Cocpit design requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Very interesting insight there. I am left wondering if our Tiltrotor would be quite as capable, since I suspect the power-to-weight isn't quite on a par with a Harrier.
We have two RTM322-01/9A Making somewhere between 1566kw (max continuous) and 2204kW (30 seconds OEI). Bolted to those are a pair of rotors approx 8m in diameter (final sizing still under design).
Not quite a Pegasus!
Still, I have raised your points with some of the design guys more focussed on the control systems, and it's opened their eyes - we were expecting this to be a very tricky phase and therefor had resigned ourselves to completely autonomous control.
To those who've raised the tone (
) issues, and that of annoying warning systems that's great input. Sounds like a common dissatisfaction there.
We have had it pointed out to us that engineers have a tendancy to design arcraft for engineers, but it isn't engineers who fly aircraft!
Very interesting insight there. I am left wondering if our Tiltrotor would be quite as capable, since I suspect the power-to-weight isn't quite on a par with a Harrier.
We have two RTM322-01/9A Making somewhere between 1566kw (max continuous) and 2204kW (30 seconds OEI). Bolted to those are a pair of rotors approx 8m in diameter (final sizing still under design).
Not quite a Pegasus!
Still, I have raised your points with some of the design guys more focussed on the control systems, and it's opened their eyes - we were expecting this to be a very tricky phase and therefor had resigned ourselves to completely autonomous control.
To those who've raised the tone (
) issues, and that of annoying warning systems that's great input. Sounds like a common dissatisfaction there.We have had it pointed out to us that engineers have a tendancy to design arcraft for engineers, but it isn't engineers who fly aircraft!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ta glum
The Harrier T/W will not be very different to your machine (or any other that can hover) - else it can't hover! While a light Harrier could be 1.5:1 these days it will normally be operating around 1.05 to 1.15 because of the need to carry stores or fuel or both.
Anyhow as long as you realise the essential simplicity of vectored thrust (whatever is providing the thrust) then that was all I was after.
I suspect the aerodynamic interaction of the rotor downwash/slipstream and the wing and tail will produce a few trim changes that will need looking at - just as the Harrier engine efflux has a powerful effect on the tailplane local AoA during transition hence stick position to trim as the speed varies.
Anyhow good luck!
JF
The Harrier T/W will not be very different to your machine (or any other that can hover) - else it can't hover! While a light Harrier could be 1.5:1 these days it will normally be operating around 1.05 to 1.15 because of the need to carry stores or fuel or both.
Anyhow as long as you realise the essential simplicity of vectored thrust (whatever is providing the thrust) then that was all I was after.
I suspect the aerodynamic interaction of the rotor downwash/slipstream and the wing and tail will produce a few trim changes that will need looking at - just as the Harrier engine efflux has a powerful effect on the tailplane local AoA during transition hence stick position to trim as the speed varies.
Anyhow good luck!
JF
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We have had it pointed out to us that engineers have a tendency to design aircraft for engineers, but it isn't engineers who fly aircraft!"
Which is why most aircraft design teams include representatives from the Flight Test group - both pilots & system engineers - who operate, test & maintain the current designs. In our organization, they're part of all design & test reviews including "Safety of Flight". Current aircraft are often just too complex with layers of "gotchas" - you can fix one problem only to reveal another one (or two or three) that was masked by the first.
Which is why most aircraft design teams include representatives from the Flight Test group - both pilots & system engineers - who operate, test & maintain the current designs. In our organization, they're part of all design & test reviews including "Safety of Flight". Current aircraft are often just too complex with layers of "gotchas" - you can fix one problem only to reveal another one (or two or three) that was masked by the first.
Adding to that, and at risk of stating the blindingly obvious, given the students here are at Cranfield - this is a large airfield, as as well as a university. The place is full of pilots, so getting a pilot opinion shouldn't be difficult.
Slightly more difficult will be finding a pilot whose opiinions are worth listening to, and can articulate them well enough to be useful to you. However, they'll exist at Cranfield somewhere, and it's a worthwhile challenge!
