直升机信息_直升机_直升飞机_旋翼机_Helicopter

Results
Using standard terminology, the above experimental design is called a two-factor fully-within-subjects factorial experiment (ref. 54). The two factors were translational and rotational motion. Each of the two factors had two motion levels: present or absent. The combination of the two levels within each factor results in four motion configurations for each task. An analysis of variance was performed on the data taken for each task, with the observed significance levels (p-values) given below. The quantity F(x,y) is the estimated ratio of the effects due to individual subjects, plus the effects due to experimental variation, all divided by the effects due to individual subjects. The values of x and y are the numerator and denominator statistical degrees of freedom, respectively. The p-values represent the probability of making an error in stating that a difference exists based on the experi-mental results when no difference actually exists. If no difference actually exists, the variations are due to randomness. Typically, differences are deemed significant for p < 0.05 (5 chances in 100 of making an error). An example of how data are processed using the above is given in appendix C.

Task 1: 15° Yaw Rotational Capture
Objective Performance Data. Figure 12 shows a representative time-history of several key variables for Task 1 for both the full motion (Translation+Rotation) and the motionless condition. Peak yaw rates (not shown) for the full-motion run were near 10°/sec. Comparing the full-motion case with the Motionless case shows that the latter had more yaw rotational overshoots about north, higher math model yaw rotational accelerations, and larger control inputs.
Figure 13 depicts, for the four motion conditions, the means (circles and x’s) and standard deviations (vertical lines through circles and x’s) of the number of times pilots overshot the ±1° heading point about north. The solid and dashed lines connecting the means are drawn to show trends when going from “No rotation” to “Rotation.”

Time, sec Time, sec Translation+Rotation Motionless 20
Figure 12. Comparison of full motion and no motion for Task 1.
2

0 No rotation Rotation
Figure 13. Measured performance for Task 1.
So, figure 13 shows that when no rotational and no translational motions were present (Motionless configu-ration of fig. 11), the mean number of overshoots outside the ±1° criterion was 11 per run. When only lateral translational motion was present, the mean number of overshoots was 7 per run, etc. This measure is generally indicative of the level of damping, or relative stability, in the pilot-vehicle system. The analysis of variance for these results shows that when translational motion was added, the decrease in the number of overshoots was statistically significant (F(1,4) = 9.16, p = 0.039). The decrease in overshoots with the addition of rotational motion was marginally significant (F(1,4) = 5.58, p = 0.077). Of the six measures to be discussed, this was the only task of the three in which the addition of the yaw platform rotational motion indicated an improvement. However, the statistical reliability of the improvement was marginal. The effects of rotational and translational motion did not interact in this measure (i.e., they were statistically independent).
　
直升机网 www.helicopter.cn
直升机翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(23)