Side Stick Feel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Side Stick Feel
Standard Requirement and Limits for Side Stick Feel
Have any Standards been developed for the feel of Side Sticks.?
One of the first Side Sticks was developed for the F-16 which has feel of 3 pnds per g with a top limit of 27 pnds. Initially the F-16 side stick had no movement and test pilots were unable to feel when they had reached 27 pnds. This led to the introduction of movement and a stop at 27 pnds. This can only be described as straight spring feel having no sense of IAS.
Have any Standard Requirements been developed for Side Stick Feel including Left and Right systems?
Have any Standards been developed for the feel of Side Sticks.?
One of the first Side Sticks was developed for the F-16 which has feel of 3 pnds per g with a top limit of 27 pnds. Initially the F-16 side stick had no movement and test pilots were unable to feel when they had reached 27 pnds. This led to the introduction of movement and a stop at 27 pnds. This can only be described as straight spring feel having no sense of IAS.
Have any Standard Requirements been developed for Side Stick Feel including Left and Right systems?
I don't have an easy answer to share, but there are interesting questions behind it. One, implied by your original question, is the mechanisation of the artificial feel - if it's introduced. I think think of a number of mechanisms that may matter:-
- Manoeuvre stability (good old "stick force per g")
- Pull force to stall
- Stick fixed apparent LSS
- Q-feel: which at the very least should influence the last of the other three.
Civil standards define manoeuvre stability (typically max 15lbf pull to exceed N1). Part 25 variants usually mandate some kind of PFTS minimum (about 10lbf I think?) but the lower civil codes don't. Some research has been done showing that they should. All of this, of course, assumes a contentional stick or yoke.
There's research indicating minimum aLSS gradients for good controllability. For low performance light aircraft, I've found about 0.1daN/kn works about right as a minimum, but higher performance aeroplanes, probably with higher ability pilots - you're likely to be happy with a shallower gradient. None of this is defined in any regulations that I recall however.
I'm not as familiar with it as I used to be, but if I was looking for useful guidance for military stick force gradients, I'd be wading through UK Def-Stan 00-970 part 1. That does contain quite a lot, and you might find some old but still good material in the old UK BCAR Sections K and D.
However, pretty much all of that was written around either reversible control systems, or hydraulic control systems trying to emulate those. For FBW, I suspect that most useful advice sits in company design handbooks, and agreements between those companies and their authorities, and thus will be very difficult to access.
I think perhaps you might find some useful guidance if you wade through some AIAA conference databases. That's where quite a lot of the company research *might* find its way into the public domain. But, clearly, it's not authoritative - it's research that you'd have to negotiate your way into using in a design.
With regard to sidesticks specifically - I've been involved in basically setting up some experimental work and analysis to come up with numbers. I don't have access to that data any more, but as I recall we basically took the standard numbers in CS23 and related documents, showed the geometry that typically applies to - the mapping that to the geometry of the sidestick, particularly considering the geometry of support of the forearm, and how that affected it. Then we took the results to our authority, and negotiated agreement for standards that we'd apply as "equivalent safety" to the more conventional stick or yoke case the design codes are written around.
G
- Manoeuvre stability (good old "stick force per g")
- Pull force to stall
- Stick fixed apparent LSS
- Q-feel: which at the very least should influence the last of the other three.
Civil standards define manoeuvre stability (typically max 15lbf pull to exceed N1). Part 25 variants usually mandate some kind of PFTS minimum (about 10lbf I think?) but the lower civil codes don't. Some research has been done showing that they should. All of this, of course, assumes a contentional stick or yoke.
There's research indicating minimum aLSS gradients for good controllability. For low performance light aircraft, I've found about 0.1daN/kn works about right as a minimum, but higher performance aeroplanes, probably with higher ability pilots - you're likely to be happy with a shallower gradient. None of this is defined in any regulations that I recall however.
I'm not as familiar with it as I used to be, but if I was looking for useful guidance for military stick force gradients, I'd be wading through UK Def-Stan 00-970 part 1. That does contain quite a lot, and you might find some old but still good material in the old UK BCAR Sections K and D.
However, pretty much all of that was written around either reversible control systems, or hydraulic control systems trying to emulate those. For FBW, I suspect that most useful advice sits in company design handbooks, and agreements between those companies and their authorities, and thus will be very difficult to access.
I think perhaps you might find some useful guidance if you wade through some AIAA conference databases. That's where quite a lot of the company research *might* find its way into the public domain. But, clearly, it's not authoritative - it's research that you'd have to negotiate your way into using in a design.
With regard to sidesticks specifically - I've been involved in basically setting up some experimental work and analysis to come up with numbers. I don't have access to that data any more, but as I recall we basically took the standard numbers in CS23 and related documents, showed the geometry that typically applies to - the mapping that to the geometry of the sidestick, particularly considering the geometry of support of the forearm, and how that affected it. Then we took the results to our authority, and negotiated agreement for standards that we'd apply as "equivalent safety" to the more conventional stick or yoke case the design codes are written around.
G
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sidestick is there to save money, simplify design, improve reliability, provide commonality between types and provide space for a tray table. And you want "feel" and linked controls?
Next you'll want egg in your beer.
Why would anyone want egg in their beer?
Next you'll want egg in your beer.
Why would anyone want egg in their beer?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt,
IIRC NASA and Stirling developed active sidesticks with feedback & linking. Bombardier looked at them during their Active Control Technology (ACT) program that included converting Challenger Prototype A/C 3991. The result, however, was to go to a relatively simple Airbus-style stick. These are the FAA's Special Conditions for the CSeries.
IIRC NASA and Stirling developed active sidesticks with feedback & linking. Bombardier looked at them during their Active Control Technology (ACT) program that included converting Challenger Prototype A/C 3991. The result, however, was to go to a relatively simple Airbus-style stick. These are the FAA's Special Conditions for the CSeries.
They are not that uncommon:
Active Sidestick Controls Make Commercial Debut | Technology content from Aviation Week
Main advantage is a stick feedback about what your colleague is doing at the same time.
IMHO: Airbus should use them as well.
Active Sidestick Controls Make Commercial Debut | Technology content from Aviation Week
Main advantage is a stick feedback about what your colleague is doing at the same time.
IMHO: Airbus should use them as well.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Milt
Maybe not exactly the feel of the sidestick, but it plays into it and may determine what is required for specific applications.
A few years ago FAA tasked ARAC, who in turn tasked the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group, to look at a number of regulatory issues. (See link for all the details; https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...P1-3082013.pdf)
Specifically, look at page 22 of the "FTHWG Recommendation Report" (page 28 of the pdf) for details on the "Work Plan – Side Stick Controls" which is I believe somewhat relevant to your original question.
I believe FTHWG is expected to conclude its study in the next few months.
Maybe not exactly the feel of the sidestick, but it plays into it and may determine what is required for specific applications.
A few years ago FAA tasked ARAC, who in turn tasked the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group, to look at a number of regulatory issues. (See link for all the details; https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...P1-3082013.pdf)
Specifically, look at page 22 of the "FTHWG Recommendation Report" (page 28 of the pdf) for details on the "Work Plan – Side Stick Controls" which is I believe somewhat relevant to your original question.
I believe FTHWG is expected to conclude its study in the next few months.
