Chapter 20

Flying QuaZitiesFlight Test Simulators
Chapter 20 Contents
Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulators

..
20.1 Types of Flying Qualities Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-2

20.1 .1 Non Real-Time Flying Qualities Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-3
20.1.2 Piloted. Ground-based Flying Qualities Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-3
20.1.3 Hardware-in-the-Loop Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-6
20.1.4 Iron Bird Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-7
20.1.5 Piloted Inflight Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-8
20.1.6 Flight Control System Test Stand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-10
20.2 Simulator Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-10

20.2.1 Motion Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-10
20.2.2 Visual Display Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-12
20.2.3 Risk Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-13
20.2.4 Cockpit Controls Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-13
.
20.2.5 Aerodynamic and Flight Control System Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-15
20.2.6 Equations of Motion Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . . 20-15
20.2.7 Cockpit Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-15
20.3 Uses and Benefits of a Flight Test Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-16

20.3.1 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-16
20.3.2 Handling Qualities Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-16
20.3.3 Developing New Test Maneuvers and Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 20-17
20.3.4 Creating Programmed Test Input Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-17
20.3.5 Pilot Proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-18
20.3.6 Data Reduction Checkout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-18
20.3.7 Test Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-18
20.3.8 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-18
20.3.9 Analyzing and Correcting Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-19
20.3.10 Augmenting Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-19
20.3.11 Hardware Verification and (Limited) Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-20
.
20.3.12 Dress Rehearsals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-20
20.4 Justifying a Flight Test Simulator ................................ 20-20
20.5 Building a Flight Test Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-23

20.5.1 Defming Flight Test Simulator Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-24
20.6 Aerodynamic Models for Flight Test Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-26

20.6.1 Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-28
20.6.2 Coefficient Aerodynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-39
20.6.3 Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-53
20.6.5 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages .................... 20-66
Flying Qualities Testing 20-i

Chapter 20 Contents
.. . -,
20.7 Flight Control System Models for Flight Test Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-67
20.8 Configuring a Flight Test Simulator ............................... 20-68
20.9 Waypoint: Fiying Qualities Flight Test Simulators ...................... 20-68
204 Flying Qualities Testing

.. L
Chapter 20
The use of simulators was largely pioneered and developed in the world of aviation. During World
War 11, for example, tens of thousands of pilots were introduced to instrument flying procedures in
small simulators called Link trainers (built by a company namd Link). These small simulators had
enclosed cockpits, a pneumatically driven motion system that moved the cockpit in response to the
pilot’s control inputs, and stubby wings and tails that made them look like enlarged copies of a child’s
toy airplane. Today, simulators are still used extensively by airlines, the military, and general
aviation for pilot training and proficiency. But the use of simulators in the world of aviation has
grown to encompass much more than pilot training and proficiency. Simulators are now deeply
embedded in the design and testing of airplanes at every level, including flying qualities, avionics,
propulsion, performance, subsystems, and so on.
In this chapter we will focus exclusively on the use of simulators in flying qualities design and
testing. We will leave other uses of simulation to other areas of your coursework.
Flying qualities simulators are an indispensable tool for designing and testing complex new airplanes
and for designing and testing extensive modifications to existing airplanes. During flying qualities
design, simulators serve as handling qualities testbeds, giving pilots their first opportunity to evaluate
the predicted handling qualities of the airplane. During ground and flight testing, flying qualities
simulators provide a wide range of capabilitieswhich are essential to conducting a safe and productive
test program at the lowest possible cost. They are used to prepare for ground and flight testing, to
conduct certain ground tests, to explore problems encountered during testing, to augment test data,
and so on.
Flying Qualities Testing 20-1

Flying Qualities Flight Test SimuZutors
20.1 Types of Flying Qualities Simulators
..
Because piloted simulators are so heavily used in preparing for and conducting a flying qualities test
program, it is important that they should be available at the test site. This is why the Flight Test
Center has its own flying qualities simulation capability. The Flight Test Center simulators are so
important to flying qualities testing that we commonly refer to them as flight test simulators.
In this chapter we will explore several topics that are directly related to flight test simulators. We
will begin by introducing the kinds of simulator you are likely to encounter during a flying qualities
design and test program. Next, we will discuss the importance and pitfalls of simulater fidelity.
Then we will explore some of the uses of a flight test siinulator and show why it is important that
a test program have an independent flight test simulator. Finally, we will explore the broad topic of
building a simulator, including a discussion of simulator aerodynamic models.
Much of the material presented in this chapter is adapted from Reference 20-1, an excellent seminar
on simulation.
20.1 Types of Flying Qualities Simulators There are many ways to categorize sinhators. At the
most fundamental level, we may divide them into real-time simulators and non real-time simulators.
Real-time simulators produce the simulated airplane response in exactly the amount of time it takes
for the real airplane to produce it. If a 360 degree turn requires one minute in the real airplane, it
will also require one minute in a real-time simulator. To the pilot or observer, there is no
distinguishabledifference between the flow of simulator time and the flow of clock time. Non real-
time simulators, on the other hand, are not constrained by this requirement. A non real-time
simulator might be either faster or slower than clock time, depending on the complexity of the
simulation and the performance of the computer.
Real-time flying qualities simulation is necessary only when the simulator will be flown by pilots or
when it must be connected to flight control computers or other equipment. Otherwise, a non-real-
time simulation will prove adequate.
Real-time flying qualities simulators may be further categorized in several ways. One way is
according to the purpose, or purposes, the simulator serves. In this case, we might speak of handling
qualities evaluation simulators, or flight control system test simulators. Another way to categorize
simulators is according to their physical attributes. In this case, we might speak of large amplitude
motion simulators, or inflight simulators. But because simulators come in so many forms and serve
so many purposes, it is difi'icult to find a single, entirely satisfying way to categorize them.
In the following sections, we will introduce you to six flying qualities simulators you are likely to
encounter during the course of a design and test program. We will refer to them by the labels that
are commonly associated with them. But be wary: often the labels refer to different functions
performed by the same simulator over the course of the program. We will introduce these simulators
in the chronological order in which you are likely to use them. As Test Pilot School students you
will have an opportunityto use or observe examples of these simulators. As working flying qualities
test aircrew and engineers, you will work with them extensively.
20-2 Flying Qualities Testing

20.1.2 Piloted, Ground-based Flying Qualities Simulators
.. ,I
20.1.1 Non Real-Tie Flying Qualities Simulators The first simulator a designer is likely to use
is a mn real-time simulator. Non-real-time simulators are software models of the airplane that run
on desktop, mini-, or mainframe computers. Non real-time simulators are sometimes referred to as
butch simulators. (The term "batch" is rooted in years gone by, when digital computer programs
were run by feeding batches of coded cards into the computer.) Non real-time, or batch, simulators
run at the speed of the computer, rather than the speed of the airplane motion.
~
When used for flight control system design and flying qualities testing, non-real-time simulators
include models of the aerodynamics and flight controls, and may also include a model of the
structural dynamics. The complexity of a non real-time simulator depends on the purpose it serves.
If the purpose is to simulate the airplane response to a gust, or to small doublet inputs, a simple
"point" model of the aerodynamics at a single flight condition, together with a simplified model of
the flight control system, might be adequate. If the purpose is to simulate more complex responses
(such ;\s aero-servoelasticallycoupled responses) over a broader expanse of the flight envelope, more
comprehensive models are necessary. *
There are a number of commercially available non real-time simulators, and most of these include
an impressive array of analytical capabilities as well. These analytical capabilities may include
identifying the roots of the characteristic equation, drawing root locus and frequency response plots,
and so on. Often, non real-time simulators are written by airplane designers to serve special
purposes.
Much may be accomplished with a non real-time simulator, but an important drawback is that pilots
cannot fly them and evaluate the simulated handling qualities. For this reason, designers also work
with real-time, pilot-in-the-loop simulators, which are often referred to as piloted simulators. There
are two main categories of piloted simulators: ground-based and inflight. As the names imply, a
ground-based simulator is tied to the ground, whereas an inflight simulator is one that flies. We will
discuss ground-based simulators first.
20.1.2 Piloted, Ground-based Flying Qualities Siulators Piloted, ground-based, flying qualities
simulators are real-time simulators that are used throughout the process of designing and testing an
airplane. During the design phase, they are used primarily to help designers and pilots evaluate and
hone the predicted handling qualities of the airplane. During flight testing, they are put to many
uses, some of which are described in section 20.3. As the name implies, ground-based simulators
are fixed to the ground.
Piloted, ground-based, flying qualities simulators consist of a cockpit, a visual display, an

aerodynamic model, a flight control system model, and perhaps a motion system. In some cases, a
structural dynamics model might also be present. The complexity of these components can span the
gamut from spartan to very elaborate, depending on the purpose the simulator serves.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simuhtors
20.1.2 Piloted, Ground-based Flying Qualities Simulators
At the spartan end, the cockpit might be nothing more than a folding chair and a simple joystick.
A mid-range level of complexity might include generic, all-purpose, "typical fighter" or "typical
transport" cockpits, such as those used at the Flight Test Center. At the elaborate end of the scale
we might find a complete replica of the test airplane cockpit, including high fidelity control stick and
rudder pedal dynamics.
The level of complexity of visual displays can be equally broad. At the spartan end of the scale, the
visual display might consist of no more than the primary cockpit instruments. Near the middle of
the scale we might find a simple target presented on a monochrome TV screen, or perhaps a narrow
field of view, color, "out-the-window" display of moderate resolution. At the elaborate end, we
might find an all-aspect, high resolution, "out-the-window" view of the world.
The aerodynamic and flight control system models can also span a wide range of complexity. At the
spar& end of the scale, the aerodynamic model might take the form of stability derivatives that are
valid only at a single flight condition, or perhaps over a narrow range of flight conditions. Near the
middle of the scale, the aerodynamic model might be expanded to include larger portions of the flight
envelope. At the elaborate end of the scale, the aerodynamic model might include the entire flight
envelope. A spartan flight control system model might consist of a simplified version of a single
flight control mode together with a simplified, linear actuator model. An elaborate flight control
system model might fully replicate the flight control laws and sensor dynamics, and use high-fidelity,
nonlinear models of the actuators.
Ground-based simulator motion also runs the gamut from the spartan to the very elaborate. At the
spartan end are simulators that do not move at all. At the elaborate end of the scale are motion
systems that produce large amplitude, sixdegree-of-freedom motion. Ground-based simulators that
do not move are calledfied-base simulators. Ground-based simulators that move are called mtion-
based sirnularors.
The level of complexity of the simulator cockpit, visual display, aerodynamic and flight control
models, and motion system is determined by the purpose (or purposes) the simulator serves. It is not
unusual to find a mixture of complexity. For example, a mid-range, generic cockpit might be
coupled with a mid-range visual system, elaborate models of the aerodynamics and flight controls,
and a spartan motion system (that is, no motion at all). Figure 20-1 depicts two fixed-based flying
qualities simulators used at the Flight Test Center. These simulators use a mid-range, generic
cockpit, a mid-range limited field of view display, aerodynamic and flight control system models that
can range from spartan to elaborate, and no motion system. Figure 20-2 depicts a simulator that uses
a mid-range, generic cockpit, an elaborate visual system, aerodynamic and flight control system
models that can range from spartan to elaborate, and a motion system that can range from spartan
(no motion) to elaborate (large amplitude, sixdegree-of-freedom motion). This simulator, called
LAMARS, is located at the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
LAMARS is an acronym for Large Amplitude Multi-mode Aerospace Research Simulator.
The computers used in piloted, ground-based simulators may be digital, or analog, or a combination
of both. When only digital computers are used, the simulator is called a digital simulator. When
20-4 Flying Quulities Testing

2Q.1.2 Piloted, Ground-based Flying Qualities Simulators
c;ji.-Li*- . . -. ,
._a
. ..
Figure 2 6 1 Rioted, ground-based simulators used (2f the Flight Test Center.

20.1.3 Hardware-in-the-bpsimulators
only analog computers are used, the simulator is called an analog simukztor. When both digital and . .
analog computers are used, the simulator is called a hybrid simulator. Digital computers offer greater
precision and repeatability than analog computers. But analog computers have a higher bandwidth
than digital computers and do not suffer from computational time delay. The bandwidth of digital
computers is limited by the highest frame rate that can be achieved. Hybrid simulators offer the best
characteristics of both digital and analog computers.
Hybrid simulators are especially useful for simulating airplanes with digital flight control systems.
An analog computer is used to simulate the aerodynamic response and the response of actuators, anti-
aliasing filters, sensors, and other analog components with "life-like" bandwidth, all without
introducing unwanted computational time delay. Simultaneously, a digital computer is used to
simulate the digital part of the flight control system at the frame rate used in the airplane. The digital
computer can also be used to simulate such low bandwidth functions as center of gravity movement
and engine response.
Figure 20-2 A piloted, ground-basedsimulator at the Right LJynarniisLaboratory.
20.1.3 Hardware-in-the-LoopSimulators In hardware-in-the-loop simulators, real flight control

hardware replaces all or selected parts of the simulated flight control system. For example, real flight

20.1.4 Iron Bird S imulators
control computers are substituted for modeled control laws, real data busses are substitut& for
simulated connections between computers, and so on. Sometimes, real actuators are substituted for
the modeled actuators. In this way, designers get an early look at how well the real flight control
system hardware works. In Chapter 26, you will learn that hardware-in-the-loop simulators play an
important role in the process of verifying and validating a flight control system.
Hardware-in-the-loop simulators can take on a variety of forms. Sometimes, the piloted, ground-
based simulators we described in section 20.1.2 also serve as hardware-in-the-loop simulators. This
can be accomplished by making it possible to switch between the real flight control hardware and the
flight control system model. A simpler but less flexible approach is to remove the flight control
system model and substitute the real flight control system hardware.
Hardware-in-the-loop simulators are often involved in intensive, round-the-clock testing. This leaves
little, if any, time for other work, such as handling qualities evaluation. As a result, dedicated
simulators are sometimes built for hardware-in-the-loop testing. The aerodynamic model, equations
of motion, atmospheric model, and other software used in these dedicated s@lators might be copied
directly from existing piloted, ground-based simulators. Sometimes, dedicated hardware-in-the-loop
simulators are also used for limited handling qualities evaluations. When this is the case, a cockpit
and a visual display must be provided.
The flying qualities flight test simulators used at the Flight Test Center are occasionally used as
hardware-in-the-loop simulators. This allows them to be used for limited verification and validation
testing and for special purpose trouble-shooting.
20.1.4 Iron Bird Simulators In past chapters, we have often remarked on the importance of
actuator rate limits, control system friction, deadband, and hysteresis, and other characteristics of
mechanical systems. It is usually difficult to model these characteristics reliably. One way to
determine the actual performance of the mechanical components of the control system is to build a
special-purpose, hardware-in-the-loop simulator that is dedicated to testing them. Such a simulator
is called an iron bird simularor.
An iron bird simulator gets its name from the fact that it is built on a large steel framework to which
the mechanical components of the flight control system are attached. The hydraulic system pumps,
accumulators, tubing, and actuators are laid out on the steel framework exactly as they are in the real
airplane. The length of each hydraulic line and the geometry of every bend in the hydraulic lines is
exactly duplicated. The control surface actuators are attached to specially made fittings on the steel
framework that simulate the stiffness of the real airplane structure at the attachment points. And each
control surface is simulated by a specially made block of material that closely matches the mass and
moment of inertia of the real airplane control surface. The same care is taken in laying out the
control stick and rudder pedals and associated cables, pushrods, pulleys, and so on. The electronic
components of the flight control system, such as the flight control computers, are usually hardware,
but might be software simulations in some cases. An aerodynamic model must also be provided.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinmlutom
20.1.5 Piloted Innight Simulators
Iron bird simulators are valuable assets for early model validation testing of the flight control system. . .
Because real mechanical hardware is used, and because it is meticulously assembled to duplicate the
real airplane, the performance of the real mechanical components may be tested and compared with
the predicted performance. The fidelity of the iron bird simulator to the real airplane is good enough
that rigid body limit cycle ground testing is sometimes conducted on the simulator rather than on the
airplane.
Because iron bird simulators are typically devoted to flight control system testing rather than handliig
qualities testing, pilots do not normally spend much time flying them. For this reason, if a cockpit
and visual display are included at all, they are usually rudimentary. The aerodynamics, equations
of motion, and so on are usually copied directly from the piloted, ground-based simulator.
................ ....... .
Figure 20-3 The USAFNeridian VISTA/F-I6.
20.1.5 Piloted Intlight Siulators When the flight control system design has been completed and
handling qualities have been evaluated and improved as far as they can be with ground-based
simulators, designers often turn to piloted inflight simulators for one more evaluation. An inflight
simuiator is an airplane that has been specially modified so that the dynamics of other airplanes may
be simulated in flight. Piloted inflight simulators offer better motion and visual fidelity than do their