G
Slightly more difficult will be finding a pilot whose opiinions are worth listening to, and can articulate them well enough to be useful to you. However, they'll exist at Cranfield somewhere, and it's a worthwhile challenge!
G
Glum, one man to speak to with `authority` would be the CTP Roger `Dodge` Bailey.
Earlier it was mentioned that you were doing away with the rudder pedals- and using the stick ,by twistingfor yaw control. I think you are going a step too far by bringing to a `hybrid helicopter/aeroplane ` a novel control system. This may be because you have been playing too much on MS Flight sims,and have little ,or limited actual flying experience of how aircraft are controlled,especially helicopters.
As a starter,you need to steer the aircraft on the ground,you need brakes,; you need seriously to look at the `ergonomics` of various manoeuvres that are used in the hover mode such as moving the `cyclic` control,which may have several switches/buttons on it,and then consider the relationship of those contols whilst you now twist the stick; Ones` wrist has only a limited range of movement in certain planes,and whilst using the fingers on the stick grip,you would find it increasing difficult to operate.
The rudder/yaw pedals can be fly-by wire,but they can also serve to give the pilot feedback,can `tremble` if nearing a control authority limit,or a yaw rate limit or a sideslip limit ,which I consider you would not be able to do by using a `twist-stick`. Remember, that the lower speed end of the aircrafts` envelope is where it is operating in a `seat-of -the pants` environment,where one uses one`s senses more than in conventional flight,and control must be instinctive. Remember, pilots who convert to these `hybrids` have/will come from both helicopters and fixed wing,where the basic control functions /responses are largely the same,so putting in another new-concept will make it a higher workload. It is one thing to sit at a desk and play with a computer stick- quite another to strap your backside into a real aircraft ...You may try a PM to `Ospreypilot` who may have some thoughts on the subject,or he may be busy in a hot,sandy place...
Earlier it was mentioned that you were doing away with the rudder pedals- and using the stick ,by twistingfor yaw control. I think you are going a step too far by bringing to a `hybrid helicopter/aeroplane ` a novel control system. This may be because you have been playing too much on MS Flight sims,and have little ,or limited actual flying experience of how aircraft are controlled,especially helicopters.
As a starter,you need to steer the aircraft on the ground,you need brakes,; you need seriously to look at the `ergonomics` of various manoeuvres that are used in the hover mode such as moving the `cyclic` control,which may have several switches/buttons on it,and then consider the relationship of those contols whilst you now twist the stick; Ones` wrist has only a limited range of movement in certain planes,and whilst using the fingers on the stick grip,you would find it increasing difficult to operate.
The rudder/yaw pedals can be fly-by wire,but they can also serve to give the pilot feedback,can `tremble` if nearing a control authority limit,or a yaw rate limit or a sideslip limit ,which I consider you would not be able to do by using a `twist-stick`. Remember, that the lower speed end of the aircrafts` envelope is where it is operating in a `seat-of -the pants` environment,where one uses one`s senses more than in conventional flight,and control must be instinctive. Remember, pilots who convert to these `hybrids` have/will come from both helicopters and fixed wing,where the basic control functions /responses are largely the same,so putting in another new-concept will make it a higher workload. It is one thing to sit at a desk and play with a computer stick- quite another to strap your backside into a real aircraft ...You may try a PM to `Ospreypilot` who may have some thoughts on the subject,or he may be busy in a hot,sandy place...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudiments of Flight deck design
Cockpit Ergonomics/crew anthropometrics,System design based on aircraft economics as the base line,aerodynamic and structural inputs from the proposed aircraft design,seating and emergency escape arrangement,electrical and electronic compartment location,panel optimum viewing angles,windshield and overhead angle,display options, control levers position and reach options,Instrumentation displays to comply with international design standards,
standard/.efis instrumentation mix, pickle /rotary/push button switching,control colum design (rams horn,u wheel,or joy stick design, fly by wire or conventional control systems,cockpit door security and control system,communication systems,glareshield design and interface with flight mode annunciation,emergency equipment and systems,HUD systems,Throttle quadrant design...e.g boeing versus airbus format, etc..seat upholstry design depending on mission requirements,sealed windscreen versus window type design, oxygen and ventilation systems,rudder pedal and nose tiller design and whether singular or dual tillers.
