Multi-Axis Response Criteria and Novel-Response Types

This section covers two areas that are relatively immature in terms of the existence of any underlying flying qualities database. The primary emphasis of all flying qualities requirements has been the division of criteria into axes over which the pilot has control. In practice, most MTEs require coordinated control inputs in all axes, and the question arises as to whether the combination of single axis criteria is sufficient to ensure pilot acceptance in multi-axis tasks. Practically all the material in the earlier sections of this chapter deals with the most conventional, rate or attitude command, response types. With the advent of fly-by-wire/light and the attendant active controls technologies, the scope for changing the way pilots fly helicopters is very broad indeed. The term novel response types is coined to classify non-attitude-based systems, and some discussion on the current status and thinking in this area constitutes the final topic in this section.

6.8.1 Multi-axis response criteria

Most of the test MTEs in ADS-33 are primarily single axis tasks, e. g., accel-decel (pitch), bob-up (heave), sidestep (roll) and hover turn (yaw). For these, at least in theory, off-axis control inputs are required only to compensate for cross-couplings. Flying qualities requirements on couplings (see Section 6.7), at least when fully developed, should ensure that aircraft are built that demand minimum compensation only. Other MTEs are in their nature multi-axis and require the pilot to apply coordinated controls to achieve satisfactory task performance, e. g., pirouette, angled approach to hover, yo-yo combat manoeuvres and roll reversals at reduced and elevated load factors. Very little research has been done, at least in recent years and hence related to modern missions, on flying qualities criteria specifically suited for combined-axis helicopter manoeuvres. ADS-33 refers only to the requirement that control sensitivities should be compatible and responses should be harmonious. Control harmony is arguably one of the most important aspects of flying qualities, but finding any formal quantification has proved difficult. An intuitive definition seems to be that harmony is a quality achieved by having similar levels of characteristic response parameters, at least in the interacting axes. At a fundamental level, harmony then implies the same response types in the different axes, e. g., rate command in pitch combined with attitude in roll would not be harmonious, perhaps even leading to degraded ratings. Harmony applies most of all to pitch and roll, normally commanded through the same right-hand controller. Manoeuvring at low speed and close to the ground, the pilot directs the rotor thrust with the right-hand controller. The author is of the view that harmony in this mode of control should, as far as possible, encompass response type, bandwidth and control power (particularly for AC response types). Then if the pilot wants to fly at 45° to

the right, he initiates and terminates the manoeuvre by moving his controller in the desired direction. This requirement is naturally met in TRC response types discussed below, but would not be for AC or RC types if the ratio of the minimum requirements of ADS-33 were maintained (e. g., ±30° pitch, ±60° roll for aggressive manoeuvring with attitude response types in UCE 1).

In forward flight, one of the important multi-axis criteria that has received attention is the requirement for turn coordination. As a pilot rolls into a turn, two compensating controls have to be applied. Aft cyclic is required, for helicopters with manoeuvre stability, to compensate for the pitch damping moment in the turn. Into-turn pedal is required to compensate for the yaw damping in the turn. Additional compensation will be needed for any steady-state incidence or sideslip required to augment the turn performance. The requirements for manoeuvre stability have already been discussed in Section 6.3. The requirements on yaw control harmony, and on the attendant sideslip response, are more complicated as they depend on the phase between roll and sideslip in the Dutch roll lateral/directional oscillation. The turn coordination requirements in ADS-33, for example, focus on the amount of sideslip resulting from an abrupt lateral cyclic control input; the criterion also highlights the point that sideslip response is more tolerable when it obviously lags the roll response.

The requirement for cyclic control harmony in manoeuvring flight at moderate to high speed translates into the need for similar time constants for roll attitude and normal acceleration response. Fortunately, this is normally the case, with the pitch bandwidth and control power being harmonized with the correspondingly higher parameters for roll. For example, as a pilot rolls into a turn with rate command in both pitch and roll, a bank angle of 60° and load factor of 2 can be achieved in similar times (about 1.5 s for an agile helicopter). One potential problem can arise with a pure RC response type during a roll reversal manoeuvre. Flying a steady turn the pilot will be pulling back to maintain the pitch rate in the turn. As the pilot executes the roll reversal, he has to judge his control strategy carefully, making sure that the cyclic passes through the centre with zero pitch input, to avoid making a discrete change in pitch attitude. Reference 6.35 reports on a study to evaluate the relative benefits of rate and attitude command response types. One of the workload problems with RC highlighted by pilots was the care required when reversing a roll to avoid making a pitch change that inevitably led to a speed decrease or increase as the manoeuvre progressed. To overcome this problem, speed hold functions were proposed. Also, automatic turn coordination was generally preferred by pilots, at least up to a moderate level of agility, obviating the need to apply any compensating pitch or yaw inputs.

One final point on multi-axis tasks, and to make it we assume that an aircraft that has been demonstrated as Level 1 in all axes according to clinical objective criteria will also consistently achieve ‘desired performance’ in practice. It is recognized that this is a contentious issue, but for the moment we assume that the individual criteria are robust enough that failure to comply will guarantee bad flying qualities. It is well recognized that at high levels of pilot aggression or in degraded environmental conditions, an otherwise Level 1 aircraft can degrade to Level 2. This is generally accepted as being an inevitable consequence of operating helicopters in harsh environments and can apply to both military and civil operations. But this raises the question as to whether a helicopter that has degraded to Level 2 in two or more axes will still be able to meet adequate performance levels in multi-axis manoeuvres. There is some evidence to suggest that the answer is negative. In discussing combined axis handling qualities,

Hoh (Ref. 6.60) advances an advisory ‘product rule’ that predicts that an aircraft with two axes both receiving ratings of 5 on the Cooper-Harper scale will actually work out as a 7 in practice, i. e., Level 3. We shall return to this and other related issues concerning subjective pilot opinion in the next chapter.