 tin t! X! V/ Vf z time to roll in (equal to time to roll out) total time to perform final heading (180 ) initial airspeed final airspeed initial altitude the turn

(constant)

Note:

Constants

:_ and

I;' are assumed

from point

1 to point

2.

Table2. Experimental ariables v Max load factor

continuous, transient

Max angular rate

qmax, Pma_ 50, 5O 90, 90 150, 150

Damping
1

(at 1 g)

Mq, L v -1.0, -2.0, -3.8, -2.5 -5.0 -9.5

(g)
2.00, 2.50 3.00, 3.75 4.00, 5.00

Possible One should reasonable technique. overshoots consider

Shortcomings how representative

of the

Inverse

Solution

Technique technique really is. It is

of reality

the inverse

solution

to expect that a pilot's control technique might not match the inverse solution control There are several possible reasons for this. One is that a pilot will incur certain or undershoots that require stabilization inputs for correction. Also, a pilot is required (structural load limits, for example) and therefore to the true maneuver envelope. The inverse solution phenomena, thus gaining an advantage

to avoid certain maneuver-limiting phenomena leaves some small margin of safety with respect analysis allows

flight up to the very edge of the limiting

over the pilot. Another source of inaccuracy is that a pilot may be unwilling to command extreme aircraft attitudes or load factors in close proximity to the ground; the inverse solution has no such limits. Finally, it will be shown later in this paper that solution procedure do not necessarily reflect the true might, in some cases, perform these issues simulation the maneuver and to assess experiment somewhat the overall the polynomials that are part of the inverse "optimum" flightpath. Therefore the pilot better validity than the inverse inverse solution solution would. technique, that

To address a five-week experiment.

of the

piloted

was conducted.

The

following

sections

describe

PILOTED

SIMULATION

EXPERIMENT

To validate and refine the inverse solution technique, a five-week simulation investigation was conducted on the NASA Ames Research Center's (ARC) Advanced Cab and Visual System (ACAB) ground-based simulator. A set of maneuvers was flown with a set of configurations that represented a range of MA, and then the results were compared with those predicted by the inverse solution technique for the same maneuvers and configurations. The piloted simulation experiment is described below. Configurations Three configuration variables were used, two to represent maneuverability and one to represent

agility. Maneuverability was represented by the maximum load factor capability and the maximum pitch and roll rate capability. Agility was represented by the rate damping (or bandwidth) of the pitch and roll response. A summary of the experimental to reflect current at 85 knots, 7 variables capabilities which is shown in table 2. capabilities.

The load factor Table 2 shows

limits were chosen

plus possible

future

the load factor

capability

was the speed

used for the two tasks

in which load factorcapability was important. The table also shows the transientload factor capability. The load factorenvelope was variedby changing the load factorlimitvaluesused in calculating Z6c. Obviously,4 g of continuousload factorcapability isbeyond the limits current of helicopter performance, but it is usefulto explore this region for itspotentialmaneuverability benefits. As with the load factor capabilities, the pitch and roll rate limits were chosen to represent current capabilities plus possible future capabilities. Maximum achievable angular rate was varied through matched the L6o and the M6, derivatives. the maximum roll rate capability. Note that the maximum pitch rate capability always

The pitch and roll rate damping values were chosen as the other variables were. Rate damping was varied through the Lp and Mq stability derivatives. Table 2 shows the three pitch and roll damping pairs used during this experiment.

Tasks
Three tasks were flown during a lateral jink. The following three 180-degree turnThe this experiment: sections describe a 180-degree these tasks. because turn, a longitudinal pop-up, and

180-degree

turn was chosen

it exercises

three of the control

axes in an aggressive manner. Also, this maneuver can be considered representative of some of the aggressive maneuvering required of a modern military helicopter. The maneuver was conducted in the following way. The initial flight condition was steady, level flight at an airspeed of 85 knots at some lateral offset from a roadway. The pilot then initiated a 180-degree constant-altitude turn and tried to complete that turn before crossing the centerline of the roadway (fig. 3). The initial lateral offset distance from the roadway determined the aggressiveness of the task. Table 3 contains the task description and the task performance standards. To determine the maximum maneuvering performance for a given configuration, the pilot repeated the task at various offset distances until two criteria were met at some minimum offset distance. standards One criterion without was that the maneuver the centerline could be completed within the stated performance crossing of the roadway. The other was that the pilot was operat-

ing at his maximum tolerable workload. When these two conditions were met, the data-recording equipment was turned on and the pilot performed the maneuver until two representative runs were recorded. Longitudinal pop-upFigure 4 shows the longitudinal pop-up maneuver. The helicopter was initialized in steady, level flight (85 knots, 20 ft) at some distance away from an obstacle. Upon reaching a gate set at a specified distance from the obstacle, the pilot initiated a high-effort vertical pop-up to a height of 120 ft in order to clear the obstacle. After clearing the obstacle, the pilot tried to return the helicopter to straight and level flight with no more than 10 ft of overshoot above the final altitude of 120 ft. The aggressiveness of this task was varied by adjusting the distance between the obstacle and the starting gate. Table 4 contains a detailed task description and the task performance standards for the longitudinal pop-up. As in the 180-degree turn task, the pilot repeated the task until some minimum distance was

found where the pilot felt that the maneuver was barely achievable within standards. When these conditions were met, the data-recording equipment pilot performed the maneuver until two representative runs were recorded.

the stated performance was turned on and the

Table

3. Task description

and task performance

standards

for the

180-degree

turn

Task

description

Desired

performance

Adequate

performance

1. Maintain straight flight at 85 knots

and level

2. When ready, initiate 180-degree turn

Maintain

altitude

within airspeed

+30 ft; maintain above 70 knots

3. Terminate

the turn

such

Achieve

straight

and level

Helicopter

must

be nearly

that the final flight condition is straight and level

flight without overshooting the centerline; final altitude within =30 ft of initial altitude; >70 knots final airspeed

aligned with the roadway and converging toward a steady, level flight condition controlled manner in a

Longitudinal offset

i__775

knots 120 fl

8520ftknots

Figure

4. Longitudinal

pop-up.

Table4. Taskdescription andtaskperformance standards

for the longitudinal

pop-up

Steps

Desired

performance

Adequate

performance

1. Maintain

straight

and level

flight at 85 knots

2. Upon reaching the starting gate, initiate a vertical pop-up maneuver to avoid the obstacle

Maintain heading within 4-10; maintain airspeed within 4-10 knots as the obstacle is cleared

Safely

clear the obstacle

3. After clearing the obstacle, return to a steady flight condition at the initial airspeed 120 ft and an altitude of

Return to a stable flight condition at within 4-10 ft of the new altitude; return to within 4-10 knots of the initial airspeed

Helicopter

must be positively of

converging on straight and level flight with safe control altitude

10

100 kNOtS 40R

90 knots 40ft

Figure 5. Lateral

jink.

Lateral steady,

Jink- Figure

5 shows the lateral as shown.

jink

maneuver.

The

helicopter

was initialized

in the

level flight at 100 knots,

As the helicopter

approached

the first pair of pylons,

pilot was told by a randomized voice command to turn either left or right. the pylons the pilot initiated a left or right turn (as instructed) in order to as shown. After passing around the outer pylon the pilot would maneuver stable flight was achieved before passing through the final pair of pylons.