At some point you have to consider inputs from structural engineers, telemetry and instrumentation engineers, aerodynamiscist, ergonomists, cost engineers etc...
just my humble take on the matter
standard/.efis instrumentation mix, pickle /rotary/push button switching,control colum design (rams horn,u wheel,or joy stick design, fly by wire or conventional control systems,cockpit door security and control system,communication systems,glareshield design and interface with flight mode annunciation,emergency equipment and systems,HUD systems,Throttle quadrant design...e.g boeing versus airbus format, etc..seat upholstry design depending on mission requirements,sealed windscreen versus window type design, oxygen and ventilation systems,rudder pedal and nose tiller design and whether singular or dual tillers.
At some point you have to consider inputs from structural engineers, telemetry and instrumentation engineers, aerodynamiscist, ergonomists, cost engineers etc...
just my humble take on the matter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sycamore,
I speak only as an avionics tech of 23 years - never been a pilot though have spent many hours staring out the window at 35,000 whilst waiting for the captain to play his scrabble hand!
Good insight to the rudder pedal issue, and yes I was thinking along the lines of future generations of MS Flight Sim pilots, who would perhaps find it natural to have the yaw control on a joystick, rather than those converting from a position of experience. We are students and have the luxury of dreaming a little!
The role of a pilot is being relegated to systems manager with each passing decade, and I fear seat-of-the-pants flying is becoming increasingly rare on civil aircraft. As the computers take over, the need for 'feel' is reduced since all the pilot needs to do is tell the aircraft which way to fly, and the aircraft obeys - taking account of the flight envelope, weather conditions, traffic, terrain, thrust available etc.
Ultimately there may not even be a joystick...
I speak only as an avionics tech of 23 years - never been a pilot though have spent many hours staring out the window at 35,000 whilst waiting for the captain to play his scrabble hand!
Good insight to the rudder pedal issue, and yes I was thinking along the lines of future generations of MS Flight Sim pilots, who would perhaps find it natural to have the yaw control on a joystick, rather than those converting from a position of experience. We are students and have the luxury of dreaming a little!
The role of a pilot is being relegated to systems manager with each passing decade, and I fear seat-of-the-pants flying is becoming increasingly rare on civil aircraft. As the computers take over, the need for 'feel' is reduced since all the pilot needs to do is tell the aircraft which way to fly, and the aircraft obeys - taking account of the flight envelope, weather conditions, traffic, terrain, thrust available etc.
Ultimately there may not even be a joystick...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glum,
"Ultimately there may not even be a joystick... "
I've got in trouble before now for pointing out that most current transports can be flown without manual control input from around 500 feet after takeoff (Minimum Engage Height) to touchdown.
Please post a link to your team's project when you've finished it - as Genghis has said, it will be interesting - and refreshing - to see what could be done especially when you don't have to consider the impact of legacy systems or traditions.
"Ultimately there may not even be a joystick... "
I've got in trouble before now for pointing out that most current transports can be flown without manual control input from around 500 feet after takeoff (Minimum Engage Height) to touchdown.
Please post a link to your team's project when you've finished it - as Genghis has said, it will be interesting - and refreshing - to see what could be done especially when you don't have to consider the impact of legacy systems or traditions.
John,
As usual your Harrier insights are fascinating. I think your inputs were also instrumental in the design of the F35B.
Having said that, what do you think of the progress of that program and the technology as it exists in that Aircraft today.
I realise I digress from the thread, but it appears the magnificent, rugged and in comparison, mechanically simple and reliable Harrier will be 'going away' soon to be replaced by what has become in my humble opinion an extremely expensive, maintenance intensive 'gold plated' Joint Strike Fighter.
Is all that, complexity, weight and expense 'worth it' in your opinion ?
