曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

inadequate performance. Since pilots flew three runs for
each configuration, their performance for each one of the
three runs was assigned a value. Thus, if adequate performance
was achieved on all three runs, the score was 6.
Mean and standard deviations are shown.
58
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-5
0
5
Lateral stick, in
Time, sec
Motion
No motion
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Y, ft
y , ft/sec
Figure 72. Full motion vs. no motion for roll/lateral experiment.
The objective positioning performance varied little with
configuration. Most pilots were able to achieve desired
performance for the runs, except for the fixed-base run.
Two of the three pilots did not obtain desired performance
consistently without motion.
Lateral stick rms position averages are shown in
figure 74. The highest average rms values are for the
fixed-base condition. As the amount of motion increased,
the resulting rms stick position generally decreased.
59
Figure 73. Positioning performance for roll/lateral
experiment.
Figure 74. Rms lateral stick position for roll/lateral
experiment (in.).
Figure 75 shows how rms of the lateral stick rate varied
over the configurations. Each value represents the average
of the three rms values (one for each pilot) for a concatenation
of three time-histories (one for each run). The
fixed-base condition resulted in higher rms stick rates than
the larger motion conditions (Klat = 1/Kroll = 1; Klat =
0.8/Kroll = 0.6; Klat = 0.8/Kroll = 0.4; Klat = 0.6/Kroll =
0.6). Comparisons with and among the remaining
configurations are less clear.
Figure 75. Rms lateral stick rate for roll/lateral experiment
(in/sec).
Subjective Performance Data
Figure 76 shows how the motion fidelity ratings changed
versus roll gain and lateral translational gain. Numerical
values of 1, 2, and 3 were assigned to fidelity ratings of
Low, Medium, and High for determining the averages. All
pilots rated the fidelity of the fixed-base case as Low. In
general, as the amount of motion increased (increasing
both Klat and Kroll) the rated motion fidelity improved.
Interestingly, as Kroll increased for a fixed Klat, fidelity
improved. This situation increases the false lateral specific
force cue, which would suggest a fidelity degradation.
However, it appears this degradation was more than
compensated for by an increase in roll fidelity.
Figure 76. Motion fidelity ratings for roll/lateral experiment.
60
The configuration that received the best ratings was for
Klat = 0.8/Kroll = 0.6. This configuration was rated better
than the 1:1 configuration. A possible reason for the 1:1
configuration not being rated the best could be the amplification
of simulation artifacts at the extremes of the
motion-system envelope, as discussed later.
Figure 77 presents the average Cooper-Harper ratings for
all configurations. The trend of these results follows
closely with those of the motion fidelity results. This
consistent trend might be expected, because reductions in
perceived fidelity may lessen performance, increase workload,
or both. Sometimes pilots can try to substitute other
cues, such as the kinesthetic cues from the force-feel
systems, for cues that have been reduced or eliminated.
However, if this substitution does not result in reduced
performance, it can likely increase workload. Taking
Cooper-Harper ratings, as discussed in appendix D, is ideal
for capturing such a trade-off.
3.92
(0.80)
4.83
(0.29)
4.58
(0.14)
4.50
(0.50)
3.83
(0.29)
3.58
(0.52)
4.08
(0.38)
5.17
(1.61)
3.61
(0.67)
5.42
(0.63)
3 - Average
(3) - Std. dev.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Kroll
Klat
2.83
(1.04)
Figure 77. Cooper-Harper ratings for roll/lateral
experiment.
Substantial differences resulted in going from the best
configuration (again Klat = 0.8/Kroll = 0.6) to the worst
configuration (fixed base). The best configuration elicited
satisfactory handling qualities (Level 1, which are ratings
less than 3.5), and the worst configuration elicited
adequate handling qualities (Level 2, which are ratings
between 3.5 and 6.5). Again, as the amount of motion
increased, the handling qualities improved.
Proposed Roll-Lateral Specification
The motion-fidelity results map well into a combination
　
中國航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements(39)