After passing through fly through the course the helicopter so that The aggressiveness of 5 contains a

the task was varied by changing the lateral offset distance of the outer pylons. Table detailed task description and the task performance standards for the lateral jink. As in the conditions completed. Facility The investigation was conducted matical model was run on an Applied Description other two tasks, the maneuver the lateral offset distance of the outer maximum pylons

was adjusted When

while these

the pilot practiced

until he felt he had achieved equipment was turned

performance.

were met,

the data-recording

on and two representative

runs were

using the ARC ACAB facility (fig. 6). The real-time matheDynamics AD-100 computer. The visual scene was generated structure. The Conventional

using an Evans and Sutherland CT5 system projected onto the inside of the dome field of view of the system is +70 deg horizontally and +45 to -15 deg vertically.

helicopter controls were used; a summary of the force characteristics of the controllers is contained in table 6. Figure 7 shows the simulator cockpit instrument panel. Rotor, engine, and transmission noise were simulated using a Wavetek Helicopter Sound Simulation System. A seat amplitude shaker and was used model frequency to simulate cockpit vibration. The vibration of rotor math model was based stick

on the vibration

developed

for a high-fidelity are calculated

UH-60A

Blackhawk

simulation speed,

(ref. 7). The collective

of vibration

as functions

position, load factor, Blackhawk simulation June 1989.

and airspeed. Extensive tuning conducted on the NASA ARC

of this model was performed during the Vertical Motion Simulator facility during

11

Table 5. Task description

and task performance

standards

for the lateral jink

Steps

Desired

performance

Adequate

performance

1. Maintain straight flight at 100 knots.

and level

2. Upon passing through the first gate, initiate either a left or a right turn (as previously instructed) in order to fly safely around the laterally displaced pylon

Maintain airspeed within 4-10 knots; maintain altitude within -4-10 ft

Maintain altitude

safe control

of

3. After passing

around

the

pylon, realign the helicopter with the original ttightpath and fly through the second gate with wings level

Fly through the second gate in a stable flight condition; maintain airspeed within 4-10 knots_ maintain altitude within 4-10 ft

Pass between

the final pair

of

pylons with safe control of altitude but not necessarily with wings level

12

Figure6. NASA ARC ACAB simulator.

Table 6. Controller characteristics Axis
Range _ne

Breakout (in) +.15 .10 .15 0

Gradient (Iblin) 1.5 1.0 2.5 0

Damping ratio .8 .5 1.0 0

Friction (Ib) 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

pitch roll yaw

he_ve

(in) 6.15 -4-6.10 -4-3.4 4.73-10.7

(Ib)
1.5 1.0 4.0 0

13

ORIGINAL BLACK AND WHITE

PAGE PHO]-OGRAi-,_

Figure

7. Instrument

panel

of the simulator

cockpit.

ORIGINAL OF POOR 14

t._,oE QUAUTY

iS

Low, medium,

and high audio

tones indicated

to the pilot the helicopter

load factors

correspondThe

ing to 90% maximum continuous, g meter on the instrument panel,

maximum continuous, and maximum and the seat shaker were additional Pilots

transient, respectively. load factor cues.

Six test pilots Army test pilot. was seen between

participated

in this experiment. had extensive

Five were NASA rotary-wing

test pilots and one was a U.S. No significant difference

All of the pilots

experience.

the pilots with regard

to task performance. Data Collection variables such as position, attitude, and rates were

Four types

of data

were collected.

Real-time

recorded continuously. Performance measures such as maximum track error and maximum heading error were calculated and printed out at the end of each data run. Pilot comments were recorded after each test run. Pilot evaluations in the form of Cooper-Harper ratings (ref. 8) were collected.

RESULTS
In this section, both the discussed for each maneuver. variables and terms the that actual results inverse solution results and the piloted simulation The results of the inverse solution will be presented the polynomials results results. Turn The of the piloted simulation results will be in terms of the in

are used to define the fiightpath, of the analysis. to the inverse solution

that are assumed for those variables, will be discussed

of how they relate

180-Degree Inverse Solution Solution Technique-As described

Inverse

previously,

the

180-degree

turn was broken

into

three segments: a roll in, a steady turn, and a roll out. The parameters used to define the flightpath are shown with table 1. The total heading change, XI, was 180 deg, Vi was set at 85 knots, VI was set at 70 knots, z was set at 50 ft, and f_ was held constant at zero. Once these values were defined, the boundary conditions for the maneuver were found using the equations given in table 1. The polynomials assumed for the X and V equations for each of the three segments were of the form X = a7 t7 "{"a6 t6 -{"a5 t5 -{-a4 t4 + a3 t3 "{-a2t2 "{-a1$ + ao V = brt 7 + b6t 6 + b5t5 A seventh-order These equations polynomial is needed
+

(10) (11) of each segment. The variables

b4 $4 -{- b3t3

-{- b2t

2 -{-bit + bo conditions

to account

for the eight boundary earlier to arrive

were then used in the manner

discussed

at a solution.

t/ and tin were adjusted until Table 7 lists the values of t/and configurations.

both the collective and the lateral stick inputs were maximized. tin that were found to maximize these inputs for the 27 different

15

Table7.

Values

at t f/tin

used in evaluating

the 180-degree

turn

Load factorcapabifity (g) continuous, transient Max pitch and roll rate (deg/sec) 50 -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 -1,-2.5 9O -2,-5 -3.8,--9.5 -1,-2.5 150 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 9.15,4.29 8.73,3.85 8.58,3.69 7.67,2.75 7.26,2.31 7.06,2.09 6.9,1.94 6.53,1.55 6.33,1.34 8.96,4.48 8.36,4.18 8.14,4.07 6.87,3.16 6.4,2.67 6.18,2.44 5.98,2.22 5.56,1.78 5.34,1.55 8.96,4.48 8.36,4.18 8.14,4.07 6.66,3.33 5.96,2.98 5.62,2.81 5.24,2.62 4.62,2.21 4.34,1.92 Damping pitch, roll 2,2.5 3,3.75 4,5

Figure 8 shows a typical time history

from the inverse

solution.

The configuration

in this case is

the medium load factor (3 g continuous), medium roll rate (90 deg/sec), and medium roll damping (-5.0 1/see). Note that the lateral and collective stick time histories achieve a maximum at the control travel limits of 6.1 and 10.7 in., respectively. Figure 9 shows the flightpath of the same maneuver. Inverse Solution ResultsAs stated in the task description, the lateral distance was chosen as the performance measure for this maneuver. Figure I0 shows the results of the inverse solution analysis of the 180-degree turn in terms of the lateral distance required to turn for each configuration. twenty-seven Each symbol on the plot represents a single configuration. There are a total of different configurations because there are low, medium, and high values for each of

three configuration variables. The configurations in the figure are grouped in the following ways: configurations with a common load factor capability are connected by a dashed line, and configurations with a common roll rate capability are grouped vertically above the appropriate value shown on the horizontal In general, eral distance configurations axis. The damping is indicated the load factor by the shading capability of the symbols. dominant effect on the lat-

it can be seen that

has the

required to turn. There is nearly a 40% difference in performance between the 2-g and the 4-g configurations. It can also be seen that there is little variation with

roll rate capability. This is somewhat surprising, as one might expect that the ability to initiate and terminate the maneuver faster would allow more use of the load factor capability, resulting in better performance. The roll damping has little effect on the lateral turn distance. This is because the damping affects only the roll-in and roll-out transient have little effect on the overall performance for this task. segments and will therefore generally

It should be noted that the medium load factor with low roll rate load factor with medium and low roll rate configurations both yielded not enough roll rate capability to take full advantage of the of the maneuver was spent rolling in and half of the maneuver

configurations, and the high solutions in which there was capability. rolling That is, half out; the inverse

load factor was spent

16

i_
_o

_ 4

_o

_9

_-8

i_

i= 10 '_

,
I I I I I I I

o !.4

s 6
4 I

-.40 -.8

{_

2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) ' 6 I 7

i,oo
50 Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time (sec) I 7

Figure

8. Typical

inverse

solution

state

and control

time histories

for the 180-degree

turn.

17

400

3OO

i
lOO I 100 I I 200 300 IJt*ral poultion (ft) flightpath for the I 400

o o

Figure

9. Typical

inverse

solution

180-degree

turn.