20.1.5 piloted Inflight Simulators
ground-based cousins, so they are commonly regarded as the "top of the line" in handling quditieS'
simulators.
However, piloted inflight simulators are not entirely free of drawbacks. It is usually very expensive
to conduct an inflight simulation program. Also, it is not always possible to exactly simulate the test
airplane response. Sometimes, only relatively low bandwidth responses can be simulated with high
fidelity, although this depends on the dynamics of the airplane bemg simulated.
Over the years, Test Pilot School students have flown a number of inflight simulators, including the
AFFTC variable stability B-25, the Calspan variable stability B-26, the USAF/Calspan NT-33, the
USAFNeridian TIFS (Total InFlight Simulator), the Veridian variable stability LearJets, and the
USAFNeridian VISTA/F-16 (Variable Inflight Stability Training Aircraft). The USAFNeridian
VISTAIF-16 is shown in Figure 20-3.
Figure 20-4 The AFFTC/HPE flight control system test stand and a ~ b age r o d y m ' c sinulkltor. connected to the
VISTA/F-I6for ground testing by Test Pilot School students.

Flying Qualifies Flight Test Simularors
20.2.1 Motion Fidelity
20.1.6 Flight Control System Test Stand One more flight test simulator deserves mention. The
. -,
Flight Test Center uses a special ground test stand that includes an analog aerodynamic simulator.
This test stand and its aerodynamic simulator can be c o ~ e c t e dto a test airplane and used to conduct
rigid body limit cycle testing, structural resonance testing, flight control system functional testing,
and redundancy management system testing. In Figure 20-4 the USAF/HPE flight control system
test stand is shown connected to the USAFNeridian VISTA/F-16 for verification and validation
ground testing, conducted by Test Pilot School
students and Veridian, of a studenf project.
r In Figure 20-5 we present a schematic diagram

that shows how control surface deflections are
transmitted to the test stand and simulated
airplane responses are transmitted back to the
flight control system in the airplane. This
arrangement is similar to the hardware-in-the-
loop and iron bird simulators,we described in
sections 20.1.3 and 20.1.4. The only
difference is that, instead of laying out
hardware in a laboratory, the real airplane is
connected to an aerodynamic simulator.
Despite its small size and somewhat innocuous

appearance, this test stand, with its
aerodynamic simulator, is a powerful piece of
Figure 20-5 Schemoric showing connection ofAFnCflisht ground testing equipment.
control system test stand to a test airplane.
20.2 Simulator Fidelity When we speak of simulator9delity we are referring to how closely a
simulator matches the airplane it is simulating. For handling qualities evaluation, our interest in
fidelity is directed mainly at dynamic response fidelity, or how well the simulator matches the
dynamics of the real airplane. Aspects of dynamic response fidelity that are of particular interest
include visual display response, motion response, the equations of motion, the control stick force-feel
characteristics, the aerodynamic model, and the flight control system model. Of course, we are
interested in other aspects of fidelity as well. For example, the placement of controls, switches,
instruments, and displays in the simulator cockpit may affect the usefulness of the simulator in some
ways.
In the following sections we will discuss several important aspects of simulator fidelity, including
motion fidelity, visual display fidelity, risk fidelity, cockpit controls fidelity, aerodynamic and flight
control system fidelity, equations of motion fidelity, and cockpit fidelity.
20.2.1 Motion Fidelity Let's begin hy acknowledging the importance of motion to handling
qualities. A pilot's control inputs produce airplane rotational and translational accelerations, rates,

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnuho&
20.2.1 Motion Fidelity
and displacements. These motion responses determine how easy it is for a pilot to land an air&&:
track a target, perform aerial refueling, maintain formation, and so on. Because a pilot's assessment
of handling qualities is closely tied to motion, we must approach motion fidelity carefully.
Motion is detected both visually and "physically." By "physically," we mean detection by the inner
ear and by the "seat of the pants," or proprioceptively. For example, pitching and rolling motion
can be detected visually by looking out of the cockpit or by looking at cockpit instruments. The same
motion can also be detected by the inner ear and the seat of the pants. Wherwe refer to motion
fidelity we are usually referring to motion that can be "physically" detected by the inner ear and the
seat of the pants. In other words, motion fidelity refers to how closely the physical motion of the
simulator cockpit matches the physical motion of the real airplane cockpit. This is to be distinguished
from the appearance,or impression of motion produced by cockpit instruments or visual displays.
Inflight simulators provide the best opportunity for achieving a high level of motion fidelity, but even
inflight simulators have limits. Special control surfaces are needed to produce the forces and
moments required for high fidelity motion at the pilot station. These specid control surfaces are not
available on all inflight simulators. Even when they are, they might not be sufficiently fast or
effective to produce the desired motion.
For ground-based simulators, motion fidelity is a problematical issue. In fixed-base simulators there
is no motion fidelity at all. Yet fixed-base simulators have proved to be very useful flight test tools.
In motion-based simulators, hydraulic or electric motion systems attached to a simulator cockpit can
produce impressive rotational and translational accelerations and rates. But the available range of
displacement is necessarily limited. As a result, accelerations and rates can be maintained for only
a short length of time before the motion drive system exceeds the allowable range of displacement.
To prevent the motion drive system from crashing into its limits, washout (or high-pass) filters are
added to the motion system. Washout filters cause the motion system to attenuate low frequency
motion (such as a turn or a loop) while responding more faithfully to higher frequency dynamics,
such as the short period and dutch roll modes. This works well in preventing the motion system from
exceeding its physical limits, but it has the unhappy sideeffect of changing the handling qualities of
the simulated airplane. You may recall from section 12.2.4 in Chapter 12 that washout filters add
low frequency phase lead. As a result, there may be less phase lag in the simulator motion than there
is in the real airplane motion. According to the RSmith criteria, which we introduced in Chapter 16,
if the simulator has less phase lag than the real airplane, the simulator handling qualities will be better
than the airplane handing qualities.
The problem of restricted range of motion (and the necessity for washout filters) is one that cannot
be avoided in ground-based simulators. This problem stimulates much discussion and disagreement
within the flying qualities community. Is washed-out motion better or worse than no motion at all?
Consider this question in terms of a simulator evaluation of pilot-in-the-loop oscillation (or PIO)
susceptibility. It is widely accepted that some PIOs cannot occur without motion feedback to the
pilot. Consequently, they cannot occur in a fixed-base simulator (unless they are artificially
stimulated). But experience shows that they might not occur in a motion-base simulator either,

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinurlators
20.2.2 Visual Display Fidelity
. -,
because the motion system washout filters artificially improve handling qualities enough to hide the
tendency to PIO.
Another interesting aspect of motion fidelity is sometimes encountered in motion-based simulators.

When the motion system is not carefully synchronized with the visual system, the resulting mismatch
of motion and visual responses can be very disconcerting to the evaluation pilot, sometimes to the
point of inducing nausea.
20.2.2 Visual Display Fidelity While much can be accomplished with a simulator that does not
move, a piloted flying qualities simulator without a visual display of some kind would be worthless.
Visual displays come in a variety of forms. Successful simulation programs have been conducted
with visual displays as simple as the primary flight instnunents, and as sophisticated as a high
resolution, all-aspect, "out-the-window'' visual scene. Out-the-window displays attempt to present
the view a pilot sees when looking outside the cockpit. These displays are improving in quality as
increasingly powerful computers make it possible to significantly improve resolution, clarity, and
texture while reducing time delay.
Despite the importance of visual displays and the presumed importance of visual display fidelity, there
is no definitive research and little agreement on how much and what kind of visual fidelity is
necessary for a flying qualities simulator. Are primary flight instruments alone an adequate visual
display? Is a television screen with a simple horizon bar, or a simple target, or a simple line drawing
of a runway sufficient? Is a detailed, high resolution, high clarity, highly textured, "out-the-window"
scene required? While we do not have definitive answers to these questions, experience suggests that
the answers depend on the task the pilot is performing and on the objectives of the test. For
example, there is little doubt that resolution, clarity, and texture are more important when performing
handling qualities tasks that involve close proximity to the ground or to another airplane. Such tasks
include approach and landing, terrain following, and aerial refueling.
Nor is there a consensus on how much visual system time delay is permissable. Time delay in the
visual system adds phase lag to the simulator dynamics, which can result in degraded simulator
handling qualities. According to the RSmith criteria, the degrading effect of visual system time delay
depends on the phase lag of the modeled airplane dynamics. Suppose the RSmith criterion frequency
for a test airplane were o,=4 radians/second and the predicted Cooper-Harper rating were 5. If the
visual system time delay were 100 milliseconds, approximately 23 degrees of phase lag would be
added to the augmented airplane transfer functions at the criterion frequency. This additional phase
lag would degrade the predicted handling qualities from a Cooper-Harper rating of 5 to a Cooper-
Harper rating of about 7.7. Clearly, it is important to strive for small visual system time delays.
Nor is there a consensus on how large the field of view must be. The role of peripheral vision in
landing flare and touchdown, for example, is not completely understood.
Complete visual display fidelity is as difficult to achieve as complete motion fidelity. Inflight
simulators offer the best opportunityto achieve high visual fidelity, because the pilot can look outside

Flying QuaIMes Flight Test Sinurlators
20.2.4 Cockpit Controls Fidelity
and see the same clear, textured, undelayed real world that would be visible in the real airplane.. But c-
visual fidelity in an inflight simulator can be degraded by the same constraints that affect motion
fidelity. When accurate motion cannot be produced at the pilot's location, visually sensed motion will
be affected also.
20.2.3 Risk Fidelity An elusive but important (some might say critical) component of simulator
fidelity is something we will call "risk fidelity." Riskfidelily refers to our ability to make pilots
flying a simulator respond to hazards or surprisesjust as they would in a real airplane. Risk fidelity
may be more important than you suppose. Flying qualities experience is replete with incidents and
accidents that were triggered by a pilot's response to an imminent hazard. Unfortunately, risk fidelity
is difficult to achieve for the simple reason that there is no penalty for "crashing" a simulator. The
pilot simply presses the "Reset" button and starts over. Even in an inflight simulator, the evaluation
pilot knows that if things get out of hand, the safety pilot will assume comrnand and return the
simulator to a safe, baseline configuration. It has been sportingly proposed that risk fidelity might
be impkved by administering memorable electrical shocks to evaluation pilots when they "crash."
Or by poking them with needles driven by a special apparatus mounted in the simulator seat.
Another facet of risk fidelity is related to a high level of pilot excitement. Experience indicates that
handling qualities deficiencies may be exposed not only by imminent danger, but also when a pilot's
level of excitement is unusually high. Evidence of this has been observed during combat, when a
pilot is tracking and shooting at a jinking target. The desire for a kill may increase the pilot's
excitement to a very high level indeed. When the pilot's level of excitement exceeds a certain
threshold, the pilot may begin to fly the airplane differently, exposing handling qualities which make
it more difficult to score a hit. We discussed this phenomenon in section 23.1 in Chapter 21.
20.2.4 Cockpit Controls Fidelity Control stick, rudder pedal, and throttle fidelity are additional
facets of simulator fidelity. Control stick fidelity is widely recognized as an important element of
simulator fidelity. The rudder pedals and throttle are sometimes given shorter shrift. Let's discuss
control stick fidelity first.
The control stick is the pilot's primary means of controlling the airplane. If the force-feel
characteristicsof the stick are not accurately modeled, the pilot's perception of handling qualities may
be significantly affected. You may appreciate this by imagining that, in an airplane you fly regularly,
the stick forces were suddenly halved or doubled, or the deadband or hysteresis were doubled. These
changes would almost certainly affect your opinion of the airplane handling qualities. They might
also make it more difficult, or perhaps easier, to land the airplane, or perform aerial refueling, or
track a target, or maintain tight formation, and so on.
It is not always easy to model control stick force-feel characteristics accurately. This is particularly
true when the force-feel characteristics include a nonlinear forcedeflection curve plus a deadband,
complex hysteresis characteristics, and so on. Commercially available hardware, such as the widely
Flpng Qualities Testing 20-13

20.2.4 Cockpit Controls Fidelity
known McFadden control stick simulators, offers impressive capability. Unfortunately, these control
-. x
stick simulators tend to be complex and expensive.
Yet even when the measured simulator stick characteristicsclosely match the airplane, a frequent pilot
comment is that the simulator stick doesn’t feel like the airplane stick. These comments may be
traceable in part to evidence that a pilot’s perception of control stick fidelity is related to motion
fidelity. One hypothesis is that when pilots do not feel the expected motion response to their stick
inputs, they are naturally inclined to question the fidelity of the stick dynamics. ~
Control stick geometry, including location and pivot point, can also influence a pilot’s perception of
control stick fidelity. For example, when the stick is further away in the simulator, pilots are likely
to report that the stick forces are higher than in the airplane.
Rudder pedal fidelity is often regarded as being secondary in importance to control stick fidelity.
There are two principal reasons for this. First, modem flight control systems often make it
unnecessary (oiless necessary) for the pilot to use the rudder pedals to maneuver the airplane. This
means that the rudder pedals are used less extensively than the control stick. Second: hands and arms
are more sensitive than legs and feet, especially booted feet. Pilots are less likely to notice minor
discrepancies between the simulated rudder pedals and the real airplane rudder pedals. So long as
a reasonable level of rudder pedal fidelity is present, it is unlikely that pilots will complain.
The importance of throttle fidelity is sometimes underestimated. The force-feel characteristics of the
throttle lever and the response of the engine model may significantly influence a pilot’s perception
of handling qualities for certain tasks, such as close formation, aerial refueling, and approach and
landing. Engine response characteristics are often modeled rather simply in flying qualities
simulators. For example, a simple first order filter is often used to simulate engine spool-up and
spool-down. In many cases this might be a perfectly satisfactory model. In others it might not.
When a simulator will be used to evaluate aerial refueling, or close formation maneuvering, or
powered lift landings, it may be important to model throttle characteristics and engine response with
greater fidelity.
As in the case of the control stick, however, a pilot’s perception of throttle response fidelity might
be affected by motion fidelity. Evidence suggests that when pilots do not feel the expected motion
response to their throttle inputs, they are naturally inclined to question the fidelity of the throttle
response.
We conclude by noting that the physical fidelity of the control stick and throttle may be important
in a flying qualities simulator. In military airplanes, the stick and throttle grips have become
important interfaces, or centers of activity, between the pilot and the airplane. Careful thought
should be given to the consequences of mismodeling these interfaces. If the grips are different from
the real airplane, or if switches are missing, or are in a different location, or work differently, the
usefulness of the simulator may be compromised.

