曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Figure 13. Measured performance for Task 1.
So, figure 13 shows that when no rotational and no
translational motions were present (Motionless configuration
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).
Figure 14 illustrates the rms cockpit control (pedal) rate
for the four motion configurations. Often, this measure is
associated with pilot workload, with more control rate
being generally indicative that more pilot lead compensation
is required. The analysis of variance for these data
shows that when translational motion was added, the
decrease in pedal rate was statistically significant
(F(1,4) = 18.53, p = 0.013). No significant differences
were noted when rotational motion was added, and
rotational and translational motion effects did not interact.
It is not surprising that the addition of the lateral
translational motion improves the pilot-vehicle performance
for this and the later tasks. The addition of the
No rotation Rotation
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Rms pedal rate, in/sec
No translation
Translation
Figure 14. Control rate for Task 1.
translational cue not only better emulates the real world
cue, but it also provides a strong indication of the
vehicle’s rotational acceleration (eq. (7)). Thus, the pilot
can use this information effectively to place a zero in the
open loop of his rotational-rate control in order to
ameliorate the effects of high-frequency lags.
Subjective Performance Data. Figure 15 shows the
means and standard deviations of the compensation
required (i.e., extensive, considerable, moderate, or
minimum), as rated by the pilots, for the four motion
conditions. When translational motion was added, the
compensation that was required significantly decreased
from considerable to moderate compensation (F(1,5) =
6.83, p = 0.047) and no significant differences were found
for the addition of rotational motion. Rotational and
translational motion did not interact for pilot compensation.
These subjective pilot opinions are consistent with
the objective control-rate differences just discussed. That
is, the addition of translational motion reduced control
activity, which in turn likely reduced pilot opinion of the
required compensation.
Similar results were obtained for the pilots’ rating of
motion fidelity, as shown in figure 16. When translational
motion was added, the motion fidelity rating improved
(F(1,5) = 7.74, p = 0.039). The fidelity increased from
low-to-medium to medium-to-high, on average. Although
the data visually suggest an improvement in fidelity with
the addition of rotational motion, the improvement was
not statistically significant. Rotational and translational
motion did not interact in the fidelity ratings.
22
No rotation Rotation
Min.
Mod.
Consid.
Extens.
Compensation
No translation
Translation
Figure 15. Pilot compensation for Task 1.
No rotation Rotation
Low
Med.
High
Fidelity
No translation
Translation
Figure 16. Motion fidelity for Task 1.
Figure 17 depicts whether or not pilots reported lateral
translational motion to be present for the four motion
configurations. Statistically, the two factors of rotational
and translational motion interacted (F(1,5) = 30.6,
p = 0.003). Lateral translational motion was reported an
average of 85% of the time when it was present, and the
addition of rotational motion did not increase lateral
translational motion reports (actually, it decreased lateral
translational motion reports from 91% to 79%). On the
other hand, whereas lateral translational motion was never
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(17)