Dxml_ng Uq, Lp 01*.0) 6o0 -- o -1.o,..2.6 -2.o, 4LO -3.8, -0.5 5oo
n

.....

2g

"-',_oe. .....

"_e

_,j
lOO

%".....

_o_.

L__J l__.l L__J so 90 150 Max continuous pitch/rollrate (defi/sec) solution results for the 180-degree turn.

Figure

10.

Inverse

18

6OO

5OO

-_ _ 40O

3g

100

I L_J L_I So 90 150 Maxcontinuous pitch/roll ate(deg/sec) r results for the 180-degree turn.

Figure

11. Piloted

experiment

solution was never able to reach the steady-state load factor capability of the configuration and achieve a steady turn rate. It is interesting to observe that when this situation occurs, the effect of bandwidth becomes more significant. This is because consists of initiating and terminating the roll angle. The determination Piloted of a balanced MA (load factor such a large portion of the maneuver inverse solution technique permits the configuration for this task.

and roll rate capability)

Simulation

Experiment

The piloted results for the 180-degree turn are shown in figure 11. The results are plotted exactly as they were in figure 10 exoept that each symbol represents an individual run. The common load factor configurations are grouped by the envelopes shown, the common roll rate configurations are grouped vertically above indicated by the shading One can immediately the appropriate of the symbol. value shown on the horizontal axis, and the damping is

see the same trends that

existed

for the inverse

solution.

That

is, the

load factor capability of the improvement in performance consequence.

configuration has the dominant effect on performance, there is little with increased roll rate capability, and the damping is of almost no

Figure 12 shows an overlay of the inverse solution results There is general agreement between them. For this maneuver, reasonably accurate results. time history plots is presented

and the piloted experiment results. the inverse solution technique yields

A series of roll-angle

to illustrate

that

the roll rate limiting

phenomenon described in the previous section manifested itself during the piloted experiment. Figure 13 shows those cases where the configuration had a maximum roll rate capability of 150 deg per sec, a medium (3-g) continuous load factor capability, and medium (-5.0-l/see) roll damping.

19

Damping
Uq, 0 6OO L,p (1/No) -1.0, -2.5 -2.0, -5.0 -3.8, -9.5

6OO

30

_'-4g

100

60 Max oonUnuous

90 pitch/roll

150 rate (deg/u)

Figure

12. Piloted

experiment

and inverse

solution

results

for the 180-degree

turn.

Figure

14 shows

thoee

configurations

which

had

a roll rate

capability

of 90 deg per sec and

the

same continuous per-sec roll rate the high-roll-rate steady turn

load factor and damping. Figure 15 contains those configurations with a 50-degcapability and the same continuous load factor and roll rate capability. Clearly, configuration plot shows that the pilot was able to set a bank and maintain a a portion of the maneuver. The medium-rate plot shows the same effect but to

during

a lesser degree. The low-roll-rate plot begins to show the limiting effects of the roll rate capability; the pilot is spending nearly all of the time either rolling in or rolling out. Figure 16 shows the Cooper-Harper pilot ratings for the piloted experiment. Each symbol

represents one pilot's rating of a particular configuration. For clarity, the three load factor configurations are shown on three different plots. It can be seen that no significant trend exists in the pilot rating data. This was because, as part of the experiment procedure, the task setup (in this case the lateral offset distance) was adjusted until the pilot felt that borderline desired performance was achieved. This resulted in pilot opinion being naturally of four. Variations from a rating of four occurred when particularly responsive was made to eliminate and predictable these variations driven toward a Cooper-Harper rating the pilot felt that a configuration was

or particularly sluggish and unpredictable. An attempt by increasing or decreasing the lateral offset difference, but were allowed to practice

variations occurred nevertheless. the maneuver, variation between

It should be noted that after the pilots pilots in offset distance was minimal.

20

4 2 0
-4 -6

!"
Figure 13. Roll attitude, configurations).

40 0

-4O 0 2 4 6 Time (sec) 8 10 12

roll

rate,

and

lateral

cyclic

versus

time

(150-deg/sec

roll

rate

4
r$

!-,
-4 -6 0 -60 -100

40

_. o _- -40
0 2 4 6 Time (see) 8 10 12

Figure

14.

Roll

attitude,

roll

rate,

and

lateral

cyclic

versus

time

(90-deg/sec

roll

rate

configurations).

21

4 2 0

100 ,SO 0

J! E
e- -IO0

4O

e"

-40 0

I 2

I 4

I 6

I 8

I 10

I 12

Time(_c) Figure 15. Rollattitude, oll r rate, and lateralyclic c versustime (50-deg/sec roll rateconfigurations).

22

Damping Mq, Lp (l/sac) 0 -1.0, -2.5 @ -2.0, -5.0 - -3.8, -9.5 Inadequate

10 9

._=.
6 Adequate

_s 8

4
Satisfactory 2

I_J

i_J

I._J

10 9
m

Inadequate

7
P

Adequate O

t.

4
B

0000 @

3 2
m

Satisfactory

Lm

I__l

t_J

10 9 Inadequate

-r o GO Satisfactory

5
3
2 I_1 50 Max continuous

Adequate

I__J 90

I_J 150

pitch/roll rate (deg/sec)

Figure

16.

Cooper-Harper

pilot

ratings

for

the

180-degree

turn.

23

Longitudinal Inverse Solution

Pop-Up

Inverse Solution TechniqueFor the longitudinal pop-up maneuver, the pitch attitude, 8, has been used as a flightpath descriptor. This is because if airspeed is used as the flightpath descriptor, wildly varying pitch attitude profiles can result. For relatively small changes in the airspeed profile, drastically different pitch attitude time histories can result, if a solution can be reached at all. The solution procedure then is to trim the model at the desired initial airspeed, and then allow it to vary as the pitch attitude proceeds through its specified time history. By altering the pitch attitude time history, the desired final airspeed can be attained. This is analogous to what the pilot would do, i.e., the primary control loop for the pilot in this case is the pitch attitude. The parameters used to define the longitudinal the maneuver, zi, z! A8 V_, V! X tf pop-up maneuver are

total

time to perform altitude, change, airspeed, heading, angle,/3

initial/final peak attitude

initial/final flightpath sideslip

Initial altitude, z_, was set at 20 ft, z! was set at 120 ft, V_ was set at 85 knots, V! was set at 75 knots, and flightpath heading and sideslip angle were both held constant at zero. As was stated previously, the peak attitude change was adjusted to arrive at the desired final airspeed. Once these values were set, the boundary conditions for the maneuver were set in accordance with table 8. The polynomials used are of the form z = agt 9 + a8 ts + aTt ? + o,6t6 + ast 5 + a4t 4 + a3 t3 -{-a2 t2 + alt + ao 8 = brat 1 + bgt 9 + b8 ts + bTt 7 + bst e + bst 5 + b4t 4 + bat 3 + b2t _ + bit + bo where uniquely the order with of the polynomials the boundary is selected so that the unknown 8. These coefficients equation (12) (13)

can be determined used, in the final airspeed were found to

conditions

shown in table

were then

manner previously described, to arrive at a solution that provides both the correct and maximization of the collective input. Table 9 lists the values of t/and ti that maximize the collective and lateral inputs. Figure 17 shows a typical time history from the inverse solution. The configuration

in this case pitch travel

is the medium damping (-2.0 limits

load factor (3 g continuous), medium pitch rate (90 deg/sec), and medium 1/sec). Note that the collective stick achieves a maximum at the control the longitudinal travel stick displacement available. Figure required 18 shows to induce a profile

of 10.7 in. Also note that

the 10-knot view of the

airspeed loss is fax less than the maximum flightpath of the same maneuver. Inverse Solution Resultspop-up was the total longitudinal

The performance criterion that was chosen for the longitudinal distance required to perform the maneuver. Figure 19 shows the 24

Table8.

