Please read

Knowledge Services has become aware of potential faults in some of our older scanned
documents. We are putting this disclaimer on the front of every document in the batch
concerned. We are making them available, as they do remain substantially usable.

The following document may contain errors. It was scanned when the software was at a
previous version and quality checking was unable to pick up some of the problems that are
now apparent.

Most of the errors will be cosmetic - variation in fonts and fuzziness. From time to time the
OCR capability has proved faulty and word substitution has occurred.

We are sorry that this version of the report may be poorer than we would wish. If there are
significant errors or you have doubts about what you are reading due to poor quality, please
contact Knowledge Services as below and we will try to remedy the problem. Ensure that your
request identifies that the current pdf version is unsatisfactory.

[email protected]
 ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
W
U 7 RUE ANCELLE 92200 NEUILLY SUR SEINE FRANCE

AGARD ADVISORY REPORT No.279

Handling Qualities of Unstable m 3

d z
Highly Augmented Aircraft 3FI 7 9
(Les Caracteristiques de Manoeuvrabilitk des Akn
Instables a Stabilitk Augmentee)

- NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 0 RGAN IZATl ON

I
 ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
7 RUE ANCELLE 92200 NEUILLY SUR SEINE FRANCE

AGARD ADVISORY REPORT 279

Handling Qualities of Unstable

Highly Augmented Aircraft
(Les Caracttkistiques de Manoeuvrabilitg des Akronefs
Instables 5 Stabifit6 Augmentge)

This Advisory Report was prepared at the request of the

AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel.

I
- North Atlantic Treaty Organization

-q/ Organisation du Traite de I'Atlantique Nord

 AccordingtoitsCharter,themission of AGARDis tobringtogether theleading personalities OF theNATO nationsin thefields
of science and technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes:

-Recommending effective ways for the memher nations to use their research and development capabilities For the
common benefit of the NATO community;

- Providing scicntificand technical advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospe,:e research and
development (with particular regard 1.0 its military application):

- Continuously stimulating advances in! the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening thecommon dei'ence poshire;

-Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development;

I
-Exchange of scientific and technical information;

- Providing assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential;

- Rendering scientific and technical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies and to member nationis in connection
with research and development problems in the aerospace field.

The highest authority within AGARD is the National Delegates Board consisting of officiallyappointed senior representatives
from each memher nation, The mission of AGARD is carried out through the Panels which are composed of experts appointed
by theNationa1 Delcgates, the Consultant and ExchangeProgrammeand the Aerospace Applications Studies Programme. The
results of AGARD work are reported to the member nations and the NATO Authorities through the AGARD series of
publications of which this is one.

Participation in AGARD activities is by invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NATO nations

The content of this publication has been reproduced

directly from material supplied by AGARD or the authors.

Published May 1991

Copyright 0 AGARD 1991
All Rights Reserved

ISBN 92-835-0609-X

Printed by Speciuli.sed Printing Services Limited

40 Chigwell Lune, Loughton, Essex IGIO 3TZ
 Preface

The flying characteristics and handling qualities of all types of aircraft are major items of interest in the activities of the AGARD
Flight Mechanics Panel. A subcommittee of the Panel has specifically addressed this subject over a long period and initiated a
questionnaire several years ago to determine the ongoing research, future plans and the need for additional activities in the area
of aircraft handling qualities. Responses from interested organizations and institutions in the AGARD community indicated
that the Item “Handling Qualities of Unstable Highly Augmented Aircraft” showed the first priority In response to this interest,
the Panel formed a Working Group, WG-17, in 1987, consisting of specialists from all interested AGARD countries, to study
this specific handling qualities subject.

The aim of the working group, within the context of unstable highly augmented aircraft, was to:
1. Exchange information, experience and opinions
2. Analyze the existing handling qualities design and assessment criteria, and where possible, present new aspects and
approaches to these criteria.
3. Identify gaps and shortcomings in the relevant database.
4. Discuss the effects of automatic flight envelope limiting.
5. Condense the experience of the WG members into a set of lessons learned and recommendations
6. Identify areas for relevant research and discuss potential opportunities for cooperation in the conduct of the needed
research.

Five working sessions were held at places of special interest for the activities of the group within the years of 1987-1989 at
Dornier, Friedrichshafen, Germany; British Aerospace, Wanon, United Kingdom; NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain
View, CA United States; Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, Flight Test Center Istres, France; Aeronautics Militare,
Flight Test Center Pratica di Mare Italy.

The final report was a team effort and consists of contributions from all of the members of the working group. AGARD has
been most fortunate in finding these competent people willing to contribute their knowledge and time in the preparation of this
document.

Horst Wiinnenberg
Member, Flight Mechanics Panel
Chairman, AGARD Working Group 17
 Prbface

Les qualitis de vol et les caracteristiques de manoeuvrabiliti des aironefs de tous types sont des questions d u n e importance
majeure pour le Panel AGARD de la Mecanique du Val. Ce sujet a et6 examine par un sous-comiti spkifique du Panel sur une
longue piriode. II y a quelques annies, ce sous-comite a diffus6 un questionnaire afin #identifier les travaux de recherche en
cours, les travaux projetis et les hesoins complementaires dans le domaine des caractiristiques de manoeuvrabiliti des
aironefs. Les riponses recues des diffirents organismes et itablissements concernis faisant partie de la communauti
AGARDienne indiquaient comme point prioritaire "Les caracteristiques de manoeuvrabiliti des aironefs instables B stabiliti
augmentie". Pour repondre a I'interEt manifest6 a ce sujet, le Panel a cri6, en 1987, un groupe de travail, le WG- 17, compose de
specialisles de tousles pays memhres de I'AGARD ayant exprimi un intirit pour ce sujet, afin de 1Utudier.

Le groupe de travail a eu pour mandat, dans le cadre des aironefs instables a stahilite augmentie:
1. Dichanger des informations, de I'expirience et des avis.
2. Danalyser les caractiristiques de manoeuvre existantes, ainsi que les crithes actuellement employes, et, prbenter, dans la
mesure du possible, les nouveaux aspects et les nouvelles approches de ces critkres.
3. Didentifier les iventuelles lacunes et iiisuffisances de la base de donnies appropriie.
4. De discuter des effets de la limitation automatique du domaine de vol.
5. De faire la synthkse de I'expirience des membres du groupe de travail sous forme de recommandations et
d'enseignements a retenir.
6. Didentifier les domaines prometteurs pour defuturs travaux de recherche et discuter des possihilitis de cooperation pour
ce qui concerne la conduite des travaux en question.

Cinq seances de travail furent organisies dans des localitis ayant un interet particulier pour le groupe pendant la periode
1987-1990, aupris des itablissements suivants: Dornier, Friedrichshafen, Allemagne; British Aerospace, Wa.rton, Royaume-
Uni; NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Etats-Unis; Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, Centre dessais en
Vol, Istres, France; Aeronautica Militare, Fli.ght Test Centre, Pratica di Mare, Ilalie.

Le rapport final resulte d u n travail diquipe et est constitue de contributions fournies par tous les membra du groupe de
travail.

L'AGARD peut &tiefier d'avoir trouve des personnes competentes, qui ont bien voulu accepter de partager leurs connaissances
et de consacrer le temps necessaire a la priparation de ce document.

Horst Wunnenberg
Member, Flight Mechanics Panel
Chairman, AGARD Working Group 17
Membership of AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel
Working Group 17
Chairman: Horst Wunnenberg
German Aerospace-Dornier Luftfahrt GmhH
Friedrichshafen
Germany

MEMBERS

Renzo Bava Hun Thanh Huynh

Aeritalia-GCV ONEM
Torino Chatillon-sous-Bagneux
Italy France

Dr Ernst Buchacker Dr Mario Innocenti

BWB-WTD 61 Universta di Pisa
Manching Pisa
Germany Italy

Jean Choplin Peter Mangold

Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet German Aerospace-Dornier
Aviation Luftfahrt Friedrichshafen
Saint Cloud Germany
France
Murray Morgan
Lt Col. Guiseppe Fristachi National Research Council
Aeronautics Militare Ottawa
Pratica di Mare Canada
Italy
Ton Nieuwpoort
John Gibson National Aerospace Laboratory
British Aerospace Limited Amsterdam
Warton Aerodrome The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Rogers Smith
John Hodglunson NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
McDonnell Douglas Edwards, CA
Cypress, CA United States
United States
Dr Knut Wilhelm
Georg Hofinger DLR - Institut f i r Flugmechanik
German Aerospace-MBB Braunschweig
Munchen Germany
Germany

Roger H.Hoh
Hoh Aeronautics Inc
Lomita, CA
United States
 Contents

Page

Preface iii

Preface iv

Membership of ACARD Flight Mechanics Panel Working Group 17 V

Section

1 Summary and Overview 1

1.1 Summary 1
1.2 Overview 1

2 A Review of the Design and Handling Qualities of Highly Augmented Aircraft 3

2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 X-29 Technology Demonstrator 3
2.3 Fly-By-Wire Jaguar, EAP and EFA 6
2.4 Mirage 2000 and Rafale A Demonstrator 7
2.5 Tornado 10
2.6 F-16 (YF-16) 11
2.7 F-18 (YF-17) 12
2.8 Spaceshuttle 13
2.9 General Aspects of the X-3 1 Flight Control System 14
2.10 General Comments 15
2.1 1 Handling Qualities Problem Areas 17

3 Unified Approach to the Evaluati'on of Handling Qualities 19

3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Definitions 19
3.3 Selecting the Proper Response-Type 22
3.4 Combined Axis Pilot Ratings 25
3.5 Pitch Rate Overshoot 26
3.6 Time Delays and Phase Delay 26

4 Longitudinal Criteria for Small Amplitude Precision Attitude and Flight Path Control
~
21
4.1 Introduction 21
4.2 Low Order Equivalent Systems (LOES) 27
4.3 Bandwidth Criterion 30
4.4 Phase Rate Criterion 32
4.5 Neal-Smith Criterion 32
4.6 Frequency Domain Criterion 39
4.1 Dropback Criterion 41
4.8 Application of Some Longitudinal Handling Qualities Criteria for 43
Highly Augmented Aircra.ft to AMX Aircraft
4.9 Time Domain vs Frequency Domain Criteria for Precision Control 45
4.10 Relationships between the Various Criteria 46
Section Page

5 Moderate and Large Amplitude Longitudinal Handling Qualities Criteria 41

5.1 Introduction 47
5.2 Current Specifications 47
5.3 Current Fly-By-Wire Aircraft 47
5.4 Attitude Quickness Criterion 49
5.5 Non-Linear Simulation 50
5.6 Bifurcation Theory 50
6 Impact of Unstable Design and High Angle of Attack on the Requirements 52
for the Aerodynamic Configuration
6.1 Introduction 52
6.2 Rationale for the Necessity of Additional Flight Mechanical Design Criteria 54
6.3 Scope of the Requirements and Criteria 55
6.4 Design Criteria and Requirements Available up to Now 57
6.5 Need for Further Research 61
7 Feel System Dynamics and Control Sensitivity 63
7.1 Introduction 63
7.2 Feel System Dynamics 63
7.3 The X-29 Experience 64
7.4 The Canadian Bell 205 Experience 65
7.5 Comments on Feel System Dynamics 67
7.6 Control Sensitivity 67
8 Handling Qualities Evaluation Techniques 69
8.1 Introduction 69
8.2 Basic Handling 70
8.3 Operational Handling Qualities Evaluation 70
8.4 Use of System and Parameter Identification from Flight Tests 77
8.5 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations 79
9 The Design and Evaluation Process 80
9.1 Introduction 80
9.2 General Lessons to be Learned 81
9.3 Specific Lessons to be Learned 83
10 Conclusions and Recommendations 84
10.1 Major Results 84
10.2 Gaps or Inconsistencies 84
10.3 Recommendations for Use of this Document 84
10.4 Findings of the Working Group and Future Trends 84
10.5 Needs for Future Research 85
10.6 Follow-on Activities 85

Appendices
A Envelope Limiting and Carefree Handling 86
A.l Introduction 86
A.2 F-15/F-16 Experience 86
A.3 Aspects for Transport Aircraft 86
A.4 The B-1B Angle-of-Attack Limiter - ALesson to be Learned 87
A S Mirage 2000/Rafale Carefree Handling Design Philosophy 87
A.6 EAF/EFA-Carefree Philosophy 89
B Lateral Directional Flying Qualities Criteria for Highly Augmented Aircraft 90
B-l Lateral Directional Problems Related to Highly Augmented Aircraft 90
C Agility Overview and Overlap with Handling Qualities 98
CTl - Introduction 98
c . 2 Past Figures of Merit for Combat Performance 98
c.3 The Need for Agility 98
c . 4 Functional Agility 99
c . 5 Airframe Agility Definitions 99
C.6 Agility Metrics; Overview of Current Proposals 100
c.7 Agility Measures vs Flying Qualities Criteria 104
C.8 Open Areas and Proposals for Further Activity 106
 HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE

HIGHLY AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT

SECTION 1

SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

1.1 SUMMARY

Demanding requirements for performance and handling qualities together with extended flight
envelopes lead to use of new technologies like active control and control configured unstable vehicles.
The review of the handling qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are highly
augmented Is the theme of this report. In general the handling qualitles criteria for highly augmented
stable aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of unstable aircraft. Accordingly, this
report contains a review of existing highly augmented aircraft, both stable and unstable. Handling
qualities criteria for both large and small amplitude longitudinal maneuvers are presented. Other
areas of Interest are also considered: basic aerodynamic design, specific issues relating to the feel
system and control sensitivity, evaluation techniques and the handling qualities design and evaluation
process. The subjects of carefree handling, lateral-directional crlterla and agility are presented in
separate appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the comblned experiences of the
working group are highlighted.

1.2 OVERVIEW

This document is directed at the special problems of vehicles which are highly augmented because
they are statically unstable longitudinally. Statically unstable aircraft are not new; for example the
Wright Flyer was statically unstable and the pilot provided the control "augmentation". As knowledge
of the balance between stability and control improved, aircraft were balanced stable to allow safe
piloted control for demanding or protracted tasks. Why do we again today relax stability? "If the
designer is permitted to ignore the customer requirement for natural weathercock stability In pitch and
In yaw, he will be able to produce configurations with substantially increased performance" (Pinsker,
1979). Wlth today's technology we now have the advantage of actuation, sensor and computing devices
to augment, with full authority, the pilot's effort. Demanding requirements for performance and
handling qualities together with extended flight envelopes lead to use of new technologies like active
control and control configured unstable vehicles, Benefits of task-tailored handling, carefree
handling and automatic functions and control modes outweigh penalties like larger actuators with high
power consumption, high sensor performance, redundant controls and demanding computer speed and
capacity requirements.

Handling Qualities of these highly augmented vehicles are largely the designer's choice; however,
the effects of any increased flight control system complexity on handling qualities should be
transparent to the pilot. That is, the pilot should not be required to employ any control techniques
that are unnatural or require special training. it should, therefore, not be necessary to distinguish
between stable and unstable aircraft or even whether the aircraft is highly augmented, when specifying
flying qualities. The stability of the basic design is immaterial to the pilot, who rightly expects
low workload in an aircraft with full authority hardware and software.

Our Interest Is, therefore, centered on design guidelines for good handling qualities in highly
augmented aircraft because instability necessarily leads lo high degrees of augmentation. Further,
given the increased capability of modern electronic flight systems, the design goal for these
"control-configured" aircraft should be "optimum" or desired handling qualities -i n the heart of the
Level 1 reglon.

Unlike the classic highly augmented aircraft, the handling qualities of the unstable highly augmented
aircraft cannot degrade after failures to those of the basic aircraft. Instead, when failures occur
the handling qualities do not change appreciably but the level of "protection" In the form of failure
tolerance is reduced. For example, the X-29 technology demonstrator is highly unstable. With times to
2

double amplitude in pitch of about 0.15 sec., it cannot be controlled by a pilot without augmenkstion.
Following failures in its digital system, (eitherthe system logic or the pilot can select alternate
redundant sensors or the analog reversion system, with virtually no flying qualities degradation. As
another example, the EAP aircraft has a core quadruplex system sensing rate and acceleration. Its
angleof attack (AOA) sensing is only triplex, so after an AOA failure the pilot must respect
additional flight limits, but still has good core flying qualities.

The purpose of this report is to present methods and criteria which have been found to be useful
by members of this working group as design guides and for the evaluation of handling qualities of
highly augmented aircraft. It is the unelnimous opinion of the members that no one method or criterion
is adequate by itself, and that several, or even all of the recommended criteria should be checked.
Experience has shown that one metric may not show a deficiency that will be exposed by other criteria.
Alternatively, a configuration that passes several of the proposed criteria has a high probability of
being accepted as desirable by most pilots.

Criteria are presented for small and large amplitude maneuvering since it is important to account
for both these aspects. In the latter ca,se,nonlinear effects may be encountered which degrade the
handling qualities (e.g. servo actuator rate limiting). Such degradations often occur as abrupt
changes In the aircraft response, sometimes referred to as "handling qualities cliffs". The infamous
Shuttle Pilot-Induced Oscillation (PIO) is an example of such a case.

The reader should be aware that there are several objectives that the working group specifically
did not accomplish. First, we were specifically directed not to attempt to formulate an "AGARD
Handling Qualities Specification". Detailed data correlations are not included in this report, as such
correlations are contained in the references, and the collection, analysis, and codification of such
data would be beyond the scope of this effort.

The term highly augmented appoars throughout the report. It is intended to refer to augmented
aircraft which have significantly alterecl response characteristics compared to the same aircraft
without augmentation. In control system jargon, this means that the loop gains are sufficiently liigh
so that the closed loop poles are significantly different from the open loop poles. Of course,
unstable aircraft which are augmented to be stable always fail into this classification.

The report is organized in a series of major sections in which the principal themes of this
working group are presented followed b y appendices in which important supporting informatiori and other
areas of interest to this working group are reviewed. Details of the report organization are as
foliows:
t A review of existing highly augmented aircraft (stable and unstable) is given in Section 2.
t A unified method to match the shape of the response properly (Le. type of augmentation) with the
required mission tasks is presenled in Section 3. This section also contains some guidanlce on the
proper choice of criteria for different response types.
t Handling qualities criteria recommended by the working group members are contained iri Sections 4
(longitudinal small amplitude) and 5 (iongitudinal large amplitude).
t Considerations for the basic design of highly unstable airframes are presented in Section 6.
t There is growing evidence that feel systems must be treated as a separate entity, Le., not as an
integral part of the augmented airplane. This is covered in Section 7 along with the important
issue of control sensitivity. It is important to note that none of the criteria in this report
include the effect of control sensitivity, and that it must be separately optimized.
t Evaluation techniques utilized in simulation, both ground-based and in-flight, and flight test are
discussed in Section 8.
t The general handling qualities design and evaluation process is reviewed in Section 9 with
particular emphasis on the important non-technical issues.
t The conclusions and recommendations of the working group members are presented in Section 10.
t An overview of the important subject of envelope limiting and carefree handling is presenled in
Appendix A.
t Although the instab es of interest are generally in the pitch axis, for completeness
lateral-directional handling qualil:ies are reviewed in Appendix 8.
Since agility and handling qualities are closely related subjects with considerable overlap, this
subject was of particular interest within the working group. In fact, it may be argued that Ihe
non-performance related aspect:s of agility are essentially handling qualities. This interesting
subject is briefly discussed in Appendix C.
 SECTION 2

A REVIEW OF THE DESIGN AND HANDLING QUALITIES

OF HIGHLY AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Modern flight control system designs use digital or analog computation techniques in
combination with their advanced "fly-by-wire" technology to gain potential advantages such as
improved mission performance and weightlcost reduction. With full-authority electronic
augmentation systems, the designer literally has the capability to tailor the flying qualities of
the aircraft as desired for each mission task. Typically, these advanced designs are complex and
are characterized by "higher order" responses to the pilot's inputs. In many instances these
additional control system dynamics, or higher order effects, which delay the initial response,
created new flying qualities problems in the process of soli/ing the old ones. For example, see
References 2.1.1 102.1.4.

Early aircraft with advanced electronic flight control designs such as the Space Shuttle,
F-16, YF-17, F-18 and Tornado exhibited significant flying problems during their development
phases. Later aircraft such as the Rafale, the Mirage 2000, the EAP, and the X-29, for example,
apparently incorporated advanced electronic flight control systems successfully and achieved
satisfactory flying qualities. However, the recent unfortunate crash of the JAS 39 Gripen served
notice that all the problems of advanced flight control design and development are still not
totally understood.

Unstable aircraft are, by their nature, typically highly augmented and the problems exposed
during the design and test of highly augmented more conventional aircraft are therefore important.
The purpose of this section is to review briefly the design and flying qualities of several highly
augmented aircraft with particular attention on those aircraft with inherent pitch instability.

2.1.1 References

2.1.1 Smith, R.E., "On the Evaluation of the YF-16 and YF-17 Aircraft Using Longitudinal
Maneuver Response Criteria," Caispan Flt Research Memo No. 510, November 1975
2.1.2 Smith, R.E., "Evaluation of F-l8A, Approach and Landing Flylng Qualities Using an
In-Flight Simulator," Caispan Report No. 6241-F-1, February 1979.
2.1.3 Weingarten, N.C., "In-Flight Simulation of the Space Shuttle (STS-1) During Landing
Approach with Pilot-Induced Oscillation Suppressor," Calspan Report No. 6339-F-2.
2.1.4 Hartsfield, Col, H.W., Jr., "Space Shuttle Orbital Flight Testing," Society of
Experimental Test Pilots, 22nd Symposium Proceedings, Technical Revlew, Vol. 14,
September 1978.

2.2 X-29 TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR

2.2.1 Aircraft Description

The X-29 is an interesting combination of integrated technologies which include extreme

longitudinal instability and a forward-swept wing. A general description of the aircraft and the
major flight test issues related to this unique aircraft are given in Reference 2.2.1. More
detailed descriptions of the design concepts and the flight control system are given in References
2.2.2,2.2.3,and2.2.4.

The aircraft is nominally 35% unstable at subsonic speeds and is neutral to slightly stable
at supersonic speeds. This level of instability translates into a worst-case time to double
amplitude in pitch of approximately 0.15 sec - an unprecedented level of instability for a manned
aircraft. Operation of the aircraft is therefore dependent on a sophisticated full-authority
fly-by-wire flight control system. The flight control system consists of a three-channel
synchronous system with three digital flight computers and an analog back up system using three
analog computers. Dominant flight control parameters are sampled 40 times per second in the
primary digital computers.
 Control of the extreme instability made special demands on the X-29 flight control systenn design.
For example, extensive lead compensation, high canard surface displacement and rate capabmility (about
100 deglsec) were required. Traditional flight control system stability marglns had to be halved l o 3
db high-frequency gain margin and 22.5 degrees phase margin. Following one small gain change during
the flight test program, the flight contr,31system performed satisfactorily throughout the flight
envelope with these reduced stability margins. It must be emphasized, however, that these reduced
margins were allowable for the flight test of this unique technology demonstrator for which real time
monitoring of the system performances was used on every flight.

2.2.2 Flight Control System Strategies

The primary digital flight control system is relatively complex: for example, the complete pitch
control system is 48th order. Considering only the major features, the pitch control system reduces
to about a 9th order system. The design strategies, simply stated, produced a rate commandl.sttitude
hold system for approach and landing: for the up-and away conditions, the flight control system was a
"g" command system. For the landing case modest speed stability was provided. Technically, the
up-and-away system used pitch rate, cierived pitch acceleration and normal acceleration to produce a
flight path rate command system. Suiliable forward path gain scheduling with airspeed was used to
produce a constant value of stick force per g.

2.2.3 Flying Qualities Summary

In general, the extreme pitch instability was transparent to the pilot. No significant flying
qualities problems were found in the X-29 during flight test. Several changes were made to the flight
control system, however, during the initial program in an attempt to achieve desired or "OptimLlm"
pitch flying qualities.

A significant feature of the X-29 lilight control design is that the flying qualities in the pitch
axis remain essentially constant after key sensor failures. The only change produced by these
failures is in the level of redundancy within the flight control system. For example, X-29 pitch
stability is achieved using pitch rate feNedback from a set of 3 primary and 3 secondary gyros. IJp to
4 failures can be tolerated without degradation in the longitudinal stability or flying qualities. An
additional failure causes loss of the aircraft.

Lateral flying qualities were good to excellent (Level 1) throughout the development test Iphase
and will not be reviewed in any detail since the unstable longitudinal axis is the primary focus otf
this report. The onlysignificant change during the program was to increase the maximum roll rate to
fightervalues. One interesting feature of the X-29 flight control system is the relatively large
equivalent time delay present in both pitch and roll axes. The original control system time delays
measured from a stick force input wero: pitch -180 miiiisec and roll -230 millisec. A large
contributor to these delays was the relatively slow feel system design. The second-order feel system
had a natural frequency of 18 radlsec in pitch and 13 radlsec in roll. Equivalent time delay
contributions from the feel system were approximately 80 millisec and 100 millisec repectively. The
good lateral flying qualities achieved despite the large equivalent time delay are inconsistent with
expectations based on the Military Specifications and previous flying qualities evidence. This
apparent anomaly Is discussed further in Section 7 and reviewed in References 2.2.5 and 2.2.6.

The longitudinal flight control system evolution (Reference 2.2.7) involved three significant
changes which directly affected up-and-away flying qualities:
1.) Original System
The Ditch flying
. _ qualities
. were .iudged
- to be level 2 (PR-5) because of sluggish initial
response and large stick throws (-10 inches total). Control harmony wasaproblein because
of the more responsive roll axis.
2.) Stick Modification
The longitudinal stick throw was reduced by half and the stick force gradient in the feel
system was changed to 8 Iblinch from 4 Iblinch. Stick force per g was held constant by
appropriate forward path gain changes. Equivalent time delay was reduced by 30 millisec

- -
with the increase in feel system natural frequency to 26 radlsec.
Flying qualities improved to level 1 to 2 (PR 3 to 4). Slow initial pitch response was
still a minor deficiency.
 5

3.) Initial Response Improvement

The initial Ditch acceleration was increased by a factor of two using a design method based
on the Neal-Smith Criterion (Reference 2.2.9). This change lo the-flight control system
(Reference 2.2.8) was accomplished without disturbing the control system inner loops. Pitch
flying qualities were noticeably improved and in the desired area (PR -2). Control harmony
was good and the aircraft was a solid Level 1. Pilot ratings of 1 to 2 were achieved.

-
Approach and landing flying qualities were typically judged to be Level 1 to 2 (PR 3 to 4)
and no design effort was made in this area. The only change made during the program was to
include a modest increment of speed stability at the typical approach and landing speeds.

2.2.4 Some Lessons To Be Learned

A complete review of the X-29 program including the second phase directed at high angle of
attack using the #2 aircraft is given in Reference 2.2.10. Some of the important lessons to be
learned from this program are:
t For highly unstable aircraft, which are by nature necessarily highly augmentd, the overall
"health" of the aircraft is best judged by the stability of the flight control system. For
the X-29 program a real-time capability was developed to evaluate key flight control
stability measures. This flight test technique allowed for an efficient envelope expansion
process and ensured aircraft safety.
t During the development phase of a highly-unstable, control-configured aircraft such as the
X-29, the flight control verification and validation process never stopped. Potentially
disastrous single-point failure paths and basic flight control design flaws were exposed
after over 100 flights had been flown.
t Vigorous testing of the flight control system in the ground simulator is essential to the
safety of the flight test program. This process must include large amplitude inputs which
may be unrealistic from a normal flight perspective, but are potentially representative of
off nominal high stress tasks in the aircraft. This type of agressive testing is
particularly important if the flight control design contains non-linear elements such as rate
limiters.

2.2.5 Summary Comments

Despite an extreme instability in pitch and a relatively complex flight control system design,
the X-29 proved to be a pleasant and easy aircraft to fly. Modifications to the flight control system
-
were made to achieve "desired" (PR 2) fighter flying qualities and not because of any significant
problems. The extreme instability necessltated a relaxation of the typical flight control design
stability margins but this compromise did not adversely affect the flight control system or the flying
qualities.

2.2.6 References

2.2.1 Smith, R.E., and Schroeder, K.C., "Flight Testing the X-29," 30th SETP Symposium
Proceedings, September 1986.
2.2.2 Krone, N.J., Jr., "Divergence Elimination with Advanced Composites," AlAA Paper No
75-1009, August 1975.
2.2.3 Frei, D., and Moore, M., "The X-29 - A Unique and Innovative Aerodynamic Concept,"
SAE Paper 851771, SAE Technology Conference and Symposium, October 1985.
2.2.4 Whitaker, A,, and Chin, J., "X-29 Digital Flight Control System," AGARD-CP-384,
Active Control Systems - Review, Evaluation and Projections, October 1984.
2.2.5 Bailey, R.E. and Knotts, L.H., "Interaction of Feel System and Flight Control System
Dynamics on Lateral Flying Qualities," Calspan Report No. 7205-26, May 1989.
2.2.6 Potsdam, E.and Hodgkinson, J., "Feel System and Time Delay Influences on Lateral
Flying Qualities," AlAA 90-1824, January 1990.
2.2.7 Butts, ILT, S.L. and Hoover, Maj., A.D., "Flying Qualities Evaluations of the X-29A
Research Aircraft," AFFTC-TR-89-08, May 1989.
2.2.8 Bosworth, J.T. and Cox, H.C., "A Design Procedure for the Handling Qualities
Optimization of the X-29AAircraft," AlAA 89-3428, Boston, Mass., August 1989.
2.2.9 Neal, T.P. and Smith, R.E., "An In-Flight Investigation to Develop Control System
Deslgn Criteria for Fighter Airplanes (Vol. I and ll)," AFFDL-TR-70-74, December
1970.
 2.2.10 Waichli, L.A. and Smith, R.E., "Flying Qualities of the X-29 Forward Swept Wing
Aircraft", AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on Fiylng Qualitles, Que'bec,
October 1990.

2.3 FLY-BY-WIRE JAGUAR, EAP AND EFA

This section reviews the development of the FBW Jaguar, the Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP)
and the European Fighter Aircraft (EFA).

2.3.1 Flight Control Law Review

The pitch control laws of the FBW Jaguar, EAP and EFA are ail based on a core integral pitch rate
demand digital quadruplex flight control system (FCS) with no alternative reversion system. For
normal operation, enhanced modes arle used to provide optimum task oriented handling. On the FBW
Jaguar this took the form of a pitch rate and angle of attack demand system, whereas on the EAP and
EFA the demand mode remains pitch rate for near-steady flight, but changes progressively to normal
acceleration or angle of attack as the appropriate limits are reached. The latter retain the lntegirator
path to obtain very close control of these limits. These modes are optimized for system stability and
disturbance rejection, while piloted handling qualities are optimized by command prefiltering dsefined
by different criteria. The lateral directional ones use conventional non-Integral roll rate demancl and
yaw rate pius sideslip augmentation, again using roli command prefiltering for response optimization.
The overall effect of this design approach is to achieve an extremely high level of attitude stability
coupled with highly responsive control in both the pitch and roll axes.

2.3.2 Instability

The control law techniques were developed for the initially stable FBW Jaguar in a series of
increasingly unstable configurations, achieved by aft ballast and large wing root strake extensions.
The maximum Instability level gave a time to double amplitude of 0.25 seconds. The necessity 'lo
ensure sufficient stability margins in tho presence of aerodynamic uncertainties led to the concsept of
margin robustness by specification of simultaneous gain and phase margin boundary areas rather than
unique points (see Section 6).

The EAP is substantially more unstable with 0.18 seconds to double amplitude in the wor!it case,
and EFA will be generally similar. Practical instability limits are associated with the need to
accommodate a very wide range of stores with significant effect on stability, and with the use of
sufficient integrator gain to ensure that structural limits are not transiently exceeded.

2.3.3 FCS Complexity

The same basic pitch control law structure has proved to be very satisfactory for all these
examples; that is the classical proportional plus integral demand error feed-forward with the ad(jition
of phase advance filtering to maximize :stability margins. Optimal design methods continue to be
consldered, but standard classical methods have proven to be entirely adequate even for the dual pitch
control surfaces of EAP/EFA. Successful positive maneuver limiting was achieved on FBW Jaguar by a
combined pitch ratelangle of attack demand mode, but this experience led to the use of separate,
parallel demand modes on EAP/EFA in pitch rate, angle of attack and normal g. These are blended from
one to another as a function of stick cornmand amplitude and flight condition to achieve the desired
handling and carefree limiting functions, and each has the same dynamic response and stability margin
characteristics.

The other feature which has remained unchanged is the use of command path filtering to optimize
the piloted handling qualities. Already used in a simple form on Tornado, this was initiated before
first flight of the FBW Jaguar to overcorne the sluggish flight path response characteristic of a high
gain rate command/attitude hold systern. It has been developed further on EAP to encompass
task-tailored and gross maneuver responses, maintaining uniform behavior through aerodynamic
non-iinearities and fast response with no overshoot of structural limits. Being outside the feedback
closed loop path, there are no constrairits imposed by stability margin or other closed loop problem
areas other than avoidance of saturation effects. The resulting filter is in general more complex
than the basically rather simple stability augmentation loops. Despite the major design effort
required, the results fully justify the additional work.
2.3.4 General Handling Comments

The control law structure described above provides a combination of high and well damped
attitude stability, precise small amplitude and rapid large amplitude control, and excellent
disturbance rejection. The ability to tailor ail aspects of the handling, requiring the application
of many alternative design criteria, enables the achievement of light, responsive handling with good
sensitivity, complete freedom from PIO, and accurate and comprehensive limiting for carefree handling.

2.3.5 Development and Lessons To Be Learned

Although these techniques and associated criteria have evolved gradually and increased their
scope, no major change has been necessary in principle. The principal lessons to be learned are as
follows:
t In addition to conventional small-perturbation linearized analysis of whatever methodology,
it Is absolutely essential to employ complete, non-linear and dynamically very accurate
models in both computer and flight simulation and to exercise them in an extreme manner to
uncover all possible consequences of saturation effects, as these may be catastrophic.
t AS a corollary of the first lesson, it is essential to maintain a total engineering grasp of
ail the contributing factors to each response characteristic, and never to leave unexplained
any facet of the handling behavior.

