Challenging?
Understatement, HC.
Is anyone aware of work on a Part 29 update/amendment to provide design guidance? Same question for work on an Advisory Circular providing guidance for certification testing.
SA has done two FBW machines aimed at production*:
1. Comanche, which had a three axis side-arm cyclic, with limited motion plus force sensors, and an electric proportional motion collective.
2. Canadian MHP with a center two axis limited motion, force sensor cyclic and electric proportional collective and pedals.
* I skipped the FBW UH-60 project because that was ( to me at least ) an exploratory effort. Certainly was managed that way.
So both have some obvious differences, both flew/fly very well indeed, but both are absolutely way out in front of any regulatory overview by the FAA.
When one looks at the certification standards in place now, all of which are based upon fully mechanical controls with all of their dated control characteristics and stability related FAR requirements, the prospect of FAA certification is at least challenging.
Perhaps someone from the Ft Worth Office monitors this forum and can bring us up to date with what is going on within the Rotorcraft Directorate on this subject?