Flying m e s Flighf Test Sirnuhorn
20.2.7 Cockpit Fidelity
’
20.2.5 Aerodynamic and Flight Control System Fidelity Time and again we have remark& on
the importance to handling qualities of high fidelity aerodynamic and flight control system models.
If either the aerodynamic or flight control system models are in error, the airplane response to a pilot
input or a gust disturbance will be in error. In Chapter 7 we showed that an incorrect stability
derivative value can have an important effect on the airplane response, and in Chapters 10 and 11
we showed that simplified actuator models can make an airplane appear to be more stable than it
really is. Modeling errors such as these can affect the airplane response and hence the pilot’s
perception of handling qualities. ~
Before ground testing and flight testing begin, the simulator aerodynamic and flight control system
models are necessarily predicted models, with attendant levels of uncertainty. These levels of
uncertainty may be significant. If these models are not validated and corrected during ground and
flight testing, the lack of simulator dynamic response fidelity will quickly become apparent to the
pilots. As a result, the usefulness of the simulator will decline steadily as the test program
progresses. This would prove costly indeed, as you will learn in section 20.3.
.
20.2.6 Equations of Motion Fidelity We have said nothing about the importance of high fidelity
equations of motion since Chapter 4 in Part 11. Yet we devoted most of that chapter to developing
a set of equations that would accurately describe the airplane motion you are most likely to
experience. You may recall that we tailored these equations of motion to rigid body airplanes of
constant or slowly changing mass, flying at speeds below 3000 to 5000 feet per second, during
maneuvers lasting less than a minute or so. These equations of motion, which we presented as
Equations (4-71) and (4-72) in section 4.6.9 in Chapter 4, are widely used in flying qualities
simulators, including the simulators we use at the Flight Test Center.
But it is possible that you may one day test an airplane that violates the assumptions we made: a
rocket powered hypersonic airplane perhaps. Equations (4-71) and (4-72) are unsuitable for such an
airplane: they would produce airplane motion that is quite different from the real airplane motion.
To simulate a rocket powered hypersonic airplane, it would be necessary to use higher fidelity
equations of motion that accommodate rapid changes of mass, very high speeds, and perhaps lohger
test maneuvers. A set of equations that satisfies these more exotic conditions is also available for use
in Flight Test Center flying qualities simulators.
20.2.7 Cockpit Fidelity When we speak of cockpit fidelity we are referring to how closely the
simulator cockpit duplicates the real airplane cockpit: the geometry; the seat; whether or not all
cockpit instruments, control panels, warning lights, and circuit breakers are present and functional;
and so on. Cockpit fidelity can be important. Imagine that a certain flying qualities test maneuver
requires moving certain switches and using certain cockpit displays. If the switches and displays are
missing, or in the wrong position, or don’t work, the usefulness of the simulator could be called into
question. In cases such as this, cockpit fidelity is important.
Hying Qualities Testing 20-15

Flying eucJities Flight Test Simulators
20.3.2 Handling Qualities Evaluation
The level of cockpit fidelity you need depends on how you plan to use your simulator. For flying
..
qualities testing, experience at the Flight Test Center indicates that cockpit fidelity is generally not
as critical as aerodynamic, flight control system, or control stick fidelity. Much of the best simulator
work done at the Flight Test Center involved relatively simple, general purpose cockpits. A rule of
thumb is that primary flight instruments or multi-function displays should be present, functioning,
and positioned as they are in the real airplane. Secondary instruments may not be necessary, and
avionics control panels, warning light panels, and circuit breaker panels usually aren’t necessary.
However, this may vary from test program to test program. -
20.3 Uses and Benefits of a Flight Test Sinlator Experience at the Flight Test Center shows that
much may be accomplished with relatively simple, piloted, ground-based simulators. which we often
refer to as flight test simulators. In this section we will enumerate some important uses and benefits
of flight test simulators. These include education, handling qualities evaluation, development of new
test maneuvers and analysis techniques, developing programmed test input signals, pilot proficiency,
data reduction &heckout,test planning, safety, analyzing and exploring deficiencies, augmenting test
data, hardware verification and (limited) validation, and dress rehearsals for specialhight tests. The
list of uses and benefits we outline here is by no means complete. Simulators are so versatile that
new uses and benefits are continually arising.
20.3.1 Education Chronologically, education is the first benefit provided by a flight test simulator.
To build a simulator (or more accurately, to build the models that make up a simulator), test
engineers must become intimately familiar with the details of the airplane aerodynamics and flight
control system. As a result, there is no better way to prepare for a flight test program than to build
a simulator. You will learn the details of the various flight control modes; where handling qualities
are predicted to be satisfactory or less than satisfactory; at what test conditions the airplane is
predicted to become directionally unstable; what the actuator rate limits are; which feedback
parameters are most important; and so on.
20.3.2 Handling Qualities Evaluation Handling qualities evaluation using a simulator is probably
most closely associated with the design process, but it is equally useful throughout the test program.
During the design process, the primary use of a piloted ground-based simulator is to assist the
designer in tailoring the flight control system to achieve good handling qualities. When the pilot is
dissatisfied with the handling qualities, the designer adjusts the flight control system architecture or
compensation until the problem is corrected.
During the flight test program, handling qualities evaluation using a simulator serves several
purposes. One is to familiarize the pilots with the predicted handling qualities of the test airplane.
This is important when the flight envelope is being expanded, when new test maneuvers are
performed, or when new pilots are introduced to the airplane.

Flying Qualities HigM Test Simuhtors
20.3.4 Creating Programmed Test Input Signals
Handling qualities evaluation using a simulator is also an important part of validating a simulator:'
As test data become available, the simulator aerodynamic and flight control system models must be
incrementally corrected and validated. An important step in this process is the evaluation of simulator
handling qualities. Before a simulator can be regarded as validated, the pilots must judge that the
simulator handling qualities are sufficiently similar to the real airplane. If the pilots judge that there
are significant differences between the simulator and the airplane handling qualities, the source of the
differences must be found and corrected.
~
Handling qualities evaluation using a simulator is also important when evaluating and correcting
airplane deficiencies discovered during flight testing. The first step in this process is to validate the
simulator aerodynamic and flight control system models, so the airplane deficiency can be duplicated
in the simulator. Successive steps in the process are to identify and understand the cause of the
deficiency (mispredicted aerodynamics, mismodeled flight control system, unreliable design guidance,
and so on); to propose a solution, or perhaps several candidate solutions, for the deficiency; to
evaluate the candidate solutions in the simulator and select the one that appears most promising; and
to evaluate the selected solution in flight. .
203.3 Developing New Test Maneuvers and Analysis Techniques While building and using a
flight test simulator, you may discover that certain features of the test airplane cannot be properly
evaluated using conventional test or analysis methods. This may occur when the test airplane uses
unusual control effectors (such as vortex control jets or thrust vectoring), or an unusual control
function (such as inflight thrust reversing), or redundant control surfaces, or for other reasons.
Similarly, an airplane designed to perform an unusual mission, or a mission performed to unusually
exacting standards, may also require new or modified test or analysis methods. Simulators have
proved to be an excellent tool for developing new test maneuvers and for obtaining data to validate
new analysis techniques. And when unusual features of a new airplane require that the airplane be
configured in a special way for testing, a simulator is almost indispensable to working out the details
of implementation.
20.3.4 Creating Programmed Test Input Signals Simulators are an excellent tool for developing
programmed test input signals for aerodynamic and flight control system model validation testing.
At the Flight Test Center, many hours of simulator time have been devoted to creating test input
signals that will produce satisfactoryestimates of stability derivatives or frequency response functions.
This is done by trying proposed test input signals on the simulator, collecting and analyzing simulator
test results, and comparing the results with the model in the simulator. This procedure is repeated
until satisfactory shapes and amplitudes have been developed for the test input signal. Many hours
of expensive flight test time can be saved in this way, without risk to the airplane. In some cases this
approach allows us to successfully conduct model validation testing that would otherwise prove
impossible.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinwlators
20.3.8 Safety
20.3.5 Pilot Proficiency Pilots find that practicing test maneuvers in a simulator is an effective way - . I .
to improve or recover their proficiency. It is cheaper, safer, and more efficient to learn new test
maneuvers and techniques, or polish familiar ones, in a simulator than in the real airplane. Increased
pilot proficiency yields two important dividends: higher quality test data and more test maneuvers
per flight hour.
20.3.6 Data Reduction Checkout At the Flight Test Center we find it helpful to use "test data"
from a simulator to check out data reduction and analysis software. This is more important than it
might sound. Data reduction and analysis software is complex, and must be tailored to each new test
program. Experienced testers know that without a rigorous pre-first-flight checkout, several flights
may be needed to expunge the bugs from sophisticated data reduction and analysis software. Using
simulator "test data" to perform a pre-first-flight checkout can dramatically reduce lost flight time and
test maneuvers.
20.3.7 Test Planning Using a simulator, we can learn before flight testing $hat kind of test
maneuvers are needed to satisfy the test objectives, how many maneuvers must be flown, and how
much time will be needed to fly them. We can also learn how much the test conditions are likely to
change during the maneuver: for example, how much airspeed or altitude might be. lost. When flight
test time is critical, a simulator can be used to work out the most efficient sequence of maneuvers.
20.3.8 Safety A flight test simulator enhances safety in at least three ways. First, it can be used
to prepare pilots for a range of possible responses when they fly a new or modified airplane. Second,
it can prepare the pilots for both planned and unplanned flight control system failures. And third,
it can reduce the hazards associated with envelope expansion testing.
The first way a simulator can be used to enhance safety is by preparing pilots for a range of possible
responses. As you know by now, the uncertainties in predicted aerodynamic and flight control
system models can affect handling qualities in important ways. Using a procedure we call sensiriviry
resting, a simulator can prepare pilots for the effects of these uncertainties. For example, varying
the values of predicted stability derivatives (or combinations of stability derivatives) allows the pilot
to develop a feel for how sensitive the handling qualities might be to errors in the aerodynamic
model. Similarly, the effect of lower than expected actuator rate limits (induced, perhaps, by higher
than anticipated hydraulic system demands) may be investigated. Sensitivitytesting prepares the pilot
to recognize some of the handing qualities surprises that are likely to be encountered during testing.
Equally important, sensitivity testing prepares the pilot to respond correctly to those surprises.
The second way a flight test simulator can be used to enhance test safety is by preparing pilots for
both planned and unplanned flight control system failures. Planned failures are intentionally induced
(perhaps using an inflight fault simulation and clearing capability) so that failure state handling
qualities may be evaluated. It is prudent to use a simulator to prepare for these tests so that the pilot
knows what to expect in flight. Preparation should include an exploration of the effects of

Flying QuaWes Flight Test Simulcrtors
20.3.10 Augmenting Test Data
~ -,
aerodynamic uncertainty. Unplanned failures are, of course,unexpected. Pilots should spendtime
in a simulator learning how to recognize and respond to unexpected failures and the handling qualities
they produce.
Occasionally, flight control system failure states produce handling qualities that are judged to be too
hazardous for inflight evaluation. In these cases the only way to explore the failure. state handling
qualities is to use a validated simulator.
~
The third way a flight test simulator can be used to enhance test safety is by reducing the hazards
associated with envelope expansion testing. Envelope expansion is an incremental process of
correcting and validating the predicted models of the airplane aerodynamics, flight control system,
structure, and handling qualities. A cardinal principle of envelope expansion testing is that it begins
in the least hazardous region of the flight envelope and progresses to the most hazardous regions.
As envelope expansion progresses and flight test results become available, the simulator models can
be coqected and validated. The validated simulator can in turn be used to predict the airplane
response at succeeding (and more hazardous) test points, where the m$el validation process is
repeated. This procedure can reduce the number of unpleasant surprises you encounter. By the time
the envelope has been expanded to the most hazardous regions, the airplane models are reasonably
well understood. As a result, the hazardous regions of the envelope may prove to be less hazardous
than supposed when testing began.
20.3.9 Analyzing and Correcting Deficiencies When deficiencies are discovered during testing,
flight test simulators are an important tool for understanding and correcting them. The first step is
to validate the simulator in that part of the flight envelope where the deficiency exists. Once the
response of the simulator matches the response of the airplane, the deficiency may be explored in the
simulator rapidly, inexpensively, and safely. The flight conditions at which the deficiency occurred
can be easily controlled in a simulator, and the test maneuver may be repeated as often as desired
without risk to the aircrew or airplane. When the problem is understood, candidate solutions can be
proposed. These solutions may be evaluated in the simulator at length to determine which one, or
more, should be evaluated in flight.
2Q3.10 Augmenting Test Data As a test program progresses and the simulator is incrementally
validated, it can be used to augment flight test data. We can, for example, use the simulator to
determine frequency, damping ratio, roll mode time constant, stability margins, and so on at selected
flight conditions. This means that valuable flight test time may be devoted to more critical testing
that can be accomplished only in the real airplane, such as handling qualities evaluation. Using a
validated simulator to augment flight test data helps keep test programs on schedule and withii
budget. Also, "Speccompliance" testing (demonstrating compliance with contractual flying qualities
requirements) is more easily, more accurately, and less expensively accomplished using a validated
simulator than a real airplane.

