Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Adam Curry

Publications and source records attributed to Adam Curry.

X-57 Cockpit Display System Development and Features

The X-57 Maxwell airplane [1,2] cockpit display system includes multiple, pilot-selectable pages in a multifunction display with detailed statuses of critical parameters from each of the cruise motors (CMs), cruise motor controllers (CMCs), and battery control modules (BCMs), as well as air temperature measurements at reference locations in the passive ram-air cooling ducts for the motors, controllers, and auxiliary equipment. The user (pilot or ground-test crew) can select overview pages that are part of the standard instrument panel scan pattern or switch to a series of detail or debug pages as the system is operating using a rotary position switch in the cockpit. This paper presents and describes each of these displays, and gives an overview of the development and verification process. The critical data condensed for cockpit handling from each of the major electric propulsion and traction power systems are discussed.

Adam Curry

Power System Human Machine Interfaces for the X-57 Mod II Aircraft

The transition from a Tecnam (Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam srl) (Sapua, Italy) P2006T twin-engine aircraft into the fully electric X-57 Modification II (Mod II) configuration required the development of cockpit displays and controls to allow the pilot to properly monitor and interface with the research electric system. This paper describes the machine interfaces developed to interface with the X-57 Mod II traction battery system and the unique considerations of developing interfaces and monitoring tools for electric aircraft. The key design philosophy during the X-57 cockpit development was to retain or make minor modifications to the stock P2006T aircraft wherever possible and to use highly reliable commercial displays for monitoring of safety critical parameters. From these efforts, development of accurate estimates of battery state of charge and energy meters designed specifically for flight applications for future electric aircraft development is recommended.

James Reynolds

X-57 Flight Systems Integration Path

The foundation for a safe and successful flight test of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) X-57 Maxwell all-electric experimental airplane, or any X-Plane, is comprehensive system testing on the ground. This test campaign includes verification and validation (V&V) that the integrated system operates as designed and expected, as well as understanding how the system reacts and responds to failures that can occur during flight by performing failure modes and effects testing (FMET). The aircraft should be in the final flight configuration for these test activities because any modifications, even those that appear insignificant, could affect test outcomes. Although the plan was to perform V&V and FMET testing once the airplane was in the flight configuration, due to multiple component redesigns, concurrent software development, and other problems with on-aircraft testing, the X-57 Maxwell never made it into a full-flight configuration. As a result, a build-up approach was followed to test software and hardware as they became ready in order to continue making progress wherever possible. Using this approach revealed problems with the hardware and software faster than waiting for a full-flight configuration, allowing solutions to be found more quickly and in parallel with other project tasks. Other than unloaded motor testing in a lab setting, the only other test setup was on the airplane itself. On-aircraft testing was preferrable in order to test things as close to a flight configuration as possible but was time consuming due to the requirements for testing on the airplane. To overcome some of the on-aircraft barriers, off-aircraft test configurations, such as the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) setups, were used, but each of these setups had limitations to be considered. As a result, solutions found in the SIL or HIL configurations did not always work as expected on the airplane, resulting in an iterative process between on- and off-aircraft testing to find the final solution. Having a dedicated test platform such as an iron bird that closely represents the aircraft - without flight hardware - would have been the most effective off-aircraft test setup, which could have allowed the project to save time and money and potentially reach flight. This paper will highlight the V&V and FMET considerations and testing prerequisites, the build-up approaches to both software and system testing, the benefits and drawbacks to different test configurations, as well as battery testing and operations.

Kassidy McLaughlin