Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gtgcz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T05:49:18.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rotorcraft simulation fidelity: new methods for quantification and assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

P. Perfect ,
M. D. White ,
G. D. Padfield  and
A. W. Gubbels
P. Perfect*
Affiliation:
Centre for Engineering Dynamics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
M. D. White
Affiliation:
Centre for Engineering Dynamics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G. D. Padfield
Affiliation:
Centre for Engineering Dynamics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
A. W. Gubbels
Affiliation:
Flight Research Laboratory, NRC, Canada
*
p.perfect@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flight simulators are integral to the design/development, testing/qualification, training and research communities and their utilisation is ever expanding. The use of flight simulation to provide a safe environment for pilot training, and in research and development, must be underpinned by quantification of simulator fidelity. While regulatory simulator standards exist for flight training simulators and new standards are in development, previous research has shown that current standards do not provide a fully quantitative approach for assessing simulation fidelity, especially in a research environment. This paper reports on progress made in a research project at the University of Liverpool (Lifting Standards), in which new predicted and perceptual measures of simulator fidelity have been developed. The new metrics have been derived from handling qualities engineering practice. Results from flight tests on the National Research Council (Canada) Bell 412 ASRA research aircraft and piloted simulation trials using the HELIFLIGHT-R simulator at Liverpool are presented to show the efficacy of adopting a handling qualities approach for fidelity assessment. Analysis of the new metrics has shown an appropriate degree of sensitivity to differences between flight and simulation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1189 , March 2013 , pp. 235 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Certification specifications for helicopter flight simulation training devices, June 2012, CS-FSTD(H), European Aviation Safety Agency.Google Scholar
2. Helicopter simulator qualification, November 1994, FAA Advisory Circular AC120-63, Federal Aviation Authority.Google Scholar
3. Padfield, G.D et al. Validation criteria for helicopter real-time simulation models, Sketches from the work of GARTEUR HC-AG12, 2004, 30th European Rotorcraft Forum, Marseilles, France.Google Scholar
4. Padfield, G.D., Pavel, M., Casolaro, D., Roth, G., Hamers, M. and Taghizad, A. Fidelity of helicopter real-time models, 2005, 61st Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, June 2005, Grapevine, TX, USA.Google Scholar
5. JAR-STD 1H, Helicopter flight simulators, April 2001, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
6. JAR-STD 2H, Helicopter flight training devices, September 2003, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
7. JAR-STD 3H, Helicopter flight simulators, May 2002, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
8. Helicopter flight simulation training devices, May 2008, JAR-FSTD H, Joint Aviation Authorities.Google Scholar
9. Hess, R.A. and Malsbury, T. Closed loop assessment of flight simulator fidelity, J Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1991, 14, (1), pp 191–197.Google Scholar
10. Hess, R.A. and Siwakosit, W. Assessment of flight simulator fidelity in multi-axis tasks including visual cue quality, J Aircr, 2001, 38, (4), pp 607–614.Google Scholar
11. Schroeder, J.A., Chung, W.W.Y. and Hess, R.A. Evaluation of motion fidelity criterion with visual scene changes, J Aircr, 2000, 37, (4), pp 580–587.Google Scholar
12. Padfield, G.D., Charlton, M.T. and McCallum, A.T. The fidelity of Hi-Fi Lynx on the DERA advanced flight simulator using ADS-33 handling qualities metrics, December 1996, DRA/AS/FDS/TR96103/1, pp 1-152.Google Scholar
13. McCallum, A.T. and Charlton, M.T. Structured approach to helicopter simulator acceptance, 2001, The Challenge of Realistic Rotorcraft Simulation, November 2001, RAeS conference, London, UK.Google Scholar
14. Handling qualities requirements for military rotorcraft, March 2000, ADS-33E-PRF, US Army.Google Scholar
15. Advani, S.K and Wilkinson, C.H. Dynamic interface modelling and simulation – a unique challenge, 2001, Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Helicopter Flight Simulation, London, UK.Google Scholar
16. Roscoe, M.F. and Thompson, J.H. JSHIP’s dynamic interface modelling and simulation systems: a simulation of the UH-60A helicopter/LHA shipboard environment task, 2003, 59th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 2003, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
17. White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Acceptance testing and commissioning of a flight simulator for rotorcraft simulation fidelity research, J Aerospace Eng, 16 March 2012, IMechE, Part G: doi:10.1177/0954410012439816.Google Scholar
18. White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Progress in the development of unified fidelity metrics for rotorcraft flight simulators, 2010, 66th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 2010, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
19. Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.C. Integrating predicted and perceived fidelity for flight simulators, 2010, 36th European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2010, Paris, France.Google Scholar
20. DuVal, R.W. A real-time multi-body dynamics architecture for rotorcraft simulation, 2001, The Challenge of Realistic Rotorcraft Simulation, RAeS Conference, November 2001, London, UK.Google Scholar
21. Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, Volume 1 – Aeroplanes, Third Edition, 2009, ICAO 9625.Google Scholar
22. Proceedings of simulation fidelity workshop, May 2011, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
23. Perfect, P., Timson, E., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D., Erdos, R. and Gubbels, A.W. A rating scale for subjective assessment of simulator fidelity, 2011, 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2011, Gallarate, Italy.Google Scholar
24. Timson, E., Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D. and Erdos, R. Pilot sensitivity to flight model dynamics in flight simulation, 2011, 37th European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2011, Gallarate, Italy.Google Scholar
25. Padfield, G.D. Helicopter Flight Dynamics, Second Edition, 2008, Blackwell.Google Scholar
26. Hodge, S.J., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D. Optimising the cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform, 2011, 67th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, May 2011, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.Google Scholar
27. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, April 1969, NASA Technical Note TN-D-5153.Google Scholar
28. Padfield, G.D., Jones, J.P., Charlton, M.T., Howell, S. and Bradley, R. Where does the workload go when pilots attack manoeuvres? – an analysis of results from flying qualities theory and experiment, 1994, 20th European Rotorcraft Forum, October 1994, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
29. Blanken, C.L. and Pausder, H.-J. Investigation of the effects of bandwidth and time delay on helicopter roll-axis handling qualities, J American Helicopter Society, July 1994, 39, (3), pp 24–33.Google Scholar
30. Manimala, B.J., Walker, D.J., Padfield, G.D., Voskuijl, M. and Gubbels, A.W. Rotorcraft simulation modelling and validation for control law design, Aeronaut J, 2007, 111, (1126), pp 77–88.Google Scholar
31. Gubbels, A.W. and Ellis, D.K. NRC Bell 412 ASRA FBW systems description in ATA100 format, April 2000, Report LTR-FR-163, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada.Google Scholar
32. Harper, R.P. and Cooper, G.E. Handling qualities and pilot evaluation, J Guidance, September-October 1986, 9, (5).Google Scholar
33. Zivan, L. and Tischler, M.B. Development of a full flight envelope helicopter simulation using system identification, J American Helicopter Society, April 2010, 55, pp 22003 1–15.Google Scholar
34. Flight Information Handbook, August 1990, US DoD Flight Information Publication, Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St Louis, MO, USA.Google Scholar