Boundary

conditions Point 0 zi 0 0 0 0
Otrim

for the longitudinal Point tit2 2 Point tf zf 0 0 0 0

Otrim

pop-up 3

Variable t
z

unconstrained unconstrained unconstrained unconstrained unconstrained

Otrim+ AO

...

Z Z

0 0
.

unconstrained unconstrained unconstrained unconstrained 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 X

0 0 0

Table

9. Values

of t I and AO used in evaluating

the longitudinal (g)

pop-up

Load factor capability continuous, transient Max pitch and roll rate Damping pitch, roll -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 9O -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 2,2.5 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 5.14,17.28 3,3.75 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2 4.03,21.2

4,5 3.33,18.56 3.33,18.56 3.29,18.5 3.44,24.2 3.44,24.2 3.44,24.2 3.44,24.2 3.44,24.2 3.44,24.2

(deg/s )
5O

150

25

o 4o -lO I 0
0 1 2

I
3

I
4

Time (uc)

i-

!.o
7S
0 1 Time 2 (sac) 3 4

84

Figure

17.

Typical

time

history

of the

inverse

solution

of the

longitudinal

pop-up.

26

140

120

100

2O

I 100

I 200

I 300

I 400

I 500

I 6OO

Longitudinal

position (fl)

Figure

18. Typical

flightpath

of the inverse

solution

of the longitudinal

pop-up.

results of the inverse that the pitch control maneuver, because as shown in figure Piloted Simulation

solution analysis in terms of the total longitudinal distance required. Note power and pitch damping have no effect on the inverse solution results for this

the maximum pitch rate required for the maneuver is much less than 50 deg/sec, 18. It can be seen that the load factor capability dominates the performance. Experiment

The piloted results for the longitudinal pop-up maneuver are shown in figure 20. The results are plotted exactly as they are in figure 19 except that each symbol represents an individual run. Also, the dashed lines which connect the common load factor configurations in figure 19 are overlaid on figure piloted 20. Only those configurations with the medium pitch damping were examined during the simulation experiment. there is general agreement For the configurations with

For the configurations with the 3- and 4-g load factor capability, between the inverse solution analysis and the piloted simulation data.

the 3-g load factor capability, the pitch rate capability had little influence on performance as predicted by the inverse solution. However, the inverse solution results for the 2-g load factor case appear to be slightly conservative when compared with the piloted results.

The primary reason for the difference between the inverse solution results and the piloted results for the 2-g case is the fact that the pilots tended to command a more rapid pitch input in the beginning of the maneuver, which resulted in a more rapid airspeed reduction and therefore a shorter distance to perform the maneuver. results from a typical piloted run with those Figure 22 shows the Cooper-Harper This can be seen in figure 21, which is a co-plot of the inverse solution for the 2-g configuration. for the longitudinal of four. measure desired pop-up. of

pilot ratings

As with the 180-

degree turn task, the ratings were all in the vicinity pilots were allowed to adjust the task performance until they felt that they were just barely achieving

Again, the reason for this is that the (longitudinal distance, in this case)

performance.

27

Damping Mq, Lp (llNc) o -1.0,-2.5 -2.0, -S.0 6O0 -- -3.8,4.5 000 5O0 _O ...... _00 4OO ...... -_00 "0"00 ...... O00 3g -_00 4g ...... -<>00 ...... -C>O0 20

100

t
50

I_J

I._

90 150 continuous pitch/roll raw (ctt_/_)

Figure 19. Inverse solution resultsfor the longitudinal pop-up. Damping Mq, Lp (lluc) 0 -1.0, -2,S -2.o, .S.O -3.8,-9.5

6OO -

,TOO

84oo

4g

!
i 3oo

0 ..J

lOO

I.__.__l
50 90

I_._......._l
150

Max oontlnuou, pltoh/roll rate (deg/Nc) Figure 20. Piloted experiment and inverse solution results for the longitudinal pop-up.

28

--

1412_
o

-_ -2 o

._

-6 -10 -

7S 70 I Time (sec)

"O

80

q[

...

0 1

I 2

I 3

I 4

I 5

I 6

i 7

I 8

Time (sec)

Figure

21. Time

history of a typical case.

piloted

longitudinal

pop-up

versus

the inverse

solution

for the

2-g load factor

Max rate pitch, roll (deg/sec) O 10-g B

Damping Mq, LiP (llsec) (1 OO -1.0,-2.5 -2.0,-5.0 -3.8, -9.5

50 90 150

inadequate

8-7--r
O O. el

6 5-4 3 2 1

Adequate

_(3

Satisfactory ,_ ....

I
2

I
3

I
4

Max continuous pitch/roll

Figure

22. Cooper-Harper

pilot

ratings

for the longitudinal

pop-up.

29

Table

10. Boundary Point 0 0 0 0 0

Z hic

conditions 1

for the lateral jink Point 3

Variable t X

Point 2

tl/2
0 unconstrained unconstrained
hic

tI
0 0 0 0
hic

0 0 0
VII{:

0 0 0
Yic

0 0 0
Vie.

0 0

0 0

i7

Lateral Inverse Solution used to define the lateral

Jink

The parameters altitude, airspeed, hic Vic

jink were

longitudinal distance of the maneuver, Xdiltance lateral distance of the maneuver, _/distance For this maneuver, the total time and the :_l needed to match the longitudinal and lateral maneuver distances were determined iteratively. The boundary conditions were defined as shown in table 10. Table 11 lists the values used in the analysis.
+

The polynomial

assumed

for X was

X = a7 t7 + o,6t6 + ast 5 and the remaining flightpath descriptors

a4 $4 -_-a3t 3 + a2t 2 + air + ao

(14)

z V

= = =

hic _c 0

(15) (16) (17)

The lateral and the results collective 150-deg/sec 50-deg/sec control

jink was analyzed for the configurations that were used during this experiment, are shown in figure 23. The results of the inverse solution show no variation with power and only small variations with roll damping. The configurations configurations with with a

roll rate capability have nearly twice the performance as the roll rate capability in terms of the lateral offset achievable. 30

Table11. Values X1 of

and t I used in evaluating

the longitudinal (g)

pop-up

Load factor capability continuous, transient Max pitch and roll rate (deg/sec) 50 Damping pitch, roll (sec -1) -1 ,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 150 -1,-2.5 -2,-5 -3.8,-9.5 5.43,5.94 5.68,5.94 5.82,5.94 9.39,5.94 10.54,5.94 11.34,5.94 14.5,5.94 16.41,5.96 18.04,5.98 5.43,5.94 5.68,5.94 5.82,5.94 9.39,5.94 10.54,5.94 11.34,5.94 14.5,5.94 16.41,5.96 18.04,5.98 2,2.5 3,3.75

4,5 5.43,5.94 5.68,5.94 5.82,5.94 9.39,5.94 10.54,5.94 11.34,5.94 14.5,5.94 16.41,5.96 18.04,5.98

90

Max rate pitch, roll (deg/sec) 0 150 50 9O 150

Damping Uq, Lp (1/_) Q O0 -1.0, .3.5 -2.0, -5.0 -3.8, -9.5

100 o

so

g.l
J
2

B
t
3

.II
1

B
l_l
4

Max continuous load factor (fl)

Figure

23. Inverse solution

results

for the lateral

jink.

31

Max rate pitch, roll (cieg/uc) 0 50 90 150

Damping Mq, 14)(1/uc) Q 1.0,2.S O- 2.0,5.0 0 3.8,9.S

250 --

2OO

=o
_1o0

50

I 2

L__I L__I 3 4 Max continuous load factor (g) results for the lateral jink.

Figure

24.

