final graduation
DESCRIPTION
This is my presentation for my final graduation, performed at the faculty of aerospace engineering at the Delft University of Technology. I will put the movies incorporated in the presentation on YouTubeTRANSCRIPT
Challenge the future
DelftUniversity ofTechnology
Flight director design for zero and partial gravity flightSimulation analysis and experimental results of the partial gravity maneuver
Bram MasselinkDepartment of control and simulation Faculty of aerospace engineering
10-04-2023
prof. dr. ir. J.A. Mulderprof. dr. ir. M. Mulder
dr. ir. M.M. van Paassenir. A.C. in ‘t Veld
ir. M.H. Smaili
2 | 342 | 35
Flight director design for zero and partial gravity flight
• A flight director is… • … an aid for a pilot ... • … on a display …• … to fly a certain maneuver.
• A zero or partial gravity maneuver is …• … a flight maneuver …• … in which during a short period …• … a sense of weightlessness or microgravity is experienced.
3 | 343 | 35
Reasons to perform partial gravity flights
• Fundamental research• Practical research• Test space equipment before launching it
“To understand in full the mechanisms governing our life and physics, we need to study what life would be without
it (gravity, edit.)” 1
1 ESA, “ESA Research,” 2008, http://www.esa.int/esaHS/research.html
4 | 344 | 35
FLIGHT DIRECTOR DESIGN FOR ZERO AND PARTIAL GRAVITY FLIGHT
5 | 345 | 35
Contents
• Introduction• The parabolic flight maneuver• Reference frames and specific forces
• Design of the flight director control law and display• Experiment 1: flight simulator
• Method• Results
• Experiment 2: test flight• Conclusions and recommendations
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
6 | 346 | 35
Test facilities
• NASA Zero Gravity Research Facility, Cleveland, Ohio• 145m free fall tower (5.18s zero gravity)
• International Space Station (ISS)• ‘unlimited’ zero gravity
• CNES Airbus A-300 ZERO-G (15 – 20s zero gravity)• Cessna Citation II Laboratory Aircraft (TUDelft) (up to 10s
0g)
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
7 | 347 | 35
Parabolic flight maneuver
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
8 | 348 | 35
Earth vs. body fixed reference frame
Required specific forces in the body fixed reference frame:
λg = 0.00g (Space)λg = 0.17g (Moon)λg = 0.38g (Mars)
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
9 | 349 | 35
Specific forces
Specific forces in the Earth fixed reference frame due to the movement of the center of gravity of the aircraft:
Assume: ΩE = 0 and symmetrical along XB
Rewriting to body fixed reference frame:
Required accelerations (including gravity):
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
10 | 3410 | 35
Flight director objectives
• Highly accurate partial gravity flight phase
• Partial gravity flight phase as long as possible
• Remaining within the safety limits of the aircraft
• Introducing enough stability margins
• Limited influence of varying pilot control behavior
Boeing 737 Primary Flight Display 5
Example of flight director
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
11 | 3411 | 35
Design process of the flight director control law
1. Classical control theory using McRuer’s cross over model2. Adjusting and optimizing the flight director control law,
because:• Aircraft dynamics change during the maneuver (VTAS ≠
const.)• Partial gravity flight phase is short• Also time domain objectives• Measurement noise
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
12 | 3412 | 35
Flight director control law
λg Knz Kq
0.00g
-0.15 -0.35
0.17g
-0.05 -0.25
0.38g
-0.15 -0.40
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
13 | 3413 | 35
Dynamics of the controlled element
• Integrator dynamics near the cross over frequency
• Higher order dynamics for lower and higher frequencies
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
14 | 3414 | 35
Influence of varying pilot control behavior
• Increased stability for higher pilot gain, except for lp1
• Constant partial gravity time
Simulation results:• 15.3 sec (λg = 0.00g)• 19.1 sec (λg = 0.17g)• 25.0 sec (λg = 0.38g)
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
15 | 3415 | 35
Display design
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
1. Air speed indicator2. Compass3. Vert. speed indicator4. Altitude5. Artificial horizon6. Spec. force indicator7. Spec. force error
indicator8. Flight direcotr bar9. Sequencer lights
16 | 3416 | 35
Experiment 1: flight simulator
• Method• Apparatus / aircraft model and flight conditions / subjects• Independent variables and dependent measures• Hypotheses
• Results• Duration of the partial gravity flight phase• Accuracy of the partial gravity flight phase• Workload / safety / flight experience of subjects• Wing leveler
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
17 | 3417 | 35
Simona experiment
• Apparatus• Simona Research Simulator
• No motion
• Static control loading• Aircraft model
• Cessna Citation II• Incl. auto-throttle
• Flight condition• 3000m altitude• 125m/s VTAS
• Subjects• 4 Citation pilots• 5 students
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
18 | 3418 | 35
Independent variables
• Partial gravity settings• λg = 0.00g (space)
• λg = 0.17g (Moon)
• λg = 0.38g (Mars)
• Display modes• Baseline , (6) & (7)
• Display 1 , (6), (7) & (8)
• Display 2, (6), (7), (8) & (9)
• Wing leveler • on and off Baseline displayDisplay 1Display 2
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
19 | 3419 | 35
Dependent measures
• Duration• tλg (±0.050g)
• tλg (±0.075g)
• Accuracy• RMS ελg (±0.050g).
