SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Certification programs with particular emphasis on handling qualities requirements are described. A dynamic simulator was designed and constructed to support and verify the dynamic aspects of the avionics system, particularly the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). The role of the Dynamic Simulator is discussed.
A describing function is used to model a phase plane controller which is part of the Space Shuttle on-orbit Reaction Control System autopilot. A frequency domain stability analysis of the closed-loop control system is applied to a study of potential flight control system interaction with the Orbiter and a class of payloads deployed from a tilt table. Phase-gain plot techniques are used to show that expansion of phase plane angular rate limits and stiffening of the tilt table pivot do not always enhance system stability. Instability region approximations are mapped as a function of rate limit, payload geometry, jet used, and natural frequency of the pivot. Comparison of the describing function analysis with simulation results shows excellent correlation.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created the PCAR (Propulsion-Controlled Aircraft Recovery) project in 2005 to mitigate the ManPADS (man-portable air defense systems) threat to the commercial aircraft fleet with near-term, low-cost proven technology. Such an attack could potentially cause a major FCS (flight control system) malfunction or other critical system failure onboard the aircraft, despite the extreme reliability of current systems. For the situations in which nominal flight controls are lost or degraded, engine thrust may be the only remaining means for emergency flight control [ref 1]. A computer-controlled thrust system, known as propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA), was developed in the mid 1990s with NASA, McDonnell Douglas and Honeywell. PCA's major accomplishment was a demonstration of an automatic landing capability using only engine thrust [ref 11. Despite these promising results, no production aircraft have been equipped with a PCA system, due primarily to the modifications required for implementation. A minimally invasive option is TOC (throttles-only control), which uses the same control principles as PCA, but requires absolutely no hardware, software or other aircraft modifications. TOC is pure piloting technique, and has historically been utilized several times by flight crews, both military and civilian, in emergency situations stemming from a loss of conventional control. Since the 1990s, engineers at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) have studied TOC, in both simulation and flight, for emergency flight control with test pilots in numerous configurations. In general, it was shown that TOC was effective on certain aircraft for making a survivable landing. DHS sponsored both NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Edwards, CA) and United Airlines (Denver, Colorado) to conduct a flight and simulation study of the TOC characteristics of a twin-jet commercial transport, and assess the ability of a crew to control an aircraft down to a survivable runway landing using TOC. The PCAR project objective was a set of pilot procedures for operation of a specific aircraft without hydraulics that (a) have been validated in both simulation and flight by relevant personnel, and (b) mesh well with existing commercial operations, maintenance, and training at a minimum cost. As a result of this study, a procedure has been developed to assist a crew in making a survivable landing using TOC. In a simulation environment, line pilots with little or no previous TOC experience performed survivable runway landings after a few practice TOC approaches. In-flight evaluations put line pilots in a simulated emergency situation where TOC was used to recover the aircraft, maneuver to a landing site, and perform an approach down to 200 feet AGL. The results of this research, including pilot observations, procedure comments, recommendations, future work and lessons learned, will he discussed. Flight data and video footage of TOC approaches may also be shown.
The synthesis and evaluation of flight control system architectures for future aircraft are discussed in terms of design features and the requirements for fighter aircraft. Advanced fighter configurations may feature canards, flaperons, two-dimensional vectoring nozzles, a mixing compression inlet, and an advanced turbojet engine. Survey and evaluation technology will also progress to include distributed microprocessors, VLSI and VHSIC microcircuitry, optical circuits, analytic redundancy, etc. Bottom-p and top-down architectures have been investigated to fulfill the reliability, maintainability, cost, and performance goals. A centralized architecture has been devised with line-removable units to facilitate maintainability and reduce weight. Descriptions are provided of the performance parameters and applications of optical elements, photoelastic pressure sensors, rare earth sensors, computing elements, and information transfer system.
A generalized automatic flight control system was developed which integrates all longitudinal flight path and speed control functions previously provided by a pitch autopilot and autothrottle. In this design, a net thrust command is computed based on total energy demand arising from both flight path and speed targets. The elevator command is computed based on the energy distribution error between flight path and speed. The engine control is configured to produce the commanded net thrust. The design incorporates control strategies and hierarchy to deal systematically and effectively with all aircraft operational requirements, control nonlinearities, and performance limits. Consistent decoupled maneuver control is achieved for all modes and flight conditions without outer loop gain schedules, control law submodes, or control function duplication.
A three-axis controlled Injection Module propelled by a Star 48 solid rocket motor has been considered for use as a final 'kick' stage to supplement the Inertial Upper Stage in a proposed launch option for the Galileo and International Solar Polar missions. A flight control law for the Injection Module is developed. A position plus rate control law is considered, with integral, path guidance, and derived rate terms added for improved pointing accuracy and fuel efficiency. Selection of control gains is accomplished with the help of analytical limit cycle expressions and verified by computer simulation of the closed loop system. A computer simulation of the flight control system is built around a rigid spacecraft model with gyro dynamics and thruster delays included. Models for pitch/yaw/roll disturbance torques are included. Through simple gain changes the proposed flight control law is shown to accommodate the widely different mass properties of the Galileo and International Solar Polar spacecraft. Pointing accuracies of better than the desired 0.2 degrees are achieved.