Piloted

experiment

Piloted The are runs

Simulation piloted with results that

Experiment for the longitudinal and the pop-up 23, except bars seem maneuver that each the are shown symbol standard the in figure the deviation. performance examines clear solution. versus -5.0, the pilots for the x-position maximum final that same gate they however, for both roll (1,000 were rate ft) level to that time that estimates histories the pilots made of the were 24. The results of the

plotted made On first

exactly

as they

were in figure

represents

average

configuration the piloted are grossly

represent to indicate

inspection, solution the maneuver

results

that

using pilots flying

the inverse flying the maneuver

conservative. to the inverse than stick, was roll the from solution both change the

However, solution,

if one

as compared differently of lateral for five be seen resulted passing

it becomes

quite plots and angle flight from It can

assumed angle by and were

for the inverse lateral pilots inverse final gate. the passing position (Lp equals through solution clear pilot

Figure the with flight achieve the inputs Finally, power and inverse equals

25 shows solution roll level result piloted lack

runs that

made

three to the the

90 deg/sec). an average by the steady that the the same

pilots a failure

of 40 deg, This before

as opposed through

assumption be noted,

of steady

point.

to make

to the inputs

It should

the inverse do show

do resemble improved collective

maneuver. roll control seen in the

results of

performance control

with power

increasing that was

performance

with

inverse solution results. Also, the expected, because the pilots were of aggressiveness (fig. 26).

Cooper-Harper pilot flying the maneuver

ratings to what

fell just inside the Level 2 region, as they felt to be their maximum level

32

r-

Inverse solution,,j_

{o
i__

jo

120
'I=

On
I

o
0

I
4 IX)

I
800

_
1200

--i

Longitudinal

position (11)

Figure lateral

25. jink.

Lateral

stick,

roll attitude,

and

lateral

position

versus

longitudinal

position

for the

33

Maxrampitch,
roll (deo/eec) 0 10 9 II 60 90

Oompino
Uq, Lp (lleec) (:1 O.
al_im_imD

1.0,2.6 2.0,5.0
line

_ ,..+.-......
Q.

a u,u

inadequate

,,,m

iin

ee

el

Im

el

Ill

al

ill

im

Adequ|lo 4 I 5 S 2

I
2

I__i
3

I
4 load lector (g)

Max conlinuous couidnotmflorm lask

Figure 26. Cooper-Harper pilot

ratingsfor the lateral ink. j

34

CONCLUDING
Two things separate this inverse solution study

REMARKS
from previous work in the same area. First,

in this study, the inverse solution technique was used to determine the maximum maneuvering capability of a given MA configuration using "pilotlike" control inputs. That is, the flightpath definitions were varied until maximum control authority was used, but with the constraint that the control data inputs had to be smooth in order and continuous. whether Second, the inverse extensive solution pilot-in-the-loop was valid. simulation was gathered to determine

In general, for the three maneuvers described, generate the desired ttightpaths with smooth control

the inverse solution could be easily made to inputs. Numerical convergence was rapid, and

very few difficulties were encountered in reaching a solution once a polynomial representation of the fiightpath had been established. For the 180-degree turn and the longitudinal pop-up the technique yielded accurate predictions of what the pilot could be expected to perform. For the lateral jink, the inverse solution results did not match the piloted simulation results, but this was because the pilots were flying the maneuver maneuvers in a different during manner. this experiment, the inverse solution technique cor-

For the three

examined

rectly predicted the relative effects that the various MA parameters had on maneuvering performance. For the 180-degree turn, the MA variable that dominated performance was the load factor capability, whereas the roll rate and damping had little effect. For the longitudinal pop-up, the load factor capability dominated performance. For the lateral jink, the roll rate capability dominated performance It was not and the load factor demonstrated that capability being and roll damping close to the ground had little effect. limit had any

or close to an aircraft

effect on the pilot's willingness indicates that this was because

to make full use of the maneuvering the maneuvers were flown repeatedly,

envelope. Pilot commentary which resulted in a high level of an accident, the

of pilot proficiency and comfort. Also, because pilots tended to make use of all of the maneuver It is important performance performance. of variations. approach to point out that, although

the simulator posed no threat envelope available to them. the aim of this technique

was to find the maximum "optimum" of calculus a different

that could be achieved by a pilot, the technique does not result in the To achieve the optimum solution one would have to use the method Obviously, the same piloted simulation data could be used to validate solution problem.

to the inverse

The simple math model used for this study proved to be quite flexible, which aided in setting different levels of MA. This was an important feature for this particular study. In the future it may be desirable to use a high-fidelity complexity helicopter math model, but a more complex model will increase the computational of the inverse solution.

35

APPENDIX MATH MODEL

A six-degree-of-freedom stability derivative model called the enhanced stability derivative (ESD) model was used for this study. The ESD model is basically a nonlinear model with linear aerodynamics. It includes the effect of load factor on the pitch and roll rate damping derivatives, the effect of forward speed on the force derivatives, a collective trim curve, and a ground effect model. The attitude response is rate-type in pitch, roll, and yaw, with automatic turn coordination above 50 knots. The total aerodynamic forces and moments required for the six-degree-of-freedom equations

of motion expansion pitch and

are generated as the summation of reference and first-order terms of a Taylor series about a reference trajectory. The model includes no control or response coupling. The roll response is rate command, the yaw response is rate command at low speed with derivatives are ramped axes is included below. in

automatic turn coordination above fifty knots. The turn coordination between thirty and fifty knots. A description of each of the individual Longitudinal The y-axis inertia is calculated directly: is eliminated from the moment Response equation for pitch

so that the pitch acceleration (A1)

Cl= Mqq + M6_6e Mq is calculated as a linear function of load factor: M a = Mq., Nz + Mqb

(A2)

The value of Mq_ was taken from reference 9. A summary of the configuration values that are used for Ma, _ and Mqb is included in table A1. M6, is calculated to provide a constant maximum pitch rate capability independent of the load factor:

Ma. = M .,Ma
where
A,f

(A3)

-_'qrnax

= 180(6, _ A summary of the values that are used for qmax is included is calculated iz = Xuu as follows: - 9 sin 0 - wq + vr in table 2.

(A4)

The x-direction

acceleration

(A5)

Table

A1. Slope Damping low medium high

and intercept Mq -1.0 -2.0 -3.8 Mq,,, -1.5 -1.5 -1.5

values used to calculate Man 0.5 -0.5 -2.3 Lv -2.5 -5.0 -9.5 Lp,_ -1.5 -1.5 -1.5

Mq and Lp Lpb -1.0 -3.5 -8.0

37 PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

where Xu = -2.65 10 -4 lul (A6)

Vertical The vertical acceleration is expressed by

Response

_b = Z_w

+ Zg, + Zr + Z_c6c + g cos 0 cos - vp + uq using a least squares

(A7) fit of UH-1 stability

Z,_ is considered a function of u and w and determined derivative data taken from reference 10 (see fig. A1). The ground effect momentum theory: term, Zge, is calculated

by first finding

the

induced

velocity

using

simple

--y

(A8)

where V is the total airspeed in ft/s, p is air density (0.002378 slng/ft3), and A is the disc area (1257 ft2). Using this value of v_, thrust IGE over the thrust OGE can be found (ref. 11):

T, =

1 ]
above ground. From this expression

(Ag)
the

where R is the rotor radius (20 ft) and z is the disc height ground effect component can be calculated:

Zr is a reference

term

required

to cancel

the effects

of gravity

and vertical

damping

in trim: (A11)

Zr = -g cos 0trim cos Ctrim - Z_,wtrim where for straight and level flight,
Otrim

=sin_

1 (Xuu_ \ g / ( -Yvv

(A12)

Ctrim

--_

sin -1

\gcos

_trirn

(A13)

u tan
Wtrim --

0trim
U

COS Ctrim

tan

Ctrim

(A14) body velocity as opposed

The reader to perturbation

is reminded velocity.

that

u in this case represents

total

longitudinal

The collective sensitivity term, Z_c , is calculated as follows. First, the collective trim position (Ctrirn) is obtained using the trim curve shown in figure A2. Then the minimum and maximum collective inputs are calculated:
{_cmu ---_ Cmax -Ctrim

(A15)

38

0 -25 -50

2O

40

60

8O

100

120

140

Ubody (W,ec)

Figure

A1. Z_ vs. u vs. w.