• RMS ελg (±0.075g)
• Safety• VTAS, max
• nz, max
• Workload• NASA TLX Workload rating
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
20 | 3420 | 35
Hypotheses
1. The flight director will improve the maneuver accuracy and duration
2. The sequencer will improve duration and reduce workload
3. The wing leveler will reduce pilot workload and increase duration and accuracy
4. The results are not influenced by the flight experience of the subjects
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
21 | 3421 | 35
Results of the Simona experiment - accuracy
• Accuracy is significantly better for λg = 0.17g • The flight director in combination with the sequencer
improves the accuracy significantly
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
22 | 3422 | 35
Results of the Simona experiment - duration
• Shorter duration for λg = 0.38g than expected• Significant improvement for the flight director and
sequencer
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
23 | 3423 | 35
Workload / safety / flight experience of subjects
• Workload • not influenced by the display• lower workload for λg = 0.17g
• Safety1. Display 2 2. Baseline3. Display 1
• Flight experience• No influence on duration • No influence on accuracy• No influence on safety
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
24 | 3424 | 35
Results of the wing leveler experiment
• Improves duration• Improves accuracy• Reduces workload
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
25 | 3425 | 35
Simulator experiment - summary
Hypotheses:
The flight director will improve the maneuver accuracy and duration
- The sequencer will improve duration and reduce workload
The wing leveler will reduce pilot workload and increase duration and accuracy
The results are not influenced by the flight experience of the subjects
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
26 | 3426 | 35
Experiment 2: test flightmethod
• Cessna Citation II
• 30 parabolic flight maneuvers
• Four different pilots
• Display mounted in front of the pilots during flight
• Three partial gravity conditions
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
• Two displays (Baseline & Display 2)
27 | 3427 | 35
Test flight
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
28 | 3428 | 35introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
29 | 3429 | 35introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
30 | 3430 | 35
Test flight results
• Comparison to historical values:• Improved accuracy• Improved duration
• Due to limited number of flight no significant differences in the display modes
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
31 | 3431 | 35
Comparison between simulator and real flight
• Zero gravity flight: better performance in real flight• λg = 0.17g better in simulator
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
32 | 3432 | 35
Finishing the partial gravity flight phase
• The partial gravity flight phase is abandoned earlier in the real flight than in the simulator
• The partial gravity flight phase is abandoned earlier if λg = 0.38g (due to lack of dynamic pressure feedback to the control loading)
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
33 | 3433 | 35
Conclusions
• The display including the flight director and sequencer improves the partial gravity maneuver in terms of accuracy and duration
• The flight director does not deteriorate safety and workload
• Performance for zero gravity is better in real flight than in the simulator
• The partial gravity maneuver is abandoned earlier in the Citation than in the Simona
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
34 | 3434 | 35
Recommendations
• Use a different workload rating method
• Display design improvements:• Include audio signals• Combine the two specific force indicators• Visualize the safety margins
• Investigate the transition criteria given by Heuvel et al.
• Implement q-feedback on the control loading in Simona
• Investigate the early abandonment of the maneuver in the aircraft, and try to avoid it
introduction – FD design – simulator – test flight – conclusions
35 | 3435 | 35
Challenge the future
DelftUniversity ofTechnology
Flight director design for zero and partial gravity flightSimulation analysis and experimental results of the partial gravity maneuver
10-04-2023
37 | 3437 | 35
Borrel
Vrijdag 13 februari, 21:00Café ‘Het Pakhuis’Phoenixstraat 4C2611 AL Delft
38 | 3438 | 35
APPENDICES
39 | 3439 | 35
Aircraft transfer functions
40 | 3440 | 35
Off line simulation results
41 | 3441 | 35
NASA TLX Workload Rating
42 | 3442 | 35
Simona ANOVA’s
43 | 3443 | 35
Chance of correct flight
44 | 3444 | 35
Simona experiment - workload
45 | 3445 | 35
Simona experiment - safety
46 | 3446 | 35
Display recommendation
47 | 3447 | 35
Off-line simulation results