20.4 Justifying a Flight Test Simulator
20.3.11 Hardware Verification and ( L i m i t e d ) Validation At the Flight Test Center, flying
qualities flight test Simulators have sometimes been used for hardware-in-the-loop testing. This has
proved valuable for verifying that control law changes have been correctly implemented in the flight
control computers before the computers are replaced in the airplane for flight testing. Limited
validation testing may also be performed. For example, the predicted handling qualities may be
evaluated on the simulator to determine whether the control law changes are likely to produce the
desired improvement. Full validation testing can only be conducted in flight.
20.3.12 Dress Rehearsals A flight test simulator may be used to conduct full dress rehearsals of
an entire flight, or of portions of a flight. This can be very important for test programs that involve
only a few short, high intensity flights, or unusual or especially hazardous test maneuvers. The X-15
test program, the lifting body test programs, and the space shuttle Enterprise approach and landing
test program are examples of test programs made up of short, high intensity flights. High angle of
attack testing includes examples of test maneuvers that are unusual and especially hazardous.
For test programs or test maneuvers such as these, pre-flight rehearsals offer segeral advantages.
One is pilot proficiency. Timing and proficiency take on added importance when the duration of a
flight may be no more than a few minutes, during which time many test maneuvers must be
performed. Flight conditions may be changing rapidly, so each test maneuver must be flown at
exactly the right moment, and correctly, because there are no second chances. Because these flights
must go like clockwork, rehearsals are essential. In the past, pilots have reported that even with the
help of rehearsals the flights seemed to go much faster than in the simulator. Success was achieved
only because the rehearsals made it possible to step through the test maneuvers in an almost
mechanical fashion. Otherwise, relatively little would have been accomplished.
Experience at the Flight Test Center indicates that, to be helpful, at least three rehearsals must be
conducted. When fast-paced, high intensity flights are being rehearsed it may prove beneficial to run
the simulator at a faster pace. For example, during the lifting body test programs, the pilots felt that
running the simulator about 30 percent faster than real time made the rehearsal seem more realistic.
We should note that dress rehearsals are equally important to test engineers, who monitor the test data
during the flight and who must be prepared to quickly interpret the data, diagnose anomalies, and if
need be, recommend a course of action to the pilot. Rehearsals prepare the engineers to recognize
and interpret test maneuver responses on the control room displays. Responses that differ
significantly from simulator predictions should arouse a sense of caution. Rehearsals may also be
used to validate minimum and maximum values for stripchart parameters, and "knock it off," or
maneuver termination limits for key parameters.
20.4 Justifying a Flight Test Simulator Two of the most important components of a successful
flying qualities test program are a properly configured test airplane and a flight test simulator. It is
unlikely that a new or significantly modified airplane can be successfully tested without these two
components. In Chapter 19 we discussed the importance of a properly configured test airplane and

in section 20.3 we outlined a few of the uses and benefits of a flight test simulator. In this &tion,
you will learn why an independent flight test simulator is necessary at the flight test site, which in
most cases is the Flight Test Center.
Air Force procuring agencies and contractors sometimes oppose building a simulator at the Flight
Test Center. This is partly because they want to save money, partly because they believe one
simulator (the contractor’s) is enough, and partly because they are unfamiliar with the uses of a flight
test simulator. For these reasons they are inclined to regard a flight test simulator at the test site as
an unnecessary expense.
It is understandable that the cost of building and supporting a simulator at the Flight Test Center is
a matter of concern. Money doesn’t grow on trees, and to the inexperienced it may appear that a
flight test simulator is a redundant expense. But return on investment must also be considered. Each
of the uses of a simulator we outlined in the precediig section represents a return on investment:
flight hours saved, improved test results, increased safety, new test maneuvers and analysis
techni&es, increased efficiency, and so on. These add up to money the tegt program does not have
to spend, and airplanes it might not have to repair or replace. To illustrate this point, consider the
AFTVF-16 test program, which documented the return on investment in its flight test simulator
during the first few years of testing. To the astonishment of everyone outside the test program, the
cost of the sirnulaor w m repaid 120 times over. This return on investment represented the
accumulated savings from all of the various uses we outlined in the preCeaig section. It did not
include the potential savings of a damaged or lost test airplane.
A simulator pays for itself in another way, too. For a number of reasons, ranging from politics to
operational requirements, it is important that a test program stay on schedule and withii budget.
Nevertheless, schedules and budgets are routinely exceeded. But experience at the Flight Test Center
indicates that test programs that have a flight test simulator and a properly configured test airplane
fare better than those that don’t.
The procurement agency and the contractor sometimes argue that the contractor’s simulator is
adequate to support flight testing. There are several reasons why this is not so. First, and perhaps
surprisingly, contractors sometimes shut down their simulators soon after first flight. This is because
their primary use for the simulator is flight control system design. After first flight they may feel
that the simulator has served its purpose. When the contractor does maintain a simulator beyond first
flight, it is often devoted to on-going design work, such as avionics integration, instead of flight test
support.
Sometimes, the test team is required to use the contractor’s simulator for flight test support. In these
cases, the test team might be given a few one or two week blocks of simulator time, arbitrarily
sprinkled over the course of the program. This is completely inadequate. The uses we outlined in
the previous section require almost daily access from months before first flight until the last flight
is completed and the test reports are written. Envelope expansion alone requires daily use of a
simulator for extended periods of time. Analysis of flight control system or handling qualities
deficiencies requires that the simulator be available soon after the flight.

. I
. -,
Using the contractor’s simulator is inadequate for other reasons, too. The test team might not be
allowed to modify the contractor’s simulator to serve flight test purposes. Without such modifications
it may prove impractical to use the simulator productively. For example, it may prove difficult to
conduct aerodynamic and flight control system sensitivity testing, or to develop test input signals, and
so on. Moreover, data from the contractor’s simulator is rarely in a suitable format for flight test
purposes.
Contractors do not always validate their simulators. This makes it difficult to use the s<mulator for
envelope expansion, or to explore and correct deficiencies, or to augment flight test data.
Also, contractors may model the aerodynamics or the flight control system differently than would test
team engineers. Here is an interesting, but not unique, example. Perhaps you have heard of the
inadvertant first flight of the YF-16. This occurred when a high speed taxi test turned into a lateral
pilot-in-the-loop oscillation and the pilot wisely elected to take off rather than run the airplane off the
.
This PI0 occurred because the lateral flight control system gain
was based on mismodeled aileron control effectiveness. This is
illustrated in Figure 20-6, which shows the predicted curve of C,
versus 6, together with the model of this curve used in the
contractor’s simulator. The contractor’s model was a straight
line connecting the two end points of the predicted curve. (The
contractor chose this model for the sake of simplicity and to
preserve the endpoints of the curve, so that full deflection roll
rates could be reliably simulated.) Using this model, small
Figure 2 0 4 Predicted and modekd aileron deflections were about half as effective in the simulator
aikron conuol t$eciiveness.
as they were in the real airplane. As a result, the contractor’s
simulator was operating at about half the open-loop . gain
. of the
real airplane. Consequently, the contractor’s simulator provided no indication of the roll sensitivity
and PI0 experienced during the high speed taxi test.
In contrast to the contractor, the test team modeled the aileron effectiveness with greater fidelity in
the Flight Test Center simulator. As a result, this simulator accurately predicted the behavior
demonstrated during the high speed taxi test. Unfortunately, the contractor chose to be guided by
the results from the contractor simulator.
Here is another example of a contractor modeling the aerodynamics differently than the test team
might have. F-lll wind tunnel data indicated that the directional stability derivative, C”,, went to
zero between 13 and 14 degrees angle of attack. The contractor regarded these results as suspect,
and so discarded them. Consequently, the contractor’s aerodynamic model did not extend beyond
12 degrees angle of attack. During flight testing, two F-111s were lost when they exceeded 12
degrees angle of attack, departed, and entered unrecoverable spins.

F l y i g Qualities Flight Test Simulators
20.5 Building a Flight Test Simulator
..
Another reason why Air Force procurement agencies and contractors resist building simulators at the
Flight Test Center is their sense of optimism. Because they are "success-oriented" they do not
anticipate problems. They believe everything will go smoothly, from design through flight testing.
Consequently, they see no reason to spend money on a flight test simulator. At the Flight Test
Center, however, we have learned through experience that problems are the norm.
20.5 Building a Flight Test Simulator Building a flight test simulator is a trig job. It would be
dishonest to understate the time it takes, or the money. But, as we pointed out in the two prewediig
sections, the uses and benefits of a flight test simulator outweigh the time and money required to
build one.
It is important that the requirement for a flight test simulator at the AFFTC be acknowledged right
from the start, before the contract for a new airplane is signed. Money must be allocated to the
contraqtor to provide data on the aerodynamics, flight control system, cockpit layout, and so on.
These data must be made available to the test engineers in a suitable format and as early as possible.
Work on the flight test simulator should begin early. Adequate lead time must be provided to
purchase special computers (if needed), to fabricate hardware for the cockpit (if needed), and to build
aerodynamic and flight control system models. The goal should be to have the simulator ready for
use six months to a year before first flight.
Flight test simulators are built by simulation engineers and technicians working with flying qualities
test engineers. Roughly speaking, the task is divided in the following way. Simulation engineers and
technicians are responsible for writing and debugging software,fabricating hardware, and integrating
the two. Test engineers are responsible for assembling aerodynamic data, flight control system
diagrams, weight and balance data, propulsion system data, and so on. Test engineers are also
responsible for outlining how the simulator will be used. Confirming that the simulator models,
hardware, and software have been correctly implemented is the responsibility of both simulation and
test engineers.
The availability of powerful desktop computers, together with generic cockpits and relatively simple
but fast displays, makes it possible today to build reliable and useful simulators for a small fraction
of the cost ordinarily associated with flight test simulators. The USAFMPE simulator depicted in
Figure 20-1 in section 20.1.2 is an example of such a simulator, which could profitably be stationed
next to the desks of flying qualities test engineers.
k
The first task in building a simulator is to decide how it will be used. The cost of a flight test
simulator is determined primarily by the capabilities it must have. These capabilities are in turn
dictated by the ways in which the simulator will be used. We discussed a number of important uses
in section 20.3. Your test program may have others as well. Because the cost of a flight test
simulator is related to the ways in which it will be used, you should not require capabilities that will
not be used. For example, a medium fidelity, general purpose simulator cockpit is usually adequate
for flight test purposes. Unless your test program has an unusual requirement for a high fidelity

Flying Qualifies Flight Test Simulators
20.5.1 Defining Flight Test Simulator Requirements
-. . -,
cockpit, there is no good reason to spen6 extra money to exactly match the geometry, switches,
lights, instruments, and displays in the real cockpit. That money can be spent more productively,
or saved. In the next section we will show you how flight test simulator requirements are defmed.
20.5.1 Defining Flight Test Simulator Requirements Defining simulator requirements is a two
step process. First, you must decide how the simulator will be used to support your test program.
Second, you must decide how much fidelity is required to serve those uses.
The catalogue of uses we examined in section 20.3 and the discussion of fidelity we presented in
section 20.2 are starting points for you to consider when you are determining simulator requirements.
In Table 20-1 we have mapped fidelity requirements versus simulator use for a typical flight test
simulator. Using this map, and tailoring it to your test program, may help you determine a set of
cost effective simulator requirements. Consider, for example, that a high level of cockpit fidelity is
not required for any of the uses listed in Table 20-1, whereas a medium level of fidelity is desired
for a number of uses. Hence, money can be saved by specifying a medium level otcockpit fidelity,
with no negative effect on usefulness. Or consider that a high level of motion fidelity is desirable
for three of the flight test simulator uses listed in Table 20-1, whereas the remaining uses require a
low level of motion fidelity. Motion systems for ground-based simulators are quite expensive,
prohibitively so for most flight test programs. Also, motion systems for ground-based simulators
may give misleading results, for the reasons we discussed in section 20.2.1. For these reasons, the
AFFTC flight simulation laboratory no longer uses motion systems. The result is a simpler and less
expensive simulator with little effect on most aspects of simulator usefulness. When motion fidelity
is critically important to selected purposes, an inflight simulator should be considered. Adding or
deleting uses from Table 20-1, or modifying fidelity requirements, may also be appropriate. For
example, dress rehearsals may not benefit your test program. Or perhaps your airplane has a flight
control system that augments directional control during landing roll-out. This might require
augmenting equationsof motion fidelity to improve landing gear, braking, and tire-runway interaction
models, and augmenting visual fidelity to improve texture, resolution, and depth perception, while
minimizing time delay.
In defining simulator requirements, each aspect of simulator fidelity must be addressed in terms of
cost and intended use. Cost, of course, is the sum of the expenses incurred in buying or fabricating
hardware, writing software, verifying and validating the simulator, writing documentation, and
operating the simulator. When it is feasible to do so, you will find that it is much less expensive to
use software that has already been written and tested, and hardware that is already available. The
AFFTC simulation laboratory provides a good selection of hardware and maintains a library of
software, including equations of motion, common elements of control systems, test related software
such as a programmed test input capability, and so on. These are helpful in getting your simulator
built, checked out, and operational as quickly and as inexpensively as possibly.
One aspect of building a simulator is crucial to success: assembling the aerodynamic model.
Unfortunately, the aerodynamic model is also likely to be the single largest challenge. In the next
section we will discuss the fundamentals of aerodynamic modeling.
20-24 Flying Qualifies Testing

Flying Quulities Flight Test Simulators
20.6 Aerodynamic Models for Flight Test Siulatocs
. -,
20.6 A e r o d y d c Models for Flight Test Simulators Two models are critically important in
flying qualities simulators: the aerodynamic model and the flight control system model. In the next
five subsections we will describe the general format of wind tunnel aerodynamic data and the three
methods that are used to model those data. The first modeling method we will discuss uses force and
moment coefficients; the second uses stability derivatives; and the third uses pseudo stability
derivatives. In section 20.7 we will briefly discuss flight control system modeling.
~
When you embark on assembling an aerodynamic model for your flight test simulator you must make
at least one important decision, and possibly a second. Your first decision is whether to use the
contractor’s aerodynamic model or to build your own. If you decide to build your own model, your
second decision is to determine the form of the model.
The contractor will build an aerodynamic model for the contractor simulator. This aerodynamic
model is entered into computer memory as a database, or set of look-up tables. These tables are built
from wind tunnel or computational fluid dynamics data. There are advantages to simply borrowing
the contractor’s model, but there are also disadvantages. Among the advantages &e the saving of
time, manpower, and money. Also, you may feel that you lack the experience needed to build a
good aerodynamic model.
Among the disadvantages of using the contractor’s aerodynamic model are these: you won’t learn
as much about the airplane aerodynamics; you will be forced to live with whatever assumptions the
contractor made (recall the YF-16 and F-111 examples in section 20.4); and your flight test simulator
may not have enough memory to store the contractor model. You will want to consult with flight
test simulator engineers before deciding whether to borrow or build an aerodynamic model.
If you decide to build your own aerodynamic model, you must determine the form in which to cast
it. (If you have chosen to use the contractor’s aerodynamic model, the form of the model has been
selected for you.) There are three forms to choose from: the coefficient form; the stability derivative
form; and the pseudo stability derivative form. It is possible to cast an entire aerodynamic model in
either one of these forms. But it is more common to mix and match the forms, as the wind tunnel
data, convenience, and computer resources dictate.
We should note, in passing, that a fourth form has been used in the past, but is only rarely used now.
This fourth form might be called the equation form. It consists of equations that have been m e -
fitted to the aerodynamics.
In the sections that follow, you will learn that each form has advantages and disadvantages. For
example, you will learn that coefficient models of aerodynamics require the least amount of work to
build, and use the processing power of computers more efficiently than either stability derivative or
pseudo stability derivative models. However, coefficient models are not well suited to aerodynamic
sensitivity testing and model validation testing, and stability derivatives cannot be easily extracted
from a coefficient model.
Flying Qualities Testing

20.6 Aerodynamic Models for Flight Test Simulators
.. . .
Stability derivative models of aerodynamics are the most attractive from a flight test viewpoint.
Stability derivative models are easily adapted to aerodynamic sensitivity testing; they are well suited
to aerodynamic model validation testing; and stability derivatives may be readily extracted for
analytical purposes. On the other hand, stability derivative models are time consuming to build, often
require more computer memory, and use the processing power of computers less efficiently.
Pseudo stability derivative models usually require less computer memory than stability derivative
models. But they are time consuming to build (though less so than stability dertvative models), use
the processing power of computers inefficiently, are not well suited to aerodynamic sensitivity testing,
and are difficult to work with during aerodynamic model validation testing. Also, it is difficult to
extract stability derivatives for analytical work.
After we have discussed them in more detail, we will summarize the advantages and disadvantages
of the three aerodynamic modeling forms in Table 20-16 in section 20.6.5.
To build a simulator aerodynamic model, force and moment coefficients, g stability derivatives, or
pseudo stability derivatives, or a combination of the three, are stored in computer memory as multi-
variable, or multidimensional look-up tables. Each time the simulator solves the equations of
motion, the appropriate coefficients or derivatives are retrieved from the look-up tables and used to
calculate the aerodynamic forces and moments.
The variables, or arguments, of an aerodynamic

look-up table usually include Mach number, angle
of attack, angle of sideslip, control surface
deflections, dynamic pressure, and other pertinent
variables peculiar to the simulated airplane (such as
thrust level in powered lift airplanes). The size of
an aerodynamicmodel is determined by the number
of look-up tables in the model, the number of
variables in each look-up table, and the number of
entries, or breakpoints, for each variable. The
number of entries is determined by the range of the
variable and the nonlinearity of the wind tunnel
data. In Figure 20-7 we illustrate a three
dimensional look-up table of C, . The variables in
I
this table are a, p , and 6,. Each value of these
Figure 243-7 A three dimensional h k - u p table of the
variables, such as p-0, 5, and 10 degrees, is
static directional stabiIity derivative.
called a breakpoint.
Of course, an actual look-up table of C,,,would likely have at least six dimensions (Mach number,
a, p , a,, am,and 3,rather than three. But we can draw a picture of only three dimensions. There
are 125 entries in the simple look-up table shown in Figure 20-7. If Mach number, 6,. and 4 also