4 -20

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Airspeed (knots)

Figure

A2. Collective

trim position

vs. airspeed

(out of ground

effect).

(_c,.ln = Crnin -- Ctrim

(A16) expression relating the con-

The maximum tinuous load factor

continuous capability

load factor

is calculated

using a simple capability

at hover and the load factor

at the current

airspeed: (A17)

_fc=_. N,=, c The three capability Next, load factor values of Nz=,=Ch_ at 85 knots (Nz,_l the maximum by a constant: N,,,_, = (Nz,,,., - 1) * Kover, hoot+ Nz=._c transient
= Nzm_cho,,= r _Crm_ho,_ r

were 1.34, 2.02, and 2.69 g, which of 2, 3, and 4 g, respectively. load factor is calculated

gave a continuous

load

factor

by multiplying

the maximum

continuous

(A18) envelopes, overshoot above the overshoot and

The overshoot constants (Kovershoot) used are 0.5, 0.375, and 0.333 for the 2-, 3-, and 4-g respectively, to keep approximately the same percentage of overshoot capability. The constant is washed out to zero using a three-second time constant if the load factor is continuous limit. When the load factor drops back below the continuous limit, the factor returns to its original value using the same three-second time constant. maximum values of Z_, are then calculated: -gN,,,_, + g cos #trim COSCtrim

The minimum

(A19)

39

Z6cmin

__- -ggzmin

t -_- g cos

6_1.

0trim

COS _btrim

(A20) 4-g envelopes,

The valuesof
respectively. A slope

Nzm_,

(above

50 knots)

were

0, -0.5,

and

-1 g for the 2-, 3-, and

and an intercept

are then

found

as shown

here: (A21)

Cma x --

Cmi n

Z6_ = Z6_. The collective position: perturbation is the difference

_c

- 6c._ Z6,., the collective

Ctrim

(A22) position and the collective trim (A23)

between
= C-

and this value is used to calculate

Z6c:

zeo = cze. + z6o.

Lateral-Directional The roll response of the helicopter is similar Response to the pitch response, i.e.,

(A24)

_a= Lvp + L6o6a Lp is calculated as a linear function of load factor: L v = Lv._Nz The value of L w was taken from reference + Lp, of the configuration to provide a constant values that

(A25)

(A26) are used roll rate

9. A summary

for Lv, and Lp, is included in table A1. L6o is calculated capability independent of the load factor: L_. = L_ok L v where

maximum

(A27)

-Trpm_ Leo,, = 180(6o_u - 6_m.) A summary of the values that are used for Pm_, is included is calculated as follows: in table 2.

(A28)

The V-direction

acceleration

i_ = Y_v + g cos $ sin - ur + wp where Yv = -0.08 1/sec. is calculated as follows: + gpp

(A29)

The yaw acceleration

i" = Nrr + g_p5 v + g_cp + Nvv

(A30)

where Nr = -2 1/sec and Ne_ = 0.6 rad/sec2/in. The derivatives NV, Nv, and N v are functions of total airspeed and are shown in figures A3, A4, and A5. stability derivatives are scheduled such that weathercock stability exists above 30 knots and automatic turn coordination exists above 50 knots.

40

.8

.4 _, Z .2

_f I
2O

40

60

80

100

Airspeed (knots)

Figure

A3. NV vs. airspeed.

30x10-3

"I /"<
15 10 5

_
0

i
20

I
40

I
60

I
80

I
100

Airspeed (knots)

Figure A4. Nr vs. airspeed.

.4

.3
A

.1

I
20

I
40

J
60

I
80

I
100

Airspeed (knots)

Figure

A5. Np vs. airspeed.

41

APPENDIX DEFINITION OF MANEUVERABILITY

B AND AGILITY

Many authors have tried to define maneuverability and agility (MA) (refs. 12-20). The intent of this appendix is to summarize the definitions that have been given in the past into one definition of MA. Why Before is needed these two critical and in what context Define attributes it might Maneuverability can be defined, be used. and more and Agility? why a definition

it must first be understood

In the past, most air vehicle designers have had a general idea of what maneuverability agility are. Their efforts to increase MA have been focused in areas where the pilot demanded

of what he perceived to be a good thing (load factor or roll rate, for instance). This approach has worked reasonably well in the past, which might lead one to conclude that an attempt to precisely define MA is an unnecessary exercise in semantics. This is definitely not the case. Technological advances have given today's aircraft designer a myriad of options such as tilt rotors, auxiliary thrusters, high-angle-of-attack control, vectored thrust, etc. This leaves the designer with the difficult task of deciding which of these configuration options will result in the highest mission effectiveness. Even after a configuration is chosen, the relationship between the aircraft design parameters and mission effectiveness is quite complex.

Figure B1 illustrates the relationship between mission effectiveness and MA. Mission effectivehess results largely from the handling qualities of the vehicle. Handling qualities are the combination of flying qualities The term and other 'TIandling outside Qualities" factors. requires To quote from Cooper and Harper (ref. 8): that that the the

a clear definition

in order

to emphasize

it includes more than influence the handling

just stability and control characteristics. Other factors qualities are the cockpit interface (e.g., displays, controls), visibility, turbulence) and stress,

aircraft environment (e.g., weather conditions, effects of which cannot readily be segregated.

Figure B1 diagrams the various interactions between handling qualities influence them. Note that it draws a distinction between flying qualities This set of definitions discuss MA. As previously (proposed by Key, unpublished) provides a convenient

and the factors which and handling qualities. structure on which to

stated,

the number

of permutations

required

to examine

the influence

of all design

parameters on mission flying qualities needed, to achieve the desired determining which

effectiveness is staggering. Suppose, however, that one first determines the in terms of maneuverability, agility, stability, and controller characteristics, mission effectiveness. The designer would then be left with the task of best satisfied the desired flying qualities. As a result, the streamlined. 13 partially Current aeronautical design standards and specifications specify the required flying qualities for air vehicles but fail A clear definition of MA is required before such a

configuration/design

process would be greatly such as those of reference to clearly specification define and can be written.

specify

MA requirements.

43 P, IE_INTENTIONALLY U BLANI PRECEDir,_G PAGE BLANK NOT FILMED

Weapon system

81aidllty

Flying qualities

MlnlUVlltldllly Fighting qualifies

Mission luk

_l Mission effecUveness Handling qualltlm I Task performance Training requirements Attrition rate

Figure B 1. Relation

of _

to mission effectiveness.

Definitions

of Maneuverability

and

Agility

in the

Literature The intent of this

As stated previously, there are many definitions section is to present and interpret those definitions. To begin with, Webster's defines maneuverability an intended and controlled variation from a straight

of MA in the literature.

as the quality or state of being able to make and level flight path in the operation of an

airplane. Agility is defined as the quality or state of being able to move with quick easy grace. These definitions of MA are worth noting because they form a basis on which precise aircraft MA definitions can be constructed. is the measure of an aircraft's These definitions can be interpreted to mean that maneuverability ability to move away from trim, and agility is the measure of an These basic elements are important and will

ability to make that move with "quick easy grace." be referred to again in the following paragraphs. In reference 13, Olson defines maneuverability: can be defined as the ability

Maneuverability

to change

the flight path of an aircraft

through the application thrust margins inherent turn rate.

of acceleration. It is primarily a function of the power and in the aircraft design. Typical measures are rate of climb and

Oison defines

agility

as follows:

Agility

can be thought

of as the rate

of change

of maneuverability.