As usual your Harrier insights are fascinating. I think your inputs were also instrumental in the design of the F35B.
Having said that, what do you think of the progress of that program and the technology as it exists in that Aircraft today.
I realise I digress from the thread, but it appears the magnificent, rugged and in comparison, mechanically simple and reliable Harrier will be 'going away' soon to be replaced by what has become in my humble opinion an extremely expensive, maintenance intensive 'gold plated' Joint Strike Fighter.
Is all that, complexity, weight and expense 'worth it' in your opinion ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I'd like proper light controls and light shields so that the other chap doesn't get blinded by their colleague when they need light to perform something. I'd like window wipers that work and controls that have appropriate power/feel ratios. I'd like an FMS that has a consistent control and simple 'buttonology.' I'd like footrests that don't dig in just below your kneecaps when you have the proper seating position. I'd also like an autopilot interface that makes it easy for you to fly the aircraft rather than the other way round. I'd also like indicator lights above the mode selector buttons on the glareshield.
I fly an Embraer "E Jet" and this aircraft, whilst very capable, is a complete and utter pain to fly if you compare it with a Fokker (70/100). In the list above, the only thing Embraer have done a reasonable job on is the windshield wipers. But if I had to list it's good points (from a pilot's perspective) I'd include the FADEC engine controls, steering, brakes and external visibility (except with with Flaps 5) and the overhead panel which contains no useful information whatsoever, so can be completely ignored. But I don't think these make up for the diabolical rubbish supplied by Honeywell which we have to do battle with each day.
PM
I fly an Embraer "E Jet" and this aircraft, whilst very capable, is a complete and utter pain to fly if you compare it with a Fokker (70/100). In the list above, the only thing Embraer have done a reasonable job on is the windshield wipers. But if I had to list it's good points (from a pilot's perspective) I'd include the FADEC engine controls, steering, brakes and external visibility (except with with Flaps 5) and the overhead panel which contains no useful information whatsoever, so can be completely ignored. But I don't think these make up for the diabolical rubbish supplied by Honeywell which we have to do battle with each day.
PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Almost certainly the design team would need to negotiate with "the authority" a modified hybrid standard that is substantially different. This is inevitable, since what they're aiming for is neither a conventional aeroplane, nor a conventional helicopter.
For a smaller vehicle in the BA609 class, I'd expect that standard to be a composite of part 23 and part 27, for a later vehicle in the V-22 class, I'd anticipate a composite of part 25 and part 29. If it's military rather than civil, then a combination of Def-Stan 00-970 parts 1 and 2. Either way, there's going to be a requirement for considerable additional material based upon ongoing research into the aircraft class.
That said, the formal standards for cockpit design are fairly minimal in any of the civil standards and still leave room for improvement in the military standartds. Whilst they still need to be used and observed, in most cases best practice is going to be built upon research and the experienced opinions of people like John Farley. I'd personally be looking to the experiences of a range of pilots in both the fixed and rotary domains, although especially anybody who has either flown both, or flown vectored thrust vehicles such as Harrier or V22. Test Pilots are particularly valuable, because they're used to analysing their aircraft, not just flying them. I think that the National Flying Laboratory Centre at Cranfield has one person who has substantial flight test background in both fixed and rotary wing, although it's not the person previously mentioned.
You could also do worse than get hold of a copy of this book which will give many useful clues. Hopefully the Cranfield library has a copy, since it's rather expensive.
G
N.B. I've just used my moderators powers to amend the title of this thread to spell "cockpit" correctly - it was irritating me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piltdown man:
"I'd also like an autopilot interface that makes it easy for you to fly the aircraft rather than the other way round."
Er, could you expand on this? Surely the autopilot is meant to fly the aircraft?
"I'd also like indicator lights above the mode selector buttons on the glareshield."
As in, to indicate which mode it is currently operating in?
"I'd also like an autopilot interface that makes it easy for you to fly the aircraft rather than the other way round."
Er, could you expand on this? Surely the autopilot is meant to fly the aircraft?