20.6.1 Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Data
had four entries each, the six dimensional look-up table would contain 15,625 entries. As you can
.. *
see, even simple aerodynamic models are not small.
The size of the model dictates how much computer memory will be needed for the look-up tables.
A very simple aerodynamic model may easily contain 30,000 look-up table entries, displacing
120,000 bytes of memory. More complex aerodynamic models may contain millions of entries and
occupy many gigabytes of memory.
-
Although memory is inexpensive today, the memory needed for a very complex model may exceed
the memory available. When this happens, the aerodynamic model must be modified. In a few cases
it might be possible to trim the size of the simulated flight envelope. In other cases it might prove
necessary to break the aerodynamic model into smaller pieces that will fit, one piece at a time, into
the available memory. For example, a large and complex model might be divided into four smaller,
overlapping models: an approach and landing model, an up-and-away subsonic model, a transonic
model, and a supersonic model. While this approach can dramatically reduce memory requirements,
it also introduks a new set of problems. For example, it becomes difficult to conduct simulator
evaluations which cross the boundaries of these smaller models.
In the next section, we will briefly discuss wind tunnel testing and introduce the format in which wind
tunnel data are typically presented. Computational fluid dynamics data are usually presented in a
similar way. In the succeeding three subsections we will briefly discuss each of the three
aerodynamic model forms.
20.6.1 Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Data It is possible to build an aerodynamic model hy using
computational fluid dynamics techniques, but it is more common at this time to rely on wind tunnels.
To build an aerodynamic model using wind tunnels, physical, scale models of the airplane are built
and tested over a matrix of test conditions. These airplane models are often referred to as "test
articles." The matrix of test conditions, or test points, can be quite large, because it spans the range
of Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, and control surface deflections the airplane is
likely to encounter. It also includes landing gear position, speed brake position, and other pertinent
variables.
The cost of conducting wind tunnel testing, which can be breathtakingly high, is related to the size
of the test matrix. Frequently, the matrix spans subsonic, transonic, and supersonic Mach numbers,
which means that more than one wind tunnel must be used. This is because wind tunnels are
designed for testing across restricted ranges of Mach number. Testing at subsonic Mach numbers
must be conducted in subsonic wind tunnels, testing at transonic Mach numbers must be conducted
in transonic wind tunnels, and so on.
Interestingly, no two wind tunnels will produce the same test results, even when the same test
airplane model is used and the test conditions are identical. Sometimes, the test results differ
significantly.

Flying Qualities Right Test Sinurloors
We will use the pitch axis to illustrate our discussion of wind tunnel testing. In particular, we will
use pitching moment aerodynamics. We begin by repeating the pitch accelerationequation of motion,
which we presented as Equation (4-91e) in section 4.6.15 of Chapter 4.
The last term on the right hand side of Equation (20-1) is the aerodynamic component of pitch
acceleration:
The aerodynamic pitching moment is
In this equation, the aerodynamic pitching moment, M , is constructed from stability derivatives.
However, not all stability derivatives are determined from wind tunnel test data. Generally, only the
"static" stability derivatives are determined from wind tunnel measurements. Static stability
derivatives include Cm.. C,&,. C,,., Cnr, ~7,,~, and so on. We refer to them as static stability
derivatives because they are determined from wind tunnel testing conducted at static test conditions.
Wind tunnel data, while not perfect in any case, is most reliable at static test conditions.
".
Rate derivatives, such as C-, Cmi,and C in the pitch acceleration equation (and C+, c , and so
'r
on in the lateral-directional equations) are difficult to measure reliably in wind tunnels. Instead, other
methods are used to determine these derivatives.
The speed derivative Cmacan be handled in either of two ways: it can be combined with C%; or it
can be calculated. In wind tunnel testing, Cn. is commonly accounted for by combining it with C%.
Using this method, the effect of C, appears as a change in C% when Mach number changes. If
testing is conducted at too few Mach numbers, this approach can make it difficult to accurately
simulate the phugoid mode of motion, which is speed dependent.
For example, landing approach aerodynamics might be measured at a single Mach number in the
wind tunnel. When this is the case, speed dependency cannot be measured and the effect of C,
cannot be determined. As a result, the landing approach simulation will not exhibit a phugoid mode

Flying QuaUies Night Test Sirnuktors
of motion unless a calculated value of Cmais provided. Generally, a missing or inaccurate phugoid
.*
-
mode of motion is not a significant problem, because phugoid dynamics are so slow that pilots control
them subconsciously. Hence, phugoid dynamics are usually not of great interest during handling
qualities evaluations. When the phugoid mode is important, we can resort to calculated values of
Cm..
For a number of reasons (which we will not explore here), the derivatives Cmi and Cm are also
,
difficult to measure reliably in a wind tunnel. They are also difficult to separate in flight test. For
these reasons, they are usually combined into a single derivative C%+,,,which we abbreviate to C, .
In practice, C is calculated rather than measured in a wind tunnel. Methods for calculating C and
.
a
. 4
Cmi (as well as lateraldirectional angular rate derivatives) may be found in the USAF Stability and
Control DATCOM. Although the calculated value is also somewhat unreliable, it has the advantage
of being less expensive.
When we combine the effect of C,, with CI, and combine the angular rate effe'cts into a single
stability derivative C , we may rewrite the aerodynamic pitching moment equation as
-*
(20-2)
The pitching moment coefficient is

Q + C mae
-.
Cm=CI,+C a + - C
C
25 -9 6,
(20-3)
Note that two of the pitching moment derivatives (Cm. and C ) are static derivatives. These two
ma.
derivatives, together with the bias term CI,, can be determined from wind tunnel test data. The third
derivative, C, , is a rate derivative that is usually calculated. Consequently, we may separate the
*
pitching moment coefficient into two components: a static component that can be measured in a wind
tunnel; and a calculated dynamic, or rotational rate, component. The static, or wind tunnel
component is
The static, wind tunnel pitching moment is

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnulatots
.. A .
To obtain the total pitching moment M ,we must add the pitch rate tern -%",to the static, wind
2Y,
tunnel pitching moment coefficient. This gives us
Typically, the pitching moment measured during wind tunnel testing varies with Mach number,angle
of attack, angle of sideslip, elevator deflection, and perhaps other variables pertinent to the airplane
being tested (such as canard deflection, or thrust level in a powered lift airplane). The general form
of the dependency is
Mrird= f ( M m ha, We)
wml
(m-a)
=
This suggests that properly conducted wind tunnel testing must evaluate each of these variables. In
the following paragraphs we will sketch out a commonly used procedure for accomplishing this. But
first we pause to note that, in practice, static wind tunnel measurements of pitching moment are not
distinguishednotationally from dynamic sources of pitching moment (such as speed changes and pitch
rate). In the workaday world of flying qualities design and testing you are not likely to see the terms
or C- . From now on, we will observe this practice and omit the subscript mind tunnel
Msu
c\
unless a special purpose is served.
In Figure 20-8 we show a wind tunnel model

being swept incremntally through a range of
angle of attack at constant Mach number and
zero sideslip angle. The elevator, ailerons,
and rudder are locked in the trail position
(zero degrees deflection). At each angle of
attack in the test matrix the forces and
-1
moments acting on the model are measured
and recorded.
Next, one control surface is deflected (the

Figure 20-8 wind funnel model being swept through a range for and the is again
of angle of attack. swept incrementally through the angle of
attack range while the forces and moments are
measured and recorded. Following these masurements, the elevator deflection angle is changed
again and new measurements are made and recorded over the angle of attack range. This procedure
is repeated until measurements have been made and recorded over the entire range of elevator
deflection.
Fly&! Qualities Tesiing 20-31

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinurloors
When the effect of elevator deflection has been measured, the elevator is reset to the trail position - . -b
. -,.
and the effect of deflecting another control surface is measured and recorded. This procedure is
repeated until the effect of deflecting each control surface has been measured and recorded over the
entire angle of attack range.
Next, the effect of sideslip angle on the forces and moments is measured and recorded. The sequence
of tests described in the preceding paragraphs is repeated for incremental sideslip angles over the
specified range of sideslip angle. For example, at a sideslip angle of two degrees all control surfaces
are locked in the trail position and the model is swept through the angle of attack range. Then the
elevator is deflected and the model is swept through the angle of attack range again, while still at two
degrees of sideslip. This is repeated at incremental elevator deflections until the effect of the elevator
has been evaluated over its full deflection range. Next, the elevator is reset to the trail position and
the effect of another control surface is evaluated over the angle of attack range when p =2 degrees.
This procedure is repeated until the effect of each control surface has been measured and recorded
over the angle of attack range when p =2 degrees.
The tests performed at p -2 degrees are then repeated at additional sideslip angles throughout the
sideslip angle range. If the airplane is symmetrical about the X,z, plane, only positive (or negative)
sideslip angles need be evaluated. The forces and moments associated with mirror image sideslip
angles will be equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. In practice, a few mirror image test points
are evaluated to confirm the symmetry of the model or to provide insight into the reliability of the
wind tunnel measurements. If the airplane is not symmetrical, it will be necessary to measure the
effect of both positive and negative sideslip angles at every test point.
The measurements we have just described must be repeated over a range of Mach numbers, and then
they must be repeated once more with the landing gear extended (albeit over a smaller range of Mach
number and, perhaps, a smaller angle of attack range).
The number of points in a wind tunnel test matrix depends on the flight envelope of the airplane and
the number of control surfaces the airplane has. For simple, subsonic airplanes having only classical
control surfaces and modest angle of attack and sideslip ranges, as few as 5,000 wind tunnel test
points might be adequate. For more complex airplanes, several million test points or more might be
necessary. Considering the cost of building a wind tunnel model, operating a wind tunnel, and
reducing test data, it should come as no surprise that wind tunnel testing is expensive. To these costs
we must add the inevitable cost of conducting additional testing as the shape of the airplane evolves
over the course of the design program.
To reduce the cost of wind tunnel testing, the contractor and the Air Force procuring agency
sometimes agree to reduce the number of test points. One way to accomplish this is to test at larger
increments of angle of attack, angle of sideslip, or control surface deflection (for example, at 10
degree increments instead of five degree increments). Another way is to test over a smaller range
(for example, over a range of 5 5 degrees of sideslip angle, rather than f 10 degrees). But reducing

nyng Qualities nigh4 Test Sirnulatois
the number of test points entails an element of risk. Important aerodynamic characteristics & be
disguised or missed altogether.
The forces and moments that are measured and recorded during wind tunnel testing must be converted
to force and moment coefficients, a form that is better suited to engineering use. These coefficients
are tabulated and plotted versus Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, control surface
deflection, and so on. Let’s walk through the process of converting the measured forces and
moments to force and moment coefficients, and tabulating and plotting the results. We will use
pitching moment as an example, but the procedure is equally applicable to other forces or moments.
In Table 20-2 we have presented the pitching moments, M , that were measured over a small but
representative part of a wind tunnel test matrix. These measurements were made at a Mach number
of 0.6, a sideslip angle of zero degrees, and with the ailerons and rudder fixed in the trail position.
Only angle of attack and elevator deflection were varied over this part of the test matrix.
I
.
I Wind tunnel M,
foot-powuis
0
0
-96000
5
-186Ooo
a,degrees
I 10
~.
-259200
1s
._
-312000
a,, -5 -9600 -99600 -166800 -21m

degrees -10 64800 -19200 -70800 -102000
-15 1 2 m 48000 0 -14400
Thepitching mmrmfs, M ,that were measured at each test point in the wind tunnel may be converted
to nondimensional pitching m m n r coe@cienrs, C,, using the following relationship, which we
presented as Equation (4-83) in section 4.6.11 of Chapter 4:

..
Table 20-3 Wnd tunnel predictedpitching moment coeflcient C, versus (I! and 8, when Mach=O.6 and j3=0
degrees.
For example, we see in Table 20-2 that when a =5 degrees and = -10 degrees, the wind tunnel
pitching moment M is -19,200 foot-pounds. Converting to a pitching moment coefficient, we have
= -0.016
where the wing area is 300 feet2, the

mean aerodynamic chord is 10 feet,
and the dynamic pressure is 400
poundslfoot2. We have entered this
value of C, in Table 20-3, where we
have tabulated wind tunnel pitching
moment coefficient versus angle of
attack and elevator deflection. In a
similar manner, we converted each of
\ \ \
the measured pitching moments in
Table 20-2 to the corresponding
pitching moment coefficients in Table
20-3. We should pause here to
remark on something you may already
have noted. As a matter of
Figure 20-9 Surface plot of wind funnelpredicted C , versus a and 6, convenience, we have presented
when Mach=O.6 and j3=0degrees. scale pitching moments in Table 20-2
and used the full scale wing area and
mean aerodynamic chord to calculate the pitching moment coefficient, even though the wind tunnel
test article may be a 10 percent scale model. When full scale values are desired, the wind tunnel data
must be scaled up.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulator%
20.6.1 Wind Tunwl Aerodynamic Daw
In Figure 20-9 we present a surface plot of

"t the wind tunnel pitching moment coefficients
given in Table 20-3. The shape of the c,
surface is defined by the lines of constant a
and 6, projected onto it. That part of the
surface that lies above the plane of a versus
4 &e represents positive values of C,, and is
a
deg denoted by solid lines of projected a and ae.
Where the lines of constant a and ae are
\ s,. -100
dashed, the surface lies below the a plane
(negative Cm). A wind tunnel measurement
of pitching moment was conducted at every
point where the lines of constant a and
intersect.
s
The plotted curves of wind tunnel test results

that you will find useful as flying qualities
-3 J test pilots and engineers are sections of the
Figure 20-10 Curves of wind funnelpredicted C, versus 01 for surface presented in Figure 20-9. For
c o n s m values of 8, when Mach=O.6 and p=O degrees. example, in Figure 20-10 we present curves
of C, versus a for several constant values
of ae. The small circles represent wind
tunnel measurements, and the curves are
hand-faired through these measurements.
These curves show the effect that angle of
attack and elevator deflection have on
pitching moment coefficient.
A common way to present the effect of

elevator deflection is shown in Figure 20-1 1.
Each curve in this figure is also a section
(when a is held constant) of the C, surface
shown in Figure 20-9. However, the origin
of these curves has been shifted to zero by
plotting the c h g e in C, caused by
deflecting the elevator from the trail position.
We use the symbol AC, to denote this
Figure 20-11 Curves ofwind tunnel predicfed AC,versus 8,
for consfamvahes ofu. when Mach=O.6 and p=O degrees. change in C, . For example, from Table 20-
3 we see that when a =5 degrees and =O
degrees, the pitching moment coefficent, C, ,

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinurlotors
. -.
is -0.155. We also see that when 6e=-10 degrees at the same angle of attack, the pitching moment
coefficient is -0.016. As a result, we have
= -0.016 - (-0.155)
= 0.139
The general formula for calculating the change in pitching moment coefficient, AC-,caused by
elevator deflection is
where it is assumed that other test conditions (such as angle of attack, Mach number, and so on) are
constant. The “_I’ in the subscript of C indicates a variable value of 6,. With this formula and
%%*)
the values of dm in Table 20-3, we can construct the table of A C shown