It is the quickness

with which different maneuver states can be entered or exited. Agility depends on control power, damping and handling qualities. The primary measure of agility is the elapsed time to make the desired change in maneuver state. Most maneuvers performed by an aircraft inappropriate combine the elements of both to deal with them independently. maneuverability and agility, making it

44

Olson'sdefmitionof
generalized, however,

maneuverability

agrees

in general

with Webster's

definition. and not just

It has been acceleration we are from a

to include

acceleration

ability

in all flight phases

away from a straight and level flight condition. This is a useful generalization obviously interested in the ability of the aircraft to return to a steady flight maneuvering state or to transition from one maneuvering state to another. Olson's definition of agility as the rate of change of maneuverability it does not contain the element of "quick easy grace" as was stated

because condition

is not uncommon. However, in Webster's definition. Also,

this author would argue that handling qualities depend on agility, not vice versa (see fig. B1). Finally, although it is true that most maneuvers contain both maneuverability and agility, it is this author's contention that they can be defined defines He defines independently. it into two separate measures: overall

In reference agility

14, Thomson agility. is the speed,

agility only, and breaks overall agility

and inherent Overall agility

as follows: can change it's position and state

ease with which and safety. agility as

a helicopter

with precision, Thomson defines

inherent

...the "configuration" quantified analytically Thomson's definition

agility of a particular helicopter while overall agility cannot.

design.

Inherent

agility

can be

definition of agility certainly encompasses the "quick easy grace" aspect. His agility also adds the element of safety. Unfortunately, it does nothing to clarify the difference and agility; in fact, it lumps both into the same definition. Also, note definition of inherent agility is encompassed in the box labeled "flying

between maneuverability the fact that Thomson's qualities" Levine in figure B1. defines

maneuverability

in reference

15:

Maneuverability can be described as the ability to change the state of the vehicle flight path, either through a change of energy (acceleration along the path) or of direction (application factor, turn power Levine margin, agility: of normal acceleration). It can be measured as the limiting values of load rate, climb/descent rate, and accel/decel capability. It is influenced by rotor aerodynamic limits, and structural constraints.

defines

Agility can be described as the ability to change the maneuver state. It can be measured in terms of the roll, pitch and yaw time constants, the accuracy or "crispness" of maneuvering, with vehicle integration, Levine's believes definition that and the pilot workload. Agility is greatly influenced handling qualities, such as control power, inertia, and engine response. than the two preceding and acceleration definitions; normal however, this author can be by factors associated controls and systems

of MA is more thorough along

acceleration

the fiightpath

to the

flightpath

45

grouped together and referred to just as acceleration capability. Also, referring again to figure B1, handling qualities result from MA, stability, and performance, not the other way around. In reference When 16, Houston defines agility only: as agile, the intuitive idea is that it can change speed and

something

is described

position rapidly, even violently, but with absolute precision, in order that its task may be fulfilled in the shortest possible time. This is generally true of aerospace vehicles and so agility embraces two, sometimes and handling qualities. separate areas of aircraft design, namely performance

This definition contains the element of precision but obviously differs from the previously described relationship of MA to flying qualities in its use of the terms performance and handling qualities. In reference 17, Curtiss defines maneuverability: to be associated with the limiting flight paths that are possible

Maneuverability is taken for a given rotorcraft. Curtiss also defines agility:

Agility

is associated

with the time required

to establish

the specific flight path. However, capability he does capture of the aircraft.

Curtiss's definitions are not as precise as some of the previous definitions. the fact that maneuverability is associated with the limiting or maximum In reference 18, Lappos defines maneuverability as

...the measure of the ability to change the velocity vector or energy state. Measurables: accelerations, Nx, N_, Nz; rate of climb Predictors: usable specific excess power, Ps; available normal acceleration, Typical limitations: engine power output, loads, stationary system static loads. He defines ...the agility as of the time required to change maneuver state. available authority drivetrain torque, rotating system

Nz vibratory

measure

Measurables: Control power, handling qualities, Predictors: Control power/damping relationship, Lappos's definition interest (and perhaps of maneuverability more useful to the

pilot ratings, yaw control

control

margins

is in keeping with the previous definitions. Also of designer) are the limiting factors which he includes. of maneuverability which we have to enter and exit a maneuver state.

His definition of agility is not exactly the time-rate-of-change seen previously, but simply a measure of how long it takes Unfortunately, he fails to define the maneuvering state. The aimed fixed-wing toward literature agility also contains rather than many definitions maneuverability. 46

of MA.

Most

of the there

work has been deal of

defining

In addition

is a great

interestin defining"agility metrics,"that is, precise

definitions are only a few of the most recent. 19, Cliff defines agility as In reference

quantitative

measures

of agility.

The following

the rate at which one can change Cliff defines he actually agility here in a way that defines an "agility vector"

the net force acting is common

on the vehicle. literature. In this paper vector.

to most of the fixed-wing the derivative

which is simply

of the acceleration

In reference 20, several different agility definitions The paper basically summarizes the results of several topic. The 1. following are the agility definitions

and associated agility metrics are presented. government and industry conferences on the by four of the major participants.

presented

General

Dynamics:

...the ability to point the aircraft quickly, continue pointing the aircraft, and accelerate quickly. It is a function of maneuverability, as represented by the force equations, and controllability, 2. Eidetics: as represented by the moment equations.

...a

higher

order

function

of point

performance into three

and maneuverability components representing to the (1) acceleration/ flightpath, and

Qualitatively,

Eidetics

separates

agility

deceleration along the flightpath, (2) symmetrical turning perpendicular (3) rolling about the velocity vector to reorient the flightpath. 3. Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm is the derivative (MBB): vector.

Agility

of the maneuver

They have developed agility metrics by mathematically deriving the "agility second derivative of the velocity vector as defined in the Frenet-Serret system. is divided into three separate components measuring (1) longitudinal agility,

vector" from the The agility vector in the direction of

the velocity vector; (2) curvature agility, in the direction of the maneuver plane; and (3) torsional agility, representing the rotation of the maneuver plane about the velocity vector. The metric is defined as the peak measured value of the component vs time for a given maneuver. 4. The Air Force Flight Test Center: of aircraft state with precision is presented and control. by Mazza in reference 21:

Agility

is the rate of change

One of the most complete Agility state).

definitions

of agility

is directly related to the time-rate-of-change of maneuver state (acceleration It deals primarily with the translation of a moving body in three-space. Also,

47

Agility

is a characteristic metrics exists

exhibited

by all bodies in motion. (controlled or uncontrolled).

'_hndamental" Agility Agility Mazza method sensibly

apply equally to all bodies in any and all spatial (varying

dimensions

(1, 2, 3, ...n). maneuvers).

is a long term property

trim states

and multiple

reasons that rotation by which translational

should be left out of the definition of agility because it is merely a agility is generated. For example, an aircraft with a thrust vectoring

system is not considered more agile because it can rotate faster, but because the main thrust direction can be altered much more rapidly and therefore the three-space translation characteristics of the aircraft are enhanced. In his paper he develops of flight test/air-to-air combat relevant terms. A Final Definition an agility vector which is expressed in terms

of MA

The following pointscan be summarized from the precedingmaneuverabilityand agility efid nitions: I. Maneuverabilityrefers the ability change both the magnitude and directionof the to to velocity vector. 2. Maneuverabilityisnot just relatedto,or reflective of,the ability change the velocity to vector; itis the measure of the maximum rateof change of the velocity vector. 3. Maneuverabilitypertainsto allregionsof the flight envelope. 4. Agility pertains to the derivative of the acceleration vector.