2.4 MIRAGE 2000 AND RAFALE A DEMONSTRATOR

2.4.1 Mirage 2000 Control Laws

The flight control system of the Mirage 2000 is designed and built by AMD-BA (Avions Marcel
Dassault-BreguetAviation). The maiden flight of the first prototype occurred on March 10, 1978.
Main features of the Mirage 2000 FCS are as follows:
+ Full authority on ail surfaces. No mechanical backup.
t Quadruplex analog redundancy for each critical element.
t High performance actuators.
t Controls: 4 elevons, 1 rudder, 2 leading edge slats,
2 air-intake adaptation devices
t Main functions implemented:
- Aerodynamic configuration optimization
- Air-intakes adaptation
- Longitudinal and lateral stabilization
. Longitudinal and lateral command shaping
- Automatic protection against loss of control (spin departure)
- Automatic protection against excessive structural loads (excessive normal load factor)
2.4.2 Rafale A Demonstrator

The flight control system of the Rafale is designed and built by AMD-BA. The maiden flight
of the Rafale A Demonstrator occurred on July 4, 1986. Main features of the Rafale A Demonstrator
are as follows:
t Full authority on all surfaces and engines.
No mechanical back-up.
t Digital processing (large data processing capability)
+ Quadruplex redundancy for each critical element.
+ Data processing: 3 digital channels, 1 analog back-up channel
t Automatic reconfiguration independence with the level of integrity of the different
subsets (sensors, processor, actuators)
t High performance actuators
t Controls: 6 elevons, 1 rudder, 2 canards, 6 leading edge slats, 2 air brakes, 2 engines
+ Main functions implemented
- Automatic aerodynamic configuration optimization
- Longitudinal and lateral stabilization
- Longitudinal and lateral command shaping
- Velocity stabilization
- Damping of on-ground modes (on "gear modes")
- Automatic protection against loss of control (spin departure)
- Automatic protection against excessive structural loads (excessive normal load factor)
X

2.4.3 lnstablllty Limitations

For combat aircraft there Is no practical limitation In longitudinal (or laterab instability
for any reason such as handling qualilies or technological constraints. Both the Mirage 2000 and
the Rafale are statically unstable subsonically. For the Rafale the time to double amplitude Is
on the order of 400 milllsec. So, the amount of instability may be considered as a consequence of
the aircraft optimization for its specific: missions. (See References 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.)

2.4.4 Connections Between Different Design Aspects

It must be kept in mind that the f-CS has to be optimized not only for handling quality
considerations, but also in close correlation with:
-Structural design
- Human pilot physical tolerance (loss of consciousness)
-Air Intakes and engine tolerance
(See References 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5arid 2.4.7.)

2.4.5 Mirage 2000 Experiment

The nature of FBW systems (especially digital ones with their very flexible software) causes
the augmentation functions of the aircraft to change and evolve very rapidly with significant
Improvements in capability and In performance. Some pilot demands are met satisfactorily,
however, the changes bring potential lor new demands to light. In this dynamic situation, flying
qualities criteria have to be adapted rapidly as well. (See References 2.4.2, 2.4.3 and 2.4.7.)

To illustrate the previous statement, flight test development of the Mirage 2000 flight
control system revealed that:
t Traditionai handling qualities requirements were easily met.
t Pilots quickly expanded their demands to Include total carefree handling.
t The latter demands have been met in three successive steps with progressive refinements as
follows:
Step 1 - Implementation of an automatic flight envelope limiter (angle of attack envelope and
load factor envelope).
Step 2 -Splitting of the previously defined flight envelope Into two flight envelopes:
-The limit envelope: the pilot is entitled to go beyond the envelope limits in case of
emergency (to avoid crashing for Instance), the outcome of which could be some
permanent structural distortions.
-The ultimate envelope:
- Exceeding the envelope limits would involve the loss of
aircraft.

In terms of the man-machine interface, the limit envelope is implemented on the stick using a
so-called "elastic stop". This stop can be overcome by the voluntary action of the pilot. The
ultimate envelope is then implemented by the mechanical unexceedable stop.

Step 3 -Adaptation of the flight envelope according to the actual configuration of external
stores using manual pilot selection.

(See References 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4.)

2.4.6 Actuator Management

The modern combat aircraft -especially the Rafale - has many surfaces available for each
function (stabilization, dynamic behavior adaptation under pilot control, etc. for both
longitudinal, lateral and combined functions) and each actuator shares Its authority between
several functions. Therefore, there are two complementary kinds of problems to be solved:
t First, the "optional" use by each function of the different available surfaces. The main
goals are then: efficiency, (Le. economy of aggregate Surface mOtlOn). appropriate
decoupling (when requested), and continuity of effects (i.e. optimizing transients during
mode changes).
t Second, the appropriate allocation of the total authority of each surface to the different
functions. In case of conflict, it i:s absolutely necessary to have a hierarchical priority
management and to provide the essential functions with sufficient authority.
 The priority management has to cope with all inputs, whether they be from large pilot
commands, atmospheric disturbances or combinations of these inputs. (See References 2.4.6 and
2.4.7.)

2.4.7 Robustness

Robustness, an essential quality of a flight control system, compromises between the

necessity for tolerating many configurations (mainly external stores) and hardware and software
complexity. (See Reference 2.4.7).

2.4.8 Role of Simulation

Practical experience in FCS development shows that many FCS evolutions arise from improved
knowledge of the "natural" (unaugmented) aircraft aerodynamics. Therefore:
t Models used have to be as accurate as possible.
t Non-linear effects have to be taken into account.
6 Appropriate simulation tools (both non-real time and real time) must be available
t The use of linear techniques (including frequency domain techniques and pole plaCr"nt
techniques) is limited to the very initial phases of the FCS development.

2.4.9 "On the Limits" Handling Qualities Development

When a high augmentation system is implemented, the handling qualities criteria problem is
strongly pushed away to the on limits conditions. In fact, "classical" piloting problems are
resolved by:
t Aerodynamic peculiarities being smoothed out by FCS modifications
t Stability
t Uncoupled control
t Respect of behavior in the time-domain standards

In these conditions, piloting problems mainly deal with the edge of the envelope: small
amplitude piloting conditions near the edge of the envelope, and large amplitude piloting
conditions from and to the envelope edges. Developing FCS for satisfactory operation then implies
that:
t Models are satisfactory in these limit conditions.
t Non-iinear methods and tools are operated.
t Criteria are expressed in the time domain
6 Simulation (non-real time and real time) is extensively used

2.4.10 References

2.4.1 Zimer, J M , "Possilites offertes par I'aerodynamique et les commandes de vol

electriques pour I'amelioration des avions de combat futurs", AGARD Conference
Proceeding (FR) VoI. 409, Treviso (IT), 14-17 avril 1986.
2.4.2 Mathe, Paul-Louis, "Les Commandes de vol electriques: Vers de nouvelles normes de
jugement des qualites de voi - Un exempie: le Mirage 2000", AGARD Conference
Proceeding (FR) -VoI. 333, No 6 (06/82), Fort Worth, TX, 19-22 April 1982.
2.4.3 Coureau, Jean, "Pilotage par fii du Mirage 2000 (Flying the Mirage 2000 by Wire)",
CAS Congress (US), 1984. 14th Congressof CAS, 1984/90/10-1984/09/14.-Vol 1.
2.4.4 Coureau, Jean, "La Conduite du vol des avions militaires, (Flight Control of Military
Aircraft)", Ecole Superieure de I'Aeronautique et de I'Espace) Toulouse (FR), 1989. -
Conference ENSAE . Document interne des Avions Marcel Dassault-BreguetAviation :
DGT n' 31879.
2.4.5 Petiau, C., "Determination des charges de dimensionnement des avions de combat
actuels", AGARD Report (FR), 1988/02. 64th meeting of the AGARD Structures and
~

Materials Panels, Madrid (ES) 1987/04/27-1987/05/01.- No AGARD R - 746.

2.4.6 Coureau, Jean, "Flight Testing a Modern Combat Aircraft", Groupement des Industries
Francaises Aeronautiques et Spatiales (GiFAS. FR) Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet
-
Aviation, 1988 - French Aerospace 1988, Aeronautical and Space Conference Seoul
May31 - Jun3,1988. -Document DGTn'35138.
2.4.7 Mathe, Paul-Louis, "Les Concepts de CAG developpes sur Rafale", in: Actes du
Colloque: controle actif generalist.. - Toulouse: Ecole Nationale Superieure de
I'Aeronautique et de I'Espace, lnfautom 88. - Fevr. 1989.
2.5 TORNADO

2.5.1 Tornado Command and Stability Augmentation System (CSAS)

The Tornado was designed to be stable in both pitch and the lateral/directional axes. However,
the stability is marginal and the aircraft has generally Level 2 to 3 Handling Qualities (HQ) when
flown in the mechanical mode: this is the second backup mode. From the beginning, the Tornt3do was
designed to be flown with a full time, full authority Control and Stablity Augmentation System (CSAS).
The CSAS is triple redundant analog with a direct electrical link as the first back-up mode and
mechanical drive as the second backup.

For the pitch CSAS the stick position is sensed via a non- linear gearing and the output signal,
interpreted as a pitch rate command feeds:
+ The Maneuver Demand (MD) loop of the normal mode via a stick path filter and a stick gain
scheduler.
+ The direct electrical link (In normal operations the direct link is blocked)
+ Lateral/DirectionalCSAS for compensation as required.
The pitch command signal to the MD loop is filtered and scheduled as a function of dynamic
pressure. The feed-back signal is sensed by a rate gyro unit and passed through a noise filter and
then shaped in the main control and phase-advance filters before it is summed with the stick command
signal. The error signal so produced is transmitted to the taileron actuator servo via a further
dynamic pressure dependent gain and a structural notch filter. Signals derived from airbrake and
flap position sensors are summed in to compensate for moments produced by these devices. Limiters
are used to prevent Saturation of the taileron actuators and to ensure Sufficient actuator travel
remains to accommodate a simultanecius roll command. This feature was incorporated in the design
following a flight incident in which a combined pitch and roll PI0 developed because the taileron
actuators ran to their limit at slightly different rates, inducing an uncommanded rolling motion
which the pilot was not able to correct due to a lack of excess actuator authority.

In the roll axis, roll rate is commanded by the pilot's stick position. The command signal
follows two paths:
+ The manoeuvre demand (MD) loop via a stick gain scheduler and a stick path filter.
t The Roll Direct Link which in full ICSAS mode operates in addition to the MD loop. In the
case of a second failure in the MI3 loop, the MD loop is faded out while the direct link
remains operative.

In the MD, loop roll rate is sensed by a rate gyro unit and routed through a Structural filter
and a noise filter before it is summed with the stick command signal. The error signal is then fed to
the taileron and spoiler actuator servos via a phase advance filter with a dynamic pressure dependent
gain. The roll CSAS also provides roll to yaw cross-feeds.

2.5.2 Handling Qualities

During the development phase of the Tornado aircraft a pitch P I 0 problem was uncovered during
the landing phase after considerable flight test hours. The source of this problem was traced to
excessive time delay in the form of phase lag in the pitch axis. Modification of the pitch filtering
solved the problem. As noted, this problem did not surface during Initial testing but came to light
under a special combination of conditions and pilot inputs. This situation again emphasizes the need
for constant vigilance and for vigorous initial tests which include large and perhaps non-optimum
pilot inputs.

The latest development version c l the CSAS described provides basically Level 1 handling
qualities throughout the operational flight envelope of the Tornado. However, because of hardware
constraints some PI0 tendencies remain at low to medium speeds for high gain tasks requiring large
and rapid pilot inputs. These tendencies were discovered during flight test and were not appar'ent
during the development process. The lPl0 tendencies as well as other instabilities discovered during
flight test were mainly caused by rate and acceleration limits in the system which caused excessive
phase lag for abrupt medium to large inputs.

Thls experience stresses that during the development of fly-by-wire alrcraft a thorough
evaluation and simulation has to be accomplished. It is important that the process must account for
 II

all rate limits and non-iinearltles in the system and their effects for large inputs in ail axes,
singly and in combination. This procedure has not normally been considered realistic, but the lessons
of the Tornado Indicate the requirement for these tests.

2.6 F-16 (YF-16)

2.6.1 Aircraft Description

The F-16 has evolved since its first flight in February 1974 as the YF-I6 lighweight fighter
prototype into an Impressive and versatile fighter aircraft. The purpose of this brief review is to
present details relevant to the theme of this report. A review of the design details of the YF-I6 is
presented in Reference 2.6.1.

.
The F-16 utilizes a full-authority, fly-by-wire flight control system featuring a sidestick
controller. A quadruple redundant analog flight control system design strategy was used until the
development of a digital version of this system in recent F-16C models. The basic airframe is
slightly unstable subsonically with a time to double amplitude in pitch on the order of 1.5 secs. in
the worst flight condition. it is interesting to note that one of the advantages of this relaxed
-
static stability smaller tail size - was removed when a larger tail was incorporated in the early
F-16A production models. The larger tail was incorporated primarily to improve the aircraft departure
resistance and recovery at high angles of attack.

In summary, the F-16 represented a somewhat daring advance in the fighter aircraft evolution
process. Eventually the side stick, the relatively simple advanced fly-by-wire flight control system
design and the unstable airframe merged effectively to create an outstanding fighter aircraft.
References 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 provide some background to F-16 FCS evaluations.

2.6.2 Development Review

Perhaps not surprisingly, considering the pioneering nature of the F-16 program, the development
phase had some significant problems which provide suitable lessons for the future. On the first high
speed tax1 test of the YF-16. the pilot inadvertantiy became airborne and experienced a severe lateral
PIO. He wisely decided to fly out of the unexpected problem and made the unscheduled first flight of
the program. This spectacular event is well documented in Reference 2.6.4. As a result of this near
catastrophic flight, the lateral gains for small inputs were reduced by a significant factor.

The original design for the side stick was a fixed no-motion stick. Ultimately, the stick was
revised to include a small degree of movement in both the pitch and roll axis. Although this change
In stick characteristics was not as significant as the large lateral gain reduction, the Inclusion of
limited motion resulted in an improvement In handling qualities, particularly In the landing phase.
Reference 2.6.5 substantiates the need for some motion in the sidestick and does, In fact, recommend
more motion than presently incorporated into the F-16 design. A discussion of the Importance of
controller feel system characteristics is presented in Section 7.

2.6.3 Lessons To Be Learned

The major lesson to be drawn from the YF-16 development experience is centered on the “first
flight” lateral P i 0 problem. Clearly, the lateral gains were much too high. Since the design
involved a novel side-stick control, previous design experience was not available for reference.
Accordingly, the ground simulator was used as a design tool the gains were selected on the basis of
~

evaluations In a simulator which couid not replicate the real world accelerations or visual scene.

Simply staled, the lesson is: do not use ground Simulators to tune up the responsiveness of the
aircraft. The resulting gains will be too high in flight. If there are no available design
guidelines then design on the conservative side and provide the flexibility in the initial flight
control design to change the key gains easily. Recent examples, such as the JAS-39 Gripen indicate
that this lesson is not completely understood.

2.6.4 References

2.6.1 Eggers, J.A. and Bryant, W.F. Jr., “Flying Quaiites Evaluation of theYF-16 Prototype
Lightweight Fighter” AFFTC-75-15, Edwards AFB, July 1975
 2.6.2 Milam, LTC, D.W. and Thomas, Mai., E.A., "F-16 Power Approach Handling Cluaiitles
Improvements," 26th SETP Symposium Proceedings, September 1982.
2.6.3 Smith, R.E.. "On the Evaluation of theYF-16 and FY-17 Aircraft Using Longitudlnai
Maneuver Response Criteria", Calspan, Flt Research Memo No. 510, Novemiber 1975.
2.6.4 Smith, J.W., "Analysis of a Lateral Pilot Induced Oscillation Experienced on the
First Flight of the YF-'16 Aircraft", NASATM72867, Sept. 1979.
2.6.5 Hall G. W. and Smith, R.E., "Flight Investigation of Fighter Side-Stick Force -
Deflection Characteristics", AFFDL TR-75-39, May 1975.

2.7 F-18 (YF-17)

2.7.1 Aircraft Description

The present F-18 fighter aircrafl is an outgrowth of the YF-17 lightweight fighter prototype which
was a competitor against the YF-16 and eventually the loser in the lightweight fighter competition.
The YF-17 which first flew in 1974 was a highly augmented aircraft which utilized a full-authorily
analog CAS design operating with a conventional mechanical control system.

The F-18, on the other hand, used an advanced (for its time) quadruple redundant digital flight
control design with a mechanical backup mode for emergency pitch and roll control. This F-113 design,
which represented an extensive modil'ication to the original YF-17, was highly augmented but 'lhe basic
airframe retained static stability throughout its flight envelope. For example, the pitch rate
response to pilot stick force was over .50th order. More details of the F-18 flight control design and
the pre-first flight evaluations in the NT-33 in-flight simulator are given in Reference 2.7.1.
Although neither of these aircraft were unstable, the development process for each aircraft provides
several interesting lessons for review.

2.7.2 YF-17 Development Review

The original YF-I7 design used a prefilter model technique in the pitch axis and was developed
using a shophisticated ground simulator. Prior to first flight the approach and landing flying
qualities were evaluated on the NT-33 variable stability aircraft. This evaluation showed that the
pitch flying qualities were very poor - "cliff like" degradations in the form of a large pitch P i 0
occurred near touchdown. The large ,equivalenttime delay introduced by the low frequency prefilter was
the source of the problem. Revising the design to reduce the time delay significantly produced a solid
Level 1 aircraft. The details of the YF-17 evaluation and an analysis of the flying qualities usin(1
the Neal-Smith criterion are presented in Reference 2.7.2 and discussed further In subsectlon 4.5.4.
in its final form, the YF-17 was an excellent aircraft from a flying qualities perspective.

2.7.3 F-18 Development Review

The F-18, which first flew in 197!3, represented a major revision of the YF-17 to meet Navy
requirements. A major feature of this revision was the incorporation of the quad digital fly-by-wire
control system which retained a mechanical reversion mode for emergency pitch and roil control. The
FCS design features were a relatively complex design (over 50th order in pitch power approacli mode, for
example) and, unfortunately, considerable equivalent time delay. Despite the use of in-flight
simulation to evaluate the power approach flying qualities, the F-18 emerged from its development
process with less than adequate handOing qualities. The final in-flight simulations were used in the
main to evaluate the sensitivity of the ciesign to time delay and to evaluate overall safety aspects.
Some of the details of this evaluation a!re reported in Reference 2.7.1.

The initial versions of the F-18 were characterized by an abrupt PiO-prone lateral response both
during in-flight tasks such as refueling and carrier landings. Pitch response was sometimes
unpredictable with a tendency to P i 0 fwident in tight tests. After several major revisions to the FCS
design, including switching from force to position commands, the F-18 emerged as an excellent flying
aircraft. it is truly a fighter-pilot's aircraft which possesses virtually carefree handling
characteristics including no low-speed AOA limits. The evaluation of the F-18 is summarized in
Reference 2.7.3 in the context of the general lessons to be learned from the early fly-by-wire
aircraft.
2.7.4 Lessons To Be Learned

The following lessons can be drawn from the YF-17 and F-18 programs:
t In the YF-17 case the potentially disastrous effects of large prefilter equivalent time delays
was not evident during ground simulations. Exposure of this problem required in-flight
simulation and actual landing tasks.
t The need for a team approach was evident in the F-18 development process where the Initial design
was solely the responsiblity of the digital control experts. A successful evolution of the FSC
occurred when experts from the flying qualitieslaerodynamics areas were Included in the design
team.

2.7.5 References

2.7.1 Smith, R.E., "Evaluation of F-l8AApproach and Landing Flying Qualities Using An
In-flight Simuiator", Calspan Report No. 6241-F-1, February 1979.
2.7.2 Smith, R.E., "On the Evaluation of the YF-16 and YF-17Aircraft Using Longitudinal
Maneuver Response Criteria", Calspan Flt Research Memo No. 510, November 1975.
2.7.3 Smith, R.E., "Evaluating the Flying Qualities of Today's Fighter Aircraft,"
AGARD-CP-319, October 1981.

2.8 SPACE SHUTTLE

2.8.1 Vehicle Description

The Space Shuttle Is clearly a unique vehicle with a very large flight envelope and represented a
significant challenge for the flight control designer. i t is mildly statlcally unstable in pitch
during the landlng phase with an aft c.g. where the time to double amplitude is on the order of 2.5
sec. The configuration Includes a delta platform with a large elevon which results In an
instantaneous center of rotation near the cockpit In the landing phase. Finally, the large elevon
surfaces are dlfflcult to move rapidly with realistic hydraulic demands. Surace rate limiting is
therefore a potential problem during high gain tasks such as touchdown.

A complete description of the Shuttle FCS is beyond the scope of this review. Reference 2.8.1
and 2.8.2 provide some insight into the FCS design. In simple terms the FSC is a quad digital system
with no mechanical backup. The design is relatlvely complex and equivalent time delay has been an
ongoing concern and a factor in the vehicle's flying qualities.

2.8.2

The flying qualities problems observed during the initial free flight trials and the in-flight
simulations (References 2.8.1 and 2.8.2) were related to high equivalent time delay (In the 200-250
mlllisec range), surface rate limiting and the lack of pitch/roll priority logic.

Attempts to actively control the vehicle in the final phases of the landing approach produced
overcontrol and finally PI0 problems In pitch. Any large rapid inputs produced surface rate limiting
which then rapidly lead to a divergent PIO. In the PI0 problem observed during the landing in
free-flight #5 rate limiting in pitch effectively locked out the lateral axis which then caused severe
lateral control problems. Recall that all of these problems are intensified by the unusual center of
rotation feature of this configuration. Changes to improve or compensate for the Shuttle flying
qualities problems were:
t Inclusion of a priority logic for pitch and roil commands to the elevons.
t Redistibution of filters from the forward path to the feedback path to reduce time delay.
t Inclusion of a PI0 suppressor (Reference 2.8.2) which helped to prevent divergent P I 0 due to
rate limiting and thus avoid the major problem near touchdown.
* Extensive training for the pilots to avoid closed-loop control inputs near the ground. The
pitch control System is essentiaily a rate command attitude hold type system which lends
Itself to an open-loop strategy for landing. Inclusion of a HUD and better external visual
guidance also helped the pilots perform the landing task in an open-loop fashion.

The Shuttle has evolved into a very impressive vehicle which performs a very difficult series of
mission tasks satisfactorily. Potential flying qualities difficulties have been minimized through
training and several relatively minor FCS modifications. Major changes in a complex mature vehicle
like the Shuttle are somewhat impractical. Reference 2.8.3 presents the results of several design
studies to address more directly the Shuttle flying qualities issues.

2.8.3 Lessons To Be Learned

Several lessons can be drawn from the Shuttle experience:

t The original design criterion for the Shuttle (Reference 2.8.3) limited the allowable pitch
rate overshoot. This design contraint dictated that the sluggish angle of attack and
therefore flight path response of this vehicle could not be altered. Such a design contraint
is not consistent with previous flying qualities results.
t Early use of in-flight simulation during the FCS design and development process would have
been beneficial and perhaps highlighted the potential pitch flying qualities problems relaled
to time delay and rate limiting early enough for modifications to be incorporated.
t Surface rate limiting is clearly a major problem which can be the final factor which sends
the vehicle over a latent flying qualities "cliff". Exposure of these sequential factors
requires vigorous realistic ground and in-flight simulator testing.

2.8.4 References

2.8.1 Weingarten, N.C., "In-Flight Simulation of the Space Shuttie Orbiter During Landing
Approach and Touchdown In the Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS), Calspan Report No.
6339-F-1, September 1978.
2.8.2 Weingarten, N.C., "In-IFiight Simuition of the Space Shuttle (STS-1) during Landing
Approach With Pilot-Induced Oscillation Suppressor", Calspan Report No. 6339-F-2,
December 1979.
2.8.3 Weingarten, N.C. and Chalk, C.R., "Application of Calspan Pitch Rate Control System
to the Space Shuttle For Approach and Landing,: Caispan Report No. 7102-F-1,
December 1982.

2.9 GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE X-31 FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM

2.9.1 Introduction

The objective of the X-31 program is to demonstrate "Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability (EFM)".
EFM is a composition of capabilities which will improve close air combat effectiveness in a future
all-aspect environment without significtintly degrading the ability to successfully conduct
beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat. The EFM capability is comprised of:
t post stall (PST) maneuverability
t steep descent capability
t enhanced agility in low speed envelope
t enhanced decoupled fuselage aiming
t enhanced deceleration
t enhanced negative g capability

The flight control system (FCS) will allow infiight demonstration of the beneficial effects o f
EFM. As a demonstration system, the FCS uses military specifications as guides for design and
development. The X-31 FCS is a full fly-by-wire system without any backup system, providing stability
and control for an aerodynamically unstable configuration throughout the flight envelope. The 1-CS is
effectively a guad digital system which uses three active digital computers and a 4th identical "lie
breaker" computer. The main elements of the FCS are flight control computers, rate gyros,
accelerometers, angle of attack and sideslip sensors, air data computer, inertial sensor unit and
control surface actuators. A thrust vector system will permit the X-31 to retain directional and
attitudinal control, even when its aerodynamic surfaces become ineffective due to post stall flight
condition. The thrust vectoring (Tv) consists of three paddles which can move into the exhaust stream
to deflect it to any direction commanded. The paddles can deflect the effective thrust force up 'to 10
degrees

2.9.2 Longitudinal Control Law

The X-31 is unstable in pitch with a time to double amplitude on the order of 0.2 sec in the worst
flight condition. In the longitudinal axis angle of attack and pitch rate are used as proportional
feedback signals to maintain stability and damping of the aircraft motion. These feedback signals are
 15

shaped with appropriate notch filters to suppress the feedback of structural modes. Lead-lag filters
are used to satisfy the gain- and phase-margins as required in MIL-F-9490D in the critical high dynamic
pressure subsonic flight regime.

In the feedforward path, which includes an integral path, the stick position commands angle of
attack for speeds below the corner speed and normal acceleration above the corner speed. The normal
acceleration command is converted with a stored aerodynamic lift table and the estimated weight of the
aircraft to an equivalent angie of attack command for this flight condition. Thus, angle of attack is
commanded throughout the flight envelope, with a variable stick gain depending on flight condition and
estimated weight.

The direct link uses angle of attack command to read out the trimmed trailing edge flap and canard
position from tables which are optimized for minimum drag at low angle of attack and control power at
high angle of attack flight conditions. An integral feedback of commanded minus sensed angle of attack
to trailing edge flap and canard is used to account for c.g. travel and aerodynamic uncertainties in
the trim tables. This delta angle of attack signal as well as delta pitch rate signal mutiplied with
the proportional feedback gains are distributed to trailing edge flap, canard and thrust vectoring
paddles. The distribution of the feedback to the different control surfaces is designed in a way that
the most effective surface has to do most of the work. During flight in the conventional flight
envelope the thrust vectoring can be switched off. In that case, the feedback signals to the thrust
vectoring paddles is redistributed to trailing edge flap and canard in a way that the small amplitude
behavior of the aircraft remains nearly unchanged.

2.9.3 Lateral Directional Control Laws

In the lateral directional part of the control system sideslip, roll rate and yaw rate are the
proportional feedback signals. As in the longitudinal part, there are also notch- and lead-lag filters
used to shape the feedback.

The lateral stick position commands a wind axis roll rate, which is converted to body axis roll
and yaw rate with angle of attack and sideslip. At high angle of attack, this leads mainly to a body
axls yaw rate command. The pedal deflection commands a sideslip angle whose maximum value is scaled
with flight condition and angle of attack. At high angle of attack, the pedal command is totally faded
out.

The commanded rates and sideslip are compared with the sensed values. These deltas are then
used, after scaling with the feedback gains, to command differential flap, rudder and thrust vectoring
paddles. When thrust vectoring is switched off, a redistribution similar to the longitudinal axis will
be performed. In addition, cross axes feedback loops are included to compensate for the moments
introduced by airplane inertia and engine momentum during maneuvers.

2.10 GENERAL COMMENTS

This brief review of several advanced aircraft designs including new aircraft such as the X-31
serves as background and confirmation that highly augmented aircraft require special design
considerations. As clearly stated in Reference 2.2.6, the versatility of fly-by-wire technology, which
typically now exploits the power of the digital computer, can improve handling for both maneuverable
military aircraft and larger, efficiency oriented transports, such as the A320 fly-by-wire aircraft.
The design engineer can largely tailor the aircraft response with little dependence upon the airframe's
basic characteristics including high levels of static instability. However, this increased freedom and
design power has meant more complexity because the designers often produce responses of much higher
order compared to classical aircraft. As shown by our examples, the result can sametimes be an
analytical nightmare and result in an aircraft with unacceptable or even dangerous handling qualities.
Potential problems associated with advanced flight control systems, which are particularly pertinent to
unstable aircraft, include non-linear effects such as control surface saturation, the need for
redundancy and fail-safe contingencies and inherent time delays.

Before discussing the typical problem areas associated with highly augmented aircraft which, of
course, are directly -
related to unstable aircraft, a few additional comments are in order.
2.10.1 Control System Redundancy a.nd Handling Qualities

Unstable alrcraft such as the X-29 require a high level of flight control system redundancy in
order to satisfy the necessary fail-safe criteria for safety. The level of augmentation, and therefore.
the handling quallties for such,aircraft often remain unchanged throughout the various control failure
states. For example, the handling quallties of the X-29 remain essentially unchanged in pitch in the
face of up to four pitch gyro failures. l'he aircraft would be lost on the next failure.

In general therefore. the emphasis for unstable control system design should be biased ,towards the
desired or "optimum" handling qualities regions (Pilot Rating -2). This situation is somewhat in
contrast to the past where most of the effort was directed towards defining the minimum acceptable
handling qualities boundary (PR -6.5) for failure cases.

2.10.2 Level 2 and 3 Stili to be C o n s i d e

For fly-by-wire transport aircraft, reliability and safety are the prominent issues in additloll to
performance. This requires flight control systems architectures which are at least quad-redundant
throughout, Existing systems have these redundancy levels, e.g. Space Shuttle. Airbus 320. in these
cases, Level 1 flying qualities only need to be considered for design because failure cases which
degrade system performance can be taken as extremely remote, and on the other hand the flight envelope
may be easily restricted by automatic means to be well within the range of good behaving aerodynamics.

For combat alrcraft one does accept higher risk levels. Performance, even at the edges of a large
envelope, is a design driving issue, and in most cases, leads to requirements conflicting with
controllability and flying qualities needs. The smaller scale of combat aircraft makes vital system
components, e.g. pitot static pickoffs and airstream detection devices, more vulnerable to outside
influences like bird strikes, because even for a quad-redundant layout, the pickoffs may have to be
placed close together out of other design constraints, e.g. mounting of radar, FLIR, gun. In addition,
system functions can be degraded or destroyed by war damage. All the above leads to situations where
reversionary modes have to be designcpd into the system, e.g. revert to flxed gains, partial feedback,
restructured control laws. The stability levels remaining may not satisfy the needs of Level 1 flying
qualities throughout the required flight envelope. Some of the burden to fly the aircraft has to be put
back to the pilot confronting him with Level 2 or even Level 3 flying qualities.

In combat, pilots make a much more violent use of their aircraft converting even to a "bang bang"
type control strategy for aircraft with "carefree" flight control systems. This feature combined with
the higher frequency of the eigenmotion or the shorter time to double amplitude can drive systems,
specially actuating systems, to their technical limits which in turn may lead to bad flying qualities
or even expose flying qualities cliffs. Therefore, for combat type aircraft occurrence of level 2 or
level 3 flying qualities cannot be totally avoided. However, the prlmary stabllization aspects of the
FCS system design for a highly unstabOe aircraft such as the EAP (EDA), Rafale or Swedish JAIi 39 Gripen
must remaln functional for aircraft survival. In these cases, the basic flying qualities remain
reasonable for the center of the envelope flying. As noted in this subsection, consideration muat
still be given to handling qualities degriadation or the loss of the "carefree" aspects of the design
under certain failure conditions. Even !though the main emphasis for highly augmented designs:,
Particularly for the highly unstable caseis, should be focussed on the "optimum" or desired flying
-
qualities regions (PR 2) there may be conditions where Level 2 or 3 flying qualities are encountered.

2.10.3 System Architecture

For fighter alrcraft in up and awa:y flight, the typical flight control system architecture is g
command at high speed changing to angle of attack command for low speed. in some cases, such as the
EAP and the European Fighter Aircraft development, pitch rate command is the choice for small demands
at moderate speeds. Auto trim is a general feature of all designs. In the approach and landing phase,
a rate command attitude hold system iri pitch is often used. in most cases, some form of speed
stability is typically incorporated. More conventional classic response shapes are the system 01
choice from the pilot's viewpoint.

in summary, the handling qualities potential offered by advanced full-authority electronic flight
controi systems is enormous. Early adventures with this advanced technology approach to FCIi design
revealed serlous problem areas. The examples of the Space Shuttle, YF-16, YF-17 and F-18 illustrate
the extent of these early difficulties. Recent experience continues to yield mixed results. Unstable
 17

aircraft such as the Rafale, the EAP and the X-29 are complex, highly augmented aircraft which have
exhibited good to outstanding handling qualities. Other recent examples such as the JAS 39 Grippen
indicate that not all the lessons of the past are fully appreciated. The major causes of handling
quailties problems in the world of highly augmented aircraft are highlighted in the foilowing Section

2.11 HANDLING QUALITIES PROBLEM AREAS

2.1 1.1 introduction

It is not possible to state clearly a set of recommendations which can be used to avoid handling
qualities problems. There are really two broad areas of concern: technical design issues and the more
philosophical non-technical issues related to human behavior and interaction. The broader
non-technical issues are discussed in Section 9 in which the flight control system and handling
qualities development process are reviewed.

The technical issues are somewhat interrelated which makes the definition of rigorous
recommendations difficult. However, major problem areas can be identified. Control system time delays
and the effects of control system non-linearities such as surface rate limits are clearly major issues.
These areas and the general subject of control sensitivity selection are discussed in the following
subsections.

2.11.2 Time Delay

For the pilot it is crucial that the subconscious relationship between brain, hands and desired
aircraft response be retained. Significant time delay between pilot input (typically stick position,
refer to Section 7) and aircraft response can affect this instinctlve closed loop and lead to handling
qualities problems. Time delays as low as 150 miilisec can noticeably affect the pilot’s ability to
perform precision tasks such as air-to-air tracking or landing.

Complexity in itself does not cause handling qualities problems. In the past examples, System
complexity typically resulted in time delay because of additional dynamics in the flight control system
forward path. If the connection between controller and control surface is essentially direct, the
pilot can operate instinctively in an attempt to achieve the desired response. The pilot wants a
correlated initial acceleration in response to his input. When this correlated acceleration is not
present, the pilot loses his instinctive capability and in most cases significant handling qualitles
problems in the form of PlO’s typically result.

“Time delays”, described or quantified by whatever means, seem invariably to have been
attrlbutable to one simple factor. This factor is the introduction in the control laws of excess
phase lag between the stick command output and the actuation input, creating an acceleration lag which
Is absent in conventional aircraft. Lag introduced by an actuator is inevitable but is small enough
to be unnoticed. Additional control law acceleration lag is unnecessary and can always be eliminated
by attention to the control structure.

As noted in Reference 2.1 1. I and 2.1 1.2, there is strong evidence that the allowable time delay
is a function of the initial response shape or control sensitivity. Larger time delay thresholds
appear to be allowable for less abrupt responses. As is usuaiiy the case, handling qualities problems
are generally caused by multiple interrelated factors. The allowable time delay appears to be a
function of at least the task and the initial response shape.

In summary, complex systems can be designed and successfully flown if the time delay problem is
avoided by effectively providing a direct path from controller to control surface.

