QMUL

Flight Simulator Test Report

Cuesim Explorer RD
Shihan Tissera 1/10/2011

This report provides a detailed description of the experience illusions in perception of the flight simulator and familiarize the hardware in using it as a learning tool, furthermore to write about the design and performance features with reference to the motion system, cockpit instrumentation and the control system.

Contents list Introduction _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _3 Background theory _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Simulator testing _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _8 Discussion _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12 References _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _13

Introduction
A flight simulator provides an artificial recreation of aircraft flight and flight environment to match the need of the user. It provides the illusion of flight but in the safety of the lab. Lot of flight conditions such as turbulence, air pressure, density change and explosive decompression can be simulated by a large number of calculations. There are mainly two different types of flight simulators. Pc based simulators and commercial based simulators. The pc based flight simulators are the cheapest of flight simulators. They provide more of a gaming experience than a simulated flight environment. The commercial based flight simulators also known as full flight simulators come in two different types. They are the full cock-pit simulator and the full motion simulator and they are used for various types of experiments as well as pilot training. The simulator used in the experiments is the cue sim explorer RD simulator. It provides a 6 degree of freedom movable platform for conducting research and training in a number of areas. These include simulation, aircraft handling qualities, subsystem development and integration, system architecture development, virtual reality environments and advanced control and actuation systems. This report describes two experiments that were conducted with the cuesim flight simulator. The first experiment was conducted to get an introduction in to the flight simulator and its capabilities. It provided experience on how to operate and fly the flight simulator as well as carry out basic manoeuvres. It also provides an opportunity to experience some basic vestibular illusions including rolling as well as vestibular and seat off pants or proprioceptive sensory illusions caused by accelerations and G forces. The second experiment was conducted to investigate the factors governing an aircrafts susceptibility to pilot induced oscillations and relate these to basic analytical techniques. This is employed as basis for simulator fidelity validation.

Background theory

Cuesim designed explorer RD simulator compatible with matlab/simulink was designed mainly for research purposes. This simulator has a motion system that incorporates a six degree of freedom reproduction of acceleration sensations such has gravitational loads, angular acceleration and angular speeds similar to ones gained in actual flight. The cockpit of the simulator is installed on top of the platform and synchronised with the controls by the aid of digital computers. An electrical motion platform called a Stewart platform is used for operating the simulator. The motion system imitates the aircraft movements in standard and emergency situations encounted in the test flights and operational conditions. The cuesim explorer RD consists of many subsystems. They are, y Motion platform Motor drive unit(MDU) 3

Main transformer. y Cockpit Wide FOV LCD displays. Centre stick. Control pedals. Throttle. Generic fast jet seat y Control cabinet Operating software on host PC (HPC) Image generator and head down displays (HDD) PC s. Input provider PC with motion control card (MCC). Power supply equipment . Instructor/ operator station. LCD displays, interlock control box (ICB) Intercom

The CUESIM explorer RD flight simulator main component details y Platform

This simulator employs a Cuesim built Maxcue 600 series, 6 degree of freedom (3 translational and 3 rotational degrees of freedom) Stewart platform. A custom, high efficiency, electrical actuator has been developed for the system. This comprises a precision ball screw, directly driven by an in-line brushless servomotor. The unit is self-lubricating and sealed for life. A PC hosted motion controller an advanced 32-bit floating-point signal

processor. This dedicated card interfaces with a flight or vehicle model on the PC and performs both kinematic transforms and generation of motion cues.

A PC bus motion control card integrates all the control functions for the motion platform on one board. This connects to the platform power supply and motor-drive unit (MDU) via two cables.

A single seat cockpit is mounted upon the platform. It comprises of , - A low-cost generic seat with harness. - A head down display incorporates with 3 LCD displays which depicts the outside world and on screen instrument panels. Also there are some generic fixed wing instruments supplied with the system - A 3-chanel passive spring damped feel systems providing centre stick (pitch/roll) and pedal (yaw) inceptors. - A single channel throttle unit was also fitted in the cockpit. - Centre stick and throttle unit has normal grips which also includes other discreet input buttons. - A simple 2 way intercom allows communication with the operating station instructor. The operating station comprises of pilots heads down displays as well as a view of the outside world projected display. It also includes the RTAVS control display. All the pc s can be controlled by the keyboard and mouse provided. A 19 rack systems houses all pc s, controllers and amplifiers. The visual system is single channel and gives a field view of 5o degrees horizontal and 40 degrees vertical of the outside world. This also has a minimum resolution of 1024 768at two- sub-pixel anti-aliasing.

y y

Real time all vehicle simulators (RTAVS)

This simulator is based upon company proven real time all vehicle simulator software harness. It is a high performance PC based system that allows a unique building block approach to simulator design.