Also, it is this author's opinion that to include the element of "quick easy grace" in the definition of agility leads to confusion. If one accepts that flying qualities are composed of maneuverability, agility, and stability (as shown in fig. B1), and that stability refers to the response of the aircraft to pilot commands, then one must accept that "quick easy grace" is already implied under the heading of stability. With these points in mind, the following definitions of aircraft MA are offered: Maneuverability change of the velocity measure vector is the measure of the maximum in the achievable flight envelope. time-rate-of-change of time-rate-of-

vector

at any point maximum point in the

Agility the

is the

of the at any

achievable flight

acceleration

envelope.

48

REFERENCES
1. McKillip, Robert M., Jr.; and Perri, Todd A.: Helicopter Flight Control System Evaluation for NOE Operations Using Inversion Techniques. Proceedings Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 1989. Kato, O.; and Suguira, I.: An Interpretation Inverse Problem. J. Guidance, Control, Design and of the 45th

2.

of Airplane General Motion and Control as and Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 2, 1986, pp. 198-204. Maneuvers. J. Guid-

3.

Kato,

O.: Attitude Projection Method for Analyzing Large-Amplitude ance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 13, no. 1, 1990, pp. 22-29. D. G.: Development Vertica, C.; May 1990. and Wang, S. H.: A Generalized AIAA Paper Agility Technique and Verification of an Algorithm

4.

Thomson,

for Helicopter

Inverse

Simu-

lation. 5. Hess,

R. A.; Gao, Applied

for Inverse 1990.

Simulation

to Aircraft

Flight

Control.

91-0149,

January

6.

Thomson,

D. G.: Evaluation PhD thesis,

of Helicopter Univ.

Through November

Inverse 1986.

Solutions

of the Equations

of Motion. 7. Plonsky, John

of Glasgow,

G.: Development NAS2-11058,

of Equations Sikorsky

to Improve Aircraft

Deficiencies United

in the Genhel Technologies

UH-60A Corpora-

Math Model. tion, 1989. 8. Cooper, G. E.; and Handling 9. Chen,

Division,

Harper,

R. P.:

The

Use of Pilot 1969.

Rating

in the

Evaluation

of Aircraft

Qualities.

NASA

TN-5153,

R. T. N.: Flight Dynamics January 1984, pp. 14-22. R. K.; Jewell, W. F.;

of Rotorcraft

in Steep

High-G

Turns.

AIAA

J. Aircraft,

10.

Heffley,

Lehman,

J. M.; and Qualities Data,

Winkle,

R. A. V.: Data

A Compilation Compilation.

and NASA

Analysis of Helicopter CR-3144, 1979. 11.

Handling

Vol. One:

Cheeseman, I. C.; and Bennett, Forward Flight. Reports September 1955.

W. E.: The Effect of the Ground on a Helicopter and Memoranda No. 3021, Aeronautical Research

Rotor in Council,

12.

Olson,

John R.; and Scott, Mark W.: Helicopter and Agility. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Boston, May 1989. Aeronautical craft. ADS-33C, Design Standard, 1989. Handling

Design Optimization for Maneuverability Forum of the American Helicopter Society,

13.

Anon:

Qualities

Requirements

for Military

Rotor-

August

14.

Thomson, D. G.: the Twelfth Germany,

An Analytical Method of Quantifying Helicopter Agility. Proceedings European Rotorcraft Forum, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Federal Republic 1986. Frank W.: Assessment of Rotorcraft Agility and

of of

September

15.

Levine,

Larry

S.; and Warburton,

ManeuForum

verability with a Pilot-in-the-Loop Simulation. of the American Helicopter Society, May 1985.

Proceedings

of the 41st Annual

49

16. Houston,S.;

and CaldweU,

A. E.: A Computer Tailplane.

Based Study of Helicopter of the Tenth

Agility,

Including Rotorcraft

the Influence of an Active Forum, August 1984.

Proceedings

European

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Curtiss, H. C.; and Price, George: Studies of Rotorcraft ceedings of the Tenth European Rotorcraft Forum, Lappos,

Agility August

and Maneuverability. 1984. Proceedings

Pro-

Nicholas D.: Insights into Helicopter Air Combat Maneuverability. 40th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 1984.

of

Cliff, Eugene M.; Lutze, F.; Thompson, B.; and Well, K.: Toward a Theory AIAA 90-2808-CP, AIAA, August 1990. Bitten, R.: Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison of Government Metrics. AIAA J. Aircraft, vol. 27, no. 3, 1989, pp. 276-282. C. J.: tionship 1990. Agility: to Flying A Rational Qualities. Development AGARD of Fundamental Mechanics and

of Aircraft

Agility.

Industry

Agility

Mazza,

Metrics Panel

and

Their

Rela-

Flight

Symposium,

October

50

Form

Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

our No. 7o,-o, o

gathering and mllntalnlng the data needed, and completing an reviewing the OlleCllon. OT Imorma.on _. _ene om men__r_l_u,---_ ,._.=_u,_._o.a._ .,._ R_rt I 1215 JMterson ..............P.-dlartbtn hi lnfnrlmat I_h_Ofl, _flCIU_hlO. lUID=ltione_, for rnduclno this borden, to Washington Pleaoqultllrs :_ennces, UlmCmruo lot mlglmmsl..,._w_ ._. v.,.._, ,__. rt"_'='_'_u_, .;_nKnq .... Davis H;vh..:-y, Sulto 1204, Arlington, _/A 22202-4302,, In_'lo the Office of Management and _RL_.net. Paperwork Reduction Pmjl_t (0704-018s), wasnmgm ,

1. AGENCY

USE ONLY

(Leave

blank)

| 2.

REPORT

DATE

3.

REPORT

TYPE

AND

OATES

COVERED

I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

July 1991

Technical Memorandum
5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Development and Evaluation of an Inverse Solution Technique Studying Helicopter Maneuverability and Agility
S. AUTHOR(S)

for 505-59-52

Matthew S. Whalley
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

7.

PERFORMING

ORGANIZATION

.ABELS)

AND ADDRESS(ES)

Ames

Research

Center, Moffett Reid, CA 94035-1000

and A-91020

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, Ames Research Center, Moffett Reid, CA 94035-1099
10.

9.

SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY

NAME(S)

AND ADDRESSIES)

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001 and U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NASA TM-102889

Point of Comac_ Matthew S. Wha]]cy,Ames ResearchCenl_, MS 220-7, Moffea Reid, CA 94035-1000; (415) 604-3505 orFTS 464-3505
12s. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified Subject
13. ABSTRACT

Unlimited 08
200 words)

Category
(Maximum

An inverse solution technique helicopter using smooth, "pilotlike"

for determining the maximum maneuvering control inputs is presented.

performance

of a

Also described is a piloted simulation

experiment performed on the NASA Ames Advanced Cab and Visual System to investigate the accuracy of the solution resulting from this technique. The maneuverability and agility capability of the helicopter math model was varied by varying mum load-factor vering performance capability. the pitch and roll damping, Three maneuvers yielded the maximum pitch and roll rate, and the maxiturn, a longitudinal of pilot-in-the-loop pop-up, maneuwere investigated: a 180-degree

and a lateral jink. The inverse solution technique

accurate predictions

for two of the three maneuvers.

14. SUBJECT

TERMS

15.

NUMBER

OF PAGES

Helicopter qualifies,
17.

maneuverability, Helicopter handling

Helicopter agility, Inverse control, Helicopter qualities

19.

flying

56
16. PRICE CODE

A04
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACi

SECURITY CLASSiFiCATION OF REPORT

111. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified NSN rS40_-2SO-SSoo

Unclassified
Standard
Prescribed 298 -102

Form

298 (Rev.

2-89)

Io, ANSI Std. Z39-1 $ V