2.1 1.3 Control System Non-Linearities (Rate Limits)

System saturation in the form of position, rate and possibly acceleration limits, is sometimes
unavoidable. However, if actuator limits are reached during the response of an unstable airframe, the
stabilization is effectively lost and the aircraft will usually go out of control. The effects of
rate limiters in any part of the flight control system must therefore be evaluated. Typically these
evaluations are done on suitable simulators. To perform an adequate evaluation requires that the FCS
be agressively excercised even to the point of incorporating tasks which may appear to be unrealistic
but in fact are representative of the off-nominal stressed situation where rapid large control inputs
IX

may be required. As an example, interitional large glide path errors should be introduced l o require
large rapid corrective inputs on final appraoch. Although in the "real world" a new approach would be
initiated in the face of such a large initial error, this task may be very revealing and essential to
the evolution of a safe design.

Loss of controi in pitch can also occur even when saturation occurs in a roll response if the
same control surfaces are used. It is essential to ensure that such saturation interaction effect!;
cannot take piace whatever extreme command inputs are made in pitch roil and yaw. Suitable control
axis priority logic must be part of the design.

Because there are practical limits to the maximum actuation rates possible if large weight
penalties are to be avoided, "upstream" rate limiting is feasible when properly applied. Simple stick
command rate limits can be varied as a function of flight condition or response amplitude so that
surface rate saturation is just avoided in full stick applications. Sustained inadvertent oscillatory
inputs should be avoidable by control IBW design techniques to enhance PI0 resistance, but even if
deliberately excited, the signal attenuation largely compensates the additional lag and the PI0
resistance is effectively maintained. it is essential however, that such an upstream rate limit is
applied to all elements if gross changes in behavior are l o be avoided.

In a stable axis, the augmentation may be adversely affected by actuator rate limiting, even
though the alleviation in gain due to rate limiting can be favorable to some extent. Significant
actuator acceleration limiting can have a drastic effect, however, creating a sudden jump in phase lag
and an increase in gain sometimes known as a "jump resonance". The reduction in PI0 resistance or
stability margin may be very severe when large control reversals are made. Although actuators always
have an acceleration limit, this has no handling implication when sufficiently high, because it then
occurs only at frequencies well beyond those of interest to the pilot.

2.1 1.4 Control Sensitivity

The selection of the appropriate level of controi sensitivity (initial acceleration per inch or
pound) has been a factor in handling qualities problems of aircraft with new controllers such as the
YF-16 and potentialiy the JAS-39 Gripen. in the case of a new controller design, the guidelines of
the past are not easily applied and the Temptation is to make the selection using a ground simulation.

The near disaster of the initial "flight" of the YF-16 is a clear example of the folly of this
practice. Do not optimize control sensitivity of a new design using only ground simulation. In these
cases, the use of in-flight simulation would appear to be a mandatory part of the aircraft development
process.

2.1 1.5 References

2.1 1.1 Berthe, C.J., Knolls, L.H., Peer, J.H., and Weingarten, N.C., "Fly-By-Wire Design
Considerations," SETP Cockpit Magazine, October, November, December 1988.
2.11.2 Monagan, S.J., Smith, R.E., and Bailey, R.E., "Lateral Flying Qualitiesof Highly
Augmented Fighter Aircraft," AFWAL-TR-81-3171, January 1982.
 SECTION 3

UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE EVALUATION OF HANDLING QUALITIES

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Work accomplished during the past several years to improve fixed and rotary wing handling
qualities specifications has resulted in a systematic approach which can be utilized to insure
that all pertinent factors have been accounted for. These factors are summarized as follows:
The characteristic shape of the aircraft response to commands should be matched to the
required tasks. Control mode switching may be required.
The aircraft resDonse characteristics should account for the degree of divided attention
required of the pilot. This is especially important for single pilotperations.
Different criteria should be invoked for small amplitude and large amplitude maneuvering.
The effect of displays should be accounted for, especially when operating at low altitude in
poor visibility.
Several criteria should be utilized to perform handling qualities evaluations of an existing
aircraft, or to design the control laws for a new or modified aircraft. Some criteria only
apply to certain Response-Types, and this should be accounted for (see Section 4).
The overall pilot rating is a result of the handling qualities in each axis. Two or three
marginally acceptable ratings in each axis will usually result in an unacceptable overall
rating.

Space does not allow a complete description of the methodology, and only a brief description
is contained herein. A more complete review is contained in Reference 3.1.1, and was used as a
guide to the complete revision to the military rotorcraft specification in Reference 3.1.2.

3.1.1 References

3.1.1 Hoh, Roger H., Unifying Concepts for Handling Qualities Criteria, AlAA Paper No.
80-4320, August 1900.
3.1.2 Anon, Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, ADS-33C, August 1989,
United States Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, MO.

3.2 DEFINITIONS

The proposed methodology for unifying handling qualities analyses is based on certain
procedures, definitions and terminology. These are summarized in the following paragraphs.

3.2.1 Mission-Task-Elements (MTEs)

One of the most important lessons from flying qualities experiments during the past 20 years has
been that the task must be well defined, including what constitutes "desired" and "adequate"
performance on the Cooper Harper Handling Qualities Rating (HQR) scale (see Reference 3.2.1).
Therefore, it is essential that all the proposed missions be subdivided into specific handling
qualities tasks, which are defined as "Mission-Task-Elements" (MTEs).

An example of the importance of rigorously defining the MTEs can be appreciated from an
experiment wherein one pilot assigned an HQR of 1 and the other a 10. The first pilot evaluated the
characteristics of a SCAS that allowed maneuvering at higher angles-of-attack than were previously
possible with the subject aircraft. He found the flying qualities in the extended angle-of-attack
region to be excellent -- HQR-1. The second pilot explored the departure characteristics of the new
system and found them to be uncontrollable -- HQR-10. Why did this experiment produce a 1 and a 10
from two experienced test pilots? Because they evaluated different tasks (MTEs in the new jargon).
It is important that the MTEs represent the lowest common denominator in terms of piloting
requirements.

3.2.2 Response-Type

The response of highly augmented airplanes depends on the nature of the feedbacks and feed-
forwards used in the automatic flight control system (AFCS). For example, some common Response-
Types are Attitude-Command-Attitude-Hold (ACAH), Rate-Command-Attitude-Hold(RCAH), or combin-
20

ations of feedbacks which make an airplane look "Conventional". The intent of defining Response-Types
is to cataiog generic inputloutput characteristics, not to define the AFCS structure. The use of
labels such as ACAH has the advantage of describing the response, and the disadvantage of implying
that the feedbacks and feedforwards commonly associated with the label are being addressed. We have
chosen to retain the more descriptive labels at the risk of possible confusion, as illustrated by the
following example. The flight control system shown in Figure 3.2.1has attitude feedback and is
sometimes referred to as an "attitude system". However, the integrator in the input path can cause
the response to have the characteristics of a Rate Command Attitude Hold "Response type" (I3CAH).

Figure 3.2.1 Example o f an "Attitude System" Classified

a s Rate-Command-Attitude-Hold (RCAH)

3.2.3 Usable Cue Environment (UCEJ

The mlnimum stabilization required to achieve an acceptable level of workload increases as the
pilot's usable cue environment (UCE) is degraded. The UCE consists of the outside world plus cockpit
displays andlor vision aids. A methodology has been developed to account for this in Reference 3.1.2
via the scales shown in Figure 3.2.2. The VCR scale allows the pilot to rate the visual environment,
while the UCE values determine the appropriate Response-Type, or in some cases, define a need for a
dlfferent level of dynamics within a Response-Type category (see References 3.1.2 or 3.2.2 for
details). The UCE methodology applies to near-earth operations where the pilot is flying with rospect
to out-the-window cues in poor visibility. It is currently well developed for helicopters, but not
for fixed-wing applications. Typical fixed-wing tasks where UCE is a factor are low visiblity
landings and terrain following.

3.2.4 Divided Attention

Divided attention operation refers to requirements on the pilot to perform tasks not directly
associated with control of the aircraft. An example of a divided attention task would be terrain
followlng, terrain avoldance, plus navigation, and operation of aircraft systems andlor weapon5
systems while manually flying the aircraft. In such cases, the mid and low frequency characteriistlcs
of the aircraft are important. i.e. frequencies below wB or cos . The criterion in Figure 3.2.2 Is
used in the recently revised rotorcraft specification to 8efine tRe required stability of the mld/lO\N
frequency modes. For mission tasks where the pilot can devote essentially full attention to aircraft
control, low frequency instabilities are allowed. If significant periods of divided attention are
required, the minimum damplng ratio of low frequency modes is 0.35 (dotted line In Figure 3.2.3).
 1 T GOOD 1 T GOOD 1 T GOOD

21-
c f FNR

4-

AMude HOikAl.4
POOR 5
V&d
1 POOR

Tranrlatl& TrJsl;tional
Rate Me

X = PIch or roll s t b d e and latenl. longiludinal,

or v e M kanslational rate.
Good X Cues: Can make aggresim and p e e X comaions vmh
mmidenca and prsdrnn is gwd.
Fair X Cues: Can make limiled X mnenions wCh confidence
andpredsion konlyfalr.
PmrX Cues: Only small and gentle atredions in X U P possible,
and consistem precision is n o l a ~ e b l e .

a ) V i s u a l Cue Rating (VCR) Scale t o be b) Definition of Usable Cue Environments

Used When Making UCE Determinations

Figure 3.2.2 Definition of Useable Cue Environment

Used in New Rotorcraft Specification

Level 3

Required when divisi

of attention is a
significant factor $- 5 = -0.20
k

-0,75 -0,50 -0.25 0 0,25 0,50

-bn
Figure 3.2.3 Limits on Pitch and Roll Oscillations
llations as a
ivision of Attention
Function of Required Pilot Division
22

3.2.5Maneuver Amplitude

Most handling qualities criteria apply lo small amplitude closed loop tracking. However, t:his
distinction is rarely made, and the criteria are used for maneuvering at all amplitudes, Sometlm~es
with poor results. Therefore, in this proposed unified methodology, the applicable criteria are
specified In terms of maneuver amplitudes: m a i l and large. Criteria for these regions are disclissed
in Sections 4 and 5 respectively.

3.2.6 References

3.2.1 Cooper, George E., an13 Robert P. Harper Jr., The Use of Pilot Rating in the
Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities, NASA TN D-5153,April 1969.
3.2.2 Hoh, Roger h., David G. Mitchell, et.al., "Background Information and User's Guide
for Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft", USAAVSCOM Technical
Report 89-1-008.

3.3 SELECTING THE PROPER RESPONSE-TYPE

Studies have shown that there arme certain generic response shapes that enhance the ability of
the pilot in the performance of one or more elements of the aircraft mission. Therefore, an
important first step in the design of a flight control system is lo properly match the
"Response-Types" to the "Mission-Ta:;k-Elements". An example of the pros and cons of several
Response-Types for the approach and landing task is given in Table 3.3.1.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Conventional Well accepted llare Lightly damped phugoid nwde.

Airplane Characleristics
Requires trimming to change
airspeed during the approach
Angle-of-attack sensing required .
gust sensitivity problems.

No trimming requiredto Not as desirable lor llare.

accomplish airspeed Not Level 1 il llTq < 1Kg2
changes during the approach.
Tendency to float in llare
Tendencv for airsoeed Control
problem; during ihe approach
(associatedwith division 01
anention).

Anitude Highly desirable tlare Requires trimming during approach.

Commandl Characteristics.
Anitude Hold
(ACAH)

Flight Path Highly desirable llare Requires trimming during approach.

CommandlFlight characteristics.
Path Hold May resun in excessive speed
,leedoff for unpowered approach in
Nindshear.
Sensing requirements m r e
:omplex than lor ACAH.

Table 3.3.1 Competing Response Types for Landings

 in many cases, the selection of a Response-Type which is not the best one for the task
produces acceptable, but not desirable flying qualities. Prior to fly-by-wire aircraft, it was
not possible to develop task tailored flight control systems, and the pilots simply learned to
live with less than optimum flying qualities for some tasks. One of the prime advantages of the
new technology Is the possibility for tailoring the flying qualities to the piloting tasks. An
example of how the choice of the proper Response-Type can affect flying qualitles can be seen from
the data in Figure 3.3.1 from the precision landing experiments conducted on the USAF/Calspan
variable stability TlFS aircraft (see References 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). Here it can be seen that a
significant improvement in pilot opinion occurred by changing to an Attitude Command
Response-Type, even though the dynamics (bandwidth) were essentially constant. It is Interesting
to note that the Airbus A-320 switches from a Rate Response-Type to an Attitude Response-Type at
an altitude of 50 feet, just prior to the landing flare.

The Response-Types are defined in terms of the generic control response characteristics
associated with known augmentation schemes. For example, the fundamental properties which
identify the Response-Types in Table 3.3.1 are summarized below and in Figure 3.3.2.

I+ Response-type

a-

P 7-
._
TI -
+
s
.-
.- 6
_O -
a
L
a,
$ 5 -
c
L
m
a
O 4 -
8
3 -
\
&o (radmc)
2- 8-1-5.1 + Configuration number

Notes: 1) Bandwidth and Phase Delav

.. ~. . Test Desionedto Evaluate
were essentially unchanged 3) Control Laws for a Generic
between Rate and Attitude Transwrt (193,000 LB Gross)
Response-Types

2) Attitude was obtained from

Rate Response-Type by
inserting a Washout Pre-
Filter at the Output of
Lhe Cockpit Controller

Figure 3.3.1 Flight Test Results Showing Effect o f Changing

f r o m Rate t o Attitude Response-Type
 24

Figure 3.3.2 Generic Characteristics of Three Response-Types

3.3.1 Conventional Airplane

t Short period and phugoid modes are well separated and easily identified. The phugoid mode is
typically lightly damped, with an imscillation that occurs at constant angle-of-attack.
t The Bode plot of flight path response to longitudinal controller Inputs Is Ws between the
phugoid and short period modes.
t The time response of pitch attitude to a step controller Input increases monotonically In Ihe
short term, and returns to trim when the controller is released.

3.3.2 Rate Command Attitude Hold (RCAH)

t Phugoid dynamics are eliminated

t Attitude numerator defined by l / T inatead of I I T .
t Flight path frequency response i k k s between 19fe2and 1/T ,when 1IT > > l / T e 2 .
# Time response of pitch attitude increases monotonically to a s%p controll& input, and holds
attitude at point of release.

3.3.3 Attitude Command Attitude Hold-

# Attitude response is proportional to controller input with some lag (defined by ~ 0 7 .

+ Steady flight path change is proportional to controller input with lag defined by IIT,
t Time response of pitch attitude to a step controller input is a constant attitude, which'
returns lo trim when input is removed.

3.3.4 Important Characteristics

Some important characteristics aNf these Response-Types are summarized as follows:

# The RCAH Response-Type introduces flight path lag if 1lT is much greater than l/Te2.
+ The above noted flight path lag does not exist for the Conv8nIional Response-Type, i.e. l,Te2
does not appear in the y l b response.
 25

Augmenting the short period frequency increases the flat stretch between 1/T, and w' and
hence the pitch rate overshoot for a conventional Response-Type. Too much ofthis results in
excessive drop-back (see Section 4).
The relationship between attitude and flight path discussed above, and shown in Figure 3.3.2,
is fundamental to the CAP boundaries used in the Lower Order Equivalent System (LOES)
criterion discussed in Section 4. Hence, that criterion should not be applied if the
Response-Type is not Conventional. In practice, the LOES/CAP criterion usually works for
RCAH, since problem configurations usually exhibit excessive equivalent time delay. However,
misleadinQresults may occur, and other criteria should be utilized if the Response-Type is
not conventional.
Application of the LOESlCAP criterion to an ACAH Response-Type is incorrect.

There has been considerable debate in the flying qualities community as to the need for pitch
rate overshoot for good flying qualities. The characteristics discussed above allow the flight
control system designer to determine the need for pitch rate overshoot in terms of first principal
requirements. For example, if the value of 1/T is,Iow, pitch rate overshoot is needed to
augment the flight path response, and conversqy if it is not small, pitch rate overshoot is not
necessary. Hence, it may not be possible to achieve good flying qualities with an RCAH
Response-Type if l/Te2 is low. In such a case, the designer may elect to augment to Conventional
dynamics by the use of angle-of-attack feedback (to augment the short period frequency), or by the
use of an ACAH Response-Type.

It is extremely important to pay careful attention to the method used to switch between
flight control system modes. Inadequate switching logic can negate any advantages due to task
tailoring. In the case of the A-320, the switching is accomplished automatically at a reference
altitude, which is natural for the landing task. The flight control system design used for the
European Fighter Aircraft (EFA) blends between a conventional Response-Type and a RCAH
Response-Type as a function of stick position and airspeed as follows:
t At low airspeed and aft stick, afeedback is dominant producing a Conventional Response-Type.
t At moderate airspeeds and stick positions, a proportional plus integral feedback of
pitch-rate is employed, Le., an RCAH Response-Type.
t At high airspeeds, the RCAH Response-Type is retained and the command gain is scheduled to
produce a constant stick-force-per-g. These modes are blended in and out so that at some
airspeeds and stick positions a combination of Conventional and RCAH exlsts. Experience with
the prototype aircraft (British Aerospace EAP) has indicated that this is not a problem.

In some cases, a manual switch may be more desirable, and the human factors associated with
location of the mode-switch controller, and annunciation of the current mode must be carefully
accounted for. Since there has been very little research in this area, it is usually necessary to
perform basic human factors research during the system development process.

3.3.5 References

3.3.1 Berthe, C.J., Chalk, C.R., and Sarrafian, S., "Pitch Rate Flight Control Systems in
the Flared Landing Task and Design Criteria Development, NASA CR 172491, Oct. 1984.
3.3.2 Weingarten, Norman C., Berthe, Charles J., Jr., Rynaski, Edmund G., et. al., "Flared
Landing Approach Flying Qualities. Volume I, Experiment Design and Analysis", NASA
CR 178188, Dec. 1986.

3.4 COMBINED AXIS PILOT RATINGS

The combined effect of degraded handling qualities in each axis of control is not addressed
in any of the specifications. There is, however, an empirical formula which seems reasonably
effective as a method to predict the overall aircraft flying qualities in terms of the HQRs in
each axis.
 c
Where

R m = the predicted overall pilot rating

R, = the pilot rating in a given axis
m = the number of axes rated

This equation has been investigated in a motion base piloted Simulation experlemnt (Refmerence
3.4.1) with good results. it is interesting to note that the predicted effect of two 5s in a
two-axis task is a 7, and two 3s is approximately a 4. That is, the effect of combined axes
becomes more important as the handling qualities in each axis degrade.

3.4.1 References

3.4.1 Mitchell, David G., Aponso, Bimai L., Hoh, Roger H., "Minimum Flying Qualities,
Volume I: Piloted Simulation Evaluation of Multiple Axis Flying Quaiioties",
WRDC-TR-3125, January 1990.

3.5 PITCH RATE OVERSHOOT

Pitch rate overshoot is not an end in itself but reflects the ratio of the transient angle of
attack rate to the steady flight path angle rate. This is determined by the parameter T ,, and the
short period frequency and damping or its equivalent. The overshoot ratio increases generally
with wing loading and with altitude. Typically its absence is associated with a sluggish flight
path response and with some overshoot in attitude, which can lead to overdriving or "digging in''
especially if the response bandwidth is low. The WS-like attitude response in which the nose
appears to "follow the stick" always contains some pitch rate overshoot. However, excellent
small-amplitude target tracking can be achieved with a deadbeat pitch rate response of sufficient
bandwldth, and the conflicting requirements for fast target acquisition can be resolved by
amplitude-dependentfiltering as demonstrated by the AFTIIF-16 and the RAE ACT Hunter. The EAP
and FBW Jaguar probably represent the limits of the wide range of acceptable attitude behaviciur
that are possible in the landing approach, both having satisfactory flight path response. The EAP
has a high value of 1/Te2,and the control law provides an essentially deadbeat attitude response
whereas the FBW Jaguar has a smaller value of 1/Te2and the control law is designed to provide a
large pitch rate overshoot with substantial attitude dropback. The reason for using increased
pitch rate overshoot on an aircraft with low 1/Te2is discussed In Section 3.3.

3.6 TIME DELAYS AND PHASE DELAY

Excessive values of these parameters can be directly attributed to control law lags
introduced between the pilot command inputs and the corresponding control surface actuation input
signal. These additional lags are absent in conventional aircraft, where the pitch and roll
accelerations essentially follow the stick commands instantaneously. Proper attention to the
control law structure is necessary to eliminate unnecessary lag.
 SECTION 4

LONGITUDINAL CRITERIA FOR SMALL AMPLITUDE PRECISION

ATTITUDE AND FLIGHT PATH CONTROL

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Criteria that have been found to be useful for the prediction of flying qualities of aircraft in
the performance of small amplitude precision tracking tasks are briefly discussed in this section.
The intention is to familiarize the reader with these criteria; details related to data correlations
are left to the appropriate references.

Experience has shown that several criteria should be utilized in the evaluation of the handling
qualities of an existing aircraft, and in the development of a new flight control system. For
example, the upper limit on the Bandwidth is defined by the Dropback criterion. In some cases, one
criterion will expose a handling qualities deficiency that others do not. It is also important to
understand the regions of validity of a given criterion. For example:
t The Lower Order Equivalent Systems Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) boundaries are valid for
airplanes with a classical Response-Type (see Section 3). The method usually works for Rate
Response-Types, since the culprit is often time delay, which is essentially equivalent to the
more general phase-rate and phase-delay parameters. However, application of the CAP criterion to
an attitude command system will produce completely misleading results.
t The proper bandwidth must be selected for the Neal-Smith criterion, or, perhaps more
appropriately, the bandwidth must be systematically varied to examine flying qualities trends.
t The dropback criterion only applies to rate systems where the effective stick-free static
stability is zero, Le., where the stick must be returned to zero to stop the pitch rate.
t The attitude variations must be reasonably small for all of these criteria to apply (on the order
of plus or minus five degrees in pitch and 10 degrees in roll). Criteria for larger amplitude
maneuvering are contained in Section 5.
t The criteria generally apply to the linear region of control. If significant nonlinear operation
is encountered, it must be accounted for by using describing function techniques, or by other
methods discussed in Section 5. It should be noted that significant nonlinear control for small
amplitude tracking is in itself a warning of unacceptable flying qualities.
t None of the criteria in this section properly account for control sensitivity and feel system
dynamics. These factors must be accounted for separately as discussed in Section 7.

4.2 LOW ORDER EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS (LOES)

The equivalent system approach takes mathematical models of aircraft with complex stability and
control augmentation systems and reduces them to simple low order form. This method allows flying
qualities analysis, design and real-time simulation with direct reference to familiar unaugmented
dynamics. Many matching techniques have been used, with equal success. For analytical evaluation of
a design, a frequency response match of the low order transfer function by a direct search method has
been shown to reduce longitudinal dynamics effectively, using a cost functional as shown in Figure
4.2.1. For longitudinal dynamics, short period pitch rate and normal load factor (measured at the
instantaneous center of rotation) responses to longitudinal commands are simultaneously matched with
the spacing of frequency response data similar to that shown in the figure. The resulting values of
short period damping and frequency are then compared with current specifications, such as MIL-F-8785C
or Mil Standard 1797.

4.2.1 Rationale Behind Criterion

Augmented longitudinal dynamics are typically modeled by very high order responses with many
modes. In attempting to apply early Military Specifications on low order modal parameters, control
system designers frequently used a single 'dominant' mode from the high order response. This proved
inappropriate because other modes contributed significantly. The equivalent system matching
technique, using a low order aircraft model plus a time delay, was explored by Difranco and Neal and
Smith and Stapleford, et al (References 4.2.1,4.2.2, and 4.2.3). In Reference 4.2.4 the criterion
was developed as a reliable method of determining damping and frequency for specification compliance.
An equivalent delay not only greatly improved the match, but also strongly degraded pilot ratings
(Figure4.2.2). The LOES method was established as an interim way of determining the low order modal
terms need for specification compliance; however, it eventually became part of MIL-F-8785C. It was
 r- -
---
High Order Response
Equivalent System

?FL
-a

m
3
E
i I
I

I
I
1

1
1
Note. Intervals equi-spaced on log scale.

.'. .-I
---__}
-rad'se(

p20

20
Minimize Cos1 Functional (mismatch) = Z (Gi2 + Wpi2); W = 0.02
i=l

Figure 4.2.1 Optimizing Cost Functional for Equivalent System

Deter m i ria t io n

Frequency Response 01 Pitch Rale lo Slick Force

10

m
p
.- o
m
0
-5

-1 0
50

0
Ln
? -50
=,3
-100

-150

-200
0.1 1.0 10.0
Frequency. radlsec.

Figure 4.2.2 Pole-Zero and Frequency Response Comparison of High

Order System, Dominant Root Approximation and Low Order
Equivalent
 29

also required for demonstrating compliance with equivalent phugoid, lateral-directional, V/STOL and
CCV model criteria. References 4.2.5, through 4.2.1 1 are some examples of equivalent system
appilcations.

4.2.2 Guidance for Application

Matching is quite robust, to the extent that hand matching can be used in event of computer
failure. As a quick check, equivalent time delay can be estimated directly from the phase curve (see
discussion of T~ under bandwidth Section 4.3). Application to actual aircraft flight responses has
emphasized that frequency domain equivalent system methods are far easier to handle than any step time
history interpretations of the method. Fast Fourier results from flight test distribute more
frequency points at higher frequencies as compared with Figure 4.2.2, so some correction may be
required to capture the character of the low frequency response. Some users (Reference 4.2.12) have
recommended shifting the frequency range of match to straddle the equivalent short period frequency.
When normal load factor responses from flight data are used, care must be exercised to allow for
effects of sensor location (see Reference 4.2.12).

Many discussions about whether to fix or free the numerator term if matching the pitch response
alone (see Reference 4.2.13 for background) were settled arbitrarily by enforcing simultaneous
matching of pitch and normal load factors, thereby essentially fixing the term. These discussions
were not mathematical but physical, because they were in truth arguments about whether attitude,
flight path or both should be considered. The LOES method (or CAP for that matter) could not settle
the arguments because insufficient data existed.

Reference 4.2.14 documents an in-flight experiment to validate the question of equivalence. It

contains guidance on flight evaluation of augmented dynamics (see also Reference 4.2.15) and
introduces envelopes of allowable mismatch. References 4.2.16, 4.2.17 and 4.2.18 document comparisons
of LOES methods with other approaches. Reference 4.2.19 discusses how to include feel system dynamics
in the equivalent time delay. Reference 4.2.20 describes identification of equivalent parameters from
flight time history records.

4.2.3 References

4.2.1 DiFranco, D.A., "In-Flight investigation of the Effects of Higher-Order Control

System Dynamics on Longitudinal Handling Qualities," AFFDL-TR-68-90, August 1968.
4.2.2 Neal, T.P. and Smith, R.E., "An in-Flight Investigationto Develop Control System
Design Criteria for Fighter Airplanes," AFFDL-TR-70-74, December 1970.
4.2.3 Stapleford, R.L., et al, "Outsmarting MIL-F-8785B(ASG), The Military Flying Qualities
Specification," STI-TR-190-1, August 1971.
4.2.4 Hodgkinson, J., LaManna, W.J., and Heyde, J.L., "Handling Qualitites Analysis of
Aircraft with Stability and Control Augmentation Systems - A Fundamental Approach,"
Journal R. AeS., February 1976.
4.2.5 Hodgkinson, J., Berger, R.L., and Bear, R.L., "Analysis of High Order AircraftlFlight
Control System Dynamics Using an Equivalent System Approach," Seventh Annual
Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and Simulation, April 26-27, 1976.
4.2.6 Brulle, R.V., Moran, W.A., "Dynamic Flying Qualities Criteria Evaluation,"
AFFDL-TR-74-142, January 1975.
4.2.7 Brulle, R.V., Moran, W.A., and Marsh, R.C., "Direct Side Force Control Criteria for
Dive Bombing", AFFDL-TR-76-78, September 1976.
4.2.8 Hodgkinson, J., and LaManna, W.J., "Equivalent System Approaches to Handling
Qualities Analysis and Design Problems of Augmented Aircraft," A I M Atmospheric
Flight Mechanics Conference, 8-10 August 1977.
4.2.9 Hodgkinson, J., "Analysis of the Longitudinal Carrier Approach Dynamics of an
Advanced Navy Fighter Using an Equivalent System Approach," McDonneil Douglas
Corporation, MDC Report A51 14, 23 December 1977.
4.2.10 Smith, R.E., "Effects of Control System Dynamics on Fighter Approach and Landing
Longitudinal Flying Qualities,: Calspan Report AK-5280-F-12, March 1978.
4.2.11 Johnston, K.A., and Hodgkinson, J., "Flying Qualities Analysis of an In-Flight
Simulation of High Order Longitudinal Control Systems Effects on Fighter Aircraft
Approach and Landing," McDonnell Douglas Corporation Report MDC A5596, 1981.
4.2.12 Wiihelm, K., "Criteria for Small Amplitude, Precision, Closed-Loop Tracking: Lower
Order Equivalent System," DLR Report IB 111-88/32, April 1989.
 3(1

4.2.13 A'Harrah, R.C., et al, "Are Today's Specifications Appropriate for Tomorrow's Airplanes?",
AGARD F MP Symposium on Stability and Control, Ottawa, Canada, September 1978. Also
McAir Paper 78-013.
4.2.14 Smith, R.E., et ai, "Equivalent Systems Verification and Evaluation of Augmentation
Effects on Fighter Approach and Landing Flying Qualities", AFWAL-TR-81-311€;,Volume
2, September 1981.
4.2.15 Hodgkinson, J., and Snyder, R.C., "Flight Evaluation of Augmented Fighter Airc:raft",
A I M Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Danvers, Massachusetts, August 1980.
4.2.16 Hodgkinson, J., "Comparison of Two Flying Qualities Design Criteria for Advanced
Flight Control Systems," Flying Qualities Symposium and Workshop, WPAFB, IDayton,
Ohio, October 1978. McAir Paper 80.010
4.2.17 Melnyk, M., Joshi, D., and Hodgkinson, J., "Comparison of Bode Envelope Flying
Qualities Criterion with ,lhe Proposed Mil-Standard," AlAAAtmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference, Gatiinburg, Tenn., August 1983.
4.2.18 Hodgkinson, J., "Equivalent Systems", AGARD FMP Symposium, Fort Worth, Texas, April
1982.
4.2.19 Potsdam, E.H., and Hodgkinson, J., "An Analysis of Feel System Effects on Lateral
Flying Qualities" AlAA F'aper 90-1824 Aerospace Engineering Conference, Los Angeles,
California, February 19!30.
4.2.20 Shafer, M.F., "Low-Order Equivalent Models of Highly Augmented Aircraft Determined
From Flight Data:, Jounal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol5, No. 5, Sept-Oct
1982 Pg 504.

4.3 BANDWIDTH CRITERION

4.3.1 Description of Criterion

Bandwidth is indicative of the highest frequency at which the pilot-airplane loop can be
closed without threatening stability (i.e. encountering a Pilot-Induced Oscillation [PIO]).
Specifically, it is defined from the Bode plot of the augmented airplane, as the frequency where
the phase margin is 45 degrees, or where the gain margin is 6 dB (see Figure 4.3.1). For tasks
where flight path control is an important factor (e.g. landing), it is necessary to specify the
bandwidth of both the attitude and flight path. The genericshapes of the bandwidth boundaries
for pitch attitude and flight path control are shown in Figure 4.3.2. The Bandwidth criterion is
described In more detail in Reference 3.2.2 and 4.3.1,

IiIdB

(x = 0,O.Y)
(xi=F.orS.)

Figure 4.3.1 Defiinition o f Bandwidth a n d Phase Delay

 Sluggish Flight Path Response

Attitude Bandwidth, OBW

e

Figure 4.3.2 Generic Shape of Attitude and Flight Path Bandwidth Criteria

4.3.2 Rationale Behind Criterion

Physically, the Bandwidth is a measure of the frequency below which the pilot can follow all
commands, and above which he cannot. The characteristic frequency of the effective commands
depends on the task, and hence the bandwidth boundaries are task dependent. Most configurations
are phase margin limited, i.e. the phase margin Bandwidth is lower than the gain margin Bandwidth.
Bode plots for configurations which are gain margin limited tend to be PI0 prone and exhibit a
"shelf" such as shown in the example in Figure 4.3.1.

The Bandwidth criterion consists of two parameters, bandwidth (w,,) and phase-delay (y ).
The phase-delay parameter is a measure of the shape of the phase curve at frequencies above fhe
bandwidth frequency. That Is, the phase curve drops off more rapldly for "large values" of phase
delay than it does for "small values". Hence, phase-delay is a measure of the slope of the phase
curve In the vicinity of -180 degrees. An important caveat is that it is a frequency weighted
slope. That is, for the same phase-slope, the value of phase-delay will be higher for low values
of w 8 0 , Physically, this implies that a steep phase slope is more important when w180 occurs at
low fhquency, than if it occurs at frequencies above the region of piloted crossover.
The phase-delay parameter, T can be shown to be very similar to the Lower Order Equivalent System
time-delay parameter, T~ (seesection 4.2) and to the phase-rate parameter (Section 4.4). In
fact, the phase-rate and phase-delay parameters can be shown to be numerically identical ifthe
phase-rate slope is taken between the 180 degree frequency and twice that frequency.

4.3.3 Guidance for Application

The upper boundary of the flight path bandwidth criterion (Figure 4.3.2) represents excessive
flight path response such as might occur if the gain is set too high on a direct lift control flap
or spoiler. Increasing the flight control system feedback or feedforward gains to achieve
increased values of attitude bandwidth (or equivalent short period frequency) may result In
increased dropback (due to increased pitch-rate overshoot). Hence, it is important to check the
dropback criterion in Section 4.7 when augmenting an unstable or sluggish airplane to high values
of bandwidth (or equivalent short period frequency).
 The primary advantages of the 13andwidthcriterion are that it applies to all Response-Types,
and hence is Ideal for highly augmented aircraft, and it Is easily calculated from a Bode or
Nichols plot of the higher order system. On the negative side, the calculation of bandwidth from
flight test records requires a Fast Fourier transform on data which contains sufficient power at
the frequencies of Interest. Experience has shown that even benign maneuvers usually contain
sufficient power. For example, excell'ent Bode plots of the Shuttle attitude transfer function
have been obtained from landing flare data. More conventionally, the bandwidth is calculated from
frequency sweeps as discussed In Reference 4.3.1.

4.3.4 References

4.3.1 Military Standard, Flying Qualities of Piloted Vehicles, MIL-STD-1797 (USAF),

March 1987.

4.4 PHASE RATE CRlTERiON

Phase rate is the slope of the phase curve around the neutral stability point, Le. (d+/dw)'" =
180". It has been found emplrlcaily tci have a strong relationship with the features which tend lo
promote PIO. These features consist of a low frequency with correspondingly low pitch acceleration,
which can lead the pilot to employ excessive gain, resulting In a large response amplitude at the PI0
frequency. A high phase rate appears; to negate efforts by the pilot to break out of a PIO, since any
increase In crossover frequency due to "tightening up" results In a rapid decrease In phase margin.