"I'd also like indicator lights above the mode selector buttons on the glareshield."
As in, to indicate which mode it is currently operating in?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This wouldn't happen to be a project with significant industrial involvement from a certain UK/Italian based manufacturer by any chance?
If so then simple words of advice:
(1) Don't assume that technology already implemented in fixed wing aircraft will be of low risk to introduce to a rotary wing design. There are some important gotchas lurking under the surface in terms of technology that doesn't translate well.
(2) Don't rely on high tech solutions for certification. You should be able to switch off all of your clever assistance systems and still provide the pilot with basic if degraded controls. The point being that you then don't have to certify all the clever stuff to the same standards of criticality. Eliminating the rudder pedals is not a good idea.
If so then simple words of advice:
(1) Don't assume that technology already implemented in fixed wing aircraft will be of low risk to introduce to a rotary wing design. There are some important gotchas lurking under the surface in terms of technology that doesn't translate well.
(2) Don't rely on high tech solutions for certification. You should be able to switch off all of your clever assistance systems and still provide the pilot with basic if degraded controls. The point being that you then don't have to certify all the clever stuff to the same standards of criticality. Eliminating the rudder pedals is not a good idea.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish all aircraft manufacturers gave so much consideration to the "workplace" of a pilot.
I'd love to see:
The engineers set up a mockup of their cockpit in plain daylight outside. Then sit there from 05:00 LT in the morning and stay put for 8 hours. Do the same from 14:00 LT until 22:00.
Get your secretary to bring a cup of coffe every hour and inquire about your well-being every 20 minutes. (you will be amazed to find out how badly placed door surveillance can be.) Do the same and simulate the automatic door opening failed so one has to get out of the seat every 20 minutes or so without hitting aircraft controls.
Individual heating controls would be my #1. One always sits in the sun and the other freezes his feet off because A/C duct temp is 0degrees C.
Sun is a major issue all the time. A transparent possibly gray sunshade to even look through in approach without distortion and color changes.
Windows which are up do date and have no filaments but coating for the heating. No distortion on any window.
Previous posters pointed out how important sun shading is.
All windows heated to avoid freezing your outboard shoulder at night. Sun shades do the trick as well.
I'd rather have 6 EFIS screens in order to be able to monitor 2 status pages on systems independently.
Seats shall be electrically operated with manual backup. Should have enough travel to comfortably get in and out. Not to mention ergonomy of the seat itself. Eventually vented as in the luxury cars? Headrest. Reclinable to comfortable napping position.
Enough stowage. Try it out in a mockup once with the same stuff you carry when getting off a plane such as a carry on bag (crewbag) coat, hat, jacket, then try to hang it in the cockpit without getting in the way. Where does the hat fit? Where does your laptop go?
Waste bins Airbus style. Power outlet 12V.
Oxygen masks with long enough lines to reach over one seat at least - but make sure it doesn't get in the way. Place masks eventually overhead in order that nothing can drop into the mask compartment.
Headset plugs overhead so that the cable is out of the way. Seats built in a way that cables do not get stuck anywhere.
Controls which give limitations but I can oversteer if need be as described by Pilot DAR.
More in detail. Not an issue in recent designs but a thought: Parking brake setting and releasing from both positions. Steering always on both sides.
Interconnected flight controls (electric/electronic/mechanical). Auto throttle not auto thrust! Visible trim. Eventually a trim audio tone indicating trimming in one direction over x seconds. So you know what the autotrim is doing.
Overhead panel with switches in the system diagram (standard today).
Maybe more. If it is valuable you may PM me to get more ideas.
I assume that the handling of controls in normal and abnormal situations is not an issue and always has to be possible.
I'd love to see:
The engineers set up a mockup of their cockpit in plain daylight outside. Then sit there from 05:00 LT in the morning and stay put for 8 hours. Do the same from 14:00 LT until 22:00.
Get your secretary to bring a cup of coffe every hour and inquire about your well-being every 20 minutes. (you will be amazed to find out how badly placed door surveillance can be.) Do the same and simulate the automatic door opening failed so one has to get out of the seat every 20 minutes or so without hitting aircraft controls.