Inclination effects on lift

As seen on the above figure the angle between the chord line and flight direction is called the angle of attack. When taking off and landing pilots pitch the nose of the aircraft up which intern generates more lift. However for angles more than 10 degrees the boundary layer formation around the wing plays a key role on the amount of lift generated. When the angle of attack increases above a certain point suddenly the laminar flow above the wing turns in to a turbulent wake. At this moment the aircraft will lose all its lift force. This condition is called wing stall and the angle which it happens is called the stall angle. The variation of lift with the angle of attack is shown in the graph below.

Pilot induced oscillations

Pilot induced oscillations occur when a pilot inadvertently provide an increasing number of corrective control commands in directions opposite to the reaction, each in an attempt to correct for the previous over correction and itself being an over correction in the opposite direction. This proves a great danger especially during landing. If too much elevator input is given during the flare it can result in the aircraft getting dangerously slow and closer to stalling. A natural reaction for a pilot to counter balance this is to to push the nose down providing a control input greater than the one given before. But it tends to pitch the nose down too much thus resulting in another control input greater than the previous one provided by the pilot to pitch the nose up. This will result in a bounced landing sometimes leading to complete loss of aircraft

Simulator testing
Experiment 1
After a brief introduction on the simulator instruments, gauges, switches etc I was allowed inside the cockpit. The cockpit was small and crammed. The jet seat was fixed to the floor which was inconvenient as it provided little leg room. The foot pedals controlling the rudder and break were bit further inside making it hard to for the feet to reach it. When the foot is properly adjusted on the pedal the pressing down of the heel of the foot controls the rudder movement while the pressing down of the toes control the brake.

After strapping on the harness and putting on the head set for contacting the instructor the canopy was closed. The cockpit light was not found resulting in low visibility inside the cockpit. Two screens showed the down linked video from a canopy mounted camera as background. The lower screen showed instrument panels which included artificial horizon, control surface deflection, yaw rate, Mach number indicator, altitude indicator etc. On the left side there were some switches which included the landing gear control, air brake as well as the throttle control actuator. The stick was a bit stiff to manoeuvre than expected. As the simulation started the throttle was moved to the maximum position as the instructed by the instructor. Suddenly the there was a deviation to the right without providing any control inputs. To keep the aircraft moving in a straight line the left rudder pedal was pressed hard so that it would counteract the deviation. When the aircraft hit 155 knots the control stick was slowly pulled back and the aircraft nose started pitching up slowly following the motion cue the simulator also started to pitch up thus providing the illusion of tumbling backwards due to strong acceleration. Then the landing gear was retracted by flipping the switch. A landing gear retracting sound was then generated by the speakers inside the simulator. A synthetic terrain data base now showed an airport surrounding countryside near the sea. After climbing to height of 10000 feet four sets of 8

flight manoeuvres were conducted. First some of the basic flight procedures were tested using the control stick. By pulling the stick backwards and forwards I was able to simulate steady climbing and decent of the aircraft in sequence. A banked left turn and a right turn was simulated by first moving the stick left and then in the right directions. After each simulation steady level flight was regained by the use of the artificial horizon and the altitude gauge. Then some flight operations were conducted by testing out the affects of flight control surfaces in the process. As I was able to test the control of the pitch during takeoff and climbing (by the use of the elevator +throttle) control of the yaw was tested by the use of the rudder as well as roll control using the ailerons. Then I tested out a series of aerobatic manoeuvres which required the use of all the control surfaces.

Stall turn

I executed this manoeuvre by first maintaining level flight then rapidly pitching the nose up so that the aircraft gains a vertical flight path until it stalls. Then I used the rudder to yaw the aircraft 180 degrees as it starts to fall so it attains a vertical dive flight path. Finally I was able to come out of the dive without crashing.