The unique avionics design features of the Space Shuttle ascent flight control are described, along with the test article, test equipment, and test techniques used to verify the ascent flight control prior to commitment to the first orbital flight test. The ascent mission profiles are described, noting that upon ignition of the solid rocket boosters the Shuttle vehicle will rise vertically until achieving tower clearance. The Space Shuttle vehicle uses an integrated avionics system with the Orbiter avionics providing the command, control, and monitoring for the total mated Shuttle vehicle. The sensors and the actuator systems are discussed; the method of ascent flight control system verification is described, and it is concluded that the need for an advanced avionics integration and verification laboratory was recognized early in the program to provide maximum support to all program requirements.
Autonomy of aerospace systems requires the ability for flight control systems to be able to adapt to complex uncertain dynamic environment. In spite of the five decades of research in adaptive control, the fact still remains that currently no adaptive control system has ever been deployed on any safety-critical or human-rated production systems such as passenger transport aircraft. The problem lies in the difficulty with the certification of adaptive control systems since existing certification methods cannot readily be used for nonlinear adaptive control systems. Research to address the notion of metrics for adaptive control began to appear in the recent years. These metrics, if accepted, could pave a path towards certification that would potentially lead to the adoption of adaptive control as a future control technology for safety-critical and human-rated production systems. Development of certifiable adaptive control systems represents a major challenge to overcome. Adaptive control systems with learning algorithms will never become part of the future unless it can be proven that they are highly safe and reliable. Rigorous methods for adaptive control software verification and validation must therefore be developed to ensure that adaptive control system software failures will not occur, to verify that the adaptive control system functions as required, to eliminate unintended functionality, and to demonstrate that certification requirements imposed by regulatory bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can be satisfied. This presentation will discuss some of the technical issues with adaptive flight control and related V&V challenges.
This paper summarizes the application of a nonlinear dynamic inversion (DI) flight control system (FCS) to an autonomous flight test vehicle in NASA's X-38 Project, a predecessor to the International Space Station (ISS) Crew Return Vehicle (CRV). Honeywell's Multi-Application Control-H (MACH) is a parameterized FCS design architecture including both model-based DI rate-compensation and classical P+I command-tracking. MACH was adopted by X-38 in order to shorten the design cycle time for different vehicle shapes and flight envelopes and evolving aerodynamic databases. Specific design issues and analysis results are presented for the application of MACH to the 3rd free flight (FF3) of X-38 Vehicle 132 (V132). This B-52 drop test, occurring on March 30, 2000, represents the first flight test of MACH and one of the first few known applications of DI in the primary FCS of an autonomous flight test vehicle.
The results of a series of 39 flight tests of the X-48B Low Speed Vehicle (LSV) performed at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center from July 2007 through December 2008 are reported here. The goal of these tests is to evaluate the aerodynamic and controls and dynamics performance of the subscale LSV aircraft, eventually leading to the development of a control system for a full-scale vehicle. The X-48B LSV is an 8.5%-scale aircraft of a potential, full-scale Blended Wing Body (BWB) type aircraft and is flown remotely from a ground control station using a computerized flight control system located onboard the aircraft. The flight tests were the first two phases of a planned three-phase research program aimed at ascertaining the flying characteristics of this type of aircraft. The two test phases reported here are: 1) envelope expansion, during which the basic flying characteristics of the airplane were examined, and 2) parameter identification, stalls, and engine-out testing, during which further information on the aircraft performance was obtained and the airplane was tested to the limits of controlled flight. The third phase, departure limiter assaults, has yet to be performed. Flight tests in two different wing leading edge configurations (slats extended and slats retracted) as well as three weight and three center of gravity positions were conducted during each phase. Data gathered in the test program included measured airplane performance parameters such as speed, acceleration, and control surface deflections along with qualitative flying evaluations obtained from pilot and crew observations. Flight tests performed to-date indicate the aircraft exhibits good handling qualities and performance, consistent with pre-flight simulations.
The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same.
Lunar orbiter velocity control system design, discussing interface problems between actuator electronics and flight control system
An F/A-18 aircraft was modified to perform flight research at high angles of attack (AOA) using thrust vectoring and advanced control law concepts for agility and performance enhancement and to provide a testbed for the computational fluid dynamics community. Aeroservoelastic (ASE) characteristics had changed considerably from the baseline F/A-18 aircraft because of structural and flight control system amendments, so analyses and flight tests were performed to verify structural stability at high AOA. Detailed actuator models that consider the physical, electrical, and mechanical elements of actuation and its installation on the airframe were employed in the analysis to accurately model the coupled dynamics of the airframe, actuators, and control surfaces. This report describes the ASE modeling procedure, ground test validation, flight test clearance, and test data analysis for the reconfigured F/A-18 aircraft. Multivariable ASE stability margins are calculated from flight data and compared to analytical margins. Because this thrust-vectoring configuration uses exhaust vanes to vector the thrust, the modeling issues are nearly identical for modem multi-axis nozzle configurations. This report correlates analysis results with flight test data and makes observations concerning the application of the linear predictions to thrust-vectoring and high-AOA flight.