~ in Table 204. When we
plot AC, from Table 20-4 versus for constant values of a,we get the curves shown in Figure 20-
11.
Table 20-4 Change in wind runnel predicted pitching mmnt coq7icient AC, caused by elevator dej&ction. versus
(I and 6, when Mach=O.6. @=O degrees.
The effects on A C of~ leading or trailing edge flap deflections, canard deflections, and so on can be
determined in the same way.
Let’s urn now to the pitching moment created by pitch rate. As we noted earlier, the effect of pitch
rate is usually not measured in a wind tunnel. Instead, it is calculated and presented as the stability
derivative C, . The calculationis usually a function of primary variables only, such as Mach number
I
-.
and angle of attack. An example curve of calculated C versus angle of attack, at a constant Mach
number of 0.6, is presented in Figure 20-12.
A look-up table of Cm, versus a may be constructed from Figure 20-12 by reading values of Cm,at
selected values of a. Such a table is presented in Table 20-5. The angles of attack selected for the

Flying Qualilies Flight Test SinuJaors '
20.6.1 Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Data'
Calculated (I,degrees
cw
Ilradians 0 3 7 11 15
Mach 0.6
number -13.0 -9.0 -6.7 -6.0 -6.9
0.
interpolated values of Ca, would lie reasonably
6 10 16 a close to the curve.
doe
When we need to determine the change in
6. pitching moment coefficient caused by pitch rate,
To find the total pitching moment coefficient C, of an airplane at any flight condition, we need only
sum the pitching moment coefficient C, for a specified angle of attack and elevator deflection (which
we can find in Figure 20-10 or Table 20-3) with the pitch rate contribution (which can be determined
using Figure 20-12 or Table 20-5). For example, suppose we wanted to determine the total pitching

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulaiors
moment coefficient when the Mach number is 0.6, a = 10 degrees, = -10 degrees, and Q=15 -. 4
degreeslsecond (0.26 radianslsecond). To do this, we would solve the equation
Mach-0.6
I.=1v
8,140.
Equation (20-7) is an aerodynamic model of pitching moment coefficient as a function of Mach

number, angle of attack, elevator deflection, and pitch rate. To illustrate the use of this model,we
will solve Equation (20-7) using Table 20-3 and Figure 20-12.
From Table 20-3 we see that the wind tunnel pitching moment coefficient, C, (which we denoted
C"-, in Equation (20-7)), is -0.059 when a = 10 degrees and = -10 degrees. From Figure 20-12
we see that C =-6.0 per radian when a=lO degrees. (Note that elevator deflection does not
"r
influence the calculated value of Cm,.) Substituting these values into Equation (20-7). we obtain
= -0.059 + - lo (-6.0)(0.26)
2 (642)
= -0.071
where the true airspeed is 642 feet/second and the mean aerodynamic chord is 10 feet. At the
specified conditions, the airplane has a nose-down pitching moment.
Although we have used pitching moment to illustrate our discussion in this section, the same
principles are equally applicable to each aerodynamic force and moment.
In Parts I1 and IlI you learned that we rely on stability derivatives for most flying qualities analysis.
Stabilityderivatives can also be used to build a simulator aerodynamic model. But force and moment
coefficients and pseudo stability derivatives can also be used to build a simulator aerodynamic model.
In fact, it is not unusual for a simulator aerodynamic model to be composed of all three of these
forms.
In the next three subsections we will show you how coefficients, stability derivatives, and pseudo
stability derivatives are determined from wind tunnel data.

20.6.2 Coefficient Aerodynamic Modeb
20.6.2 Coefficient Aerodynamic Models Coefficient models of aerodynamics are the easiest to
build from wind tunnel test data, often require less computer memory, and use the processing power
of computers efficiently. But they are not well suited to such flight test uses as aerodynamic
sensitivity testing and aerodynamic model validation testing. Moreover, when we need stability
derivatives for analytical purposes, they cannot be easily extracted from a coefficient model. Despite
these drawbacks, coefficient models are widely used.
Let's see how a coefficient model can be built, using pitching moment aerodynamics to illustrate.
The aerodynamic pitching moment coefficient, C, , is
--
Cm=C++C a + - C
E
ZV, '"r
Q + C m &e
*.
The value of C, depends on Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, elevator deflection, and
any other variables that might be pertinent to the test airplane (such as canard deflection, or thrust
level in a powered lift airplane). A coefficient model of pitching moment aerodynamics can be built
by storing these values of C, in a multi-variable look-up table. The variables of the look-up table
are Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, elevator deflection, and so on.
Each time the simulator solves the equations of motion, the appropriate value of C, is retrieved from
the look-up table and substituted into the pitch acceleration equation:
While this scheme is attractively simple, it does not use computer memory as efficiently as it might.
For this reason, the coefficient form of aerodynamic modeling is rarely used alone. In practice, it
is nearly always used in concert with the stability derivative form. When used in this combination,
coefficients are used to model the "static" aerodynamic forces and moments measured in a wind
tunnel, while stability derivatives are used to model the dynamic forces and moments produced by
rotational rates.
The static component of the total pitching moment coefficient is

C.=C,+C,.a
I +C,,,,&,
where we use C: to denote the static wind tunnel component. Now the pitching moment coefficient
is
C,=C,+C,.a + C &e+-Cm,Q
C
ma* ZV,
I C
=C,+-C Q
zv,

20.6.2 Caeffiaent Aerodynamic Models
As you can see, this model of pitching moment aerodynamics combines the coefficient and stability . ~
.-
derivative forms.
That part of the aerodynamic model that is cast in coefficient form is built by storing the static
pitching moment coefficients C: in computer memory, using a multi-variable look-up table. The
look-up variables include Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, control surface deflection,
dynamic pressure, and any other pertinent variables. (The effects of dynamic pressure are not
measured in a wind tunnel, but are calculated, based on the predicted flexibility of the airplane.) The
general form of the look-up table is
C: =f(Ma&a,B,i3,,i) (m-io)
In practice, the coefficient part of an aerodynamic model might be composed of more than one look-
up table. For example, there might be one table for landing approach and one for the remainder of
the flight envelope.
That part of the aerodynamic m d e l that is cast in stability derivative form is buat by storing the
stability derivative C in a multi-variable look-up table. The look-up variables usually include Mach
a*
number and angle of attack. The general form is
,
.
C =f( M a ha ) (20-11)
The stability derivative part of an aerodynamic model might also be divided into more than one look-
up table.
Each time the simulator solves the equations of motion, the appropriate values of C: and C are
"I
retrieved from the look-up tables and substituted into the pitch acceleration equation:
Perhaps you are wondering why it is more efficient to assign C: and C to separate look-up tables.
5
As you can see by comparing Equations (20-10) and (20-11), there are fewer look-up variables for
Cm,. As a result, separatingthe C: and C look-up tables can save a substantialamount of memory.
4
In the remainder of this section we will focus on the coefficient form of aerodynamic modeling. In
section 20.6.3 we will discuss the stability derivative form.
Let's illustrate the construction of a coefficient model, using pitching moment aerodynamics. In
Table 20-3 in section 20.6.1 we presented tabulated values of C, versus angle of attack and elevator
deflection at 0.6 Mach number and zero degrees of sideslip angle. We repeat that table here as Table
20-6. Because these pitching moment coefficients were calculated from static wind tunnel
measurements of pitching moment, we recognize that Table 20-6 is a table of C: . We see then, that

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sitnulatom
20.6.2 Cwffaent Aerodynamic Models
Tabk 20-6 Wind iunnel predicfedpifching mmenf cmficienr Cm’versus a and 6, when Mach =0.6 and (3=0
degrees.
the wind tunnel data are already cast in coefficient form. Relatively little additional work is needed
to build the multi-variable look-up tables that are loaded into the simulator computers. This is why
Coefficient models are the easiest to build from wind tunnel test data.
.
We noted at the beginning of this section that in addition to being easy to build, coefficient models
often require less computer memory and use the processing power of computers more efficiently.
To illustrate this, consider Table 20-6. This table contains 16 entries, reflecting four angle of attack
and four elevator deflection test points at a single Mach number. In the next section you will learn
that a stability derivative model of the same aerodynamics requires three tables, each containing 16
entries, or three times the memory required by the coefficient model. Moreover, when a pitching
moment coefficient is taken from Table 20-6, it is ready to be used immediately to determine the
aerodynamic pitching moment. No intermediate mathematical operations are necessary. In this
sense, coefficients are more efficient than stability derivatives, which must undergo multiplication and
addition operations before they can be used.
Each time the simulator solves the 0 equation of motion, the appropriate value of C: is retrieved
from a look-up table similar to that shown in Table 20-6. When C: is needed for values of a and
6* that are not found in the table, we use linear interpolation between the nearest table entries. For
example, we can use Table 20-6 and linear interpolation to determine that C: = -0.062 when a -7
degrees and &e = -8 degrees. When values of C: are required beyond the boundaries of the table,
extrapolation or some other scheme must be adopted. But it is important to understand that the
validity of the simulation is questionable whenever a flight condition is attained that lies beyond the
limits of the look-up table. In general, a simulator should not be used at test conditions lying outside
the b0undarie.s of the aerodynamic model.
The use of interpolation to determine coefficients between table entries suggests that it is important
to select the look-up table entry points carefully. These entry points are usually referred to as
breukpoinrs. Breakpoints are the values of angle of attack, elevator deflection, Mach number, and
so on at which values of C: are entered into the table. In Table 20-6, the breakpoints are at five

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulrrrors
20.6.2 Coeffiamt Aerodynamic Models
degree increments of a and a*. In .. - t

cm
practice, however, the breakpoints are
t I c
determined by the shape of the force and
moment curves.
4 8 12 16 20 2 4 a
a%
Consider, for example, the curve of C:
versus a shown in Figure 20-13. In this
figure, the wind tunnel teG data are
represented by small circles and the curve
is hand faired through the circles. It is
evident that the curve is linear between
zero and 12 degrees angle of attack. Hence
we might use zero and 12 degrees as angle
of attack breakpoints in the simulator look-
F i e 2@13 A curve of C,’ versus 01. up table. We have represented the look-up
table breakpoints by small squares in
Figure 20-13. The test points at 4 and 8 degrees can be safely omitted from the model because linear
interpolation may be used to determine C: between zero and 12 degrees. Beyond 12 degrees, it is
evident that a breakpoint is needed at each wind tunnel test point to make linear interpolation work
reasonably well.
Cm
Now consider another example, illustrated by the curve
of C: versus a shown in Figure 20-14. In this figure,
the wind tunnel test data are also represented by small
5 10 15 20
circles and the curve is again hand faired through the
deg circles. When the angle of attack is less than 15 degrees
it is evident that reasonably accurate linear interpolation
is possible when the look-up table breakpoints are at five
degree increments. However, at higher angles of attack
it appears that finer increments must be used. Adding
a breakpoint at a = 18 degrees (denoted in the figure by
the small square) would be helpful. But there is an
element of risk involved in selecting the additional
msurc mi4 ~~~h~~ 0fc-3 versus breakpoint at 18 degrees. Relying on the hand faired
curve introduces an extra dimension of uncertainty. If
the fairing (which is an estimate) is inaccurate, the added breakpoint might not improve the
interpolated values. Additional wind tunnel testing would help to better define this part of the curve
and reduce the risk of mismodeling the actual aerodynamics.
From these two examples we see that the first step in selecting breakpoints is to plot the available
wind tunnel data and fair curves through it. The second step is to examine the plotted data to
determine whether the curves are reasonably well behaved. When the curves are well behaved, it

Flying Qualities Flight Tesi Sirnuhtom'
20.6.2 Coefficient Aerodynamic Models'
may be sufficient to select appropriate wind tunnel data points for your model breakpoints, as we did
in Figure 20-13. If the curves are irregular in some sense, you might wish to select additional,
eyeball interpolated, breakpoints for your model, as we did in Figure 20-14. Clearly, good
engineering judgement and experience are helpful when breakpoints are selected.
As you learned in section 20.3.8, an important function of flight test simulators is aerodynamic
sensitivity testing. Coefficient aerodynamic models are not well suited to this use. One method
commonly used to perform aerodynamic sensitivity testing is to add a gain to each stability derivative
in the equations of motion. For example, the pitching moment equation may be written
C, = Cs + klC,.a +&C ae + -k,C,,Q
C
"4 ZV,
Ordinarily, each of the gains kl through k, is set to one. But during aerodynamic sensitivity testing
the gains may be varied to simulate the expected uncertainty in the stability derivatives. For
the wind tunnel prediction.

a.
.
example, & might be set to 1.2 to simulate the effect of C, being 20 percent more effective than
When a coefficient model is used, gains cannot readily be applied to each stability derivative, because
the stability derivatives are hidden within the coefficient. As a result, aerodynamic sensitivity testing
becomes difficult and time consuming. This is an important drawback of coefficient models.
Another important function of flight test simulators is aerodynamic model validation, which we will
discuss in Chapter 24. When aerodynamic models are designed for flight test simulators, provision
must be made for correcting and validating the model. Validating the model consists of making
necessary corrections to the wind tunnel predicted coefficients and demonstrating that the corrected
model matches flight test results. The corrections to coefficient models are troublesome to d&ermine,
because flight test results are presented in terms of stability derivatives. This is an important
drawback of coefficient models.
One method of correcting an aerodynamic model is to replace the inaccurate wind tunnel data with
flight test estimates of the real aerodynamics. For example, suppose we determined from flight
testing that the a = 5 degree and = -5 degree entry in Table 20-6 should be CL = -0.026 instead of
CL = -0.083. We could correct the model by simply replacing -0.083 in the table with -0.026. (As
you might expect, this method is not so simple in practice. It requires interpolation, experience, and
judgement.) This approach has the advantage of requiring no additional computer memory. But it
also suffers from drawbacks. One of these is that, once a correction is made, the wind tunnel value
is lost. This is more serious than it might seem. It is often desirable to switch back and forth
between the wind tunnel model and the flight test validated model. This is useful, for example, when
comparing predicted and actual airplane motion on the simulator. Another drawback of replacing the
wind tunnel aerodynamics with flight test validated aerodynamics is that validating an aerodynamic
model is not a one step procedure, but occurs over a period of time. Until validation testing is
Flying Qualities Testing 2043

Flying Qualities Flighf Test Sinurlotors
20.6.3 Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models
completed, there may be discontinuities between the validated and unvalidated parts of the model. . . - . I
These discontinuitiescan prove troublesome.
A more convenient method of handling flight test corrections is to add special flight test correction
terms to the wind tunnel model. We may visualize this method by modifying the coefficient model
in the following way:
where C L is the wind tunnel value of the pitching moment coefficient and-:C is the correction
II
that must be added to C L to make the aerodynamic model match the flight test results. For
d
C at a specified test condition is 0.074, and flight

example, if the predicted wind tunnel value of :
test results indicate that the true value is C: -0.051, the correction term is
.
= 0.051 - 0.M4
= -0.023
Unfortunately, this approach doubles the computer memory required for the simulator aerodynamic
model. For example, the C L look-up table must be supplemented by a like-sized CL- look-up
Y
table, and so on. This approach also requires more table look-ups and additional mathematical
operations.
In practice, the conflict between model validation requirements on the one hand and computer
memory and processing efficiency on the other is resolved by a compromise. Two aerodynamic
models are maintained: the original wind tunnel model and a flight test model. While this solution
is not entirely convenient, it does make it possible to work on aerodynamic model validation without
interfering with other uses of the simulator.
20.63 Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models In Parts I1 and III we used the stability derivative
model of aerodynamics exclusively. The stability derivative form lends itself naturally to flying
qualities discussion and analysis. At trimmed flight conditions, much can be learned from stability
derivatives that cannot be easily discerned from tables of force and moment coefficients. This is
especially true near the boundaries of the flight envelope, where the natural aerodynamic forces and
moments rival the capability of the flight control system to stabilize and control the airplane. You
will learn more about this in Chapter 31, when we discuss high angle of attack testing. In this
section you will learn how to build a stability derivative model of aerodynamics from wind tunnel
data.
20-44 Flying Quolges Testing