Individual heating controls would be my #1. One always sits in the sun and the other freezes his feet off because A/C duct temp is 0degrees C.
Sun is a major issue all the time. A transparent possibly gray sunshade to even look through in approach without distortion and color changes.
Windows which are up do date and have no filaments but coating for the heating. No distortion on any window.
Previous posters pointed out how important sun shading is.
All windows heated to avoid freezing your outboard shoulder at night. Sun shades do the trick as well.
I'd rather have 6 EFIS screens in order to be able to monitor 2 status pages on systems independently.
Seats shall be electrically operated with manual backup. Should have enough travel to comfortably get in and out. Not to mention ergonomy of the seat itself. Eventually vented as in the luxury cars? Headrest. Reclinable to comfortable napping position.
Enough stowage. Try it out in a mockup once with the same stuff you carry when getting off a plane such as a carry on bag (crewbag) coat, hat, jacket, then try to hang it in the cockpit without getting in the way. Where does the hat fit? Where does your laptop go?
Waste bins Airbus style. Power outlet 12V.
Oxygen masks with long enough lines to reach over one seat at least - but make sure it doesn't get in the way. Place masks eventually overhead in order that nothing can drop into the mask compartment.
Headset plugs overhead so that the cable is out of the way. Seats built in a way that cables do not get stuck anywhere.
Controls which give limitations but I can oversteer if need be as described by Pilot DAR.
More in detail. Not an issue in recent designs but a thought: Parking brake setting and releasing from both positions. Steering always on both sides.
Interconnected flight controls (electric/electronic/mechanical). Auto throttle not auto thrust! Visible trim. Eventually a trim audio tone indicating trimming in one direction over x seconds. So you know what the autotrim is doing.
Overhead panel with switches in the system diagram (standard today).
Maybe more. If it is valuable you may PM me to get more ideas.
I assume that the handling of controls in normal and abnormal situations is not an issue and always has to be possible.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stilton
If GtE will permit such thread drift.
I made no input to the F35B design.
I was asked my opinion about flight test matters re the X35B.
Personally I do not agree with asking for a supersonic level flight capability with a tactical aircraft because doing so will compromise and complicate very many aspects of the design.
However, if the customer insists on supersonics then I am sure there is no better way to do it than with a shaft mounted fan holding up the front end.
JF
I made no input to the F35B design.
I was asked my opinion about flight test matters re the X35B.
Personally I do not agree with asking for a supersonic level flight capability with a tactical aircraft because doing so will compromise and complicate very many aspects of the design.
However, if the customer insists on supersonics then I am sure there is no better way to do it than with a shaft mounted fan holding up the front end.
JF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by error401
The engineers set up a mockup of their cockpit in plain daylight outside. Then sit there from 05:00 LT in the morning and stay put for 8 hours. Do the same from 14:00 LT until 22:00.
Get your secretary to bring a cup of coffe every hour and inquire about your well-being every 20 minutes. (you will be amazed to find out how badly placed door surveillance can be.) Do the same and simulate the automatic door opening failed so one has to get out of the seat every 20 minutes or so without hitting aircraft controls.
Get your secretary to bring a cup of coffe every hour and inquire about your well-being every 20 minutes. (you will be amazed to find out how badly placed door surveillance can be.) Do the same and simulate the automatic door opening failed so one has to get out of the seat every 20 minutes or so without hitting aircraft controls.
I have spent enough hours on the flight deck to know how damn tedious the little things are. I even dismantled the flight deck door during one flight as it wouldn't open at all from the inside! The joys of old aircraft...
Originally Posted by error401
I assume that the handling of controls in normal and abnormal situations is not an issue and always has to be possible.
As I understand it, the A380 has completely removed mechanical connection, using 4 channels of computer to provide the neccessary level of redundancy to meet the safety requirements.