The Phase Rate criterion has been used In the European Fighter Aircraft Handling Qualities
Specification (unpublished) to insure good closed loop precision tracking characteristics.

It can be shown that the phase rate criterion Is proportional to the phase delay parameter (TJ,
which Is part of the Bandwidth criterion (see Section 4.3) if the phase slope In Figure 4.3.1 is taken
between the 180" and twice the 180" frequency. For that special case, (d+/dw)w=180' =2T,,.

4.5 NEAL-SMITH CRITERION

4.5.1 introduction and Background

The Neal-Smith closed loop (i.e. pilot-in-the-loop) criterion was originally developed for highly
augmented fighter aircraft performing precision tracking tasks (Flight Phase Category A). A later
attempt to extend the criterion to the approach and landing task (Flight Phase Category C) was
successfui. In the lnltiai work a faulty assumption was made that the landing task was a low gain,
undemanding task relative to a fighter tracking task. Subsequent evidence from slmuiation programs
and the MHOS program (Reference 1) Indicated that the flare and touchdown phase of the landing task
was indeed a demanding, high gain task.

Complete details on the criterion are contained in Reference 4.5.2. Briefly, the criterion
assumes a simple closed-loop pitch attitude tracking task as shown In Figure 4.5.1. The pilot block
in the closed loop should be viewed, more properly, as a pitch attitude compensator since even though
the form of the "pilot model" used is representative, the modei was not experimentally confirmed. The
criterion represents a "flying qualities test" and as such is not dependent on the accuracy of the
"pilot model" assumed.

The criterion assumes a certain "performance standard", or degree of aggressiveness, with which
the "pilot" closes the loop. This standard is defined in the frequency domain as a bandwidth
frequency (we): This bandwidth is task dependent; the value for a particular task Is determined
heuristically using pilot rating and corriment data to obtain the best overall correlation with the
criterion parameters. For a given desired bandwidth, the "loop Is closed" and the compensator, or
pilot model, parameters are varied to yield the best overall closed-loop performance. A more Qienerai
application of the criterion involves reviewing a suitable range of bandwidth frequencies.

The criterion output parameters are the pilot compensation (workload) required and the resuiting
I I
closed-loop performance as measured by the maximum value of closed-loop resonance( e/@,.max). Low
frequency performance is constrained by limiting the "droop" up to the bandwidth frequency. These
criterion parameters are illustrated in Figure 4.5.2. Application of the Neal-Smith criterion
consists of the following steps:
 33

t Specify the bandwidth or range of bandwidths appropriate for the task; must be determined
for each task by data correlation.
t Adjust pilot model parameters, the compensation, (using a fixed value of time delay) to
meet the "performance standard" set by the bandwidth requirement.
t Measure the closed-loop compensation required (pilot workload) and the closed-loop maximum
(1
resonance wec ).,, I
t Typically, pilot workload is measured by the phase angle of the Compensation required at
the bandwidth frequency [k =I.
t Plot measuredvalues again& Neal-Smith flying qualities boundaries to evaluate the flying
qualities. Boundaries for the original tracking data are shown In Figure 4.5.3; typical
pilot comments around the Neal-Smith parameter plane are illustrated In Figure 4.5.4.

In the original analysis (Reference 4.5.2),a pilot time delay of T = 0.3 sec was assumed
and a maximum droop of -3 dB was imposed. For the flight conditbn most representative of a
fighter tracking and maneuvering environment, a bandwidth of 3.5 radlsec was selected.

The required analysis can be performed by hand or using a digital computes program. A
Nichols Chart technique forms the basis of the analysis to yield the necessary closed-loop
parameters. A Nichols Chart solution using a desired bandwidth of 3.0 radlsec is illustrated in
Figure 4.5.5.

PILOT AIRFRAME
&- PLUS F C I

--
PITCH ATTITUDE COMPENSATOR

Figure 4.5.1 Criterion Pitch Tracking Task

"I:-
.10

IOUTPUTS

.IO -

LOG Y - w
4rlM

Figure 4.5.2 Neal-Smith Criterion Parameters

 I
Ah

Figure 4.5.3 Neal-Smith Parameter Plane

LIGHTLY DAMPED
CLOSED LOOP
TENDENCY TO PIO.
OVERSHOOT, OR OSCILLATE

h
SLUGGISH
INITIAL
RESPONSE

-
HIGH PILOT
ABRUPT INITIAL RESPONSE WORKLOAD
SMOOTH PILOT INPUTS
PILOT TENDS TO

<=
APPLIED
OVERDRIVE AIC

GOO0 RESPONSIVE AIRPLANE

EASY TO ACQUIRE AND TRACK A TARGET
r3
- LAG LEAD - 4pc

Figure 4.5.4 Typical Pilot Comments

Figure 4.5.5 Typical Amplitude-Phase Curve Overlayed on a Nichols Chart
(Configuration with High a s p )
36

/
’1 iLAG CENUILS: CONFIGI. 3-1

Figure 4.5.6 LAHOS Data -

3 d B Droop Criterion Relaxed,
WB 3.0 radlsec, ~p 0.2 sec.

4.5.2 Evaluation of the Criterion

A review study of landing flying qualities evaluation criteria for augmented aircraft
(Reference 4.5.3) recommended revisions to be basic criteria parameters and the task related
bandwidth values. These revisions were based on a revisit with the data base from LAHOS and the
original data base. The revisions werel:
t Pitch compensator (pilot) t h e delay of 0.2 sec (vice 0.3 sec in the original version).
t Approach and landing task b,andwidth of 3.0 radlsec.
t Fighter tracking task bandwidth of 4.5 radlsec.

In addition the flying qualities boundaries were slightly modified as shown In Figure 4.5.6
which includes the LAHOS data points. Perhaps of greater importance in the study was the
recognition that the performance of a (givenconfiguration, in terms of resonance, as bandwidth is
varied is a more important factor. Poor designs exhibit flying qualifies “cliffs” which are
equivalent l o large non-linear changes in resonance with small changes in pilot technique
(bandwidth).

4.5.3 Configuration Sensitivities to Criterion Parameters

It is clear that some aircraft dynamic combinations are particularly sensitive to changes in
task environment or piloting technique. in this context, sensitive means that large changes in
flying qualities can occur with different pilots or with small changes in the task standard of
performance. For these aircraft, large variations in pilot ratings for the same task are common.
Indeed, the measure of a good aircraft is its insensitivity to pilot techniques or small task
variations. From a flying qualities requirement viewpoint, application of the criterion at a
specific bandwidth is likely required; however, from a design criterion viewpoint, evaluation of
the changes in performance over a realistic range of bandwidths provides the more important
information. This point is illustrated in detail in Reference 4.5.3.

There is, therefore, another dimension to the criterion plane: suitable sensitivity
parameters are required. From the pilot point of view, this sensitivity reflects the degree of
difficulty he has in "adapting" (compensating) as the task requirements change rapidly.

4.5.4 Practical Application of the Criterion

The importance of the performance trends with bandwidth variations is clearly illustrated in
Figure 4.5.7. The original flight control system for the YF-17 as flown in the NT-33 In-flight
simulator exhibited very poor fiying qualities and was significantly changed prior to first
flight. The trends of closed-loop performance with increasing bandwidth are non-linear and show a
very large degradation of performance as bandwidth is increased above 2 rad/sec. This Sensitivity
to changes in bandwidth or pilot technique is a definite indication of flying qualities problems
which would not be evident if the evaluation was done at only one value of bandwidth. in
contrast, the changes in YF-16 performance with the same increases in bandwidth are linear and
show that while some improvements are warranted there are no lurking "cliffs".

4.5.5 Use of the Criterion as Part of a Design Methodolog)!

During the recent flight tests of the X-29A forward swept wing technology demonstrator
aircraft, a series of design changes were made to the pitch axis aimed at improving the initial
pitch response. Pilot complaints were centered on a sluggish initial pitch response and excessive
control throw which lead to control harmony problems. As a first step, the longitudinal stick
travel was cut in half while maintaining the same stick force per g. This change resulted in much
Improved vehicle fiylng qualities. The final goal was to show that fighter-type initial response
characteristics could be designed into the highly unstable X-29A aircraft. An iterative design
methodology was developed which used the Neal-Smith criterion as a guideline to affect the desired
increase in pitch acceleration (Reference 4.5.5). Important features of this design method were
that the existing control system architecture was retained and the stability and robustness of
this unique aircraft were maintained.

-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Pilot Compensation, 4pc (deg)

Figure 4.5.7 Correlation of YF-16 and YF-17 w i t h Original Neal-Smith
C r i t e r i o n ( L a n d i n g Approach)
38

-20
-2

I -4
PILOT LEAD

0 - ORIGINAL DESIGN
0- STICK MODIFIED DESIGN
D - GAIN MODIFIED DESIGN (WITH NEW STICK)

Figure 4.5.8 Neal-Smith An;alysis on X-29A Development Configurations

(ThetalForce)

This procedure provided a practical (meansfor improving the flying qualities of the X-29A
without excessive re-design. The pitch acceleration was increased 100°/o while retaining good
precise pitch control and good stability margins. The X-29 cases are plotted on the Neal-Smlth
plane in Flgure 4.5.8 using the origlnal scriterlon parameters. The projected Improvements of the
X-29 pitch flying qualities conform reasonably well with the average pilot ratings from flight
test.

4.5.6 Summary Comments

The following comments on the Neal-Smith criterion are found in Reference 4.5.3 in which
several applicable flying qualities criteria are compared.

t Desirable Features:
- Good pitch landing and fighter tracking flying qualities discriminator; exposes bad
aircraft consistently.
- Parameter plane dimensions are directly related to typical pilot comments.
- Provides a design target area which guarantees good flying qualities if met regardless of
system complexity.
- Evaluation of aircraft's longitudinal maneuvering response characteristics can be done in
one step; eliminates "combination of bads" question present in other criteria and military
specification.
ideal as a design criterion since "sensitivity" of the aircraft dynamic system to changes
in task performance standard or pilot technique can be explored effectively.
The potential exists that the criterion (or any of the linear handling qualities criteria
for that matter) could also be used to evaluate systems with non-linear elements. This
process would involve obtaining frequency response data for a range of pilot input
magnitudes just as in flight te::t using fast fourier transform techniques. The results of
the analysis for various input magnitudes could then be used to indicate the handling
qualities trends during high-gain large amplitude tasks which might occur during
off-nominal high stress situations.
 t Undesirable Features:
- Application of the criterion is relatively complex although it can be done efficiently and
consistently using the digital computer program.
- Although not of a concern for typical highly augmented designs, the Criterion does not
predict pitch landing flying qualities accuratelyfor lightly damped unaugmented aircraft.
- Requires an additional ”adaptability” metric to evaluate properly aircraft which are
sensitive to task variations or changes in pilot technique. The criterion does, however,
lend itself to such an application as a design guideline.
- Cannot accurately evaluate systems with non-linear elements, although the potential exists
to use the criterion for various size inputs using frequency sweep data.
- Requires selection of appropriate bandwidth from flight test data for use as a
specification method

4.5.7 References

4.5.1 Smith, R.E., ”Effects of Control System Dynamics on Fighter Approach and Landing
Longitudinal Flying Qualities (Vol. I),” AFFDL-TR-78-122, March 1978.
4.5.2 Neal, T.P. and Smith, R.E.. “An In-Flight Investigation to Develop Control System
Design Criteria for Fighter Airplanes (Vol. I and II),” AFFDL-TR-70-74, December
1970.
4.5.3 Radford, R.C., Smith, R.E., and Bailey, R.E., “Landing Flying Qualities Evaluation
Criteria for Augmented Aircraft,” NASA CR 163097, August 1980.
4.5.4 Smith, R.E., “On the Evaluation of the YF-16 and YF-17Aircraft Using Longitudinal
Maneuver Response Criteria,” Calspan, Flt Research Memo No. 510, November 1975
4.5.5 Bosworth, J.T. and Cox, H.C., “A Design Procedure for the Handling Qualities
Optimization of the X-29AAircraft.“ A I M 89-3428, Boston, Mass., August 1989.

4.6 FREQUENCY DOMAIN CRITERION

4.6.1 Brief Description of Criterion

The criterion defines limits for the normalized open loop transfer function of pitch
attitude, etc., due to stick deflection deltaks in a Nichols diagram (Figure 4.6.1). Normalizing
means in this context that the transfer function under test has to be shifted up or down by
varying the gain until it runs through 0 db at -1 10 deg phase lag. Because the Nichols diagram
contains no constraints for the frequency range allowed, Figure 4.6.2 gives the required bandwidth
for the flylng qualities levels L1, L2, L3 for flight phases A, B. and C.

Figure 4.6.1 Pitch Attitude Frequency Response Limits

40

* BW
= a at 120” Phase Lag

Figure 4.6.2 Pitch Attitude Response Bandwidth

The boundaries identified by asterisks (*) in Figure 4.6.1 are applicable only where
provision is made for precision attitude control for fine tracking at small stick inputs. In this
case the boundaries identified by the asterisk in Figure 4.6.2 need not be observed for stick
inputs of less than 10 mm (0.4 inch) for center stick controllers.

For the boundaries identified by a double asterisk (* *), additional criteria apply for the
not normalized transfer functions pitch attitude due to stick deflection. At the frequency where
phase lag of pitch attitude to cockpit control displacement is 180 deg. for levels 1, 2 and 3:
t The rate of change of phase lag shall be less than 16 deglradlsec (100deglHz) or if greater,
then the phase rate at 190 and 200 degrees phase lag shall be significantly less than 16
deglradlsec (100deglHz).
t The amplitude shall be less than a maximum of 0.022 deg/N (0.ldegllb) or 0.03 deglmm for a
phase rate of 16 deglradlsec (lOOdeg/Hz), increasing to 0.036deg/N (0.16degllb) or 0.05
deglmm for a phase rate of 11 deglradlsec (7OdeglHz) or less if omega 180 > = 1.OHz.

4.6.2 Rationale Behind the Criterion

Full authority flight control systems led to total system (aircraft plus flight control
system) transfer functions of significantly higher order than those on which the short period
pitch axis criterion of MIL 87858 Reference (4.6.1) was based.

In particular the effects of the phase shift of more than 180 deg which is normally exhibited
by the higher order systems was not covered in Reference 4.6.1, Moreover, there may be moro
dominant modes which could be addrfssed as “short period modes“. To overcome these problems,
Brauser, Diederich and Roger (MBB) Reference 4.6.2 developed, based on the principles in Ri?ference
4.6.1, criteria in the frequency domain, one of these being the predecessor of the criterion
proposed here. This predecessor mapped the short period criteria of MIL 8785B into the frequency
domain, thus defining boundaries for tile transfer function pitch attitude due 10 stick input
instead of defining the transfer functioii by its roots and zeros. The criterion was subsequently
presented to an international audience! at the AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on “Criteria
for Handling Qualities of Military Aircraft" in April 1982 (Reference 4.6.3). in 1985-1986
Dornier, under government contract, undertook a simulation study in which among others the
criterion developed by MBB was correlated with pilot ratings gained from air-to-air close-in
combat. This exercise showed the basic validity of the approach chosen. However, some
modifications to the boundaries proved to be necessary and were proposed by Dornier.

Furthermore, Dornier combined the "Diederich" criterion with a criterion proposed by Gibson
(Reference 4.6.4) which was also formulated in the frequency domain and presented in a Nichols
plot. DLR subsequently compared the criterion with the Neal-Smith database (Reference 4.6.6)
again finding good correlation. in addition, the combined criterion was checked by Gibson
(British Aerospace) against his flying qualities database collected mainly from the fly-by-wire
Jaguar and the experimental aircraft (EAP) programs. in the course of joint discussions Dornier,
DLR and British Aerospace developed the final version of the criterion, which also serves as one
of the design guidelines for the development of the longitudinal flying qualities of the European
Fighter Aircraft (EFA).

4.6.3 Guidance for Application

The criterion was designed for the evaluation of closed-loop flying qualities involving small
stick inputs, Le. it is applicable to judging the precision tracking behavior of combat aircraft
for flight conditions where essentially linear behavior can be assumed. Regions of high angle of
attack may have to be excluded.

During the design phase of an aircraft project, the transfer function of pitch attitude
response to stick deflection is readily available as an equation and can therefore easily be
compared to the criterion and the additional features, e.g. phase rate between -150 deg and -200
deg phase, can be computed as local gradients. For flight test derived transfer functions more
care is needed around the area of -180 deg phase and suitable mean values of the phase rate have
to be derived because of the occasional poor quality of flight test data especially near and
beyond the -180 deg. phase.

If the right hand side level 1 limit above 0 db is violated excessive drop back leading to
pitch bobble Is indicated whereas violation of the left hand limits points to sluggish aircraft
behavior resulting in overshoots. infringement of the left hand limits of Level 1 below 0 db
suggests that the design may be pilot induced osciliation prone.

Feasibility of the criterion in the high angle of attack region will be demonstrated by the
X-31A program. The original Diederich criterion was used in the design of this experimental
aircraft up to high angles of attack. Otherwise the criterion compares well with databases as
given in References 4.6.5 and 4.6.6 as well as with details of more recent unpublished experience
with the above mentioned experimental aircraft designs of British Aerospace.

4.6.4 References

4.6.1 Military Specification, Flying Qualities of Piloted Airplanes, MiL-F8785B (ASG),

16 Sept. 1974
4.6.2 K. Brauser, L. Diederich, W. Roger, Steuerbarkeitskriterienzur Bewertung der
Manovriereigenschaften moderner Hochleistungsfiugzeuge, MBBIFE301ISIRI1505,
22 _Dec.
__ - -. 1980
. .
4.6.3 W. Neuhuber, L. Diederich, K. Brauser, Handling Qualities Criteria for Longitudinal
Control. AGARD CP 333. Aor. 1982
4.6.4 Gibson,' Handling Quaiities'for Unstable Combat Aircraft, CAS 86-5.3.4 1986
4.6.5 Chalk, C.R., et ai., Background information and User
Guide for MIL-F-8785 (ASG), AFFDL-TR-69-72, Aug. 1969
4.6.6 Neal. T.P. and Smith, R.E., And infiight investigationto Develop Control System
Design Criteria for Fighter Airplanes (Voi I and ii), AFFDL-TR-70-74, Dec. 1970

4.7 DROPBACK CRITERION

The attitude response widely recognized as optimum for compensatory closed-loop tracking is Ws,
that is with pitch rate purely proportional to stick input. The attitude appears to follow the stick
and remains fixed at the value existing when the input is removed. This cannot be exactly realized in
42

practice, but the equivalent result can be achieved after a transient disturbance. Attitude dropback
is then defined as the case when the altitude moves back towards a previous value when the input is
removed, as shown in Figure 4.7.1.

The problem of "pitch bobble" in tracking is directly related to the effect of bandwidth. VVhiie
a fast flight path response is desirable for target acquisition, and is achieved by a high short
period frequency, the consequence is usually a large dropback. The attitude response becomes very
difficult to stop exactly on target. On tile other hand, zero nominal dropback can be achieved by
reduced short period frequency and bandwidth, but the attitude transient may be prolonged to the
extent that fine predictability is lost. if the bandwidth is sufficiently low, the attitude will
overshoot the expected value, and this gives the feeling of "digging in", leading to an overdriving
tendency.

The qualitative effect of a given value of dropback is influenced by the pitch rate overshoot
ratio, effectively the ratio of initial angle of attack rate to the steady flight path angle rate.
The higher this ratio is, the more step-like the dropback appears, being associated generally with
high bandwidth. These characteristics generally become more pronounced with increasing altitude
because of the changing relationship of pitch rate and angle of attack. Their Importance is related
to the task requirements. For general maneuvers and flight path tasks, they have little significance
unless fairly extreme, a factor also influenced by the quality of the flight path information
presented to the pilot. For precision tracking, very small values of dropback or overshoot are
optimum when combined with high attitude bandwidths. This can be achieved by command filtering at the
expense of flight path bandwidth.

Successful application of this filtering technique has been demonstrated on the AFTI-F-16. NASA
F-8, RAE ACT Hunter, F-15 SIMTD, and EAP, and it will be used on EFA. The conflict with flight path
control has been resolved in most of these examples by an amplitude-dependent filter optimizing
attitude for small commands and flight path for large commands.

pitch rate
q
(degkec)

41 I

Figure 4.7.1 De,finition of Attitude Dropback

 As a rule-of-thumb, the following design limits on dropback have been found to lead to good
flylng qualities.

db < .25 precision tracking; db < 1.Olanding

4.8 APPLICATION OF SOME LONGITUDINAL HANDLING QUALITIES CRITERIA FOR HIGHLY

AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT TO AMX AIRCRAFT

AMX Is a subsonic dedicated attack aircraft developed within the framework of a joint
Italian-Brazilianprogram. It is a basically stable aircraft with a quasi-conventional FCS. in
fact, it has been provided with a limited authority SAS which only marginally affects the flight
characteristics, and the flight control is achieved by a three axes fly-by-wire system managed by
a digital flight control computer along with conventional electrohydraulic lines. From the flight
mechanics standpoint, It has been designed using basically the MIL-F8785-C requirements as design
criteria, but for some specific tasks the MIL Specification proved insufficient to fit the flying
characteristics, so the need for more demanding requirements arose.

More modern criteria have been applied in the areas of longitudinal and lateral-directional
precision tracklng tasks, to cope with our operational problems and prevent PI0 tendencies. Both
frequency and time domain criteria gave good results. For the longitudinal maneuvering
characteristics, in general AMX shows good handling qualities and is in agreement with the
MIL-F8785-C Specifications. Nevertheless in the context of our activity supporting the flight
trials, we had some concern relating to the precision tracking task in some particular flight
condltlons. Figure 4.8.1 shows the longitudinal time and frequency response evaluation for one
flight condition of interest.

*
ha,,
,..

-.
.a.1
.... ......
...... ..... ...... ......
i : i :
..
I
.. .
2
. .
I
r 1 .l.....
:
I
.
. .
s
....................

I
r
.
1

MACH = 0 . 4
MEDIUM ALTITUDE

Figure 4.8.1 Typical Longitudinal Time a n d Frequency Responses

44

At the M =0.4 flight condtion illustrated in Figure 4.8.1 there were difficulties during
precision tracking tasks but correlation with the militaryspecification predicted good flying
qualltles. Comparison with the dropback criterion at several flight conditions as shown In Figure
4.8.2 does, however, indicate the degraded flying qualities observed in flight at M =0.4. In the
landing condition the frequency response criterion was used with good success to prevent any PI0
tendency.

4.8.1 References

4.8.1 Bava, R., "Flying Qualities Experience on the AMX Aircraft", AGARD Flight Mcichanics
Panel Symposium, Quebec, Canada, October 1990.

Precision Tracking:
A: Satisfactory
B: Abrupt, Bobble Tendency
C C: Continuous Bobbling
D: Sluggish

t [rec] t [sec]

..

Figure 4.8.2 Comparison w i t h the Dropback Criterion

4.9 TIME DOMAIN VS. FREQUENCY DOMAIN CRITERIA FOR PRECISION CONTROL

Although we have shown examples of time response criteria, in general the specification of
handling qualities for precision tracking with aircraft attitude is best accomplished with
frequency based criteria. These criteria emphasize features directly related to the piloted loop
closure. Time domain criteria have been found to be more appropriate for use with lower frequency
phenomena such as pursuit tracking, flight path control, etc. Most time domain criteria for
attitude control are based on a step or boxcar input. Such inputs emphasize the mid and low
frequency characteristics, at the expense of the response in the region of piloted crossover,
which tends to be suppressed to the origin.

A moving-base piloted simulation experiment was conducted on the NASA Ames Vertical Motion
Simulator specifically to compare rise-time type criteria vs. the Bandwidth criterion. The tasks
were 1) to hover a VSTOL over a point on the deck of a ship in Sea State 3, and 2) to land on that
point. Four configurations were formulated which had Identical Bandwidth, but exhibited wide
variations in rise-time due to changes in the damping ratio. ACAH was used because of known
problems with simulator validity for Rate Response-Types. The step input time responses and
corresponding pilot ratings for the tested configurations are given in Figure 4.9.1. The pilot
ratings are essentially invariant in spite of a wide variation in rise time, indicating that
Bandwidth is a more appropriate metric than rise time for the prediction of handling qualities for
small amplitude precision tracking tasks. In addition to these results, the time domain criteria
had other shortcomings as follows:
The Level 1 values of rise time involved very smaii values
(order of .05 sec.).
Slight variations in the shape of the "step" input caused
significant changes in the rise time.
Rise time data obtained from flight tests were not repeatable, due to the input shaping
problem noted above, atmospheric disturbances, and problems with establishing ideal initial
conditions.
The important slope of the phase curve must be estimated from the effective transport time
delay which is suppressed to the origin.

WBWe = 3.0 radlsec All cases

1.40

1.20

1.oo
e
-
ec
.80

.60

.40

.20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time

Figure 4.9.1 Illustration of Insensitivity of Pilot Rating t o Rise Time

- Bandwidth is Constant
46

While frequency domain criteria are generally more applicable, there has been some suocess
with time domain criteria within experi!ments. For example, the transport handling qualities work
accomplished in Reference 4.9.1 showed considerable success in correlating handling qualities
ratlngs with time response envelopes. For the unified flying qualities method presented herein,
frequency domain criteria are recommended for small amplitude, precision, closed-loop tasks, such
as precision landings, air refueling. formation flying, etc. However, the dropback criterion
should also be checked to ensure that the augmentation has not resulted in excessive overshoot.
Time domain criteria have been found to be particularly applicable to low frequency andlor large
amplitude response characteristics, SiJCh as are discussed In Section 5.

4.9.1 Reference

4.9.1 Mooij, H.A., Criteria for Low-Speed Longitudinal Handling Qualities of Transpclrt
Aircraft with Closed-Loop Flight Control Systems, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR,
Amsterdam, Septembisr 1984.

4.10 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THlE VARIOUS CRITERIA

Many features of the foregoing criteria are related. The phase slope, phase delay and
equivalent delay parameters for example are not only aimed ai the same augmentation phenomenon,
they are often numberically similar. Short period equivalent frequency and the Neal-Smlth lead
parameter have also been shown to bo very closely related (Reference 4.2.16). To be effectivo, a
criterion should address features of the augmented response that are known to affect flying
quailties. Figure 4.10.1 indicates how each criterion addresses each response feature.

-
Longitudinal Criteria Overview
COMMENTS
LONG TERM

Rapldltyl Experience Wllh Palential lor

osCillatoPI High
Senslllvi~ Path1AHltude
crite,ion Non-iongltudlnal Further R W
AXIS 6 Pmbisms Acllvllies

Separately
specified TBD

bandwidth

Vied lor ai1

102 OR W B w y 1411 Axes mer in 8501
Phase Delay upgrade
iimil

Ha$ been used

Equivalent sys-
Damping
Equiv. lime de- Lumped
gether cap.
In to- :.~RCAH,
~ ~ ~ $ , , m l
ACAH
lo inlerprel ex.
irlioi3 8785 re-
g"in!ments

Gain margin
TOW
margin phase margin Phase margin None TBD

Has been used

separaie1y Separalely Enensive ex- lor uride variely
specified specified ploralonl Work 01 exploralory
8pptiCatiO"S

Uses path delay

a6 separate pa- TBD TBD
Gibson 1reqvensy 180 deg. rameter

Figure 4.1 0.1 L o n g i t u d i n a l Criteria Overview

 SECTION 5

MODERATE AND LARGE AMPLITUDE LONGITUDINAL HANDLING

QUALITIES CRITERIA

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Most new handling qualities criteria apply to small amplitude closed-loop tracking. However,
this distinction is rarely made, and the criteria have been used for maneuvering at all amplitudes,
sometimes with poor results. The ability of fly-by-wire technology to tailor the handling qualities
for different tasks has also focused attention on the need for separate small and large amplitude
response criteria.

Physical limitations will usually prevent the achlevement of identical response characteristics
at all amplitudes. At angles of attack near the stall, lift slope variations alter the relationship
between attitude and flight path, so that conventional parameter metrics become meanlngless. The
pitch down control margin at the stall may be quite small on unstable aircraft, and non-linear
pitching moments are also commonplace, so that the response characteristics can depend both on
direction of the control input and on the initial condition. Actuation rate limits alter the
acceleration characteristics, and introduce a hard limit for unstable aircraft because feedback
stablllzation, and therefore control, will usually be lost.

5.2 CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS

There are currently no formal specifications for large amplitude maneuvering for fixed-wing
aircraft. However, the rotary wing specification (ADS-33C, see Reference 3.1.2) includes a criterion
for moderate amplitude maneuvering and this is discussed below in Section 5.4. The standard limits on
frequency and damping define the normal acceleration and consequently the flight path response, and
are certainly applicable for moderate amplitudes within the linear response range. Moderate and large
amplitude crlteria are required l o insure that rapid degradations in handling do not occur a1 the
onset of non-linear operation such as actuator rate limiting.

Current studies of agility have resulted in a number of metrics related exclusively to large or
maximum amplltude maneuvers. All are essentially functions of the time to achieve some change in
steady state by means of a rapid transient response. These are discussed further In Appendix C.

5.2.1 References

5.2.1 Gibson, John C., Handling Qualities for Unstable Combat Aircraft CAS 86-5-3-1, 1986

5.3 CURRENT FLY-BY-WIRE AIRCRAFT

The basic pitch control laws are designed to satisfy the conventional Mil. Std. 1797 flight path
requirements expressed as frequency and damping. In one example, (the F-15 STOUManeuvering
Technology Demonstrator) this was done by the low order equivalent system method. in highly unstable
aircraft such as the EAP and EFA, optimum handling can be achieved by adding command filtering to the
basic regulated response. It is most convenient to satisfy flight path requirements directly, using
boundaries such as those in Figure 5.3.1 converted directly from the Mil. Std. 1797 requlrements.
These can be applied to calculated responses without low order matching.

The frequency response bandwidth of a conventional aircraft, which is discussed in Section 4, is

related to the flight path angle time delay as shown in Figure 5.3.2.

For good maneuverability a high bandwidth is necessary, but this could lead to attitude bobble or
excessive attitude dropback which is unsatisfactory for precision tracking. In Section 4 it is shown
that high bandwidth for good target acquisition can be retained with optimized small amplitude pitch
tracking by use of amplitude dependent command filtering. For large amplitude maneuvers with full
stick inputs, non-linear computer simulation is used with the qualitative goal of achieving the
fastest possible response withln actuation rate limits, reaching but not exceeding the structural
envelope or controlled flight departure limits. Despite generally small initial pitch down control
moment In unstable aircraft at high angles of attack, recovery l o level flight can be made as fast as
the pitch up by the use of a suitable command structure.
 10

6.7

3.06
2.6

I .o

s
-
d
E
5a
jl
E
..P
E
3 0.1

0.01

Figure 5.3.1 Transformed Frequency and Damping Boundaries

1 2 3 4 5
(do NATURRLFREWENCY W B E C

Oswy = Frequency at which phase lag ihi 135 degrees

Derivedfrom { =

t - Effectivedelay in step time r a s p "

Figure 5.3.:! Flight Path Angle Bandwidth

 49

While general criteria for gross maneuvers are not available, the basis from which both small and
extreme amplitude responses are developed is the nominal moderate amplitude control system.

5.4 ATTITUDE QUICKNESS CRITERION

This criterion was formulated to apply to moderate amplitude maneuvering, defined here as pitch
attitudes over 2 5 degrees and roll attitudes over & 10 degrees about trim. It accounts for the fact
that the bandwidth must decrease as the maneuver amplitudes increase, to keep accelerations within
reasonable limits, and to avoid actuator rate limiting. The parameter. p k l A + , termed “attitude
quickness” turns out to be an ideal solution since it is a time domain eqthalent to bandwidth, and
thereby represents a direct extension to the small amplitude precision tracking criterion. The
equivalence between bandwidth and attitude
quickness Is valid as long as the input is single sided (pulse or boxcar) as shown in Figure 5.4.1
(see Reference 3.2.2 for details). Therefore, it is important that the test inputs used for
comparison with the criterion boundaries be essentially one sided &e., the cockpit control should
not reverse sign from the trim value). Experience has shown that open loop pulse inputs of increasing
magnltude work best.

Criterion boundaries have not been developed for fixed wing aircraft. However, the general shape
of such boundaries can be seen in Figure 5.4.1.

Physically, bandwidth and p k l A + are measures of the crispness of the response. The extension to
larger amplitudes allowed by the a h u d e quickness criterion provides an excellent measure of
agility. The need for such a measure was apparent during an agility conference held at Edwards AFB
(Reference 5.4.1). There it was noted that the best criteria involved the time to change attltude
through specified angles, but that such criteria were inherently closed loop In nature. As a result,
they tended to be overly sensitive to the tolerance of the final attitude, and lo indMdual pilot
technique. The p IhO parameter is a measure of the quality of the closed loop response, and has the
desirable feature 8f being based on open-loop testing.
_____-_
‘The parameter p k l A O is used in this discussion to represent the form of the criterion. The ratios
Fp,lAB and rpklA$ are used to set boundaries on the pitch and yaw axes, respectively.

Based on Open Loop Boxcar inputs of Varying Duration and Amplitude.

Is Analogous to Bandwidth, Except it applies to Larger Amplitude Maneuvers.

Definition of Criterion Parameters, and expected Shape of Boundaries is shown below.

Altitude Quickness Criterion

Roll Rate and Roll Aniude Response to

Open Loop Pilot Boxcar input

Figure 5.4.1 Attitude Quickness Criterion as a Moderate

Amplitude A g i l i t y Requirement
5.4.1 References

5.4.1 Lt. Alan Lawless, "AFI-TC Agility MetriclFlight Test Workshop", Edwards AFB. March 1988

5.5 NON-LINEAR SlMULATiON

Accurate modeling of system and aerodynamic non-linearities and of all hardware dynamics is
essential for the development of large amplitude response characteristics. This requirement applies
equally to computer and piloted simulations, which should use the same models. The process;is largely
empirical and depends strongly on tho experience of the designer and pilot to uncover the
possibilities for loss of control or limit exceedance. It will generally be possible to develop a
standardized routine of test inputs, bustthese will not always find the most critical case and there
is no substitute for perseverance in attempting to catch the system out. To ensure complete
robustness, no input or combination of inputs can be considered too extreme.

5.6 BIFURCATION THEORY

Available mathematical tools and optimal methods are derived from linear systems through various
linearisation techniques, and are unsuitable for the analysis of large amplitude responses which are
inherently non-linear.

A new methodology has been developed for this purpose, based on the bifurcation or catastrophe
theory, which allows a systematic analysis of angles of attack such as stalllspin departures, arid can
give useful information for the subsequent recovery. The method has been validated recently to yield
very good correlation between predic'lion of spin departures and flight test results on an Alpha-Jet
aircraft (References 5.6.1 through 5.Ei.3).