An unpowered, large, dynamically scaled airplane model was test flown by remote pilot to investigate the stability and controllability of the configuration at high angles of attack. The configuration proved to be departure/spin resistant; however, spins were obtained by using techniques developed on a flight support simulator. Spin modes at high and medium high angles of attack were identified, and recovery techniques were investigated. A flight support simulation of the airplane model mechanized with low speed wind tunnel data over an angle of attack range of + or - 90 deg. and an angle of sideslip range of + or - 40 deg. provided insight into the effects of altitude, stability, aerodynamic damping, and the operation of the augmented flight control system on spins. Aerodynamic derivatives determined from flight maneuvers were used to correlate model controllability with two proposed departure/spin design criteria.
Techniques for the design of control systems for manually controlled, high-performance aircraft must provide the following: (1) multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) solutions, (2) acceptable handling qualities including no tendencies for pilot-induced oscillations, (3) a tractable approach for compensator design, (4) performance and stability robustness in the presence of significant plant uncertainty, and (5) performance and stability robustness in the presence actuator saturation (particularly rate saturation). A design technique built upon Quantitative Feedback Theory is offered as a candidate methodology which can provide flight control systems meeting these requirements, and do so over a considerable part of the flight envelope. An example utilizing a simplified model of a supermaneuverable fighter aircraft demonstrates the proposed design methodology.
Near real-time stability and control derivative extraction is required to support flight demonstration of Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS) concepts being developed by NASA, academia, and industry. Traditionally, flight maneuvers would be designed and flown to obtain stability and control derivative estimates using a postflight analysis technique. The goal of the IFCS concept is to be able to modify the control laws in real time for an aircraft that has been damaged in flight. In some IFCS implementations, real-time parameter identification (PID) of the stability and control derivatives of the damaged aircraft is necessary for successfully reconfiguring the control system. This report investigates the usefulness of Prescribed Simultaneous Independent Surface Excitations (PreSISE) to provide data for rapidly obtaining estimates of the stability and control derivatives. Flight test data were analyzed using both equation-error and output-error PID techniques. The equation-error PID technique is known as Fourier Transform Regression (FTR) and is a frequency-domain real-time implementation. Selected results were compared with a time-domain output-error technique. The real-time equation-error technique combined with the PreSISE maneuvers provided excellent derivative estimation in the longitudinal axis. However, the PreSISE maneuvers as presently defined were not adequate for accurate estimation of the lateral-directional derivatives.
The following work was commissioned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to guide industry and future regulation related to urban air mobility (UAM). Prior studies compared the relative safety of NASA concept vehicles, Figure ES1, designed for UAM and provided recommendations for industry research, aircraft architectural improvements, and regulatory updates. After the prior study completed, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) released regulatory guidance in the form of a special condition (SC), SC-VTOL-01, for multirotors with distributed propulsion and flight controls (DPFC). The objective of the current work was to develop DPFC architectures that will comply with SC-VTOL-01. Vehicle designs, DPFC architectures, and stability & control (S&C) models were developed to find limitations and trends to guide industry. To guide this task, NASA developed quad, hex, and an octorotor to better define vehicle attributes and trade space. Aircraft for study included electric, hybrid-electric, and turboshaft powerplants and collective and RPM control schemes. Assessments are in terms of the safety level achieved, and/or aircraft component/features needed to meet SC-VTOL-01. The most challenging criteria being the catastrophic failure rate, ≤10-9 catastrophic failures per flight hour, and that no single failures may result in a catastrophic event. A disciplined process was followed, similar to that in Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 4761. A preliminary system safety assessment (PSSA) leveraged prior work as a basis of creating failure rate budgets for system design teams. System designs were updated and iterated upon, working with reliability and safety subject matter experts to develop SC-VTOL-01 compliant designs. Design changes were reflected in updated PSSAs for initial verification of compliance. The DPFC architecture was broken into four system design teams, the (1) flight control system (FCS), (2) drive and power system, (3) thermal management system (TMS), and (4) electrical power and distribution system. The FCS including elements necessary to control the aircraft, drive and power including elements necessary to generate and transmit shaft power, the TMS including elements necessary to maintain temperature limits in all operating environments, and electrical pow-er and distribution including equipment necessary to store and transmit electrical energy. Results found that all aircraft evaluated may have paths to comply with SC-VTOL-01, Figure ES2. However, S&C models showed large power transients that must be addressed and PSSA results show that future work is needed in single load path structures, high voltage power storage and distribution, and in motor/rotor overspeed protection.
The control system features of force vs displacement stick command, feel/force displacement gradient, 'feel' system vs command prefilter dynamic lag, and flight control system effective time delay, have been investigated by a fixed-base simulation employing both joysticks and side-sticks in order to ascertain their effect on pilot opinion, pilot performance, and their hand/arm neuromuscular subsystem interaction. The results obtained indicate that the use of displacement sensing added the feel system dynamic lag to the command path and increased effective system flight delay, thereby lowering pilot opinion and performance but reducing the possibility of roll instability; the use of force sensing as stick command to exclude feel system dynamic lag had the obverse effect.