2Q.6.3 Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Modelg
If all things were equal, we would always use stability derivatives to model aerodynamics id flight
test simulators. Stability derivatives make physical sense in a way that force and moment coefficients
do not. When we need stability derivatives for analytical purposes, we may easily obtain them from
a stability derivative aerodynamic model. Stability derivative models are the easiest to correct and
validate, as you will learn in Chapter 24. And stability derivative models are tailor-made for
aerodynamic sensitivity testing. These are attractive features.
But stability derivative models suffer from two important drawbacks as well. First, they often require
more computer memory and use computer processing power less efficiently than coefficient models.
Second, they require a great deal of work to build, as you will see.
Using pitching moment aerodynamics as an example, let's see how a stability derivative model is
formed from wind tunnel data. When we use a stability derivative model, the pitching moment
coefficient looks like this:
6,+-CC
Cm=C*o+Cm.a+Cm
'. 2y -*
Q
. (20-12)
This is the form we grew accustomed to using in Parts II and 111. When there are additional control
surfaces, such as a canard, we must augment Equation (20-12) accordingly. For example, to account
for the effect of canard deflection we
would add C, 6,.
'0
To build a stability derivative model

we must convert wind tunnel pitching
moment coefficients into several
stability derivatives and a bias term,
C%. Let's begin by reviewing the
geometry of stability derivatives, the
bias term C%, and the pitching
a moment coefficient.
In Figure 20-15 we repeat the surface

plot of wind tunnel pitching moment
coefficient versus angle of attack and
elevator deflection that we presented
in Figure 20-9 in section 20.6.1. In
\ Figure 20-16 we have isolated the
curves of C, versus a when 6,=-5
degrees and of C, versus ae when
as10 degrees. To aid in
Figure 20-15 Surfaceplot of wind nutncl predzcted C, versus a and visualization, we have drawn these
S, when Moch=0.6 ond B=O degrees.
curves within their respective planes of

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simu&ors
C, versus ti,=-5 degrees and C,

. -,
versus a=lO degrees. The pitching

moment coefficient when a = 10 degrees
-
-
and ti,=-5 degrees lies at the
intersection of these two curves. At the
point of intersection, we may draw
tangent lines to each curve- within the
- a plane of each curve. The slopes of
these tangent lines are the stability
derivatives Cm. and C, .
I'
Given these stability derivatives and

C%, we show in Figure 20-17 how C,
is determind at a=lO degrees and
tie = -5 degrees. We begin at the C,
axis intercept, C+, which is denoted by @
pisure 20-16 Visualiuuion of wind runnel predicted C
, and C
,
in the figure. Next, we proceed from
when Mach=O.6. a=lO degrees, &=-5 degrees, and @=O degrees. a=O degrees at @ to a=10 degrees
along a line having the slope c,.,
arriving at @. Finally, we proceed from
t" tie =O degrees at @ to tie = -5 degrees along a
line having the slope C, . This moves us to
8,
8,which is the pitching moment coefficient

C, we seek. This procedure corresponds to
the equation
C, = C% + Cm.a+ C tie (20-13)
"%
Note the absence from Equation (20-13) of the

C
-C Q term, which is present in Equation
2v,
(20-12). This term is missing because there is
no pitch rate during wind tunnel testing.
Hence, the effect of pitch rate is not reflected
in wind tunnel test data. In other words, the
wind tunnel pitching moment coefficients, C, ,
Figure 20-17 Detennimkm of C, ai a=IO degrees and
&=-5 degrees. presented in Figure 20-15, are composed only
of the terms shown in Equation (20-13).

Flying QuaWes Flight Test Si&o+
20.6.3 Stabiity Derivative Aerodynamic Models
.. . -,
With this geometry in mind, let's see how C, , Cm8,,and C6 are determined from wind tunnel
pitching moment coefficients. To illustrate the process, we will use the wind tunnel data presented
in Figures 20-10, 20-11, and 20-12. These figures were presented in section 20.6.1.
The first step is to convert the C, versus a

curves in Figure 20-10 to a set of stability
derivatives, Cas. We begin our illustration
Mach = 0.6 by repeating as Figure 20-18 the curve from
p = 0'
&=-ti* Figure 20-10 that corresponds to 6,=-5
degrees. Recall that these data were obtained
from a wind tunnel testing at 0.6 Mach
d% number and zero degrees of sideslip.
Let's determine ..C when a = l O degrees.

To do this, we drmv a line tangent to the
curve of C, versus a at a = 10 degrees. The
slope of this tangent line is -0.00910 per
.a &= -.OOSlQ'dq degree, so Cm.=-0.00910 per degree. We
have entered this value of C,. in Table 20-7.
Figure 20-18 A curve of wind nurnelpredined C, versus a, The remaining entries in Table 20-7 were
when 6.=-5 degrees, Mach=0.6, and @=O degrees. determined in a similar manner.
Wind tunnel ci, degrees

~ U W .
10 15
lldegrees 0 5
-
0 -0.0160 -0.0138 -0.0106 -0.00650
4, -0.0158 -0.0134 -0.00910 -0.00540

degrees -0.0152 -0.0118 -0.00690 -0.00280
-0.0134 -0.0104 -0.00580 0.00300
Table 20-7 Wnd nurnelpredicted C, versus a and 8 , when Mach=0.6 and 8=0 degrees.
Table 20-7 is a small slice of the multi-variable look-up table for C

. that will be stored in computer
,
memory. The look-up variables for this table are Mach number, angle of attack, angle of sideslip,
control surface deflection, dynamic pressure, and so on. (The variation of Cm. with 4 is calculated,
rather than measured in a wind tunnel.) Hence, the general form of a C
different from the form of a coefficient look-up table:
.
, look-up table is no
Cm. = f ( M ~ h . a , P J , . ? )

Each time the equations of motion are solved by the simulator computers, Cmm is retrieved from a .. m
look-up table such as Table 20-7, and other stability derivatives are retrieved from similar tables.
When C, is needed for values of a and that are not found in the table, we use linear
interpolation between the nearest table entries. For example, if Cm.were needed when a = 7 degrees
and ae=-8 degrees, the simulator would enter the Cas table and use linear interpolation to obtain
Cm.= -0.0106 per degree.
The use of interpolation to determine stability derivatives between table entries suggests the
importance of selecting the table breakpoints carefully. We illustrated this in section 20.6.2.
Now let's illustrate the procedure for converting

curves of AC, versus to a table of C . As
"8.
you might imagine, this procedure is identical to
lldach = 0.8 the procedure we just used to convert curves of
p=0* C, versus a to a table of Cam. We begin by
a=OO
repeating as Figure 20-19 the curve from Figure
20-11 that corresponds to a -0 degrees. Using
this curve, we will determine C at an elevator
ma.
deflection of -10 degrees when a =O degrees.
At &,=-lo degrees we draw a line tangent to

the curve of AC, versus The slope of this
tangent line is -0.0104 per degree, so
C =-0.0104 per degree. This result is
Figure 2O-V *e of wind -lpredic@d W ,versus in Table 20-8. The other entries in
6 , when u=O degrees, Moch=O.6, and @=O degrees.
Table 20-8 were determined in a similar
manner.
Wind tunnel a,degrees

c*.
lldegrees 0 5 10 15
0 -0.0144 -0,0144 -0.0154 -0.0174
8.9 -0.0134 -0.0142 -0.0152 -0.0170

degrees
-0.0104 -0.0118 -0.0136 -0.0163
-15 -0.00800 -0.00970 -0.0107 -0.0151
Table 20-8 Wnd tunnel predicted C

, versus 01 ond 6 , when Moch=O.6 ond @=O degrees.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simdatok e
2Q.6.3 Stability Derivative Aerodynamic ModetQ'
Now that we have determined the stability derivatives C, and C,8. ,we can turn our attention'io the
bias term C,,,. To determine C., we use Equation (20-13), recalling that wind tunnel measurements
do not include the effects of rotational rates. We repeat Equation (20-13) here as Equation (20-14).
C,=C.b+C,.a+C (20-14)
"6.
To determine C.,, we need only rearrange Equation (20-14) in the following way:
C =C,-C a-C 6<

'"0 I. "
1
.
To determine C., when a-10 degrees and 6,=-10 degrees we substitute into this equation
C, = -0.059 from Table 20-3 in section 20.6.1, C,. = -0.00690 per degree from Table 20-7, and
C = -0.01% per degree from Table 20-8. The result is
%
C =C,-C
"0 =.
a - C , be
4
= -0.059 - (-0.006W)(lO)- (-0.0136)(-10)

.
= -0.126
We have entered this value of C., in Table 20-9. The remaining values in Table 20-9 were
calculated in the same way.
Wind tunnel
Table 20-9 lyind tunnelpredicied C,,,, versus a! and 6, when Moch=0.60 and 8=0 &trees.
Finally, we hlrn our attention to C",. Recall from section 20.6.1 that the effects of rotational rates,
such as pitch rate, on the aerodynamic forces and moments cannot be reliably measured in wind
tunnels. Consequently, these effects are calculated and presented as curves or tabulated values of C,
#
versus angle of attack and Mach number. In Figure 20-12 in section 20.6.2 we presented a curve
of C versus a for 0.6 Mach number, and in Table 20-5 we tabulated selected values of C,, from
this curve. We repeat Figure 20-12 and Table 20-5 here as Figure 20-20 and Table 20-10. This
completes the task of building a look-up table of C, .
*
This completes the task of building a stabilityderivative model of the pitching moment aerodynamics.

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnubtors
20.6.3 Stabfity Derivative Aerodynamic Models
. -,
0. *
6 10 16 a
aae
6.
Calculated a,degrees
Cw.
Ilradians 0 3 7 11 I5
Mach
number 0.6 -13.0 -9.0 -6.7 -6.0 -6.9
~
C,,=C%+C a + C , &#+-C
-. C
'' 2v, -*
Q
(20-15)
Because the test conditions are 0.6Mach number and p -0 degrees we may use Tables 20-7, 20-8,
20-9, and 20-10. From Table 20-7 we obtain Cm.=-0.0118 per degree; from Table 20-8 we obtain
C --0.0118 per degree; from Table 20-9 we obtain C%- -0.075; and from Table 20-10 we obtain
-*
20-50 Fiying Qualities Testing

.. - -.
the interpolated value Cm,=-7.85 per radian. When the mean aerodynamic chord, c , is 10 feet, we
use Equation (20-15) to calculate
= -0.075 +(-0.0118)(5) +(-0.0118)(-10) +- lo (-7.85)(0.26)

2 (642)
= -0.0319
Although the procedure for building a stability derivative model is straightforward, it is evident that
a great deal of work is involved. This is an important drawback of stability derivative models.
sensitivity testing. Stability derivative models are easily adapted to aerodynamic sensitivity testing
by adding a gain to each stability derivative:
C,=C,+klCm.a +&C 6,+-&Cm,Q
C
.
-6. 2v,
Ordinarily, the value of each of the gains k, through k, is set to one. However, during aerodynamic
sensitivity testing these gains may be adjusted to simulate the expected uncertainty in the wind tunnel
data. For example, & might be set to 1.2 to simulate the effect of C, being 20 percent more
4,
effective than the wind tunnel prediction. Suitabilityto aerodynamic sensitivity testing is an important
advantage of stability derivative models.
necessary corrections to the wind tunnel predicted stability derivatives and demonstrating that the
corrected model matches flight test results. Corrections to stability derivative models are the easiest
to determine, because flight test results are presented as stability derivatives. This is an important
advantage of stability derivative models.
One method of correcting the aerodynamic model is to replace the inaccurate wind tunnel data with
testing that the a =5 degree and = -5 degree entry in Table 20-8 should be C = -0.020 per degree
"1.
instead of C, = -0.0142 per degree. We could correct the model by simply replacing -0.0142 in the
8.
table with -0.0200. (As you can imagine, this method is not so simple in practice. It requires
interpolation, experience, and judgement.) This approach has the advantage of requiring no
additional computer memory. But it also suffers from drawbacks. One of these is that once a
correction is made, the wind tunnel model is gone. This is more serious than it might seem. It is
often desirable to switch back and forth between the wind tunnel model and the flight test validated
model. This is useful, for example, when comparing predicted and actual airplane motion on the

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sinuclators
simulator. Another drawback of replacing wind tunnel aerodynamics with flight test validated
. -,
aerodynamics is that validating an aerodynamic model is not a one step procedure. Until validation
testing is completed, there may be discontinuities between the validated and unvalidated parts of the
model. These discontinuities can prove troublesome.
terms to the wind tunnel model. We may visualize this method by modifying the stability derivative
model in the following way:
where C, is the correction that must be added to the wind tunnel prediction of C, , and so on,
.anb
to make the aerodynamic model match flight test results. For example, if the predicted wind tunnel
value of c-. at a specified test condition is -0.009,and flight test results indicate that the true value
is -. -0.006,'the correction term is
c =
.
= -0.006 - (-0.009)
= 0.003
Unfortunately, this approach doubles the computer memory required for the simulator aerodynamic
model. For example, the C,
%
look-up table must be supplemented by a like-sized C
-.-
Iook-Up,
table, and so on. This approach also requires more table look-ups and additional mathematical
operations.
At the outset of this section, we noted that stability derivative models often require more computer
memory and use computer processing power less efficiently than coefficient models of comparable
aerodynamics. This is evident from the following relationship:
Cm=C.lo+Cm.a+C
I 6,
"6.
where CL is the static pitching moment coefficient that is determined from wind tunnel test data. We
see that look-up tables for two stability derivatives (C-. and C ) and one bias term (C.,) are needed
to match a single pitching moment coefficient look-up table. This often means that stability derivative
models require more memory and more time to perform the look-ups. For example, Tables 20-7