No b=im 'i Li
points

equilibriu.m surface

Figure 5.6.1 Map of Equilibrium Solutions

 This theory can be illustrated briefly with a scalar non-linear example ofthe form: A = -x3 +
ax + b). The map of equilibrium solutions of this equation, defined by 0 = (x + ax + b), is
represented in terms of parameters a and b of the system in Figure 5.6.1. Associated with the
computation of the eigenvalues of the jacobian matrix related to ail the equilibrium solutions, the
behavior of the non-linear system can be derived easily as functions of variations on its parameters
a and b. Thus the method allows a prediction of jumps in the solutions according to the variations
on parameters.

More generally, the computation of the bifurcation surface, defined as the map in the space of
parameters where there are jumps in equilibrium solutions, provides a powerful means for a
non-linear behavior analysis of the system. This notion of bifurcation, which is presented here in
the single case as discontinuities related to equilibrium solutions, concerns a wider class of
steady-state solutions of the system such as periodic solutions or limit cycles, or quasi-periodic
solutions, or chaotic motion.

5.6.1 References

5.6.1 Guicheteau, Ph., "Application de la Theorie des Bifurcations a I'Etude des Pertes de
Conlroie sur Avion de Combat", AGARD CP-319, Oct. 1981
5.6.2 Guicheteau, Ph., "Bifurcation Theory Applied to the Study of Control Losses on Combat
Aircraft", Recherche Aerospatiaie, no. 1982-2 (Engiis Edition of ONERA publication)
5.6.3 -
Guicheteau, Ph., "Bifurcation Theory in Flight Mechanics An Application to a Real
Combat Aircraft", 14th CAS Congress, Stockholm, 9th-14th Sept. 1990
 SECTION 6

IMPACT OF UNSTABLE DESIGN AND HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK ON THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AERODYNAMIC CONFIGURATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

From the very beginning, ail the design phases of "New Generation" fighter aircraft are dominated
by the attempt to find an optimum balanced concept within the constraints of maximum performance,
defined mass figures and limited costs. The field of performance especially encompasses aspects in at
least three dimensions, which may be titled "Mission-, Point- and Maneuver Performance." Requirements
derived from these different items are often rather contradictory.

A suitable tool to overcome some of the contradicting requirements is the introduction of Unstable
Design in pitch which has remarkable effects on performance as demonstrated in Figure 6.1.l.The trim
characteristics of the sample aircraft (i.e. a tail-less configuration; the principles apply for any
tailed configuration as welo show that the stable version will have negative slopes in the pitching
moment-lift diagram for controls fixed. Therefore, it is necessary to trim the configuration withi
negative (Le. upwards) flap deflections. An unstable design with the center of gravity aft of the
aerodynamic center, has a positive acm/ac, (and cm,) slope and therefore requires positive (Le.
downwards) flap settings for trim. Tht?sketch of the polars in the lower part of Figure 6.1.1 shows the
resulting beneficial effect on trimmed performance data. Typical supersonic fighter wings are
characterized by a relatively smaii aspect ratio and high leading-edge sweep. Especially for those, the
induced drag for a given lift coefficient is much smaller with positive than with negative flap
deflections. This leads, on one hand, to a remarkable reduction in overall drag at a desired turn rate
and, on the other, to a much larger triinmed maximum lift coefficient. If the full technically feasible
potential of unstable design is used, then relative to a conventionally stable aircraft maximum lift can
be increased by roughly 25% and induced drag at a typical lift Coefficient for maneuver (say C, = 0.7)
can be reduced by about 20%. This means that unstable configurations when designed for thle same
performance requirements and under the same flight mechanical constraints, will be much smaller than

,,-
UnstableTrimmed
+200
o=O"
I)= -20"

Stable Trimmed

--+
Drag C0

AC- -25 %
ACa I-20 %

Figure 6.1.1 Effect of Destabilization o n Performance

 53

their stable "brothers" as shown in Figure 6.1.2. A reduction in combat mass (including internal fue)
of about 18%, a smaller required thrust of about 16% and a reduction in wing area of about 18% can be
achieved as demonstrated by detailed studies. But, it has to be kept in mind that, a pure optimization
for maximum point performance (Le. sustained and instantaneous turn rates) whlch requires maximum lift
or minimum drag respectively may not be advantageous for a desired superior agility, because the
preioaded aerodynamic controls do not leave enough power to initiate and stop maneuvers in a way which
lead to sufficient handling qualities (Reference 6.1.1).

Handling qualities at high angle of attack have always been considered as an important factor in
flight safety. Departure and spin are the results of loss of control at high angles of attack.
Therefore, all design requirements prefer an aircraft with an easily perceptible stall approach
(stlck-shaking or aircraft buffet), high departure resistance and an easy recovery technique. The
general trend to enlarge the operational flight envelope for present and future fighters towards higher
angles of attack and lower dynamic pressures leads very quickly to the absolute limits of pure
aerodynamic control devices. Hence these flight regimes may not be exploited operationally unless
additional control power is provided by thrust. In the recent past some experimental programs (F-18
High Alpha Technology Program, X-29 Program, X-31A Program) have been launched, which are dedicated to
demonstrate the operational advantages in an air-to-air combat environment using high angle of attack
maneuvering. Flight testing of these aircraft will result in a better insight into handling qualities
requirements for flying and maneuvering at high angle of attack.

6.1.1. References

6.1 .l Beaufrere, Henry L., et.al., Control Power Requirements for Statically Unstable
Aircraft, AFWAL-TR-87-3018, June 1987

Unstable Stable

Figure 6.1.2 Effect of Optimum Design on Aircraft Size

54

6.2 RATIONALE FOR THE NECESSITY OF ADDITIONAL FLIGHT MECHANICAL

DESIGN CRITERIA

As already mentioned above, the tool "Aerodynamic Instability" has broadly been applied by the
overall design people to modify the rellation between point performance and mass properties. On the
other hand, usually no notice is taken of the fact that the introduction of desired instability levels
will have mafor impacts on the required control margins which are necessary lo satisfy the high
demands on maneuver performance including key characteristics like agility, handling and ride
qualities.

The comparison in Figure 6.2.1, taken from a generic simulation study, shows, for example, that a
50% reduction of pitch recovery margin at high angles of attack (this minimum allowable margin forms
an essential corner stone for unstable configurations) will require excessive pitch down power (400%)
at low angles if identical time to pitch (downis specified. So, if such relations are neglected at
the beginning of a definition or development phase when more thorough considerations about the design
of the flight control system (softlhardware) and about the flight mechanical requirements are
necessary, the unpleasant consequences of these incomplete design procedures are evident:
t Too large dynamic design instalbilities bntroduced for the sake of point performance) and/or
local pitch-up zones lead to insufficient safety margins (phaselgain margin).
t A sluggish pitch response has to be implemented to prevent over-shoots.
t Loaded control/trim surfaces (soheduied for the sake of point performance) exhibit reduced
pitch efficiencies and/or control power especially at medium and high angles of attack.
+ Large positive symmetrical flap settings (necessary for maximum lift) reduce avallable roll
control power.
+Control surface schedules required from the various disciplines are contradictory (Point
performance optimum /= Maneuverability optimum /= Load alleviation optimum).
t Carefree handling requirements reduce the angle of attack envelope promised by the basic
aerodynamic characteristics of the chosen configuration.

As many of the points mentioned above will affect specifications already contractually fired, the
situation may be insoluble.

+
Trim Start
Angle Of Attack (AOA)
1

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40

Figure 6.2.1 Nose IDown Pitching Moment Plots Yielding Identical

Time to Pitch Down from "Start A O A t o "Trim "AOA"
 55

In any case such an unfavorable coincidence of facts can be avoided if an integrated design
procedure is used from the very beginning. This implies, that a set of flight mechanical criteria is
available which translates the most important aspects derived from Handling Agility and Safety into
aerodynamic requirements

6.3 SCOPE OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA

The criteria to be developed shall generate the necessary link between the disciplines of control
law design, flight mechanics and aerodynamics within the pre-development phases of modern fighter
aircraft. In order to achieve complete design cycles considering mass, overall performance, cost and
risk properties, it is necessary to enlarge the idea of "performance" by including agility, handling
and ride quality requirements and by introducing essential aspects from the safety point of view. The
criteria may have to be based on simplified assumptions but must be convertible into aerodynamic
characteristics to enable the design team:
t to define feasible aerodynamic instability levels
t to fix trim schedules which leave sufficient control power in pitch, roll and yaw
t to optimize the basic aerodynamic pitch and lateral- directional characteristics In the wind
tunnel (for example, allowable local pitch-up and required minimum lateral stability
characteristics)
t to slze and position the control surfaces

Therefore, the overall control margin requirements must consider the three basic aspects
listed below:
t Control Authority is defined as the total control moment which is available from all the
moment producers about one specific axis. According to the individual reliability of the
controllers the sum of moments may be split into different parts. The safety related tasks
have to be fulfilled with highly reliable moment producers -typically, aerodynamic surfaces
with redundant hydraulic actuators. Using the remaining controllers or remaining control
authority, the operational (agility) requirements must be met.
t Control Deflection Rates must be large enough to avoid the saturation of actuator rates which
causes phase loss in the control loops. This phase loss reduces stability margins as defined
in MIL-F-9490D and the P I 0 (Pilot induced Oscillation) resistance of the vehicle. The
describing function of the rate limitation (Figures 6.3.1 and 6.3.2) can be used as an
instrument for calculation of "large amplitude" phase and gain margins.
t For both, authority and rate, limitations due to hinge moments or other load restrictions
have to be considered.

MIL-F-8785C (Reference 6.3.1) defines the basic requirements for control margins and in
Flying Qualities of Piloted Vehicles MIL-Prime Standard and Handbook (Reference 6.3.2) a detailed
qwlitative requirement is given as follows:

"Control authority, rates and hinge moment capability shall be sufficient to assure safety
throughout the combined range of all attainable angles of attack (both positive and negative
and sideslip). This requirement applies to the prevention of loss of control and recovery
from any situation for all maneuvering, including pertinent effects of factors such as pilot
strength, regions of control-surface-fixed-instabiiity, inertial coupling, fuel slosh, the
influence of symmetric and asymmetric stores, stalllpost-stalllspin characteristics,
atmospheric disturbances and aircraft failure states, maneuvering flight appropriate to the
failure slate is to be included. Consideration shall be taken of the degree of effectiveness
and certainty of operation of limiters, c.g. control malfunction or mismanagement, and
transients from failures in the propulsion, flight control and other relevant systems".

Application of this requirement in conjunction with handling quality requirements during the
design of modern fighter aircraft leads to a great number of independent control margin
requiremenis. The absolute values of the required control power however differs for each aircraft
configuration and its flight envelope. Therefore, specific margins cannot be defined exactly and
rough approximations have to be used as given in the next sections.
 Bode-Plot Q=--A til
K
A[dEJ .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8.9 1 4/n d2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 20
; '3 P rl
1- 10

-4 .. - -20
-6 .. . -30
-8 .. -.-40
-10 .. . -50
-12 .-60
-14 - 70

-18 - 90

-20/
Amplitude
(-20 dB/Dekade) \ tio0
Figure 6.3.1 Describing Function of the Rate Limitation

Complex Plane
IA
-2 -n% -1
--
RA

-.I,

A: Amplitude
K: RateLimit
o: Frequency -2i
n: Normalized
Frequency

Figure 6.3.2 Negative inverse Describing Function

6.3.1 References

6.3.1 MilitaN Soecification. Flvina Qualities of Piloted Vehicles, MIL-F-878%

. , I

November 1980
6.3.2 Military Standard, Flying Qualities of Piloted Vehicles, MIL-STD-1797 (USAF),
March 1987

6.4 DESIGN CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS AVAILABLE UP TO NOW

In the recent past at least some experience and studies have been published (References 6.3.2,
6.4.1,6.1.1,6.4.2,6.4.3) which give the opportunity to fix some numbers for the control power to be
installed.

6.4.1 Pitch Control Power

The summary in Figure 6.4.1 (taken from References 6.4.2,6.4.4 and 6.1 .I)presents a set of
formulas and relationships which should lead to necessary pitch control margins for the preliminary
design phases of a modern fighter aircraft. in detail the following aspects have to be reviewed and
numbers have to be settled:
* Control Power Related to Flying Quaiit
For a given CAP (Control Anticipation Jarameter, as defined in MIL-F-8785C and the desired
normal acceleration range the required control power can be calculated depending on aircraft
inertia and dynamic pressure. It should be mentioned that this control power Is independent
of the static stability of the airplane. For maneuvering above maximum lift, angle of attack
has to be used instead of normal acceleration. Here no requirement for the dominant
eigenvalue exists up to now. But as a first guess, the required short period frequency for
low angle of attack at the desired flight condition can be used.
*p
Usina a simDiified linear two dearees of freedom transfer function. the necessary control
pow& to stabilize the aircraft aGhe desired angle of attack after a maximum pitihing
maneuver can be calculated according to Figure 6.4.1. For highly unstable aircraft the lags
and delays introduced by flight control hardware will increase the necessary control power.
Therefore, a analysis with the full system should be done to confirm or increase the control
power calculated with the simplified equation.
Control Power to Counteract Gust and Turbulence
The control Dower in a austv and turbulent environment is mainlv determlned bv the feedback
coefficientsof the flightcoitrol system. They are themselves a iunction of the fitatic
stability and control effectiveness. An approximation for the required control power is
given in Figure 6.4.1.
* Control Power for Inertia Compensation During Roils
It is a physical law, that during roiling and yawing motions of the aircraft pitching moments
will be induced due to inertia coupling and gyroscopic effects of the engine. This moment
depends only on rotational rates and inertias and can easily be calculated from the roil rate
requirements and the configuration data as shown In Flgure 6.4.2. At low dynamlc pressure
and high angles of attack even with low roll rates, a large pitch down moment In terms of cm
Is required. This is the reason why this requirement is one of the design drivers for pitch
down caoabiiitv.
* Contro~6oweriorNose Down Stall Recovery
This safetv related reouirement is usualiv automaticailv fulfilled if the reouirements
regardingflying qualities at high angles bf attack are met, because the dontrol power for
maneuvering will be at least twice the control power for recovery. In Reference 6.3.2 a net
pitch restoring momentlcmlof not less than 0.1 is suggested to be used as a requirement. in
the normal case, however, where the aerodynamic control power needs augmentation with thrust
vectoring to get acceptable flying qualities at low speed and high angles of attack, the
safety related “stall recovery” requirement shall be accomplished with the highly reliable
aerodvnamic surfaces.
* Control Power for Nosewheel Lift-off Prior to Desired Takeoff Speed
This requirement will settle the minimum airspeed where lift-off of the nosewheel is
possible
58

Some other experiences have been published (Reference 6.4.1) where pitch control margins are
suggested which combine some of the different contributions, discussed above in a single number. For
"Nose Down Stall Recovery", "Potential for Stabilization Purposes", "Sufficient Handling Qualltles",
and for "Counteracting of Gusts", a minimum pitch acceleration capablllty of I -0.3 rad/soc is
recommended at high angles of attack as indicated by the constant part in Figure 6.4.2. It Is
assumed, however, that this margin will only be sufficient if the local instability level Is less than
the chosen basic instability. In addition, the inertial coupling term has to be considered as
indicated in the figure.

Another attempt has been made In 6.4.2 to define the required pitch control power in t e r m of
requlred moment M and moment onset rate fvl as a function of instability T, (time to double amplitude of
basic aircraft). The charts of Figure 6.4.3 should bevalid for all tail concepts within the CAT.A
flight phases. The recommendations have been evaluated considering the requirements of Figure 6.4.4.
In particular the safety aspects with respect to control law design, Level 1 CAT. A handling qualities
in pitch and good gust response characteristics may be achieved if the boundaries of Figure 6.4.3 are
avoided by a proper design. Furthermore, realistic hardware assumptions for sensors, filters,
computers and actuators have been made in this study which lead to the sharp limits due to phiaselgain
margin in the relevant graphs.

6.4.2 RollMaw Control Power

The requirements of roll and yavv control power may be handled together because In alniost all the
cases combined deflections are needed to perform lateralldirectional maneuvers.

t Control Power Related to Flying Qualities

The control oower needed to fuifiii the flying qualify requirements is either settled by the
control power for sideslip command (iniiialacceleration) or the control power needed to
fulfill the roll time constant requirement in a wind axis roll. As sketched in Figure 6.4.5
the requirements for the yaw and roll controllers can be derived from the relevant MIL-spec
criteria for Roll Mode Time Con!stant T and Time-to-Bank. For aircraft which are deslgiied
for high angle of attack maneuverin9 tkf yaw control power derived from roll will be more
stringent because the inertia ratio Iz /Ix is considerably larger than 1 (for modern
fighters. 5 to IO).
t Control Power to Maintain StabQ
In this case, requirements similar to those for the pitch axis can be used. At high angles
of attack, however, most of the airplane configurations lose aerodynamic yaw control power;
therefore, controlled maneuverability can only be maintained with thrust vectorlng. The
reliability of thrust vectorlng is, UP to now, not high enough lo handle a safety critical
item. For this reason, a stable lateral-directional aircraft configuration is recommended
for high angle of attack flying. Applicable criteria to achieve this goal have been
developed (C, LCDP etc.) and are broadly used in spite of the fact that they may not
always be vaiids?fiigh angles of attack (References 6.4.1 and 6.4.5). An attempt to
overcome some of the deficiencies related with Cried and LCDP Is presented in Reference
6.4.3 where the crlteria have been modified by the intYoductlon of dynamlc derlvatlves.
e Control Power to Counteract Crosswind, Gusis and Turbulence
In addition lo the pitch axis reqiiirements, the control power lor crosswind landing has to be
added, but this has no influence on the high angle of attack control power requirements
t Control Power for Inertia Coupling Compensat@
Similar to the oiich~axis.
~
8- - . rollino
~I - - -and vawino moments induced bv inertia cOuDlinQ and bb
~ ~,
gyroscopic effects of the engines have l o s e taken into accouniand cancelled 6y the .
~~

available control power. As illustrated in 6.4.3, the most challenging effect is introduced
by an additional yaw acceleration due to a combined rolltpitch maneuver. This effect may
increase the requirements for tlie rudder efficiency by a considerable amount and aggravate
the situation especially at high angles of attack.
t Control Power to Cover Engine=
This classical requirement for twin engine fighters should be considered in any case in order
to define the "Minimum Control Airspeed" Vnc.
n
m
P
E.
m"P

z
0
m"
3
(D
3
F
60

fiINm/r].lOb M lNmIs1~I O 6
Required Pitch Control PDwer Build-up M Required Pitch Control Powlr M
Versus Tme 10 Double T2 Versus Time to DDuble T2
9.0 9.0

vdd lor Modern Fighters

All Tar1 Concepts
7.0
CAT.AFiigh1 Phases

1
I
4.0-

3.0-

2.0 2.0-

1.0 1.0-

0 0

Figure 6.4.3 'Criteria for Pitch Control Power

? ? ? $ : :
.....
.... .. .... .... Vemcal GYSI
.... .... .....
w- ."

Requirement: nsl Io be reached aller 16%.

. . .
,,.... 1,I......i...i...
? :
....i....i..i~...i
:
/
.
/
/
/
/
!
.. !
/ ;
,
/
i
.
i
,
i
,
'. ii....!, .........
7
. I .

Figure 6.4.4 Aspects Considered in the Requirements for

Pitch Control Power
19
62

6.5.2 Lateral/DirectionalAxis
t Required roll/yaw control power and roii/yaw control build-up rate for ...
... stabilization or stability augmentation
( C w designgoal)
...su?flkeiPmaneuver capabilities
(T ; Q(t))
t ReqJrements for the basic root locations (most unstable root; characteristics versus
sideslip) to guarantee safety (phaselgaln margins) and sufficient augmented stability
levels.
t Necessary combination of roil and yaw control power at high
angles of attack required for coordinated roils.

6.5.2 Crlleria Development

Furthermore, it will be important that all the criteria to be developed are easily
convertible into aerodynamic requirements, once assumptions about mass, Inertias, actuator rates
and main dimensions have been agreed. Parameters which could be handled within the early design
phases are summarized in the foiiowirig ilsting:

t Pitch Axis
- Minimum control moment coefficient ACmversus Cmo
minimum control moment derivative Cm,versus Cma
-Recovery moment CmR, near C
~ Information about feasible contrd surface (trim) schedules
t Lateral/Direction Axis
minimum control moment coefficlents Ac , ACn versus Cnedyn for trimmed conditions.
- Minimum control moment derivatives C ,b,, versus Cnsd for trimmed conditions.
- Mlnimum requirements for combined roil-rudder effectlvenhs at high angle of attack
~ information about maximum allowable symmetrical flap deflection (feasible trim schedules)
 SECTION 7

FEEL SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL SENSITIVITY

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section deals with feel system dynamics and control sensitivity as they impact the overall
handling qualities of the flight vehicle. Traditionally these characteristics were set as functions of
the control surfaces of the vehicle, their reflected hinge moments, aerodynamic damping and the
anticipated strength of the human pilot (stick/tab gearing). With the advent of powered or power
assisted controls in the early fifties this intimate relationship to the aerodynamics of the control
surface was lost, and designers found themselves having to replace the classical relationships
between control deflection and stick force artificially. Even in the early days of artlflcial feel
systems attempts were made, with varying degrees of success, to modify the forcelfeel characteristics
both to aid the pilot In terms of enhanced handling qualities, or to assist the structural designer In
llmiting pilot imposed loads on various parts of the aircraft. These early systems were characterized,
generally, by the fact that the stick deflection was stili proportional to control surface deflection,
the characteristicvaried being the relationship between deflection and applied force. Within this
constraint, the forces were tailored by a variety of mechanical devices such as ’q’ bellows, springs,
dash-pot dampers and bob weights. The recent moves towards fly-by-wire or fly-by-light control systems
has completely separated pilot’s controller from the control surface motion and therefore the designed
must now ensure that the force to Qosltloncharacteristics of the stick are properly matched to the
dynamics of the augmented aircraft. Ail previous restrictions have disappeared, even that of making
the controller position the Input to the flight controlled system (e.g. the F-16 uses applied force as
the Input to the flight control system). Thus for highly augmented aircraft, Including naturally
unstable machines, the stick dynamics have become a discrete element In the total pilot-in-the-loop
chain. The Interaction of the pilot with the flight control system via such a dynamic system Is not
well understood at this point. However, recent experiences in a variety of research programs have
provided a degree of insight into the subject as noted below.

7.2 FEEL SYSTEM DYNAMICS

7.2.1 Definition

For the purpose of this document the feel system is defined as “that dynamic element of overall
control system which translates the pilot’s applied force Into a control system input“. This
deflnltion does not make a prior assumption that the stick Itself has motion, but It permits
consideration of an isometric controller.

7.2.3 Existing Database

At present, there does not exist a definitive and consistent database against which the design of
control stick characteristics for use with fly-by-wire systems may be established. There are, however,
a series of case studies which offer some guidance in this area. Amongst the most significant of these
are studies conducted on the NT-33 and observations made in X-29 program. Extensive In-flight studies
into control system characteristics conducted in the Canadian variable stability Bell 205 helicopter
also provides some insight into this area which should be applicable to fixed wing installations, at
least in the low speed regime.

7.2.4 Pilot and Feel System Interaction

In the fundamental task of controlling his vehicle, the pilot needs to know not only the magnitude
of his Input in any given axis, but that it is such that he may achieve a desired response from the
machine. The bio-kinesthetic feed-back, which gives him this knowledge, processes controller
acceleration, velocity and displacement and this is translated Into the requirement to apply a speclflc
force in a given direction. In addition, aircraft motions may couple inertially into the force-feel
system causing various uncommanded motions (the roll ratcheting phenomenon and “arm bobweight” P i 0 are
examples). Considering the cockpit controllers in this way suggests a prima face case for considering
their dynamics as a part of the overall dynamic environment of the aircraft. if the question of feel
system dynamics has not to this point attracted great Interest In the handling
 Task Relaled l n p u l s
DISPLAYS

Direct Visual

lnerlial
I
t77 I

9 Position I
Figure 7.2.1 Generic Relationship Between Control Stick
and Total Task Environment

qualities community, it is because they have generally been designed with frequency responsos SO much
higher than that of the overall vehicle Ihat it is the dynamics of the pllot that have been limiting
rather than those of the controllers. The Influence of the controllers has therefore been only those
of extraneous high order effects, beyond the frequency range of interest to the human pllot and
effectively transparent to him. Occasionally controllers of limited bandwidth have been instalied with
their own specific effects. As shown in Figure 7.2.1, there is a complex interaction between the pllot
and the aircraft and its environment for a given task. The feel system is clearly an element in this
process whose contribution can be hiportant but is at this date not totally understood.

7.2.5 Changes in Controller Design

The arguments in the previous paragraph apply specifically to the traditional large displ;acement
center mounted stick. Recent developments, however, have seen a move away from this type of
installationtowards small displacement center or side mounted sticks and here the situation may well
change. The frequency h i r i n g characteristics of the human operator ObSeNed when making large
physical motions with a relatively large muscle group is not nearly so marked when he Is using a small
displacement device with a much more limited muscle group and even less so if the device is lorce
sensing. Here effects of mismatching the frequency content of the pilot's input with the response type
and bandwidth of the aircraft control system have, on occasion, become intrusive and detrimental to the
handling qualities of the aircraft.

7.3 THE X-29 EXPERIENCE

Recent experience in the X-29 iiight test program supports the contention that the feel system is
a discrete dynamic element with a special role in the flying qualities of the aircraft. The handling
qualitles of the original X-29 (also discussed in Section 2.2) were much better than predicted. To
Investigate this situation, the lateral axis was selected for special attention since this channel was
not complicated with other issues as was the case in pitch. In the lateral case a large equivalont
time delay from a stick force input (approx. 230 millisec) should have resulted in Level 3 handling
qualities based on existing axilitary specifications. However, reasonably detailed handling qualities
evaluations of the real aircraft consisiently showed solid Level 1 handling qualities. A unique
 65

feature of the X-29 control system was the relatively slow feel system. In the lateral axis the
natural frequency of the feel system was 13 radlsec which contributed approximately 100 miliisec to the
overall equivalent time delay. This observation raised several questions:
+ Does the feel system element act as a filter which alters the shape of the aircraft response
and affects the sensitivity of the overall system to time delay?
t Is the feel system truly a unique dynamic element which the pilot can to some degree discount
since he has access to both input (force) and output (position)?

In an attempt to answer these questions and to study the general interaction of the feel system
and flight control system dynamics, a rather detailed experiment was performed using the NT-33
in-flight simulator (Reference 7.3.1). Unfortunately, the results of the experiment are not
definitive and further analysis is in progress. Some observations from the X-29 experience and
general experience in the In-flight simulator demonstration flights can, however, be presented:
+ As noted In References 7.3.1 and 7.3.2, time delays resulting from the feel system dynamics
are not as significant as those produced in the flight control system Itself.
* Systems with low frequencyfeel systems are more tolerant of equivalent time delay than those
with higher frequency feel systems. This observation is consistent with existing evidence
that, in general, the threshold of tolerable time delay is a function of the abruptness of
the response shape.
+ Reference 7.3.1 suggests that feel systems with natural frequencies less than 10 radlsec
severely degrade pilot-in-the-loopperformance. For center stick installations feel system
frequency should be 20 radlsec or higher when possible.
4 The present Military Flying Qualities Specification (Reference 7.3.3) time delay requirements
are not generally applicable, particularly when a low frequency feel system is present. In
addition, allowable time delay appears to be a function of initial response shape (control
--. .... ,l.
aendtivitv\ .
+ Even when the feel system is not in the forward path, as in a force command control system
mechanization, its dynamics stili have considerable impact on closed loop performance
(References 7.3.1).

7.3.1 References

7.3.1 Bailey, R.E. and Knotts, L.H., "Interaction of Feel System and Flight Control System
Dynamics on Lateral Flying Qualities," Caispan Report No. 7205-26, May 1989.
7.3.2 Smith, R.E. and Sarrafian, S.K., "Effect of Time Delay on Flying Qualities: An
Update", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Voi9, October 1986.
7.3.3 . -Qualities of Piloted Vehicles. MIL-STD-1797 (USAF),
Military Standard, Flving
March1987.

7.4 THE CANADIAN BELL 205 EXPERIENCE

7.4.1 Background

Over the Past four vears the Canadian Bell 205 in-flight 5 iulator has ren used for extensive
studies of control systemcharacteristics aimed at providing a database for the recent update of
MIL-H-8501, the Military Helicopter Flying Qualitles specification. A wide range of control systems
were studied varying in both bandwidth and response types (Rate command, rate commandlattitude hold,
attitude command and velocity command). Both conventional control sticks and a variety of integrated
side sticks were used.

7.4.2 General Observation

Early in the program it was recognized that feel system dynamics had a significant Impact on the
handling qualities of the aircraft under evaluation. For center sticks, the stick characteristics
needed to be optimized ofr the specific control system type, while for the side sticks, the stick
filter characteristics were varied to provide the same optimization. This necessity was caused
essentially by the same types of observations noted in various fixed wing studies that limited the
abruptness of response acceptable to the pilot in high gain tasks. Generally, the less augmented the
aircraft is (Le. the lower the response type in terms of Section 3 methodology), the higher the
bandwidth of the feel system needs to be. This fact is best illustrated by the stick filter (first
order, low-pass) break points used with a force sensing side stick for various control response types
as given in Table 7.4.1. These filter settings were those required to maintain Level 1 handling
qualities across the response types.
66

The control systems were also flown with a large displacement center stick, the characteristics
of which were adjusted empirically to suit the aircraft model under study. Unfortunately, although
the center stlck settings qualitatively fasilowed those used with the side-stick, it was not possible
to document its dynamics well enough to publish.

The main difficulty and degrading characteristic encountered due to unmatched center s:tick
characteristics seemed to be due to an excessively abrupt or 'spikey' response if the feel system had
too hlgh a natural frequency. When th'e natural frequency was too low, two effects were noted 'from
pilot comments: a sluggish response and a perceived lack of sensitivity. The former case produced a
proneness to a form of P I 0 not related to the classical case of a pilot attempting to control a system
with excessive lag, but rather an uncontrollable blo-inertial feed-back of aircraft motion due to the
'arm bobweight' effect. At extreme mis match, the excessively slow stick produced classic PIC1
tendencies In high-gain tasks (e.g. precision hover, much akin to fixed wing formation flying). VVith
the side sticks In use the effects were broadly the same, except that the bio-inertial feed back
oscillation tended to be higher in frequency, exciting potentially damaging airframeltransmission
modes rather than causing significant attitude perturbations.

7.4.3 Ad Hoc Experiments

informal ad hoc experiments were conducted when developing simulatlons for control system
indicated several significant points:
t Producing a stick with significantly under damped characteristics (for the purpose of
obtalnlng a flat response to high frequency) was acceptable provided the natural frequency
exceeded the bandwidth of the augmented aircraft by a factor of at least 2.5 and the damping
ratio remained above 0.4.
t The combined characteristics 01: stick plus any stick filter should not exhibit significant
(30 degrees) phase lag at frequencies lower than the bandwidth of the augmented aircraft.
t The Influence of non-iinearities in the feel system can be very significant, as can those of
Its static characteristics. The relationship between break out force and spring gradient has
proved to be critical with displacement type side sticks, to the extent that a change in the
break out force from 0.3 to 0.6 It) was sufficient to degrade the handling qualities of a
solid Level 1 rate response aircraft to Level 2 when it occurred in conjunction with a low
spring gradlent. When using a center stick, the conflicting requirements of spring gradient
(adequately low to permit the sustained inputs required with some response types) and
bandwidth, which lowers with spring gradient at a given level of damping, sometimes made It
difficult to construct a suitably matched feel system for any given set of aircraft
characteristics.

RESPONSE TYPE FILTER

(RadlSec)

Unaugmented 16
Rate ComMand 16
RCAH 12
Attitude Command 4
Translational Rate Command 0.5

Table 7.4:l -
Break-Points for Side-Stick
Filter As Used On Canadian Bell 205

7.4.4 Specific Experimental Data

A recent series of studies, Refeirences 7.4.1 and 7.4.1, has indicated quite positively that:

t When using a displacement controller, the bandwidth criteria need only be met by the slick
displacement to attitude describing function and that the force to attitude characteristics
are of far less significance than had previously been thought.
t Contributions to Effective Time Delay due to control stick dynamics are largely transparent
to the pilot and as such should be discounted.
Underdamped sticks should be avoided for a variety of reasons. If the stick is of low
natural frequency they cause significant arm-bobweight effects and can lead to a classic low
frequency PIO; at high frequency they are prone to bio-inertial feedback, possibly
 67

exacerbated by neuromuscular resonance and can generate the 'roll racheting' phenomena or
excite aircraft structural modes.
There is a suggested boundary, from handling qualities considerations only, of about 9.0
radlsec for natural frequency and 0.5 for damping ratio.
Even though sticks as low as 9.0radlsec were assessed as Level 1 when used in conjunction
with a Rate Command control system, pilot performance in a roll tracking task degraded
slightly as Equivalent Time Delays (defined at 2 Elw,), generated in the feel system,
Increased from 30 to 370 ms.
Pilot's are very sensitive to time delays caused by stick signal processing prior to the
inner stabilization loops, these are seen as a degraded vehicle response and the HQR
assignments confirmed that the stick displacement (prior to signal processing) to attitude
characteristics dominate the pilot's perception of the handling qualities.
Stick displacement do not need to be large for the beneficial effect of the compliance to be
achieved. In Reference 7.4.2two stick models, both having spring gradients of 9.0lblln and
a maximum displacement of +/-1.25 in. were rated solidly Level 1 except when underdamped.

These findings are generally in accordance with previous fixed wing studies In this are,
particularly those reported in Reference 7.4.3, with the exception that the natural frequency
boundary is somewhat lower. This could be due to a difference between flight and fixed base
simulation effects, or the different levels of maneuvering performance between the helicopter and
the fixed wing models used to generate the data in 7.4.3.

7.4.5 References

7.4.1 Baillie, S.W. and Morgan, J.M., "An In-Flight Invesligation Into the Relationships
Among Control Sensitivity, Control Bandwidth and Distrubance Rejection Bandwidth
Using a Variable Stability Helicopter:, Paper #61,Fifteenth European Rotocraft
Forum, Amsterdam, Sept. 1989.
7.4.2 Morgan, J.M., "An Initial Study into the Influence of Control Stick Characteristics
on the Handling Qualities of a Fly-by-Wire Helicopter", Paper #la, AGARD-FMP
Symposium on Flying Qualities, Quebec City, Oct. 1990.
7.4.3 Johnston, D.E. and Aponso, B.L., "Design Considerations of Manipulator and Feel
Characteristics In Roll Tracking", NASA CR-4111,Feb. 1988.

7.5 COMMENTS ON FEEL SYSTEM DYNAMICS

While there Is a distinct lack of definitive numerical data on which to base recommendations,
there Is sufficient evidence to indicate that the dynamic characteristics of the feel system to be
used in any fly-by-wire environment must be given careful consideration as a separate element of the
overall system design. However, It currently appears that it Is not sufficient or correct to treat
the feel system as an integral part of the augmented aircraft dynamics. This clearly defines an area
for further research: In particular It appears important that we Improve our knowledge of the pilot's
internal 'weighting matrix' for closing loops around the feel system, and how that may adapt under
changing conditions of magnitude and frequency.