On our little tiltrotor, it may turn out that we do not have the space / weight to provide 4 seperate channels - the conceptual designer has imposed a weight limit of 64kg on the entire avionics system. Yes, we laughed too...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"On our little tiltrotor, it may turn out that we do not have the space / weight to provide 4 seperate channels - the conceptual designer has imposed a weight limit of 64kg on the entire avionics system. Yes, we laughed too... "
My guess is that if you look at,say, one of the integrated VLJ Avionics fits, you should be getting down around that range EXCEPT for the Power Drive Units needed to actuate surfaces and, of course, the rotor or nacelle tilt. A lot of current Autopilots already have the equivalent of four Flight Director channels. MEM sensors give the equivalent performance of much larger gyros - look at what's contained in an Integrated Standby Instrument - Air Data Computer, PFD & Attitude sensors all in about 2kg. Also, if your aircraft is small, you won't have the burden of long wiring runs & the production breaks necessary in larger types.
A comment on Flight Control Panel indications - most current panels do have light indicators for engaged FD mode with some also having two so the pilot can verify that both left & right channels are selected correctly. Sadly the "schematic" type of system control panel has died with the introduction of cheaper & easily configurable synoptics on EICAS. The latest screens also allow the pilot to call up the information decks he wants and position them within the larger display unit - effectively giving many more than six EFIS.
My guess is that if you look at,say, one of the integrated VLJ Avionics fits, you should be getting down around that range EXCEPT for the Power Drive Units needed to actuate surfaces and, of course, the rotor or nacelle tilt. A lot of current Autopilots already have the equivalent of four Flight Director channels. MEM sensors give the equivalent performance of much larger gyros - look at what's contained in an Integrated Standby Instrument - Air Data Computer, PFD & Attitude sensors all in about 2kg. Also, if your aircraft is small, you won't have the burden of long wiring runs & the production breaks necessary in larger types.
A comment on Flight Control Panel indications - most current panels do have light indicators for engaged FD mode with some also having two so the pilot can verify that both left & right channels are selected correctly. Sadly the "schematic" type of system control panel has died with the introduction of cheaper & easily configurable synoptics on EICAS. The latest screens also allow the pilot to call up the information decks he wants and position them within the larger display unit - effectively giving many more than six EFIS.
Last edited by ICT_SLB; 24th Nov 2010 at 00:51.
Please excuse the thread drift.
Thanks for the reply John.
The Stovl F35 does seem today to be the epitiome of too much 'gold plating' and the resultant, heavy, slow and extremely complicated Aircraft has nothing on the relatively simple, rugged Harrier.
It is still impressive what the Harrier achieved in the Falklands with the FRS1 (who knows what will happen now) and it has always been a premier close air support and ground attack aircraft.
It is a great shame to think what could have been developed with further funding. personally I think the 'ski lift carriers' and the Harrier Force were an exceptional value and a potent one for the RN. Their absence is a great and irreplacable loss.
Thanks for the reply John.
The Stovl F35 does seem today to be the epitiome of too much 'gold plating' and the resultant, heavy, slow and extremely complicated Aircraft has nothing on the relatively simple, rugged Harrier.
It is still impressive what the Harrier achieved in the Falklands with the FRS1 (who knows what will happen now) and it has always been a premier close air support and ground attack aircraft.
It is a great shame to think what could have been developed with further funding. personally I think the 'ski lift carriers' and the Harrier Force were an exceptional value and a potent one for the RN. Their absence is a great and irreplacable loss.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WillDAQ
This wouldn't happen to be a project with significant industrial involvement from a certain UK/Italian based manufacturer by any chance?
Originally Posted by WillDAQ
(2) Don't rely on high tech solutions for certification. You should be able to switch off all of your clever assistance systems and still provide the pilot with basic if degraded controls. The point being that you then don't have to certify all the clever stuff to the same standards of criticality. Eliminating the rudder pedals is not a good idea.
If we cannot dream a little, come up with new ideas and then analyse them drawing a conslusion based on solid research and engineering then we aren't really 'masters' of our science, and have fallen short of earning an MSc.