The Cobra manoeuvre

The cobra is another post stall manoeuvre which I simulated by rapidly increasing the pitch up to 90 degrees and rapidly decreasing velocity by at least 50%t until the aircraft becomes very close to stalling .

Flick or snap rolls

Before performing this manoeuvre I first performed right turn by controlling the rudder to the left and the right wing aileron. When doing the turn I stated initiating rapid pitch and yaw control inputs. In a perfect normal execution of this manoeuvre will cause one wing partially stall while the other still generates lift thus resulting in instantaneous high acceleration.

10

The sideslip manoeuvre

The side slip is an aerodynamic manoeuvre where the aircraft is moving sideways as well as in forward relative to the oncoming air flow. I was not able to perform this manoeuvre in the simulator even after three attempts. This requires precise deflection of the aileron + the opposite rudder. The strait sideslip is a manoeuvre performed during approach and landing to lose height rapidly without increasing the forward velocity. Most notable of this manoeuvre execution is during the emergency landing of the air Canada flight 143(Gimly glider).

Landing of the aircraft

After performing the manoeuvres it took me 2 or 3 minutes to relocate the airport. Then as I approach the airport I brought the aircraft into level flight using the artificial horizon. Then I aligned the craft with runaway for final approach and landing by the use of the artificial horizon. The throttle was then set to zero to slow down the aircraft and a steady decent was started. I was still coming in too fast therefore I deployed flaps to slow the aircraft down even more. Just before touchdown I slowly started to pitch the nose up and put the landing gear down. I landed softly and I put the speed brakes on as well as kept on pressing the brake pedals until I halted to a stop.

Experiment 2
This experiment was mostly about investigating factors governing an aircrafts susceptibility to pilot induced oscillations. Therefore after following the same procedures done in the first experiment I climbed to an altitude above 5000 feet. Then as instructed by Dr Vepa in the briefing I started making rapid control inputs (pulling the stick forward and backwards) to quickly affect desired pitch attitude changes. However I was not able to generate PIO. When I control inputs at a very high frequency there was no response (no pitching movement) at all from the simulated aircraft as well as the cockpit. The aircraft kept continuing a steady level flight. Then I decreased the frequency of the inputs and this time the HDD showed the aircraft was pitching up and down but still there was no reaction at all from the Stewart platform. Also when the aircraft was pitching up and down due to the control inputs the oscillations damped immediately soon as i let go of the control. Therefore I 11

approached the airport and tried to do the 2nd part of the experiment. As i pitched the nose up a bit too much during the flare the nose of the aircraft did pitch down sharply but it was well damped that i was able to level the aircraft quickly without overshooting my control input. Therefore no oscillations occurred during this part of the experiment either

Discussion
Most of the manoeuvres were very hard to execute or even attain the proper results due the poor response time of the aircraft when the control inputs are applied. The reaction conditions of the dynamic simulation were even poorer. When applying rapid control inputs sometimes there would be no motion at all from the cockpit thus resulting in degrading the illusion experience provided to the pilot. Also when banking and rolling the aircraft the cockpit rotation about the y axis, when performing high pitch manoeuvres such as loops about the x axis, the motion of the cockpit was limited due to the fact that the cockpit was fitted on the Stewart platform which only provided limited rotation about each of the 3 axes. After performing the different manoeuvres it was hard to discover the location of the airport to test the landing of the aircraft and pilot induced oscillations. This is due to the lack of geographic detail of the outside world simulation provided in the screens and not including the indicator showing the flight path in the instrument panel. In the second experiment generating PIO was completely dependent of giving rapid control inputs but as mentioned before due poor reaction time from the simulator it was not successfully done. In the second part of that experiment even though the aircraft stalled and pitched the nose down the oscillations were damped and i was able to recover without overshooting my control inputs.

12

References
y y y y y y DEN311 Flight control and simulation of aerospace vehicles simulator handbook by Dr Ranjan Vepa. http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_429a.html http://gamesareevil.com/2009/01/hawx-tactical-maneuvers/ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/incline.html http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/judging/judging-flickrolls.htm Flight Testing the X-36 The Test Pilot s Perspective. By Laurence A. Walker. NASA CR198058

13