7.6 CONTROL SENSITIVITY

7.6.1 Current Situation

A primary weakness in the current requirements is the lack of adequate specification of control
sensitivity. None of the criteria for attitude control (Equivalent Systems, CAP, Bandwidth, etc.)
Include the effect of control sensitivity but inherently assume that it is separately optimized. The
importance of control sensitivity tends to be disregarded for two reasons:
t It is assumed that the control gearing can be easily changed, especially with a fly-by-wire
aircraft.
t It Is a function of the task and the characteristics dynamics (equivalent short period,
Bandwidth, etc).

Avery large, and therefore expensive, database would be required to formulate a quantitive
Control sensitivity criteria, especially considering that side stick, center stick, isometric and
compliant controllers must be considered.
6X

7.6.2 General

Even the most experienced and perceptive test pilots have great difficulty determining the
effects of control sensitivity. Excessively high values look like low damping and produce P I 0 prone
systems which will receive comments to that effect (few, if any, pilots will isolate the problem as
excessively high control sensitivity). Similarly, systems containing very low control sensitivlty
wlll receive comments related to overly sluggish response. The control sensitivity should logically
be soecified over the band of frequencies in which the pilot is most sensitive to aircraft response.
Since, by definition. the pilot is operating in the crossover region, it is the gain in that region
...I." +hnlild he snecified. Unfortunatelv.
that ~~ ~ .,. .none
~.~ of
~ -
~ the existina handlina Qualities soecifications
include such a requirement, primarily because the necessary data k n o t avallable.

The MIL-STD-1797 (USAF) includes the product of the stick sensitivities at low and high
frequencies
..

".
____Fe
6's
eo
._._
Fe8 ..
as the criterion, where Fe/nzssis measured as the quasi-steady stick force per 'g' and eo/Fesis
defined at very high frequency. Since the product of these parameters does not uniquely specify the
gain of the response in the region of pilot crossover, it is not judged to be a generally valid
measure of the control sensitivity for highly augmented aircraft.
 SECTION 8

HANDLING QUALITIES EVALUATION TECHNIQUES

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The handling qualities evaluation is a very important part of the overall flight control system
development process (see Section 9). For determining the flight characteristics of highly augmented
aircraft there are basically two methods:
1. Evaluation using pilots under operational conditions (Piloted Simulation and Flight
tests).
2. Numerlcai Handling Qualities Evaluation using mathematlcal models of the aircraft.

The first method enables:

+ investigation of pilot-aircraft interaction;
+ testing under real environmental conditions;
+ mission dependent evaluation;
+ collection of pilot information on system behavior and pilot workload.
Due to the above reasons this method forms the basis for evaluation of flight characteristics in
all new aircraft developmental programs. However, this requires extensive flight testing, which in
turn Is time consuming, as each flight test results in pilot comment which are valid only for that
particular flight condition, configuration, and mission under test. This Is true not only for flight
tests, but also for piloted simulations which are frequently carried out in parallel during different
stages of new aircraft development.

Modern aircraft development, especially development of highly augmented aircraft, requires

comprehensive evaluation of flight characteristics for various controller modes, loadings, and
operational missions. These, in turn, have to be evaluated at several points In the fllght envelope.
Therefore, it is important to supplement these findings with those obtained from numerical handling
qualities evaluation techniques (method 2). This method has made significant progress during the last
20 years, mainly due to the rapid advances in digital computers and data processing engineering. It
now forms an essential part of the total flight characteristics evaluation process in all new aircraft
developmental programs. To cater to the expanding flight envelope of modern aircraft, It is possible
today (using this technique) to evaluate flight characteristics online in real time. One advantage of
using this method is its dependence on mathematicat models of the aircraft, which are available right
from the Initial phase of a developmental program, for e.g. theoretical estimates, wind tunnel data
etc.. These mathematical models need to be subsequently upgraded and validated against flight test
data when available. System Identification techniques can be used to model the flight test data.

Flight Testing
I

System Identification
Mathematical Model

I
c
Parameters

Figure 8.1.1
I -
I
1
Simulation

S y s t e m Identification Application
I
70

in particular, system identification is essential for ail handling qualities investigations of

complex aircraft systems (highly augmented unstable aircraft subjected to simultaneous deflection of
various control surfaces) as it can provide the necessary mathematical models which are essential for
simulation and handling qualities analysis. System indentification procedures should therefore be
used to extract modeling information right from the initial flight tests, not only to validate
existing mathematical models, but also to arrive at a single model for simulation and handling
qualities analysis (Figure 8.1 .I).

8.2 BASIC HANDLING

The pilot flying the aircraft will be faced with a number of handling characteristics, which
result from the discrete static maneuver and dynamic behavior of the aircraft in its pitch and
roiilyaw axes throughout the useabie flight envelope. To cover ail of the intended flight phases
typical for the role of the aircraft, clean, gear, and flaps configurations and external stores
configurations have to be tested in the entire c.g. range as well.

The purpose of the flight tests is to obtain qualitative and quantitive data of the basic static
and dynamic characteristics:
4 to demonstrate the dynamic and static stabilities are acceptable to the pilot;
+ to show the aircraft meets speciiied stability and control requirements;
+ to provide basic aerodynamic data for the mathematical modeling for simulation;
t to correlate wind tunnel estimates with the flight test results.

Aircraft having an angle of attack limiter in the flight control system (carefree handling) will
be tested when flying ai the angle of altack limit and in maneuvers where the limit is exceeded
intentionally. More information can be found in References 8.2.1 to 8.2.4.

8.2.1 References

8.2.1 Aircraft Assessment arid Acceptance Testing, AGARD Lecture Series No. 108.
8.2.2 Military Standard, Fiyirig Qualities of Piloted Vehicles, MIL-STD-1797 (USAF),
March
. . 1987.
..
8.2.3 StaiilPost-StaiilSpinFlight Test Demonstration Requirements for Airplanes,
MIL-S-83691 A USAF.
8.2.4 Flight Test Techniques, AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 452.

8.3 OPERATIONAL HANDLING QUAILlTlES EVALUATION

8.3.1 The Role of Simulators

In the flight control development process simulators play an important role. But the designers
and the flight test team must be aware of the advantages and limitations of the simulators available
to them.

Ground-based simulators can be very effective even in the early stages of the design, if one
realizes their limitations. Current ground-based simulators can essentially give an exact replication
for tests involving flight under instrument flight conditions or nonprecise visual tasks. They sufler
from limitations of visual and motion cueing. Visual limitations affect, in particular, high gain
tasks such as landing, in-flight refueling. etc.. These limitations consist not only of field of
view, but also of fine detail representationand time delay effects. The motion systems of ground
simulators are inherently limited and require washouts to recenter the linkage. The lack of
correlation between the visual and the motion systems frequently results in motion sickness in
experienced test pilots. On the other ciide, motion becomes a necessity for flying qualities work when
the pilot station is far removed from the aircraft rotation center, as is the case in most large
aircraft, or other situations where cockpit accelerations are high with control inputs. in these
cases, cockpit motions that result from angular acceleration and high maneuverability provide Strong
cues to the pilot and will greatly affect closed-loop flying qualities.

in particular, in the above cases, in-flight simulators are considered to be mandatory for
optimizing flight control systems. in-flight simulators are able to provide the pilot with the real
scene Le. visual and motion cues; “one of the general assets of the in-flight simulator is that ii
places the pilot in a real environment with the attendant pilot gain“. But the flight test engineer
 71

should be aware that one problem of all current in-flight simulation (e.g. variable stability NT-33,
TIFS, ATTAS) are the limited flight envelopes that can be covered and therefore they are limited In
obtaining data, particularly for aggressive maneuvering. Also, time delays due to actuator bandwidth
and computer system can produce problems.

in the development process, both ground-based and In-flight simulators should be used In a
complementary way. The test team must be aware that both types of simulators requlre accurate
mathematical models. Verification of the ground-based and the in-flight simulators have to take place
prior to the handllng qualities evaluations experiments.

An excellent example how these simulation tools should be integrated into the development of a
complex highly augmented unstable aircraft is given by the conduct of the X-29 evaluation and test.

8.3.2 Test Techniques For Small Amplitude Tasks

The design of operational handling qualities flight test programs for fighter aircraft may be
derived from a list of mission events that are elements of the intended role as outllned for example
in Table 1 of the Military Specification MiL-F-8785C, Mil-STD-1797 or in other documents from which
useful information can be taken.

From mission analyses, the test techniques may be divided into small amplitude maneuvering (SAM)
precision tasks and moderate to large amplitude maneuvering (LAM) tasks. SAM tasks mostly result from
the flight phases which requlre precise control characteristics using frequent and Small control
inputs. LAM tasks are characterized by full stick inputs with high angle excursions and body-flxed
rates in order to achieve gross attitude and flight path corrections.

To investigate the stability of the total system (pilot + aircraft) small amplitude precision
tasks are designed to force the pilot into a high gain whlch normally Identifies deficiencies due to
time delays. Typically, the flight test techniques will differ considerably from the real mission
tasks to provide consistent and repeatable numerlcal data and pilot ratings. To assure, on the other
hand, similarity of the test maneuvers to the mission phases, typical conditions of the real mission
tasks have to be retained, e.g. precision fine tracking of target aimpoints in air-to-aidground and
formation tasks. Further details about preparation and conduct of flight tests for small amplltude
preclslon tracking can be found in Reference 8.3.1. Sophisticated air-lo-air and air-to-ground test
methods are described in subsection 8.3.5.

8.3.3 Tests Techniques for Moderate and Large Amplitude Tasks

Close-in dog fighting generally requires aircraft maneuvering capabilities that cannot be tested
and evaluated by applying conventional stability and control flight test techniques. Instead,
maneuvers that are typical for the role of the aircraft have to be adopted to flight test the
corresponding handling qualities (H.Q.). To mlnlmize the degrees of freedom or number of parameters
Involved without losing significance for H.Q. purposes, the combat test maneuveringshould be tailored
to take place in one-vs-one engagements within visual range. A target aircraft with comparable
characteristics as far as handling and performance Is concerned shall be Involved and flown by highly
experienced crews. The maneuvers of the test aircraft shall be such as to outmaneuver the opponent
with large amplitude maneuvers, to reach his six o’clock position and shortly track him precisely
within the lethal range of the test aircraft’s short range missile andlor gun equipment.

Basic Fighter Maneuvering

Basic information about the coarse maneuvering of the aircraft can be evaluated by using the
typical combat maneuvers that can be flown by the test aircraft alone or against a target aircraft,
e.g. windup turns, leftlright, with smooth to abrupt G-onset; turn reversals In high-G break turns,
unloaded; high-G barrel rolls, over the top, underneath, smoothiy/abruptly/uncoordinated; maximum
negative G - max. positive G maneuver, vertical plane; split8 maneuver; slice turns; vertical
reversals (pitch back); oblique loop turns; defensive spirals; YO-YOmaneuvers, high/low.

Complex Air Combat Maneuvering Tasks

Complex air combat maneuvering is needed to investigate the combination of coarse and fine
tracking maneuver capabilities as well as energy management. The tests will be flown with a capable
target aircraft which will maneuver defensively but may also counteract offensively if deemed
appropriate. For the investigation of handling qualities of the aircraft, avionic system capabilities
should be disregarded and therefore ,the engagements should take place within the visual range and
should involve only one threat aircraft,, All of the maneuvering, both of the test aircraft and the
target aircraft, will be aimed to achieve position advantage for a short range missile or gun tracking
solution. Typical air combat maneuvering tasks are parallel engagement, head-on pass engagement,
multiple fight maneuver sequences. Futher details can be found in Reference 8.3.1.

One-vs-one alr combat engagements involving various types of target turned out to be albie to
provide almost 100% of the Information needed to characterize dog fight handling qualities. Multiple
aircraft, two-vs-two and other combinations of air combat engagements will not contribute much to the
handling qualities evaluations since significant increase in the control requirements will be present
in most of the cases. But, if - on the oi:her hand -tactical and weapon systems aspects (radar,
missile launch techniques. tactics) art?of primary interest, multiple aircraft engagements may have to
be included. However, the procedures to be used in these cases are beyond the scope of this paper.

8.3.4 Evaluation Using Pilot Opinions

in handling qualities studies, the human pilot is an active part of the overall pilot-vehicle
system and therefore, only pilot evaluation assesses the interaction between pilot-vehicle performance
and total workload in performing the mission. The common method of assessing handling qualiities stili
relies heavily on subjective evaluations by experienced test pilots. To assist pilot and experimenter,
rating scales and questionnaires are often used. The most often used Handling Qualities Ratiiig Scale
is referred to as Cooper-Harper Scale.

To indicate the reason for handling qualities ratings, additional scales have proven useful in
the past, such as Turbulence Rating Scale, Pilot Confidence Rating, Pilot induced Oscillation Scale,
and Buffet Rating Scale. in addition, Effort Rating Scales can be used to determine the individual
amount of effort which the pilot has to provide for performing specified subtasks (Reference 8.3.3).
The introduction of scales for assessment purposes has not reduced the importance of the comments of
the pilots. The number of evaluation pilots participating in an experiment should be as high as
possible. Experience have shown thalt as a minimum three pilot are required to achieve consistent
pilot opinions. instructions to evaluation pilots are of extreme importance. A written instruction
in the form of a Briefing Guide is a well-proven method to prepare the pilots properly prior to the
execution of the experiments. A good example is the Briefing Guide proposed by Cooper and Harper.

Before flying the pilots should be orally briefed on the general experiment purposes and
testlsimuiation. The evaluation pilots should not be informed about the configuration flown. Each
evaluation pilot should execute pre-evaluation flights to become familiar with the configuration.
During these flights pilots adapt their control strategy to the test configuration and the task.
Experience has shown that at least 5 t'est runs should be carried out to be sure that pilot ratingis are
independent of learning effects. A quick-look method is helpful in controlling the test on-line. 14
typical example from helicopter flight testing for such a procedure is shown in Figure 8.3.1
(Reference 8.3.4). For the slalom flight task a score factor is computed which should be nearly
constant during the evaluation runs. During the experiment, all signals of interest should be
recorded on a digital recorder for further analysis with high sampling rate. For handling qualities
investigation, these should include aircraft states, control surface motions, pilot activity, control
system signals, and tracking deviation. The data obtained from handling qualities experiment.:c are as
follows:
t objective data of onboard recorded data
t subjective data generated by applying the different rating scales and questionaires.

For the analysis of objective data, several program packages exist which enables the usf?rto
analyze the flight test data. The procedure for the analysis of data measured during the experiment
is shown in Figure 8.3.2. It includes analysis in the time and frequency domain (see subsectiori 8.4.5)

Experience has shown that neither the objective data (performancesand control activities), nor
the Subjective data (Cooper-Harper Ratings, Effort Ratings) alone are sufficient for a clear and
unambiguous assessment of handling qualities. Pilots who perform the task with less effort in trade
for lower performance (e.g. larger tracking deviations) can come up with good Cooper-Harper ratings
and effort ratings. Contradictory to thi:s, pilots who aim for very precise tracking can come up with
high performances but poor ratings. It therefore depends on the experience of the test engineer to
combine the different results and to draw the right conclusions from the experiment.
 A
SCORE FACTOR 0 Standard deviation
B ea
1-- e Course deviation ( error )
4 c Reference course
A BO 105 original
B BO 105 with reduced
controllability

Figure 8.3.1 Check of Pilot Training Status

A Flight Experiment

Standardization,
Calibration, etc.

I Compatibility Check

w Selected Time Histories

0 ,
0
Cross Plots

I
Spectra

Statistics : Frequency Response Coherence

Mean value. Funclion
variance,

el
Approximation ri 11
Bode Plot Nichols Plot

Figure 8.3.2 Flight Test Data Analysis

74

8.3.5 Special Evaluation Techniques

The increasing complexity of highly augmented aircraft calls for sophisticated pilot-in-tho-loop
handling quality test and evaluation techniques. The use of suitable test maneuvers in combination
with tracking test techniques offers one solution for optimizing the flight control system to the
Operational requirements of the aircraft.

-
Both techniques, SIFT - System identification From Tracking and GRATE Ground Attack Test Technique.
offer potential solutions for gaining quantitive insights into pilot-in-the-loop handling qualities,
identifying the infiight characteristics of the flight control system under operational condition
(which may differ from the modeled anld ground-tested characteristics), and for determining
mathematical aircraft models by applying system identification methods. The most important
characteristics of the test techniques discussed below are that they are pilot-in-the-loop, mission
oriented techniques, and that they provide quantitive as well as qualitive results.

1. SIFT - System identification from Tracking

SIFT test techniques (System identification from Tracking) have been developed at the lis Air
Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Edwards AFB (Reference 8.3.5). They include both special flight
test techniques and data analyses procedures, see Figure 8.3.3.

The SIFT data analysis techniques include the use of spectral estimation methods to identify
linear frequency response transfer functions of the entire airplane, (airplane response to pilot
input), or some smaller part of the whole airplane. The frequency response data may be used for
analyzing handling qualities in terms of such developed criteria as equivalent systems, Neal-Smith,
Ralph Smith, and Bandwidth. The advantage to the SIFT test techniques is that the quantitative
frequency response data and the various criteria comparison results may be correlated with thi?
qualitative pilot comments to provide significant insight into handling qualities characteristics.
Because ail of the data were obtained during the same pilot-in-the-loop, mission oriented maneuvers,
the correlation of qualitative and quantitative resuits is especially valuable.

SIFT
System ldentitikation from Tracking
Pilot-in-the-Loop
Data Aquisition //

+Jq%E+m
Quantitative
Analysis

Teet Data
a a
V
Pilot Rating
and Comments
1.41/ \, .
w
K
Ts+l

Figure 8.3.3 Schematic Outline of the SIFT Piot-in-the-Loop

Handling Qualities Test Techniques
 TIME HISTORIES
2.00
m1r'
1.25

0.50
30

24
0 4 12 I 15
TIME

POWER SPECTRUM DENSITIES FREQUENCY RESPONSE

0
d8
{ ( s~ ,** NORMAL ACCELERAlION

- 40
270
\
PHASE ANGLE
( de9 f s COLLECTlVE,SrrCK MOVEMENT

0.1 1 10 radls 100

FREQUENCY - 2 7 00.1 1 10 mdls 100
FREQUENCV

Figure 8.3.4 Time Histories w i t h Starting PIO, Power Specfral Densities

a n d Transfer Function f r o m Reference 8.3.6

There have been several applications of SIFT techniques, e.g. (1) the discovery of previously
unsuspected coupling from lateral-directional axes into the pitch axis during air-to-air tracking
turns, and (2) the investigatlon of pilot reports of P i 0 (Pilots induced Oscillation) using the SIFT
techniques.

Another example shows the application of SIFT techniques to rotorcraft flight test data
(Reference 8.3.6). This example deals with a PI0 which occurred during landing approach of a large
helicopter with a suspended load. Data evaluation using the SIFT techniques showed that a bad
combination of eigenfrequencies from the helicopter and the suspended load causes a very poorly damped
elgenmode. As illustrated, measured time hlstories, power spectral densities and frequency response
functions from rotorcraft flight test data are presented in Figure 8.3.4. The PIO-tendency of the
system investigated can be clearly identified from each of these diagrams.

2. GRATE -Ground Attack Test Technique

The GRATE technique has been developed by DLR (German Aerospace Establishment) to test highly
augmented aircraft in the final phase of a ground attack mission (Reference 8.3.7). An illustration
of the GRATE techniques including the test setup of the test equipment is shown in Figure 8.3.5. The
technique involves the precise location of a series of target lights which sequentially illuminate
during the simulated ground attack. The light sequences are designed in the frequency domain to
provide a high bandwidth input signal to the system. The pilot attempts to track the light targets,
and the response of the pilot-aircraft system is recorded on the flight data recorder and in the
Images on the Head-Up Display (HUD) film. Additionally, the pilot provides a handling quality
assessment in form of Cooper-Harper ratings.

Upon completion of the test flights, the recorded flight data, HUD film, and pilot ratings can be
assimilated, permitting correlations between subjective ratings, mission performance metrics such as
aiming speed and accuracy, and aircraft fllght control characteristics. For mission parameter
calculatlons, HUD data are evaluated including the position of pipper and the illuminated lamp (see
Figure 8.3.6).
76

P- r-4

F]1 rk
and Comments
Error Mission Parameters
0 ALIGN-Time

c Analysis and Correlation of Qualitative

arid Quantitative Results

Figure 8.3.5 Schematic Outline of the GRATE Technique

eL- ep ( mrad )
" 1

- YL- YlP ( mrad )

l-
Tlme Histories of Fllm Data
Ught ............P l p w
I' Range Of P!DDeI' Svmbol I -ia J
Almlng Error
Flight Fikn
786 1
Run
4

Figure 8.3.6 Typical Plots of Film Data

 71

The first application was a series of flights with the Direct Side Force Control Alpha-Jet at WTD
61 in Manching. A preiiminary analysis correlating pilot ratings with aiming align-time and circular
error probable (CEP) is reported in Reference 8.3.7. The results from simulations of GRATE using the
Large Amplitude Multimode Aerospace Research Simulator (LAMARS) at AFWAL in Dayton show that the pilot
ratings under GRATE appear less susceptible to inconsistencies caused by varying turbulence levels
than the conventional method of pilot-commanded step functions.

A functional equivalent of the GRATE system was developed by NASA Ames-Dryden Research Facility
for use at Edwards Air Force Base, USA. This system, known as the Adaptable Target Lighting Array
System (ATLAS) was flight tested and used in several flight test programs for assessing the handling
qualities of widely different fighter-type aircraft such as NT-33A, TF-104, X-29A etc.

8.3.6 References

8.3.1 Wiiheim, K. "Evaluation Techniques for Highly Augment Aircraft:, DLR-FB 90-35, 1990.
8.3.2 Cooper, G.E., Harper, R.P., "The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft
Handling Qualities", AGARD Report 567, April 1969.
8.3.3 Wilhelm, K., Schafranek, D., ''In-Flight investigation of Landing Approach Flying
Qualities of Transport Aircraft with Relaxed Static Stability", DFVLR-FB 84-11, March
1984.
8.3.4 Pausder, H.J., Sanders, K., "DFVLR Flying Quality Research Using Operational
Helicopters", Vertica, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1986.
8.3.5 Twisdale, T.R., Ashurst, T.A., "System Identification from Tracking (SIFT), a New
Technique for Handling Qualities Test and Evaluation (Initial Report)", AFFTC -
TR-77-27, November 1977.
8.3.6 Buchacker, E., Experience with System Identification from Tracking (SIFT), Flight
Test-Techniques at the German Air Force Flight Test Center, AGARD FMP Symposium on
Criteria for Handling Qualities of Military Aircraft, Fort Worth, TX USA, April 1982.
8.3.7 Koehler, R., Buchacker, E., Biezad, D.J., "GRATE - A New Flight Test Tool for Flying
Qualities Evaluations", AGARD-CP-452, Flight Test Techniques, Edwards AFB, 1988.

8.4 USE OF SYSTEM AND PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION FROM FLIGHT TESTS

8.4.1 introduction

Numerical handling qualities evaluation is dependent on mathematical models of the aircraft. The
model has to cover all parts of the aircraft which contribute to the handling qualities, and therefore
it must include not only the equations of motion and the aerodynamic forces and moments, but also
substystems like FCS (flight control system), engine dynamics, actuator dynamics, etc. These
mathematical models are based in the initial phase on theoretical estimates, wind tunnel data, and
preliminary design data, but have to be upgraded and validated agalnst flight test data as new date
become available.

System Identification Technique (Figure 8.4.1) is therefore essential for all numerical handling
qualities investigations of complex aircraft systems as it can provide the necessary mathematical
models. The system identification framework can be divided into three major parts:
4 Installation of tnstrumentation and Filters which cover the entire flight data acquisition
process including airborne or ground based digital data recording.
4 Flight test techniques which are related to selected aircraft maneuvering procedures in order
to optimize control inputs.
+ Analysis of flight test data which includes the determination or validation of the structure
of the mathematical model of the aircraft and an estimation of a set of parameters which
minimizes a cost function derived from the response errors.

8.4.2 lnstrumentation

A high quality of the instrumentation system is essential for parameter estimation accuracy. To
satisfy the need for specialized documentation in the field of sophisticated flight test
instrumentation, the AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel has initiated the publication of a series of
monographs on selected subjects of flight test instrumentation. Within this AGARD Flight Tests
instrumentation Series, several volumes provide valuable information on instrumentation system design
for parameter identlflcation purposes (References 8.4.1, 8.4.2). An overview is given in paper 4 of
AGARD LS104 (Reference 8.4.3)
 Data Analysis

$7
VERIFICATION

Figure 8.4.1 System Identification Procedure a n d Utilization

8.4.3 Maneuver Design and Input Des@

The importance of adequate de!;ign of flight test maneuvers for parameter identification purposes
Is well recognized. The reliability of aii'craft parameter extraction from flight test maneuvers
depends heavily on the amount of information available in the response. Therefore, the shape of the
control Inputs should be chosen such 1 hat they excite each pertinent mode of the aircraft dynamics as
much as possible. Generally, in order to excite all the modes of the aircraft response equally well,
It Is mandatory to design and apply spc?clficoptimum inputs for all available control surfaces of the
alrcraft. The design of optimum input signals can be performed both In the frequency and time domain
considerlng system criteria and estimertion error criteria. Evaluatlons, practical applications anid
performance comparisons on inputs are discussed In Paper 3 of Reference 8.4.3.

8.4.4 Determination of Mathematical ldodels

The stability and control analysis of augmented aircraft usually deals with the aircraft model at
two levels of integration. The first level deals with the bare airframe. It involves only vehicle
aerodynamics and kinematics. At the :;econd level, the flight control System (FCS) Is included in the
model. These considerations include issues of sensor characteristics, control system laws, COlnputing
time delays and actuator characteristics. The problem of identifying the aerodynamic parameters for
the unstable highly augmented aircraft in principle is the same as for a conventional aircraft. However,
this can lead to typical problems of closed loop system identification related to identifiability and
accuracy. Independent control surfact?inputs are mandatory because high correlation of different control
surface deflections (e.g. canard and trailing edge flaps) can occur with FCS engaged (see X-213, X-31A
experience). As a result the input design with respect to the augmented aircraft is more complicated and
will be of a higher level to achieve conti'ol surface deflections "optimal" for parameter identification
of the bare airframe model.

In the past decade, a number of estimation techniques for the identification of aircraft parameters
from flight tests have been developed, which can be used on a routine basis. With some modifications,
these techniques can also be applied i i i the analysis of unstable highly augmented aircraft dynamics. in
principle, they include the so called equation error and output error method. From the latter, the
 79

maximum likelihood procedure is widely accepted as a valuable method for parameter estimation. An
impressive practical experience has been gained with this method for a large number of different classes
of flight vehicles (Reference 8.4.4). in Reference 8.4.3, a somewhat different approach has been
followed. In this so called two-step method, at first, the flight path of the aircraft is accurately
reconstructed based on the redundant information of inertial and air data. in a second step the
identification of the aerodynamic model can take place.

8.4.5 System Analysis

In modern aircraft development, the numerical handling qualities evaluation using mathematical
models of the aircraft system forms an essential part. This system analysis process consists of
computation and estimation of handling qualities parameters and includes the comparison with boundaries
and criteria given in the literature.

In the last decade a number of computer programs have been developed for the evaluation and
analysis of linear and non-linear systems. Such software packages in general contain a computer-aided
application of classical control theory methods for linear system analysis and control system design
and evaluation, transfer function representations in the form of Bode, Nichols, Nyquist, and power
spectral density plots. In the time domain the calculation of responses to step, block, and
stochastic inputs for linear and nonlinear systems are available (also see Figure 8.3.2). in
addition, these programs allow an evaluation of the handling qualities criteria.

8.4.6 References

8.4.1 Wuest, W., "Pressure and Flow Measurement", AGARD Flight Test lnstrumentatlon Series,
Voi 11, Agardograph 160, 1980.
8.4.2 Stieler, B., Winger, H., "Gyroscopic instruments and their Application to Flight
Testing", AGARD Flight Test instrumentation Series, Voi. 15, Agardograph 160, 1982.
8.4.3 Parameter identification, AGARD Lecture Series No. 104.
8.4.4 Iliff, K.W., Maine, R.E., "Identification of Dynamic Systems. Applications to
Aircraft. Part 1: The Output Error Approach", AGARD Flight Test Techniques Series
Volume 3, Agardograph 300, 1986.

8.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

t With increasing complexity of the FCS, application of in-flight simulation during the
development process is mandatory. Optimization of the FCS via ground-based Simulation is no
longer productive for such systems due to the increased signiflcance of inaccuracies.
t It has been shown that for developmentalflight testing of complex FCS, it is essential to
have a suitable pilot-in-the-loop simulation facility on-site which can be used back-to-back
to flight tests.
t The use of pilot-in-the-loop mission oriented evaluation techniques offer the Only SOlUtiOn
for pilotlsystem integration and optimization. Techniques like GRATE, SIFT and Air Combat
Maneuvering have proven their effectiveness in this process and should therefore become
standard for handling qualities evaluations.
t To ensure success during evaluation, the rules covering test definition, use of rating
scales, and creation of suitable supportive pilot comment cards must be followed.
t Unrealistic evaluation tasks way be required in any simulation, ground or flight, to explore
latent flying qualities problems. For example, large intentional task errors which would not
be acceptable in the operational world may be necessary to create a realistic pilot stress or
gain level.
t Care should be taken to assure that the mathematical models used for simulation and handling
qualities analysis remain equivalent throughout the test program, and that these models
continue to be upgraded as new data become available.
t System identification is the only method capable of providing the necessary mathematical
models for simulation and evaluation of the system under test with the accuracy needed for
handling qualities analysis.
t Application of system identification methods requires (l), the installation of a high quality
instrumentation system, (2) the availability of properly-designed flight test programs and
maneuver inputs, and (3)robust and well-designed data processing and analysis techniques.
t Special attention should be devoted for developing system identification methods in areas
where non-linear (aerodynamic) effects are important such as high angle of attack, high
angular rates and transonic Mach number.
80

SECTION 9

THE DEiSlGN AND EVALUATION PROCESS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The design and evaluation process for the development of any new aircraft is a very complex
evolution which involves the combined effort of contributors from many technical disciplines. A block
diagram of the general process is shown in Figure 9.1.1,

The weighting of each block wilhin the development process is a function of the aircraft design.
More conventional designs benefit from a large foundation of experience and data and thereftm the
degree of iteration and reliance on the simulation modification flight test loop would be less
than for a more radical design. The whole process, whatever the nature of the design, is in part a
discovery process. This discovery process involves all the elements of the development process: from
wind tunnel and computational fluid ciynamic (CFD) tests, through application of various design
criteria, simulation and finally flight test. The flight test phase for a new design, particularly
those with unstable airframes and sophisticated flight control systems, is rarely limited solely to
validation of our predications but alscl involves discoveries which must be fed back into the iterative
process to ensure the evolution of a good aircraft. The X-29 high angle-of-attack flight test program
illustrates this point. For this unique configuration with its high-gain FCS active, the final
answers in the sensitive high angle-of-attack arena required flight test. The details of this phase
of theX-29 test program are reported in Reference 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.

The remainder of this section is devoted to a summary of the lessons to be learned both general
and specific from the review process undertaken by the working group and the experience of Ihe working
group members.

( Mission )
Specification Data

Wind Tunnel, CFD Tests

Design Directed Research

Pilot Evaluations
Ground-Based
In-Flight
Evaluation <

I Production Aircratt I
Figure 9.1.1 Handling Qualities Development Process
9.1.1 References

9.1.1 Walchli, L.A. and Smith RE., "Flying Qualitles of theX-29 Forward Swept Wing
Aircraft", AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Symposium on Flying Qualities, Quebec,
October 1990.
9.1.2 Pellicano, et ai, "X-29 High Angle-of-Attack Flight Test Procedures, Results, and
Lessons Learned", Society of Flight Test Engineers 21st Symposium, August 1990.

9.2 GENERAL LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

This general review of the important philosophical or non-technical issues in the handling
qualities development process is largely quoted from Reference 9.2.1 which Itself is an outgrowth of
the WG-17 meetings (also see Reference 9.2.2).

9.2.1 The Problem

The flying qualities of recently designed highly augmented aircraft have not always lived up to
the hopes of their designers. The industry has seen some success, but has also encountered:
Loss of control during takeoff in more than one Instance
4 Loss of control in landing, in several instances ranging from identification of the problem
In an In-flight simulator, to actual aircraft being damaged or even totally destroyed.
t Difficulty in in-flight refueling, resulting even In airplane damage.
t Expensively-developed systems Installed but remaining Inactive, either because they failed to
meet operational requirements or because they simply degraded the flying qualities they were
supposed to enhance.
t Total system redesign as almost a rule rather than an exception, Increasing system
development cost manyfold.
t Cancellation of an entire airplane project due to the expense and intractability of the
augmentation system development.
t Failure of an expensive "one-shot" destructive test to obtain the needed data because
augmentation systems did not allow the pilot to position the test aircraft precisely.
t Removal of respected organizations from development teams because of stubborn resistance of
the augmentation system to development progress.
t Loss of aircraft sales.

Why would these problems occur In a discipline that has traditionally attracted some of the
industry's best and highest educated talent? There Is no simple or single answer of course;
however, we believe there are common threads in these problems that are revealed when the process
of system development is examined.

9.2.2 The Process

The design and evaluation of the augmentation system of a new aircraft is very complex.
After the mission objectives have been specified, the iterative design process begins, by
combining theoretical design methods with results from wind tunnel tests. As soon as a SUfflClent
data base is available, simulations (both off-line and on-line) become important toois. One very
important feature of the real-time simulation activity Is the pilot. From the flying qualities
standpoint, his importance is self-evident. However, his presence ensures a constant feedback to
help integrate all the design disciplines, from the early design to the final flight test phase.
The flying qualxes community therefore, with its special responsibility to interpret pilot
ratings and comments, must implement its piloted evaluation procedures especially carefully.

9.2.3 The Team

The development process depends on inputs from many technical disciplines. In addition to
flying qualities engineers and pilots, there are designers, controls engineers, "control lawyers",
flight test engineers and test pilots. Specialists on aerodynamics, actuation, computer hardware,
system architecture, applications software, real-time software, avionics, human factors, various
subsystems, structural dynamics and many other disciplines are required. Program managers and
accountants should also be added to this list. It is not surprising that In such a group there Is
a tendency towards autonomous action, The process cannot however tolerate such action - a team
approach Is essential. An ordered, iterative process among simulation, modification and flight
test must be continuous to ensure a good final product.
 As noted by Berthe et ai (Referfnce 9.2.3),"more flight control system problems are caused by
human behavior than for technical reasons". The behavioral factor often Interferes with the
development process and causes technical inputs or issues to be missed or misdirected, to the point
that serious problems are created. Often the technical issues in development problems can be traced
to behavioral issues.

