曝光台 注意防骗 网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
The above shaping function was determined empirically. The compromised result of this shaping was that the highest frequency component of the target input was below the simulator’s visible threshold of 3–4 arc min, and the lowest component of the disturbance input was below the vestibular translational acceleration detection threshold of 0.01 g’s (ref. 28). As shown in figure 53, the pilot received two external cues for use in zeroing the target error, e: a visual cue, and a motion cue. The dynamics between the pilot input and these cues are discussed in the sections that follow; however, only the block labeled “motion filter” was modified in this experi-ment. The details of these blocks will be described later.
Although the pilot was instructed to null the displayed error constantly, the desired performance for the task was to keep the error within one-half the height of the target vertical tail for half of the run length. The target was placed 100 ft in front of the aircraft, and the height of the vertical tail was 3 ft.
Simulated Vehicle Math Model
The vertical-axis dynamics were the same as for Vertical Experiment I given by equation (11). Again, only this single degree of freedom was modeled, and the pilot controlled this degree of freedom with a collective lever in the cockpit.
Simulator and Cockpit
The simulator and cockpit were also the same as for Vertical Experiment I. All flight instruments were again disabled. Six NASA Ames test pilots participated (three of the six being the same three who participated in Vertical Experiment I), hereinafter referred to as pilots A–F. All pilots had extensive rotorcraft flight and simulation experience.
Motion System Configurations
The second-order high-pass motion filter given by equation (12) was used. The gains, damping ratio, and natural frequencies evaluated were the same as for Vertical Experiment I, which are given in table 3.
Procedure
All configurations were tested in blind evaluations, and they were randomized. Pilots were asked to rate the motion fidelity of each configuration, using the motion-fidelity definitions given in figure 4. Between each configuration, in order to calibrate or recalibrate them-selves to the true vehicle model response, pilots flew the model with full motion (configuration V1) in a visual scene depicting objects of known size (shown in fig. 35). All six pilots flew all 10 configurations.
Results
Objective Performance Data
Time-histories and standard deviations of several pertinent variables for a full-motion case (V1) and a no-motion case (V10) are shown in figure 54. Both of these runs were made by the same pilot. This comparison reveals that when going from full motion to no motion, the target error, vehicle acceleration, and collective displacement all increase. Rather than compare time-histories across the 10 cases and six pilots, several pilot-vehicle performance metrics were determined, and the statistical significance was evaluated.
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(40)
|