The initial development phase of an early production fighter digital flight control system serves
to illustrate this point. Since this system was to be an advanced quadrupiex digital design, those
who best understood the vagaries of the digital world were effectively given control of the design
process. The handling qualities staff, though aware of potential problems due to augmentation
systems, were not included in the process. Only later, when the aircraft's poor handling qualities
emerged, were the specialists consui1:ed. Bringing the disciplines together finally resulted in am
excellent flying aircraft, both from the pilot's handling point of view and from the digital design
point of view. Therefore, realizing the need for clear communications and evaluation of technical
inputs from all sources would have reduced the number of costly iterations. In today's jargon, the
flying qualities staff were asked to "inspect the quality in" rather than teaming with others in th'e
greatly preferable approach to "design and build the quality in". This is not to say that inclusion
of the flying qualities engineers, or of ;any other discipline, is a guarantee of success. In that
particular instance, the necessary flying qualities research had been done to provide answers for the
problems encountered. Teamwork is not a substitute for a technology base. Validated criteria and
methods are still needed.

Of course, our problem here is riot unique -the need to establish a multidisciplinary team for
intensely technological activities has emerged as a prime behavioral management challenge for many
other current industries and products. Success or failure can determine the future of whole
industries or even of nations.

9.2.4 The Role of the Pilot

The test pilot is a pivotal part of ,lhe team who must join with its members to produce quality
evaluation results. However, the pilot can be one of the largest obstacles to an effective evaluation
process. if he is particularlyskilled (a "golden glove") and cannot relate to the general pilot
population, his resuits can be misleading. He must also be willing to cooperate in the process
defined and agreed to by the team. He must learn the pilot rating scale and comment card ancl use them
as agreed upon. He must also be willing to discuss and perhaps modify his approach to the tests
following detailed discussion with the I:eam about particular evaluation interpretation problems.

From the pilot's perspective, there must be an atmosphere on the test team that encourages him to
present his opinions. Management cannot create an atmosphere of "shoot the messenger" should the
pilot bring bad tidings, and expect the development to succeed. Despite the pressures of schedules
and cost it must be possible to get the facts, good or bad, to the surface for evaluation. Again
here, a behavioral issue overshadows technical considerations.

Reliable evaluation of the design by the pilot and the engineers to determine its flying
qualities is aided by Cooper and Harper's original work (Reference 9.2.4) which summarizes the proper
techniques, including test definition, use of the rating scale, and suitable pilot comment cards.

9.2.5 The Role of Simulation

As mentioned above, simulation is avital part of the development process, and one that has
evinced some pitfalls. Ashort but incomplete list of the chief lessons to be learned would include
the following:
t Do not optimize the control system on the ground simulator. Typically, over-responsive,
potentially dangerous flying qualities can result.
t Unrealistic piloting tasks in the ground simulator may be needed to expose realistic
potential piloting problems. For example, simulator tasks requiring full amplitude stick
commands, though unrepresentative of routine flight, may reveal lurking flying qualities
"cliffs".
t For ground simulation, exact replication may not, in fact, be a good simulation. For
example, it might be useful to sirnulate rocks or 'electronic sticks' on the runway to enhance
the reality of a visual system. These enhancements may provide the cues required for a
correct evaiuation of the aircraft.
 t In-flight simulation has a definite place in the development process. Particularly with new
designs which are unsupported by a data base, use of in-flight simulation is essential to the
process.
t The development process must include test and verification of the various mathematical and
simulation models. One development of an angle-of-attack limiting system was based on a
deficlent aerodynamic model. necessitating a redesign following flight test.

9.2.6 The Communication Challenge

As summarized in Berthe et ai (Reference 9.2.3), all team members must understand each other's
problems and the design limitations. Unilateral decision%made by one specialty frequently cause
problems that permanently plague the whole endeavor. in summary, the success of an augmentation
system development process depends on the correct blend of technical data, documented specifications,
documented methods, and pilot evaluation. There is a strong behavioral element to the whole process,
to which the management in particular must be sensitive. From the flying qualities viewpoint, the
guldelines for proper organization and conduct of piloted evaluations are, like the fiylng qualities
specifications, vitally important and reasonably well documented but unfortunatelyrarely followed.
Communication is the cornerstone on which the development process is built. Without a continuous
effort in this area by ail team members the process will not work.

9.2.7 References

9.2.1 Hodgkinson, J., Potsdam, E.H., and Smith, R E . , "Interpreting the Handling Qualities
of Aircraft with Stability and Control Augmentation", AIAA-90-2825, August 1990.
9.2.2 Smith, RE., "Evaluating the Flying Qualities of Today's Fighter Aircraft,"
AGARD-CP-319, OCt. 1981
9.2.3 Berthe, C.J., Knotts, L.H., Peer, J.H., and Weingarten, N.C., "Fly-By-Wire Design
Considerations," SETP Cockpit Magazine, October, November, December 1988.

9.3 SPECIFIC LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

The specific lessons to be learned which apply to the design and development of highly
augmented aircraft are contained In the various sections of this report. Our general purpose In
this report has been to share the lessons from the past in the hope that the mistakes of the past
will not be repeated in the future. Unfortunately, the records show that the important messages
from "the technical history book" were not always reviewed by the next development team as they
worked intensively on their new program. For this reason the term "Lessons to be Learned" has
been used throughout this report rather than "Lessons Learned".
 9

SECTION 10

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AGARD Flight Mechanics Panel Working Group 17 reviewed the current State of handlirig qualities
criteria and the flight control system design process for unstable, highly augmented aircraft. The
major conclusions and recommendations from this multi-national effort are as follows:

10.1 MAJOR RESULTS

Several proven longitudinal haridling qualities are available to allow successful initial
definition of flight control laws that produce good pitch handling qualities for longitudinally
unstable aircraft. The criteria developed for stable aircraft are equally applicable to the unstable
case since the desired responses from a pilot's perspective are identical.

Although the criteria reviewed differ in their details and the presentation of the data, they, in
fact, deal with common phenomena. The recommendation of the Working Group is that all these available
criteria be explored to maximize insight into a particular flight control design.

The deveiopment lessons from the past strongly suggest that these handling qualities aiialyses and
supporting simulation evaluations should be undertaken as a continuing part of the development process
rather than as a response to observed handling qualities problems with the final product.

10.2 GAPS OR INCONSISTENCIES

There are, not surprisingly, sorie inconsistencies among the various criteria reviewed in this
report. A partial list would include:
1. More data are needed to substantiate the trade-offs between attitude and flight path
requirements. Specifically more direct flight path control criteria are required.
2. The Control Anticipation Parameter boundaries require better definition or replacement
with separate attitude and flight path requirements.
3. A detailed validation of the impressive Gibson criteria, in particular the dropback
criterion, is required.
4. More specific, task-oriented data are needed to define the desired response
characteristics for a variety of mission tasks since the capability now exists to create
very precise task tailored control laws.
5. There is a need for more data within the Level 1 areas to define properly the "optimum"
or desired flying qualities regions since modern control laws can and should be designed
to achieve these goals.
6. More definition is needed to define the best response type for particular mission tasks.
7. There is a strong suggestion that time delay measures should be made relative to stick
position rather than stick force. More data are required to clarify this feel system
issue. Majority opinion also indicates that force command systems should be avoidled.

10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USlE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document is not a specification or an evaluation of methods or criteria. It simply

documents the data- and idea- gathering of a number of individuals. Its best uses would be:
t as background and guidelines to development of a specification for a specific aircraft.
t as background to general specifications like MIL-F-8785C and MIL Std 1797.
+ as an aid to planning future research.
10.4 FINDINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP AN0 FUTURE TRENDS

Though future trends are difficult to predict, they include stealth technology (B-2, F-117, YF-22
and -23, etc.) and thrust vectoring c/F-22, X-31, F-15 SIMTD, F-18 HARV, etc.). The basic principles
of design for good flying qualities apply no less to these configurations than to more conventioiial
ones. The pllot should have at his disposal responses that allow rapid, precise control, and tho
responses should meet the same criteria as more conventional types.
 85

The implementation of the control laws is the chief challenge for the emerging configurations.
The Working Group did not specifically address this Issue for future designs, but the consensus is
that the present foundation of criteria and lessons from the past provide an adequate starting point.

10.5 NEEDS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Specific needs for future research include data-gathering to allow resolution of the gaps and
inconsistencies listed in 10.2. Cooperative efforts among AGARD countries are one possible approach.
A cooperative program should meet the following criteria:
t Geared to resolving gapslinconsistencies of common interest or to establishing criteria for
emerging aircraft of types to be operated by several member nations.
t Maximizing efficiency by utilizing the best resources of nations in the team.
t Maximizing shared learning by involving all nations members equally In appropriate phases of
the effort
+ Demonstrating economy of operations, i.e. less cost per nation than a solo effort would cost.
Several nations possess resources that complement those of other nations, including variable
stability aircraft, simulation and analytical skills.

10.6 FOLLOW-ON ACTIVITIES

Working Group 19, on Functlonal Agility, has already been established as an outgrowth of
Working Group 17.
 APPENDIX A

ENVELOPE LIMITING AND CAREFREE HANDLING

The question of "to limit or not to limit" is complex and still controversial as discussed In
Reference A.1.1. Several present fighter aircraft such as the F-18 and F-14 have no angle of attack
limlts which Indicates that essentially carefree aerodynamic designs are now possible. The
lntroductlon of digital flight control systems provides the capability to design very specific angle
of attacklload factor limiters as a function of many parameters. These factors would appear to
Indicate that limiters, ifrequired, need not be absolute, across the envelope limiters as was the
case In early examples such as in the F-16 aircraft. There is also a growing body of pilot opinion
against the contraints of absolute Ilmiters. The desire is to be able to cross the boundary of the
permlsslbleflight envelope as needecl during emergencies (hitting the ground) or combat and,,at the
very least, have the degradation in aircraft flying characteristics be graceful. Graceful in this
context would mean no sudden departures if special pilot handling is used (for example, no lateral
stick inputs).

For example, the world famous "cobra" maneuver in the Russian SU-27 and MIG 29 aircraft is a
testimonial to their excellent high angle of attack pitch aerodynamics. Each of these aircraft have
angle of attack llmlters which are normally active at F-16-like values (about 25 deg. AOA). The pilot
can exceed the limiter under special c:ircumstances and pitch point to very high angles of attack. He
must, however, not use lateral-directional control inputs in these maneuvers to be successful.

The application of envelope limiting in several current and projected aircraft designs is
reviewed In the following subsection.

A. 1.1 References

A.l.l McKay, K. and Walker, M.J., " A Reviewof High Angleof Attack Requirements.forCombat
Agility", AGARD Flighl: Mechanics Symposium, Quebec, October 1990.

A.2 F-15/F-16 EXPERIENCE

The F-15 and F-16 represent contrasting design solutions to the problem of air superioril!y
maneuvering.

The F-15 is stable in pitch, while the F-16 is unstable with a deep stall. Because of the
F-15's stabllity, pllots can maneuver it without regard for loss of control. However, the aircraft
is easy to 'over-g' and a voice warnlng system has been Installed to help prevent structural damage
due to vigorous maneuvering. The F-16, on the other hand, Is statlcally unstable with a deep sltali
and weak directional stability at high angles of attack. Consequently, the F-16 is equipped with an
angle-of-attack limiter and a load factor limiter. The limiters, however, are functionally reliable
enough to allow rapid, full-deflection commands by the pilot, in contrast to the move tentative
commands required In the F-15. Paradoxically, this piloting experience has given the F-16, in spite
of its high-angle-of-attack aerodynamiscs problems, a reputation for desirable carefree handling
compared with the F-15. An interesting side effect of the F-16 absolute limiter in combination with
a small-amplitude force sidestick is that the incidence of g-induced loss of consciousness is higher
in the F-16 than in the F-15, which can actually produce theoretically much faster load factor oiiset
rates.

A.3 ASPECTS FOR TRANSPORT AlFlCRAFT

Even the most advanced transport aircraft, which are equipped with sophisticated "Fly-b'y-Wire"
flight control systems, are not specifically unstable designs, and therefore they, in principal,
don't fit into the scope of this working group. However, it was thought to be of interest to discuss
briefly a few important items.

Concerning the limiting and flight envelope protecting system of the airbus, A- 320, as an
example, there are three main aspects;for the system definition: to protect the aircraft against
overstressing, stall and passengers discomfort. This leads to a larger number of limiting functions,
the mechanization of which includes an integration of the thrust control into the system. To
illustrate this situation, the following list gives an example of typical limiting and protecting
functions:

Angle of Attack limitations depending on the configuration and flight condition.

t Positive and negative pitch attitude protection, different for high and low speed conditions.
t Vertical load factor protection depending on flap position.
t High speed and Mach number protection different for neutral stick and stick-forward commands
t Bank angle protection different in normal flight and after overspeed warning

-
A.4 THE B-1B ANGLE-OF-ATTACK LIMITER A LESSON TO BE LEARNED

The interim flight control system used on the 8-1 B utilized an open-loop integrator in
combination with a series feel system for angle-of-attack limiting. inputs to the integrator only
occurred when the angle-of-attack exceeded the defined limit. Values of angle-of-attack above that
limit were integrated and fed to the elevator servo-actuator in a sense to produce a nose down
pitching moment. Since a series mechanizationwas used, the down elevator was not reflected by any
stick motion, and the nose down moments appeared to be uncommanded. in principle, this would be an
emulation of a natural aerodynamic stall. However, the system proved to be unsatisfactory despite
considerable efforts at fine-tuning using ground-based simulation. The fundamental drawback was that
the output of the integrator tended to saturate the elevator servo-actuator, especially when operating
at high gross weights. Such saturation occurred for even slightly prolonged application of moderate
load factor (say 1.4 g), e.g. level 45 degree banked turn, and puli-out from a dive. Activation of
the integrator resulted in an uncommanded pitch-down which sometimes led to a complete loss of
control. The scenario was as follows. The pilot would apply aft stick to recover from the dive with
no apparent result since the aircraft could only puli very small values of load factor on the
angle-of-attack limit. Additional aft stick was then applied resuiting in continuous integration
which saturated the elevator servo in the nose-up direction, resulting in an uncontrollable departure
(fortunately always on the simulator). in other cases, an uncommanded pitch oscillation occurred
(simulation and in flight) while operating in 1 g flight at or near the angle-of-attack limit. This
was determined to be a result of a limit cycle above and below the alpha limit which turned the
integrator on and off. Sometimes these oscillations diverged to the point where a departure occurred
(slmuiationonly). Fortunately, this integrator was not included in the final version of the 8-1B
flight control system.

The lesson to be learned was that even with considerable tweaking and fine-tuning, the
combination of an open-loop integrator and a series feel system proved to be unacceptable as a method
of envelope limiting

A.5 MIRAGE 2000/RAFALE CAREFREE HANDLING DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

A.5.1 General Objectives - Reduced Pilot Workload

t Pilot work-load reduction hence pilot will devote ail his attention to the mission
accomplishment. For example: in air-combat, the pilot is more involved in ail the
strategic and tactic combat aspects.
t Piloting simplification for some of the mission phases by "bang-bang" piloting or "piloting
on limits" (more especially in combat).

A.5.2 Carefree Handling Actuality

Today, because of Fly-By-Wire implementation, "classical" piloting problems are resolved:

t Aerodynamic particularities are smoothed out by the flight control system.
t Stability
t Uncoupled control
t Respect of behavior in the time-domain standards
+ Under these conditions, pilots adapt their requirements and think that Flight Control
Systems must provide them with ail necessary protection which means the cancellation of -
ail
the flight control rules referring toihe aircraft flight envelope monitoring.
 c
A.5.3 Flight Envelope to be Considered

Llmlts corresponding to the - -

control loss: deep stall, spinning start. divergent rolling:
t Aerodynamic state monitoring: Angle of attack, sideslip, air-speed.
t Monitoring of the dynamic bsehavior In some maneuvers: roll rate. ...

The limiting flight envelope relies on the flight configuration: flight condition (altitude,
Mach number), aerodynamic aircraft configuration (external loads, surfaces deflection), inertial
configuration (external loads, fuel situation).
t -Limits corresponding to the 5:essIve structural stress: Monitoring of parameters such as:
load factor, roll rate. etc. ..
t Engine(s) limitations
t Limits corresponding to the weapon delivery conditions
t Limits corresponding to the piJt's stamina
- In steady state conditions, load factor monitoring
- In transient conditions, load factor rate monitoring
t Distinctions are to be made between:
- The limit envelope: The pilot Is entitled to go beyond the envelope limits In emergericy
case-(6avoid crashing for instance) the outcome of which could be some permanent
structural distortions.
- The - ultimate envelope: Exceeding the envelope limits would Involve the aircraft losti.

A.5.4 Carefree Handling General Cram

t On the overall piloting commands, the reachable envelope has to be as extensive as possible
without exceeding the limit envelope.
t From a specific and intentional pilot's command, the reachable envelope could be extended.
Then, It will be as extensive as possible without exceeding the ultimate envelope.
Example: The pilot can exceesd an "elastic stop" sothat the obtained load factor results In
an exceedance of the limit structural loads (to avoid crashing for instance).

These requirements lead to transient overshoots In load factor to achieve maximum achievable
aircraft performance.

A.5.5 Carefree Handling Realization

t Control of the aircraft response time history
- Use of feedback and feedforward functions
- Use of appropriate non-linear techniques
- Use of model-followingtechniques
t Accurate adaptation to the flight conditions
- Altitude, air-speed
- External loads
A.5.6 Cafefree Handling (CFH) Under Low Maneuverability Conditions

t Under very low maneuverability conditions (very low air-speed), the aircraft can to be in any
angle-of-attack and sideslip condition (-180° < a 5 + 180", -goo< f3 5 + 90").
t The pilot cannot put himself under very low maneuverability conditions inadvertently.
t Under very low maneuverability conditions, the aircraft behavior does not rely on the Flight
Control System in a significant way.
t Under very low maneuverability conditions, the flight opportunities mainly rely on temporary
behavior during recovery.

A.5.7 Summary Comments

1. Today, carefree handling functions provide the combat aircraft with opportunities regarded as
absolutely necessary by the pilois.
2. CFH functions must insure protection against:
t Control loss
t Excessive structural stress
t Undesirable effects on the engone(s)
t Undesirable effects on the weapon delivery conditions
t Undesirable effects on the pilot's stamina
 89

3. CFH functions can be obtained with existing Flight Control Systems, without additional
architectural complexity (only "classical" sensors).
4. CFH functions development represents a great part of the Flight Control System development.
In the same way, the corresponding data processing work-load represents a very important part
of Flight Control System computer work-load.
5. CFH functions involve quite an evolution on the art of the combat aircraft piloting (piloting
on limits) and on physiological consequences for the pilot.
6. For a CFH aircraft, handling qualities mainly rely on the structural strength and pilot
resistance.
7. CFH functions allow some aircraft development tasks reduction (spin studies).

-
A.6 EAPlEFA CAREFREE HANDLING PHILOSOPHY

The essential feature of the carefree handling philosophy for these aircraft is that regardless
of the combination of pilot command inputs in any or all axes, the aircraft should be able to reach
but not go outside the defined limits of the structural strength envelope or departure-free handling.
The intention is to relieve the pilot completely of the task of safeguarding the aircraft while in
high workload combat situations, and to be able to exploit its performance and agility to the absolute
maximum without requiring exceptional skill. For at "last luck " avoidance of collision with the
ground or with another aircraft, an additional aft stick override travel is provided through a large
incremental breakout force which commands greater than limit load g.

The achievement of this aim requires a substantial design effort with full non-linear computer
and simulator modeling. The design is refined by a continuous interaction between calculation and
piloted simulation, aiming eventually at the most critical input sequences and the control law
adjustment required to maintain the limits. In this respect, the method of handling optimization by
command prefiltering is exceptionally well suited to the carefree handling design process.
 APPENDIX 6

LATERAL DlFiECTlONAL FLYING QUALITIES CRITERIA

FOR HIGHLY AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT

6.1 LATERAL DIRECTIONAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO HIGHLY AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT

The lateral directional aspects (of flying qualities have received less attention by the working
group since instability effects are usually confined to the pitch axis. Highly augmented aircraft,
however, are designed to perform in an extended flight envelope, where high angles of attack are
attained and inertia coupling is present. Phenomena like pilot induced oscillations in roll have
surfaced as well as high frequency oscillations due to neuromuscular lag feeding from the pilot (roll
ratcheting).

These problems are not taken iinto account in the present militaryspecifications, but can be
highlighted using available analysis techniques such as the extension of the dropback method to the
roll axis (Reference 8.1.1).

Another aspect which has become more important, in relation to highly aUgmented aircraft, is the
orlentation of the roll axis during large amplitude and agile maneuvers. When rolling about an axis
other than the wind axis, sideslip generation induces a deterioration in the dutch roll
characteristics possibly causing departure.

Roll performance characteristics are presently expressed in terms of time to roll versus :service
and operational flight speeds and IoaNd factor. A modification of required speeds and load factors for
level 1 and 2 appears to be necessary due to the highly augmented characteristics of the aircraft and
the short time constants which do not allow the pilot to pay attention to the present airspeed aiid
load factor sequences.

A proper dutch roll dipole cancellation is still necessary and recent experiments validate the
capability of the Northrop criteria in associating the dutch roll damping with the ratio w+lw,. Due
to limited experimental data base availability, the next sections provide some qualitative SUggQStiOnS
of problem areas and those aspects of lateral directional flight qualities which could be of
importance to highly augmented aircraft.

B . l . l Roll Axis Selection

Of some importance in designing modern flight aircraft is the definition of the axis about which
the aircraft should roll during maneuv8Brs within the flight envelopes. In older fighters, without ,any
interconnection between ailerons and rudder, the orientation of the roll axis was fixed by
masslinertia properties, aerodynamic coefficients and control effectiveness. Modern flight Control
systems, however, make it possible to select the roll axis within the physical limits, according tso
pilot's desire during the various flight phases, maneuvers and agility requirements.

The roll axis is presently not defined in any of the military specifications e,g, see Refererice
B.1.2. Its desired orientation varies, for example, for turns and roll-out for flight path
modification, barrel rolls to slow down and ailerons roll to start a split S.

The most frequent use is for turn entry or exit. With respect to the direction of flight, a roll
axis tilted up corresponds to adverse yaw (nose lagging the turn entry) in stability axes; while a
nose-down tilt indicates proverse yaw

Rolling about any axis other than the flight path will generate sideslip, thus influencing dutch
roll motion. Even departure from controlled flight at high angle of attack may be possible. Studies
have shown that a major contributor to departure is the Paterm in the side-force equation, which
doesn't exist during rolls around stability axis. However, the cockpit is higher above a
flight-path-aligned roll axis at high angles of attack. The results are unusual responses to roil
control Inputs like lateral acceleration and visual slowing, e.g., of a runway threshold.
 91

Also roiling about the flight path at high angle of attack creates a flywheel effect producing an
incremental pitching moment which has to be considered during the basic aerodynamic design.

All things considered, it appears best to generate and measure the roll motion in stability axes,
examining the results carefully at high angle of attack, where the difference between body and
stability axes is greatest. in order to achieve the needed roil performance it may be necessary to
accept some uncomfortable lateral acceleration.

B.1.2 Roll Characteristic in Tracking

insight gained with the LATHOS experiment (Reference 6.13)has led to a slight modification in
the MIL-STD-1797, with a limit on minimum roll lime constant (see Reference B.1.2). These results are
supported by the fact that some modern aircraft equipped with high augmentation have too small time
constant and experience an excessive lateral sensitivity and roil ratcheting.

Avery important parameter, surfaced during the analysis of the LATHOS data, is the effect of
control sensitivity which, combined with extended maneuverability and increased roll rate demand
produced the appearance of familiar pilot induced Oscillations in roll during tracking and landing.

The use of well tested methods, such as the dropback (References B . l . l and B.1.4) has proven very
valuable once the control sensitivity is taken into account. The extension to the lateral case
requires the use of metrics such as roll rate overshoot T ~and , initial acceleration PsslTr,
(functions of time delay and roll time constant respectively) to be able to identify Level I
configurations as shown in Figure B . l . l ) .

P i 0 can also be identified from bank angle frequency response information. Phase rate and phase
lag at crossover are capable of separating good configurations from those that are P i 0 prone as shown
in Figure 6.1.2. Boundaries in the frequency response Nichols plots can be suggested as in Figure
8.1.3 even though experimental validation is required before implementation of the dropback as an
official analysis tool.

125.0
0 0
S I PARAMETERS USED
OSCILLATION
100.0 A8

JERKY
To = Roll rate overshoot
LEVEL 2 time. Function of
T
v 75.0 time delay
2 LEVEL 3
0
t-
\
v)
v)
a
50.0
.E.9
0 0
p&, = Initial acceleration.
Function of roll time
LEVEL 1 constant
25.0 0 D
C hl
SLUGGISH
Pi0

TAU ( 0 )

Figure B.i.1. Trim Response Boundary Levels for Roll Tracking

92

PHASE RATE (IRACKING)

0 Phase rate
175.0

Excellent metric for PI0

150.0
c--
2 125.0 r, PI0 condition
u
a 100.0
-
0
n pr > 60°1cps

3
w
75.0 Magnitude > -10db
w
2
I
50.0
a
25.0
0 Level 1 boundaries cllsarly
0.0 -r-7
identifiable as a function of
0.0 0.5 1 .o 2 time delay T ~ roll
, time
CROSSOVER PHASE LAG FREQUENCY (HZ) constant T,,phase rate pr

F i g u r e 8.1.2 Phase Rate Based on Level 1 Boundaries

f o r Roll Tracking

Roll ratcheting problems that surfaced during the LATHOS experiment. although not as: critical per
se as PIO. can be identified from the Nichols charts of the acceleration frequency response. Since
ratchetlng Is a by nature narrow band man-machine interaction. it can be excluded when the phase
crossover frequency lies outside of the 10.20 rad/sec frequency region

Although experimental val'dation is necessary in this area, a general approach such as the
dropback is suggested for the analysis of tracking handling qualities in roll, keeping In mind that
control sensitivity must be accounted for (see Section 7 for more details on control sensitlvityl and
that, If not directly, parameters related to time delay and roll time constant can be identified which
highlight levels of handling qualities.

8.1.3 Lateral-Directional Tracking Requirement

The primary lateral-directional control task is the control of the bank angle by use of latoral
stick. The equivalent transfer function relating the dynamics of this task can be obtained reducing
the high order system over the frequsncy range from 0 1 rad/sec to 10 radlsec based on the principle
of matching the bank angle to lateral control and the dutch roll to directional control (Referenze
B. 1.5):

p = s + 2 <* w,s + 3 ,)e'.T*

L as(s2
- 2
(S+I/'C$)(S - l / T K ) ( S L * 2 < , w , S ~ Wd)
Fas
When the complex dipole cancels (wP =ad;5 ,= < J the roll rate response is not contaminated by
sideslip excursion in the dutch-roll mode and the malor consequence is its non-osclllalory
behavior. When dipole cancellation does not occur lateral-directional precision tasks, both in
the open and closed loop control, are severely affected. A potential methodology that can be
applied in this case is the Northrop criterion (see Reference B. 1.6). To cancel the complex
roots, the criterion uses the magnitude ratio w+/w, and the real axis location of the zero with
respect to the dutch-roll pole <9wt/Zdwd.
 93

The cancellation depends mainly on the values of w+ and wd and to a lesser extent on 5 and 5,.
Hence the importance of w /w as a parameter which determines proverse (w+/wd > 1.) or adterse(w+/w, <
I .) yaw tendency durlng thdrol?control.

The importance of the w /wd parameter is felt mainly in closed loop tasks. When the zero of
p/Fas transfer functlon lies In the lower quadrant with respect to the dutch-roll pole, the
closed-loop damping increases when the pilot (pure gain) closes a bank angle error to aileron loop.
Conversely, it can be shown that when the zero lies in the upper quadrant wlth respect to the
dutch-roll pole, when the pilot applies aileron inputs proportional to bank error the closed-loop
damplng decreases up to destabilize the system (pilot induced oscillation). Finally, when 5, becomes
large, the effect of the pole-zero location decreases because the variation In damping due to w+/w,
effect Is small relative to the augmented damping.

Figure B.1.4 compares level 1 and level 2 boundaries mapped Into w+ zero location for several
dutch-roll poles with the Northrop requirements on the complex plane for the same dutch roll poles.
An Important aspect of the requirement is that it implicitly accounts for the usable zero location
areas in the complex plane due to w, and Zdincrease.

All the Interactions caused by this quadratic pair are lumped under the general heading of w+/wd
and Z w,/Z,w, effects. however several other parameters play an important role in the totality of
effect& such as I/rr,I/rs, rS, I+/@I,. For this reason the application of the requirement implies
quite a number of guidelines d i c h must be considered. The roll, spiral and dutch roll mode MIL
requirements should first be met as well roll time delay, moreover small to medlum values of I +/@I,
are preferred.

w+/wd = 1.8
for I $161, small
<,
It has been shown that pilot rating correlations wlth the parameter w+/w, exhlbit different
trends as a function of I +/el especially with low and 5, leading to:

0.75 < w+/w, < 1.O for I +/@I, medium to large

For large 5 and 2, as such as for highly augmented aircraft meeting level 1 requirements, w+ = wd
Is generally prefefred.

Figure B.1.3 Bank Angle Frequency Response Boundaries

for P I 0 Detection
 A limited fixed base simulation of the lateral directional tracking criterion has been carried
out using an AMX aircraft. The AMX is a subsonic dedicated attack aircraft, basically stable with a
quasi-conventional FCS. it has been provided with a limited authority SAS which affects only
marginally the flight characteristics. The flight control system consists of a three axis fly-by-wire
system managed by a digital FCC along with conventional electrohydraulic lanes. Several FCS
configurations have been considered, the nominal along with the degraded states. These
configurations, all for the same flight condition (one of the most criticab have been reported Ill
Figure 6.1.5.

The simulation activity was performed using Aeritaiia's fixed base simulator. A formation flight
was simulated with respect to a lead aircraft flying in the same direction and whose image was
computer generated. The pilot was asked to maintain the fixed vector displayed on the HUD exactly on
the nozzle of the model in ievei flight or in a 45 deg bank turn maneuver. Of course during the whole
maneuver (30 sec) the yaw controi was free and minimum use of longitudinal control was recommended.

The average and integral errors on lateral and vertical translation and 1011rotation as wt?iithe
lateral and the longitudinal stick activity were monitored to provide a measure of the pilot
capability to track the aircraft, to be used as a comparison term among the various cases and to
establish a correlation with the analy1:ical prediction (lateral directional tracking criterion).

The pilot comments for the difherent conditions plotted in Figure 6.1.5 were:

1. FULL FCS: not easy to control in roll due to the sluggish roil response but
acceptable.
2. C/F OFF: difficult to controi for the roil and yaw oscillation developed during the
task (cross-feed off).
3. RID OFF: easier than 1 because the faster roil response and the possibility to quicker
stop the bank angle (roll damper off).
4. Y/D OFF: very difficulttoperformthe tracking task because of the divergent
oscillations (yaw damper off).
5. R/D+Y/D OFF: the sameG4.
6. CIF + RID OFF: yaw oscillation, the roll control seems easier than 2.
7. C/F+Y/D OFF: strong yaw oscillations, similar to 6.
8. CIF + R/D+YID OFF: more difficult than 6 because the higher oscillation in roll arld yaw.
9. G = 2/3'G: easier than 1 (reduced gain aiieronlspoiier).

The average error of the different FCS cases was compared in Figure 6.1.6 and in general a
good correlation with pilot comments was found. The nominal condition (full FCS) has been found
slightly difficult to control due to the siluggish roll response even ifthe roll time'constant
meets the level 1. A better situation has been found for Conditions 3 and 9, in fact, with RID
off, lower roll time constant leads an iimprovement for the roll control and this influences the
pilot opinion. The worst cases were conditions 4 and 5 because of the low damping (level 2) and
w+,c w4 leading to pilot induced oscillation. Points 6 and 7 with w+ <,wd were considered conditions
quite difficult to control but they were found to satisfy level 2 of handling qualities unlike the
boundaries in the criterion.

A general agreement has been found between the pilot opinion and the analytical predictions
based on the lateral-directional trackiiig criterion. The left hand limits of the above criterion
seems to better define the tracking difficulty, while, according to our investigation, the exact
position of the right hands limits is disiputabie.

6.1.4 Residual Modes

Highly augmented aircraft are usually capable of meeting dutch roil damping requirements for
cat. Acombat phase. Even though excellent behavior in turbulence can be attained, recent
experience with the F-20 (Reference t 3 . t . 7 ) has shown degradation in gun aiming characteristics due
to a small nose slice or drift after targf!t acquisition. This was attributed to the effects of
the washout filter time constant, producing a residual drift in rudder command. The minimum dutch
roll frequency was 2 radhec with damping between 0.5 and 0.8.After the excitation of the dutch
roll by lateral control, sideslip settled after a few seconds, adjustment of filter and dutch roll
frequency cured the problem.
 -2.0 0 -1 .o -2.0 0 -1.0
= 2 rad/sec; Cd = 0.1 q = 2 rad/sec; <d = 0.25

Figure 8.1.4 Level 1 and 2 Boundaries Comparison Between

MIL-87858 and Northrop Criterion

PILOT INDUCED OSCILLATION POOR TRACKING

PROVERSE YAWING STRONG TENDENCY TO OVERSHOOT
1.4
-
w*
WDR1.2

4 1.0
4
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

-- 1 0 FULL FCS
C/F OFF
-
2 -
A
-- 3 + R ~ DOFF
- 5
- 6
4 I

U
+ Y/D OFF
R/D + Y/D
C/F + R/D
OFF
OFF
- 7 C/F + Y/D
- 8
- 9
+XW C/F + R/O
G=2/3G
OFF
+ Y/D OFF LOW SPEED
MEDIUM ALTITUDE

Figure B.1.5 AMX Simulation Handling Qualities Levels

1 ERROR

I
STICKL FI DY STICK DH

F.C.S. : flight control :system

C/F : cross-feed
LOW SPEED
R/D : roll-damper MEDIUM ALTITUDE
Y/D : yaw-damper
G=2/3*G: reduced gain ail!eron/spoiler

Figure B.1.6 A Y X Simulation Tracking Error Results

I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10

Damping ratio in

Figure B.1.7 Dutch Roll Characteristics

 97

The presence of long settling time is shown in Figure B.1.7 as responses to a 10% initial
dutch roil disturbances and to a 90% demanded sidesllp. The revel 1 minimum bandwidth boundary of
1.25 radlsec Is shown. Both metrics require the frequency to be increased with higher damping to
compensate for for the increased sluggishness indicating possible inadequacy of standard cat.A
limits.

B.1.5 References

B.l.1 innocenti, M., Thukral, A.J., "Roil Response Criteria for High Maneuverable Aircraft
Using Gibson's Method", AlAAAtmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Boston, MA,
August 1989.
B.1.2 -
Hoh, R., and others, "Proposed MIL Standard and Handbook Flying Qualities of Air
Vehicles", AFWAL-TR-82-3081, 1982.
8.1.3 Monagan, S.J., and others, "Lateral Flying Qualities of Highly Augmented Aircraft",
AFWAL-TR-81-31B1, Voi. I and 11, June 1982.
8.1.4 Gibson, J.C., "Piloted Handling Qualities Design Criteria for High Order Flight
Control Systems", AGARD-CP-333, April 1982.
B.1.5 Hodgkinson, J, LaManna, W.J. "Equivalent System Approaches to Handling Qualities
Analysis and Design Problems of Augmented Aircraft", AlAAAtmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference, Hollywood, FL, August 19BB.
B.1.6 "Flying Qualities Design of the Northrop YF-18 Fighter Prototypes", Business Aircraft
Meeting, March 19BB.
8.1.7 Iloputaife, O., Ma, L., "Handling Qualities Design of a Northrop High Performance
Fighter", AIAA Paper 88-2450, 1988.
 APPENDIX C

AGILITY OVERVIEW AND OVERLAP

WITH HANDLING QUALITIES

The writers include an overview of agility in this document for several reasons. First,
aerodynamic instability has been "sold" partially as a way to achieve greater agility (though the
reader will have gathered from our comments that the buyer should beware of some of these c!laims).
Second, it is, however, certainly true that the focus on transient responses is at the heart of both
agility and handling qualities studies. Next, because agility technology is still emerging, we need
to define our current perspective of its role.

Finally, the writers strongly feel that the handling qualities community should embrace and play
a leading role in the development of agility technology.

C.2 PAST FIGURES OF MERIT FOR COMBAT PERFORMANCE

"Point Performance" and "Energy-Maneuverability" (E-M) have been widely used as measures of merit
for air to air combat design and analysis. Up to the early 195O's, fighter aircraft were mainly
limited to the use of guns and rockets. Because of the relative length of the air combat (on the
order of mlnutes), "Point Performanco" parameters were mostly adequate to comprehensively describe and
compare the fighters' combat capabilities.

A more balanced way to evaluate close combat effectiveness became necessary when jet propulsion,
sensors exceeding the pilot's eyes' pfrformance, and rear aspect IR missiles were introduced, greatly
expanding the weapon system capabilities and allowing much wider combat envelopes.
"Energy-Maneuverability" (E-M) concepts were therefore developed as a complement to the "Point
Performance", providing the possibilily for comparisons and trade-off analysis between management of
the aircraft energy level (SEP to be converted in speed andlor altitude variations) and maneuvf8ring
sustained performance (STR, etc ...).

C.3 THE NEED FOR AGILITY

In a close combat (Reference C.3.1 and C.3.2), the development of effective all-aspect rnisslles
and of integrated avionics and weapons sensors, which allow off-boresight acqulsitlon and launch, now
obviates the need to maneuver to the opponent's tail position; the launch aircraft needs only to be
within missile range and generally pointed at the target to effectively fire a weapon. The new
generation of digital flight control systi?msreinforces such capabilities by allowlng every aircraft
to be designed for ideal flying qualities, even to be tailored around specific combat tasks.

Offensively, this emphasizes the need to rapidly and precisely move the nose of the aircraft to
point (as required by the weapons) and shoot, even accepting some degradation in energy status.
Defensively, similar transient capabilities are essential for evasive maneuvers.

The dynamics of the close comtiat engagements have been therefore significantly increased, being
now characterized by fast and large variations of speed, altitude, load factor and attitude, all
implying coarse use of stick and throttie. In order to point the nose quickly, acquire and track ai
target, to be the first to effectively launch a weapon and to disengage at will in a multi-target
environment, the pilot may have to achieve completely different flight conditions in the minimurn time,
aiming to minimize turn radius, maximize turn rates or change plane in the most dynamic way.

"Point Performance" and "Energy-Maneuverability" are not sufficient anymore to represent the fast
transients required by a fighter, and it has been necessary to search for new figures of merlt (or
"metric") in order to analyze those new capabilities and to derive proper operational tactics.

Such a new metric is the "Functional Agility".

 99

Asignificant amount of work is however presently ongoing with respect to the operational
utilization of agility in a realistic threat scenario. Although the initial results do not seem to be
In total agreement within each other in terms of absolute numbers (mainly depending on the combat
simulation program adopted), it has been shown as a general trend that increases in Agility,
achievable through "relatively" low cost improvements in aerodynamics or FCS design philosophies,
could result in combat effectiveness increases similar to those achieved through very costly
performance related improvements, such as STR or Thrust level.

C.3.1 References

C.3.1 Hamilton, W.L., and Skow, A.M., "The Impact of All-Aspect Weapons and Advanced
Avionics on Fighter Maneuverability Requirements", Eidetics Study Report 85-10,
May 1985.
C.3.2 Fristachi G., "Identification and Ranking of Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of
Air to Air Fighters", AC\243 (Panel 7,RSG 16) D\3 Vol. I , 1989.

C.4 FUNCTIONAL AGILITY

Functional Agility is a measure of the time to change aircraft state with precision and control
-
and to achieve a valid weapon employment.

The goal of this new metric is to merge airframe capabilities with the dynamics of the sensors,
the data processing, the decision finding process, and the weapons aiming, management and delivery for
close-in engagements.

Although considering that the employment of the weapon system as a whole will have a mutual
influence on the aircraft handling qualities, all ongoing studies on agility agreed that the most
proper approach to the problem was to initiallyconfine the research on the overlap between handling
qualities and the more "Flight Mechanical" aspect of the agility, i.e. the Airframe Agility.

C.5 AIRFRAME AGILITY DEFINITIONS

Despite the fact that the proper "tool" to study agility is still to be identified and several
metrics have been proposed, a common categorization has been agreed to in terms of flight path and
nose polnting agility. This approach recognizes that each one of the metrics under debate emphasizes
different aspects of the overall agility issue.

C.5.1 Flight Path and Nose Pointing Agility

In this context Flight Path Agility (Maneuverability) can be defined as the ability to change
direction and magnitude of the velocityvector (Le. flight path, involving states such as load factor
and vertical and horizontal displacements) with precision and control, being representative of the
movement of the aircraft center of gravity.

The Nose Pointing Agility (Controllability) can be defined as the ability to change magnitude and
direction of the lift vector (Le. nose pointing, involving states such as pitch, heading and bank
angles) with precision and control, being representative of the aircraft rotations around its center
of gravity.

It must be noted that all of the agility definitions specifically address the precision of the
end state.

C.5.2 Pitch, Torsional and Axial Agility

For a more complete understanding and utilization of the agility concept, Airframe Agility can be
categorized also by the type of controls used, as Pitch, Torsional and Axial Agility.

Pitch Agility is a measure of the capability to move the aircraft nose in the longitudinal plane
with precision and control, i.e. a measure of the time required to pitch to maximum lift, to unload to
zero g or to rapidly achieve a desired attitude, angle of attack, or load factor variation.

Torsional Agility addresses the time to change heading and bank angle with precision and control
under loaded conditions.
100

The fighter's rapidity to decelerate to best performance speeds can determine the outcome of an
engagement, while its rapidity to achieve minimum drag conditions while "spooling up" to max power rnay
determine a successful disengagement or ability to intitiate multiple reengagements with significant
maneuver potential: Axial Agility is a measure of such capability to rapidly change the aircrafl:
energy state (speedlaltitude) starting from any initial condition.

C.6 AGiLlTY METRICS; OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PROPOSALS

in the mid eo's, several studies on Agility started. These lacked, however, the necessary
coordination and therefore resulted in different or even diverging research directions, with the
consequent development of a wide range of different metrics.

Only recently a coordinated effort was initiated, sponsored by the USAF. One of the most
interesting initial outcomings of this coordination is a "big picture" view of all studies, from which
it is already possible to deduce that the Agility issue is far more complex than expected. This
complexity does justify the coexistence of a whole set of conceptually different metrics and theories.
Some of these are described below.

General Dynamics (Reference 12.6.1) has proposed the Dynamic Speed Turn (DST) plols, which are
actually a recombination of the widely used "dog-house" plot. By crosspiotting ils limit lines, lwo
different plots can be derived, showing the aircraft acceierationldeceieration potential In the whole
airspeed spectrum both at 1 g and at maximum loaded conditions (Figure '2.6.1). Total airspeed
iosslgained and average turn rate over the time needed to perform a defined maneuver can be derived
from these plots, together with optimum maneuvering limits (e.g. AOA) to be used in order to avoid lo0
heavy perfromance degradation while dynamically maneuvering.

Maximum Turn -

For Each Point Along the

Maneuver Limit Line Turn Rate 15 200 kts
Deglsec.

20 \\ 5L-
15
TR
I G .I h
A\ A
Find Acceleration
-
Bleed Rate

to

5 '- Amel= 11.3 x

VT
I/
1 G Acceleration
1

For Each Point Along

the 1G Maneuver Line
100 200 300 400 500
Airspeed

Figure C.6.1 Dynamic Speed Turn (DST) Plots

 DTeDxt
DT is Unique for
Each Type of
Aircraft

F i g u r e C.6.2 D e f i n i t i o n of Point-and-Shoot Parameter

Northrop (References C.6.2 and C.6.3) is proposing a metric called "DistancelTime" (DT),derived
multiplying the cross-distance and the time needed by an aircraft to turn its Fueslage Reference Line
(FRL) by 180° in a level turn (Figure C.6.2). This parameter, characterizes the aircraft's capability
to maximize average turn rate and minimize total turn radius in a minimum time. It is intended to
give insight into the aircraft's "Point-and-Shoot" performance, Le. its capability to be the first to
point its all-aspect weapons at an opponent, achieved by (Figure C.6.3) minimizing the combination of
"total" turn radius (D) and total time to perform a 180° turn 0. The DT metric can be used to
directly compare Point-and-Shoot capabilities of two opposing aircraft in their whole flight
envelopes, by calculating the DeltaDT for given values of mutual headings. A similar parameter,
possibly used in the same way as DT, has been recently proposed by Northrup (Reference C.6.4) with the
aim of quantifying the torsional agility from a more operational point of view, by multiplying the
cross-distance and the time needed to complete roll reversal maneuvers at various load factors.

The Eidetics (Reference C.6.5) approach to a metric for Torsional Agility combines turn rate and
roll rate capabilities into a Dynamic Roll or "Turn Agility" term, defined as the aircraft Turn Rate
(TR) divided by the time required to change bank angles by 90° (and stop) while maintaining the TR.
This metric, plotted vs Specific Excess Power (Ps), could possibly provide an understanding of the
mutual maneuvering capabilities of two aircraft better than the standard Ps vs TR plots. e.g. showing
that in some conditions (Figure C.6.4), although a higher sustained turn rate is available,
aerodynamics or flight control related aspects could detract from such potential, by actually denying
an advantage in lateral maneuvering capabilities. The Eidetics proposal for an Axial Agility metric
is the "Power Onset Rate", defined as the increment of Specific Excess Power (DeltaPs) from minimum
powerlmaximum drag to maximum powerlminimum drag divided by the time necessary to change configuration
(engine spool-up, speed brakes in, etc ...); conversely, a "Power Loss Rate" parameter reflects the
DeltaPs between max powerlmin drag and min powerlmax drag divided by the time to make the change.
Both parameters are a measure of the aircraft's capability to rapidly change energy state independent
of lift-induced drag. When plotted against Turn Rate, indications of the aircraft capability to
achieve energyvariations while in maneuvering flight can be deduced, clearly highlighting, also, any
air intake or enginelairframe integration problem in the whole AOA range.
 c' Aircraft C
\

t=O
; 0 b
0 X-Range

Figure C.6.3 Point-and-Shoot Trajectories

ps
(FT/SEC)
Turn Rate Comparison

AACCEL

ps
(FT/SEC)
,n
Torsinal Agility Comparison

AOA Umit
iW

Torsional TR
Agility (ZAa=9d
3011 Performance
ut back lo avoid
nemal Coupling /.
,
\I
' Max. Torsional Aciility
RolWaw) near 0.
IOAUriI. / \ C ~ m a x ,

1:' AOA rnax i--

i
i
~ ~ ~ m a x .

Figure C.6.4 Turn Rate and Torsional Agility Comparisons

 103

While the above metrics tend to derive "global" capabliltles, usually related to the whole length
of the maneuvers, MBB (Reference C.6.6) proposal Is primarily focused on instantaneous capabllltles,
depicting "acceleration" terms related to the Instantaneous center of curvature of the aircraft
trajectory.

With the idea of bringing together ail proposed metrics into a unique picture, the USAF FDL
(Reference C.6.7) starts with the "user's point of view" that in the real world the pilot's task in a
close combat can be either to achieve an instantaneous performance (e.g. jlnking or missile avoidance
maneuvers), an actual change in position parameters (e.g. to point-and-shoot) or a more global change
in state variables, with a closer consideration of the development of the tactical situation over a
certain length of time. In this light, the timeframe has been proposed as the main identifier, such
that all above proposed metrics could fail within a classification either of "instantaneous, Small
Amplitude or Large Amplitude Task Agility" using time constants respectively of "instant, 1-2 secs.
and 10-20 secs".

To complete such a "big picture view", the USAF FDL also proposed an additional metric, the
"Energy-Agility" to correlate magnitude of state variation, lime (or rate) of variation and the energy
penalty paid to accomplish the maneuver: such a metric could therefore be exploited by the ratio
between a general parameter expressing the rate of state change and the energy loss, both as integrals
over the whole maneuver time (Figure C.6.5). In some respects, such a metric could also be considered
as a complement to the previously analyzed metrics, seen now In terms of "tasks"; applying the
Energy-Agility integral approach, the Northrop and the Eidetlcs proposed metrics could therefore be
seen respectively as "Angle" and " RangelClosure" tasks.

C.6.1 References
C.6.1 McAtee. T.. "Aailitv-Its Nature and Need in the go's'', Minutes of AFFTC Agility
. .
Workshop, Edwards AFB, March 1988.
C.6.2 Kalviste, J., "Point-and-Shoot Agility Parameter", Minutes of AFFTC Agility Workshop,
Edwards AFB, March 1988.
C.6.3 Tamrat, B.F., "Fighter Aircraft Agility Assessment Concepts and their lmpiicatlon on
Future Agile Fighter Design", AlAAAtmospherlc Flight Mech. Conf. Proceedings, Aug.
1988.
C.6.4 Kalviste, J., "Roll Reversal Agility Parameter", Minutes of Aircraft Agility
Workshop, Wright-Patterson AFB, Aug. 1989.
C.6.5 Skow, A.M., et ai., "Transient Performance and Maneuverability Measures of Merit for
Fighter/Attack Aircraft", Eidetics TR86-201, January 1986.
C.6.6 Herbst, W.B., "Agility Study", Minutes of AFFTC Agility Workshop, Edwards AFB, March
1988.
C.6.7 Dorn, M.D., "Aircraft Agility: The Science and the Opportunities", AIM-89-2015.

The shaded Area is the

lnte ratio Product of
E
the ompromised
Energy and the Time
Increment Spent at Each
Energy Level or. . . .

. . .IAhedt
I
I I
I I I
I I I

to tk twt
Time (t)

Figure C.6.5 " Energy- Agility" Concept

 C.7 AGILITY MEASURES vs. FLYING QUALITIES CRITERIA

There are many correspondences between the study of transient agility and the study of flying
qualities. Both examine steady and tr,ansient response characteristics, and flying quallties engineers
have long been the custodians of transient response quality determination. Agility specifications
must take Into account the flying qualities requirements discussed in this report. Agility for a
completed aircraft design can be calculated using the usual simulation models whlch, howeveir, are
complex and of high dimension. Currently, engineers are also using simplified methods and criteria to
gain insight into the agility potential of aerodynamic configurations. These methods, which arc! like
low order equivalent systems, are called Equivalent Potential Agility (EPA) models.

C.7.1 Pitch Agility

There is no explicit official specification for time-to-pitch or maximum pitch rate and time to
reach a desired angle of attack. Pitch flying qualities are defined by the Control Antlcipation
Parameter (CAP) or by using pitch bandwidth. Those parameters are intended to ensure not only
sufficient performance but also sufficli?nt precision. The addition of a time to pitch to the Standard
would be worthwhile.

The requirement to stop or arres,t the pitch motion is certainly operationally realistic, but ifrom
the measurement standpoint, judgement or an agreed-upon criterlon is required to define the maneuver
end point. Perhaps the response should be broken down into performance (in the manner of ciJrrent
time-to-time roll requirements) and precision (as currently governed by modal and frequency response
parameters).

As an example of a flying qualities parameter which is similar to a transient agility measure,

Chalk defined At, at time for pitch rate to reach its first steady slate value, as At=g 1
v, CAP
Uslng simple EPA models, Figure C.7.1 compares agility quantities to the CAP requirements. The
figure implies that very high pitch agility, however desirable from the theoretical operational point
of view, might not be acceptable to pilots because of excessive abruptness. The definition of Level 3
flying qualities includes inability to perform the operational task.

In the nonlinear pitching momenl plot of Figure C.7.2, the nose-up pitch control power is strong.
However, in the angle of attack (AOA) region of instability, the aircraft has progressively less
nose-down pitching moment. Should the full-nose-down pitching moment plot cross the axls and return,
as In Figure C.7.3, there is a stable trim polnt at very high AOA. This deep stall reduces nose-up
agllity because the nose-up pitch excursions must be limited severely to prevent entry Into the deep
stall. This characteristic is also discussed in Section 6 of this report. Reference C.7.1 discusses
how real-world actuation and the need to meet flying qualities requirements can offset these re!3ults.

C.7.2 Axial Agility

Apart from the specialized coupling of thrust and pitch on some configurations there are no
generic lessons on axial agility for unstable aircraft. Early experience on the F-4K aircraft showed
that improved stick free stability was one way to compensate for engines that responded too slciwly for
precise flight path control.

C.7.3 Lateral (Torsional) Agility

Combat rarige results and actual wartime experience haveshown that an aircraft with the
capability to roll rapidly, especially at lamaded or high angle-of-attack conditions has a significant
advantage. An aircraft with good laterad agility can fight more equally, and even defeat, an aircraft
with significantly higher traditional measures of energy maneuverability. Figure C.6.4 shows one
proposal for presentiing lateral (or "torsional") agility data for two aircraft. One aircraft has an
advantage in energy maneuverability, seen in the plot of specific excess power versus turn rate, on
the left of the figure. When lateral agilily is added to the comparison, on the right side of the
figure, a more complete view of the othser aircraft's qualities emerges. For this comparison,
torsional agility is defined as turn rate divided by time to bank ninety degrees and stop. By addiiig
the agility measure to the traditional ensergy meneuverability comparison, insight and depth are added
to the comparison of combat effectiveness.
 105

t a = 0.1

lo I Level 2

Level 1

a\= 0.5
t5'

.28
.16
) Level 213

t a = 1.0

Figure C.7.1 Comparison of Maximum Pitch Rate and Time to

Angle of Attack With Control Anticipation Parameter

+I ~ u lNose
l UD Control

. Neutral Control
AOA
Cm

- I

Figure C.7.2 Pitching Moment Versus Angle of Attack for Typical

Fighter with Relaxed Static Stability
 106

+
Unstable Trim
with Full nose
AOA
Cm
Stable Trim
with Full NO!
Down Contrl01

Figure C.7.3 Pitching Moment Versus Angle of Attack for Fighter

w i t h Deep Stall

C.7.4 Agility/Flying Qualities Overlapic

There is clear overlap between agility metrics and flying qualities requirements. Some flying
qualities requirements are performanoe-oriented in the manner of agility metrics. Some agility
metrics are precision-related in the manner of flying qualities requirements. The methodologios also
overlap because accurate determlnation of very short term alrcrafl response Is key to both
technologies. Simplified models are being used for both (including equivalent systems and EF’A models
for example). The vast background 01: flying qualities analysis, including the current ideas on rnodels
of drastically reduced dimension, appears largely applicable. However, while quantitatively very
simllar, agility and flying qualities are 1101necessarily qualitatively evaluated similarly. For
example, the Cooper-Harper pilot opiiiion rating scale does not provide a direct measure of agility per
se, only of task peformance. And yet I:hequantitative nature of agility is an essential foundatioii of
the flying qualities requirements. There is, therefore, a need to collect a significant data base in
order to derive support for numerical :;pecification requirements that account for both agility and
flying qualities.

C.7.5 References

C.7.1 Hodgkinson, J., and Cord, T., “Relationship Between Flying Qualities, Transient
Agility and Operational Effectiveness of Fighter Aircraft”, AIM-Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference Proceedings, Aug. 1988.

C.8 OPEN AREAS AND PROPOSALlS FOR FURTHER ACTIVITY

As seen through this whole chapter, the agility issue is far from being comprehensively
developed and analyzed; coordinated research efforts have just started, and many aspects, both in
the developmental and in the application areas, need to be more deeply investigated or are even
still to be approached.
 Even remaining confined, at the moment, to the flight mechanics core disciplines, it is still
necessary to:
t develop theories and metrics,
t quantify requirements,
t find correlation with combat effectivenessand, possibly, identify new (or more proper)
tactics,
t develop specialized flight test techniques,
t identify possible new technology requirements,
t identify optimal trade-offs between weapon system, airframe capabilities and pilot in the
loop aspects.

All the above topics have been analyzed by the Working Group 17 and resulted in the drafting
of a pilot paper proposing to the Flight Mechanics Panel body the terms of reference for a
dedfcated working group on agility. As a result of this proposal a new agility working group has
been created.
 ~~

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Recipient’s 4. Security Classificatio
of Document
AGAIU3-AR-279 UNCL4SSIFIED

5. Originator Advisory Group’ for Aerospace Research and Development

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 1114
7 rue Ancelle, 92200 Neuilly rur Seine, France ___
6 . Title
HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE HIGHLY AUGMENTED
AIRCRAFT I / 18

7. Presented at

8. Author(s)/Editor(s) 9. Date
Various May lY91

IO. Author’s/Editor’s Address 11. Pages

Various 116

__
12. Distribution Statement This document is distributed in accordance with LGARD
policics and regulations, which are outlincd on the
back covers of all AGARD publications.
3. Keywords/Descriptors

Longitudinal handling qualitic,scriteria Agility overview

Unstable aircraft Review of high augmented aircraft
Design and evaluation process Feel system effects
Evaluation techniques Envelope limiting

4. Abstract

Demanding requirements for p f o r m a n c e and handling qualities together with extended flight
envelopes lead to use of ncw tcchnologies like active control and control configured unstable
vehicles. The review of the handling qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are
highly augmented is the theme of this report. In general the handling qualities criteria for highly
augmented stable aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of unstable aircraft.
Accordingly, this report contains a review of existing highly augmented aircraft, both siable and
unstable. Handling qualities criteria for both large and small amplitude longitudinal maneuvers are
presented. Other areas of interest are also considered: basic aerodynamic design, specific issues
relating to the feel system and control sensitivity, evaluation techniques and the handling qualities
design and evaluation proccss. The subjccts of carefree handling, lateral-directional criteria and
agility are presented in scparatl: appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the
combined experiences of the working group are highlighted.

This publication was sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD.

AGARD Advisory Report No.279 AGARD-AR-279 AGARD Advisory Report No.279 AGARD-AR-279
Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and
Development, NATO Development, NATO
HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE HIGHLY Longitudinal handling HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE HIGHLY Longitudinal handling
AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT qualities criteria AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT qualities criteria
Published May 1991 Unstable aircraft Published May 1991 Unstable aircraft
116 pages Design and evaluation 116 pages Design and evaluation
process process
Demanding requirements for performance and handling Evaluation techniques Demanding requirements for performance and handling Evaluation techniques
qualities together with extended flight envelopes lead to Agility overview qualities together with extended flight envelope$ lead to Agility overview
use of new technologies like active control and control Review of high augmented use of new technologies like active control and control Review of high augmented
configured unstable vehicles. The review of the handling aircraft configured unstable vehicles. The review of the handling aircraft
qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are Feel system effects qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are Feel system effects
highly augmented is the theme of this report. In general the Envelope limiting highly augmented is the theme of this report. In general the Envelope limiting
handling qualities criteria for highly augmented stable handling qualities criteria for highly augmented stable
aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of

P.T.O. P.T.O.

AGARD Advisory Report No.279 AGARD-AR-279 AGARD Advisory Report No.279 AGARD-AR-219
Advisorv Group for Aerospace Research and Advisorv Group for Aerosuace Research and
Development, NATO Development, NATO
HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE HIGHLY Longitudinal handling HANDLING QUALITIES OF UNSTABLE HIGHLY Longitudinal handling
AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT qualities criteria AUGMENTED AIRCRAFT qualities criteria
Published May 1991 Unstable aircraft Published May 1991 Unstable aircraft
116 pages Design and evaluation 116 pages Design and evaluation
process process
Demanding requirements for performance and handling Evaluation techniques Demanding requirements for performance and handling Evaluation techniques
qualities together with extended flight envelopes lead to Agility overview qualities together with extended flight envelopes lead to Agility overview
use of new technologies like active control and control Review of high augmented use of new technologies like active control and control Review of high augmented
configured unstable vehicles. The review of the handling aircraft configured unstable vehicles. The review of the handling aircraft
qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are Feel system effects qualities issues of unstable aircraft which by necessity are Feel system effects
highly augmented is the theme of this report. In general the Envelope limiting highly augmented is the theme of this report. In general the Envelope limiting
handling qualities criteria for highly augmented stable handling qualities criteria for highly augmented stable
aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of aircraft are equally applicable to the specialized case of

P.T.O. P.T.O.
unstable aircraft. Accordingly, this report contains a review of existing highly augmented unstable aircraft. Accordingly, this report contains a review of existing highly augmented
aircraft, both stable and unstable. Handling qualities criteria for both large and small aircraft, both stable and unstable. Handling qualities criteria for both large and small
.-.-, :...A.
dlll"ll,Y"C
,.- -:...A:--,
lVLlrllYUlll'al
~
_ ~ - ",G>G,,,G".
..-I..-
I I I ' l I I ~ U V C I J 'ai=
- r
,.
L
._
"Lllril nl='lJ
._I : ^...
V I II,ICIC:JL 'ax= at>,,
ar,p:i;iide lofigitudina: ir,anZiiveis ale piese""ted, =;her areaj of interest are apso
considered basic aerodynamic design, specific issues relating to the feel system and control considered basic aerodynamic design, specific issues relating to the feel system and control
sensitivity, evaluation techniques and the handling qualities design and evaluation process. sensitivity, evaluation techniques and the handling qualities design and evaluation process.
The subiects of carefree handline. lateral-directional criteria and aeilitv are nresented in
I I ,
The subjects of carefree handling, lateral-directional criteria and agility are presented in
separate appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the combined separate appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the combined
experiences of the working group are highlighted. experiences of the working group are highlighted.

This publication was sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD, This publication was sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD

ISBN 92-835-0609-X ISBN 92-835-0609-X

unstable aircraft. Accordingly, this report contains a review of existing highly augmented unstable aircraft. Accordingly, this report contains a review of existing highly augmented
aircraft, both stable and unstable. Handling qualities criteria for both large and small aircraft, both stable and unstable. Handling qualities criteria for both large and small
amplitude longitudinal maneuvers are presented. Other areas of interest are also amplitude longitudinal maneuvers are presented. Other areas of interest are also
considered basic aerodynamic design, specific issues relatinn to the feel system and control considered basic aerodynamic design, specific issues relating to the feel system and control
sensitivity, evaluation techniques anb the handling qualities design and ebaluation process. sensitivity, evaluation techniques and the handling qualities design and evaluation process.
The subiects of carefree handline. lateral-directional criteria and aeilitv
I _ .are oresented in The subjects of carefree handling. lateral-directional criteria and agility are presented in
separate appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the combined separate appendices. Where possible the lessons to be learned from the combined
experiences of the working group are highlighted. experiences of the working group are highlighted.

This publication was sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD This publication was sponsored by the Flight Mechanics Panel of AGARD.

ISBN 92-835-0hOY-X ISBN 92-835-06(IY-X

 NATO -e- OTAN
7 RUE ANCELLE ' 9 2 2 0 0 NEUILLY-SUR-SEINE DIFFUSION DES PUBLICATIONS
FRANCE AGARD NON CLASSIFIEES
TClCphone (1)47.38.57.00 Telex 610 176
TClecopie (1)47.38.57.99

L'AGARD ne ddtient pas de stocks de ses publications, dans un but de distribution generale a I'adresse ci-dessus. La diffusion initiale des
publications de I'AGARD est effectuee auprh des pays membres de cette organisation par I'intermidiaire des Centres Nationaux de
Distribution suivants.A I'exception des Etats-Unis, ces centres disposent parfois d'exemplaires additionnels; dans les cas contraire, on peut
se procurer ces exemplaires sous forme de microfiches ou de microcopies auprks des Agences de Vente dont la liste suite.
CENTRES DE DIFFUSION NATIONAUX
ALLEMAGNE ISLANDE
Fachinformationszentrum, Director of Aviation
Karlsruhe c / o Flugrad
D-75 14 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen2 Reykjavik
RFI .GIQUE ITALIE
Coordonnateur AGARD-VSL Aeronautica Militaire
€tat-Major de la Force Aerienne Ufficio del Delegato Nazionale alI'AGARD
Quartier Reine Elisabeth 3 Piazzale Adenauer
Rue dEvere, 1140 BNxelles 00144 RomaEUR
CANADA LUXEMBOURG
Directeur du Service des Renseignements Scientifiques Voir Belgique
Ministke de la Defense Nationale NORVEGE
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OK2 Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
DANEMARK Attn: Biblioteket
Danish Defence Research Board P.O. Box 25
Ved ldraetsparken 4 N-2007 Kjeller
2100 Copenhagen 0
ESPAGNE
a
INTA AGARD Publications)
Pintor osales 34
28008 Madrid
PORTUGAL
ETATS-UNIS Portuguese National Coordinator to AGARD
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Gabinete de Estudos e Programas
Langley Research Center CLAFA
MIS 1x0 Base de Alfragide
Hampton, Virginia 23665 Alfragide
2700 Amadora
FRANCE
0yN.E.R.A. iDirectjon)
29, Avenue e la Division Leclerc
92320, Chitillon sous Baweux
GRECE
Hellenic Air Force
Air War College TURQUIE
Scientific and Technical Library Mill?Savunma BaSkanligi (MSB)
Dekelia Air Force Base ARGE Daire BaSkanliii (ARGE)
Dekelia, AthensTGA 1010 Ankara
Lt C€h\'IRE NATIOSAL DE DISTRIBCTION DES Elr\Th-UNI> ( Y A M , N E D E T I E l l PA> D E S l O C K 3
I)LS PI'RLI('.ATIOYS .AC.\RL, ET LES DE\I;\UDES IYESEhlPL,\IRES DOI\ E N T ETKE .,\DRESSEES DIKLC I I h l l . \ I
.Ai. SER\'I(:E Y.ZTION.,\L lE('HN1OUE DE L'I&\FORhl.\TlOh (&TIS,DONT L'ADRESSE SL.'ll.
AGENCES DE VENTE
National Technical Information Service ESAAnformation Retrieval Service The British Library
(NTIS) European Space Agency Document Supply Division
5285 Port Royal Road 10, rue Mario Nikis Boston Spa, Wetherby
Springfield, Virginia 22161 75015 Paris West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ
Etats-Unis France Royaume Uni
Lesdemandes demicrofichesou de photocopies dedocuments AGARD (y compris lesdemandesfaites auprks du NT1S)doiventcomporter
la denomination AGARD, ainsi que le numero de serie de I'AGARD (par exemple AGARD-AG-315). Des informations analogues, telles
quele titreet ladatedepublicationsontsouhaitab1es.Veuillernoterqu il yalieudespecifier ACARD-R-nnn et AGARD-AR-nnnlorsdela
commande de rapports AGARDetdes rapports consultatifs AGARDrespectivement. Des referencesbibliographiquescompletes ainsi que
des resumes des publications AGARD figurent dans les joumaux suivants:
Scientifique and Technical Aerospace Reports.(STAR) Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRAM)
publie par la NASA Scientific and Technical publii par le National Technical Information Service
Information Division Springfield
NASA Headquarters NTT) Virginia22161
Washington D.C. 205$6 Etats-Unis
Etats-Unis (acceqsible egalement en mode interactif dans la base dc
donnees bibliographiques en ligne du NTIS, et sur CD-ROM)

Imprimi pur Speciulised Printing Services Limited

40 Chigwell Lane, Loughton, Essex IGI037z
 &G- I
NATO @, OTAN
7 RUE ANCELLE 92200 NEUILLY-SUR. OISTRIBUTION OF UNCLASSIFIED
FRANCE AGARD PUBLICATIONS
Telephone (l)47.38.57.00 ' Telex 610 176
Telefax (1)47.38.57.99

AGARD docs NOT hold stocks of AGARD publications at the above address for general distribution. Initial distribution of AGARD
publications is made to AGARD Member Nations through the following National Distribution Centres.Further copies are sometimes
available from these Centres (except in Ihc Uriited States), but if not may be purchased in Microfiche or Photocopy form from the Sales
Agencies listed below.
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTRES
RFI GI1 IM LUXEMBOURG
See Belgium

NETHERLANDS
Netherlands Delegation to AGARD
National Aerospace Laboratory, NLK
Kluyverweg I
2629 HS Delft
NORWAY
....
Norwegian Drfencc Research Establishment
DENMARK Attn: Biblioteket
P.O. Box 25
Danish Deience Research Board N-2007 Kjeller
Ved ldraetsparken 4
2 I00 Copenhagen 0 PORTUGAL
Portuguese National Coordinator to AGARD
FRANCE Gabinete de Estudos e Programas
O.N.E.R.A. (Direction) CLAFA
29 Avenue de l a Division Leclerc Base de Alfragide
92320 Chirillon Alfragide
GERMANY 2700 Amadora
Fachinformationszentrum SPAIN
...
Karlsruhe INTA (AGARD Publications)
D-75 14 Eggenstein-1-eopoldshafen 2 Pintor Rorales 34
28008 Madrid
GREECE
Hellenic Air Force TURKEY
Air War College Milli Savunma Bqkanligi (MSB)
Scientific and Technical Library ARGE Daire BaSkanligi (ARGE)
Dekelia Air Force Base Ankara
Dekelia, AthensTGA 1010
ICELAND
Dircctor of Aviation
c/o Flugrad
Reykjavik
ITALY UNITED STATES
Aeronautic8 Militare National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Ulficio del Delegato Nazionale all'AGA:RD Langley Research Center
3 Piazzale Adenauer .... 1x0
M / S ....
00144 RomdEUR Hampton, Virginia 23665

Natio
lnforr itre
5285
Sprin; 7BQ
Unite

Scientific and Technical Aerospace Re 011s (STAR) Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA&I)
published by NASA Scientific and Teclnical published by the National Technical Information 5ervice
Information Division Springfield
NASA Headquarters Virginia 22 I6 I
Washington D.C. 205 ~ ".?tes
United States ible online in the NTlS Bibliographic
x on CD-ROM)

Primed by Specidised Printing Services Limited

40 ChigweN Lane, Loughron, Essex IG10 3TZ

ISBN Y2-835-0609-X