Flying QuaMes Flight Test Sitnuhators
20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Modelk
(C".), 20-8 (C, ), and 20-9 (C,) each contain 16 entries, for a total of 48 entries. In section 20.6.2
a,
you learned that a coefficient model needs only 16 entries (or one third the memory) to model the
same aerodynamics. Moreover, stability derivative models make less efficient use of computer
processing power than coefficient models. After the stability derivatives have been retrieved from
memory, they must be multiplied by associated variables (for example, C, times a,) and the
8.
products summed with the bias term to form a moment coefficient. In contrast, pitching moment
coefficients are ready to use immediately after retrieval. These are important reasons why stability
derivative models are not widely used in simulators, except within the flight test community.
20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models To distinguish pseudo stability

derivatives from true stability derivatives we use a superscript . Hence, Cni is a pseudo stability
+
derivative. Pseudo stability derivatives are often used instead of true stability derivatives to reduce
.
the s h of an aerodynamic model. A pseudo stability derivative model might require about one third
less computer memory than a true stability derivatiye model.
Pseudo stability derivatives, which are not really stability derivatives at all, are sometimes called
"simulator stability derivatives" because they are used only in simulators. Pseudo stability derivatives
are of no use in flying qualities analysis and have no physical connection to airplane motion. In fact,
they can be quite misleading to the unwary. Nevertheless, pseudo stability derivatives are commonly
used to model airplane aerodynamics.
Pseudo stability derivatives can be used to model both longitudinal and lateraldirectional
aerodynamics. But in practice they are most often used to model symmetrical lateraldirectional
aerodynamics, and then only in conjunction with true stability derivatives.
Pseudo stability derivatives use the processing power of computers less efficiently than coefficient
models. Also, pseudo stability derivative models are not well suited to either aerodynamic sensitivity
testing or aerodynamic model validation. On the other hand, pseudo stability derivative models use
less memory than true stability derivative models.
To illustrate the use of pseudo stability derivatives we will use wind tunnel measurements of yawing
moment aerodynamics.
We begin by repeating the yaw acceleration equation of motion, which we presented as Equation (4-
910 in section 4.6.15 of Chapter 4.
The last term on the right hand side of Equation (20-16) is the aerodynamic component of yaw
acceleration:

20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models
. -,
In this formulation, the model of C, CBL rms of true sti ility atives. Recasting :model
of C, in terms of pseudo stability derivatives we obtain
As you can see, this model is a combination of pseudo stability derivatives and true stability
derivatives. As you can also see, the bias term C*,is missing. You will learn that this is because
C%=O when pseudo stability derivatives are used,provided that the airplane is symmetrical about the
XbZbplane.
Let's see how pseudo stability derivatives are calculated and assembled into a model of lateral-
directional aerodynamics. We will begin with wind tunnel data.
~~~
Wind tunnel N,
Table Z M 1 wind n r n d measured yawing moment N versus B and 8, when Mach=O.6, a=5 &grees, and 6.=0
degrees.
In Table 20-1 1 we present wind tunnel measurements of yawing moment N versus sideslip angle and
rudder deflection. These measurements were obtained at 0.6 Mach number, five degrees angle of
attack, and zero degrees of aileron deflection. Note that only positive sideslip angles and positive
rudder deflections were measured. When an airplane is symmetrical about the XbZbplane, positive
and negative sideslip, rudder deflection, and aileron deflection will produce lateraldirectional forces
and moments of equal magnitude, but opposite sign. Contractors take advantage of thii to reduce
the number of points in the wind tunnel test matrix.

plying Qualities nighl Test Sirnulprors
20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Model;
To keep our discussion of pseudo stability derivatives tractably simple, the wind tunnel measu-nts
presented in Table 20-11 are restricted to variations in sideslip angle and 'rudder deflection. Also,
the effects of roll and yaw rate are not included in Table 20-11. This is because wind tunnels cannot
reliably measure the effects of rotational rates. Those effects are calculated (rather than measured)
and are presented separately in the form of the true stability derivatives C", and C, .
For engineering purposes, wind tunnel test results are usually presented as nondimensional force and
moment coefficients rather than forces and moments. To convert the yawing moments in Table 20-11
to yawing moment coefficients C, we use the relationship we presented in Equation (4-83) in section
4.6.11 of Chapter 4, which we repeat here.
N =i S b C ,
whe-re C,,=yawinpmommtoocfficient *
N-yawing foor-powrdr
i=dYnamicprrssllre, poundrlfoor~
s=wingarra, feet2
b=wingm fcn
For example, we see in Table 20-11 that when p =5 degrees and 6, = 10 degrees, the yawing momentN
is -192,ooOfoot-pounds. Converting this value of yawing moment to a yawing moment coefficient,
we have
= - 1!mW
(4oo)(4oo)(40)
= -0.030
where the wing area is 400 feep, the wing span is 40 feet, and the dynamic pressure is 400
pounds/fooP. We have entered this value of C, in Table 20-12, where we present yawing moment
coefficient C, versus sideslip angle and rudder deflection (for constant 0.6 Mach number,a=S
degrees, and 6,=0 degrees). The remaining entries in Table 20-12 were calculated in a similar
manner. We should pause here to remark on somethiig you may already have noted. As a matter
of convenience, we have presented full scale yawing moments in Table 20-1 1 and used the full scale
wing area and wing span to calculate the yawing moment coefficient, even though the wind tunnel
test article may be a 10 percent scale model. When full scale values are desired, the wind tunnel data
must be scaled up.
FTying QuQliiies Testing 20-55

Flying Qwlities Flight Test Simulutors
-. ~
Wind tunnel C
Table 20-12 Wnd tunnel predicted yawing mmeni coeflcient C,, versus @ and 6, when Moch=O.6, a=S &grees,
and 8,=0 degrees.
In Figure 20-21 we present a

surface plot of the yawing
moment coefficients given in
Table 20-12. The shape of the
C,,surface is defined by the lines
of constant p and 6, projected
onto it. That part of the surface
that lies above the plane of p
versus 8, represents positive
values of C,, and is denoted by
solid lines of projected p and 6,.
Where the lines of constant p
and 6, are dashed, the surface
4
' lies below the pa, plane
(negative C,,). Wind tunnel
measurements of yawing moment
were conducted at every point
. versus B and 8,
Figure 20-21 Surface plot of wind runnel predicted C where the lines of constant p and
when Mach4.6, (r=S degrees, and 8.=0 degrees. 8, intersect.
The plotted curves of wind tunnel test results you will find useful as flying qualities test aircrew and
engineers are sections of the surface presented in Figure 20-21. For example, in Figure 20-22 we
present curves of C,,versus p for several constant values of 6,. The small circles represent the
actual wind tunnel measurements, and the curves are hand-faired through the measurements. Each
of these curves is a section of the C, surface shown in Figure 20-21 for a constant value of 8,.
These curves show the effect that sideslip angle and rudder deflection have on yawing moment
coefficient.

20.6.4 Pseudo Stabfity Derivative Aerodynamic Models
..
Figure 20-23 Curves of AC, caused by rudder deflection versus 6, at constant values of 8, when Mach=O.6. u=5
degrees, and 6.=0 degrees.
F i r e 2622 Curves of wind huvtrlpredicred C, versus Bfor constant values of 6,, when Mach=O.6. a=5
degrees. and 6,=0 degrees.

. ..
Another common way to show the effect of rudder deflection is shown in Figure 20-23. Each curve
in this figure is also a section (when p is held constant) of the C, surface shown in Figure 20-18.
However, the origin of these curves has been shifted to zero by plotting the change in C, caused by
deflecting the rudder. We use the symbol AC, to denote the change in C,. For example, from Table
20-12 we see that when p =S degrees and 6,-0 degrees, the yawing moment coefficent, C,, is 0.070.
At the same sideslip angle, the yawing moment coefficient is -0.030 when 6,=10 degrees. As a
result, we have
9 -0.030- (0.070)
= -0.100
The general formula for calculating the change in yawing moment coefficient, AC,, caused by rudder
deflection is e
.
where it is assumed that other test conditions (such as sideslip angle, Mach number, and so on) are
constant. The notation in the subscript of CTBP-7 indicates a variable value of 6,. With this
"_'I
formula, we may use the values of C,,in Table 20-12 to construct the table of AC, given in Table
20-13. When we plot AC, from Table 20-13 versus 6, for constant values of p , we get the curves
shown in Figure 20-23.
0 5 I 10 I 15
~~
0 0. 0. 0. 0.
6,. 5 -0.050 -0.060 -0.072 -0.082

degrees 10 -0.080 -0.100 -0.1% -0.144
15 -0.090 -0.120 -0.155 -0.190
The effects on AC" of aileron and other control surface deflections (such as rolling tail) can be
determined in the same way.
Let's see how the yawing moment coefficient data presented in Figures 20-22 and 20-23 and in
Tables 20-12 and 20-13 can be rearranged into a pseudo stability derivative model of yawing moment
aerodynamics.

Flying QwWes FligJti Test Simulators
20.6.4 Reado Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Model4
In Figure 20-24 we show how any -pint

on the C, surface can be defined by two
slopes. These two slopes are the pseudo
. In the
stability derivatives C,,,and C,,,
case shown, we seek the yawing
moment coefficient when B = 10 degrees
and 6,=10 degrees: We begin at the
origin of the axis system, denoted by
@, and proceed from p -0 degrees to
p =IO degrees along a line of slope
C=, arriving at @. This line lies in
the plane defined by C, and 6,=0
degrees. Next, we proceed from 6,-0
degrees at @ to 6,= 10 degrees along a
line of slope Cm+, which lies in the
a,
plane defined by C,,and p = 10 degrees.
@re 20-24 Use of pseudo stability &rivaiives to derermine C
.
This moves us to 0, which is the
yawing moment coefficient, C,. that we
seek. This graphical procedure corresponds to the equation:
c, = c:, B a
c,;,
+ (20-18)
where, as we have already noted, the slopes and Cm;, are called psardo stability derivatives.
Compare Equation (20-18) with the combination pseudo stability derivative and true stability
derivative model we presented in Equation (20-17), which we repeat here as Equation (20-19).
(20-19)
b
We see that Equation (20-18) is missing two terms. The -(C P+C,,R) term is missing because
2v, 'i
wind tunnel test data do not include the effects of rotational rates. These effects are calculated and
added separately. The C i term is missing from Equation (20-18) because the wind tunnel data
8.
we are working with were collected when 6,=0 degrees. Hence we may delete the C
' term,
n*.
because C* (O)=O. Recall that we intentionally selected test results for ae=0 degrees so that our
na.
illustration would be tractably simple. Had we included aileron deflection as a third variable (with
@ and 6,). we could not have presented C, as a three dimensional surface in Figure 20-21.

a.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Models
Note too, that there is no bias term, c%,in Equations (20-18) or (20-19). As you can see from .
Figure 20-24, this is because the C, axis intercept is at the origin of the axis system, or C,,=O. In
general, the bias term will be zero when we use pseudo stability derivatives to model lateral-
directional aerodynamics, provided the airplane is symmetrical about the XbZbplane. As a result,
a cn, look-up table is unnecessary. This is one reason why pseudo stability derivative models of
lateral-directional aerodynamics are smaller than true stability derivative models.
r
You might have noticed in Figure 20-24 that

cn, pseudo stability derivatives are not true stability
derivatives. A pseudo stability derivative is simply
.1- the slope of a l i e connecting two points, rather
than the slope of a line that is tangent to a curve.
This distinction is illustrated in Figure 20-25.
Let's illustrate the procedure for Petermining c,,:

and C":,.
*
6 10 15 B
deg Referring to Figure 20-24, we see that Cni is
~igure20-25 Determining C', from a a w e of C.
calculated within the plane defined by the C,,and B
versus B when S,=S,=O degrees. Mach=O.6. a=5
degrees. axes. In this plane, 6,=0 degrees. In Figure 20-
25 we have isolated from the C, surface shown in
Figure 20-21 the curve of C, versus p when 6,=0 degrees. This is the curve we use to calculate
C";. For example, suppose we wish to determine Cn: when p = 15 degrees. In Figure 20-25 we see
that Ci, is the slope of the line that connects C,,at p =O degrees to C, at p = 15 degrees. This means
that Ci, is
But C,=O when p =O degrees, so the calculation of Ci, at p =15 degrees reduces to
c%.lp)
is merely a convenient way to denote the value of c, when p = 15 degrees. We find this
value in the 6,=0 degrees row of Table 20-12, where. we see that C,=O.lU). Consequently, we have

Flying Qualities Flignt Test SinuJcrors
20.6.4 Pseudo Stabfity Derivative Aerodynamic Mod&
@. degrees
0 5 10 15
Wind tunnel
C,+, 0.0160 0.0140 0.0120 0.0080
lldegrees
= 0.00800 1 digree
We have entered this value of Cm, in Table 20-14, where we have tabulated C; versus p . Note from
Figure 20-25 that Ci, at p = 15 degrees is quite different from C”,at p = I5 degrees.
We can determine Ci, when fi=5 degrees in a similar manner:
---0.070
5
= 0.0140 I digree
The p = 10 degree entry in Table 20-14 was calculated in the same way. But the p =O degree entry
is an exceptional case. The value of C,,,when p =O degrees is the slope of the tangent to the curve
at p =O degrees. In this case, the slope is 0.0160 per degree.
It is interesting to note that when the curve of C, versus p is a straight line, Cn, is equal to Cn,.
When the curve is not a straight line, Ci, and Cn, are different, sometimes decidedly so. This is
evident in Figure 20-25 at p = 15 degrees, where both the signs and magnitudes of Cn; and C
, are
.
different.
We see in Table 20-14 that Ci, depends on sideslip angle only, rather than sideslip angle and rudder
deflection. Were we building a stability derivative model, C
, would depend on both sideslip angle
.
and rudder deflection. This is another reason why pseudo stability derivative models require less

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnuhators
computer memory than true stability derivative models. The only advantage of casting an
..
aerodynamic model in pseudo stabiliry deriWve form. as opposed to true stability derivative form,
is that it requires less computer memory.
Table 20-14 is a small slice of the fill, multi-variable look-up table that would be needed to model
the effects of sideslip on yawing moment aerodynamics. Other variables, or dimensions, of the table
include Mach number, angle of attack, and dynamic pressure. The general form of the look-up table
is ~
C*;=f( Mach a, B, 4)
where the effect of dynamic pressure, h, is not measured in a wind tunnel, but is calculated based
on the predicted flexibility of the airplane.
Let's turn our attention now to C i

8,
. C'5 is determined in much the same way that we determined
Cn', . Referring to Figure 20-24, we see that Cn* is determined from curves of C,versus
8,
6, when
sideslip angle is constant. For example, suppose we wish to calculate the value of C'*b when 6,- 10
degrees and p = 10 degrees. From Figure 20-24 we see that the equation for this calculation is
We see that an easy way to calculate Cib is to use Table 20-13, in which we present AC, caused by
rudder deflection. When 6,= 10 degrees and p = 10 degrees, we find in Table 20-13 that AC,= -0.124.
Ci,, then, is given by
=- -0.124
lo
= -0.0124 I
This value is entered in Table 20-15, where we present Cn;r versus sideslip angle and rudder
deflection. The remaining values in Table 20-15 are calculated in the same way, except when 6,=0
degrees. When 6,=0 degrees, C i is the slope of the tangent to the AC, versus 6, curve at 6,=0
8,
degrees. In this case, the slope is -0.0172 per degree.

Flying Qualities Flighi Test SimuIatori
20.6.4 Pseudo StaMily Derivative Aerodynamic Modelb
Wind tunnel @, degrees

c*+*
lldegrees 0 5 10 15
0 -0.0120 -0.0130 -0.0172 -0.0175

5 -0.0100 -0.0120 -0.0144 -0.0164
6,.
degrees 10 -0.0080 -0.0100 -0.0124 - -0.0144
15 -0.o060 -0.0080 -0.0103 -0.0127
In Figure 20-26 we present a graphical

""t interpretation of C;
%
. The curve of c,,versus 6,
in Figure 20-26 was taken from Figure 20-23 for
- .
the case of p = 10 degree's. Note in Figure 20-26
that, in general, c"+'r is not equal to c"b.
Table 20-15 is a small slice of the full, multi-

variable look-up table that would be needed to
model the effects of rudder deflection on yawing
moment aerodynamics. Other variables, or
dimensions, of the table include Mach number,
angle of attack, aileron deflection, and dynamic
pressure. The general form of the look-up table
Egure 20-26 Graphical comparison of is
and C
.,
c";.-f(Mocl2 a, B, a,, a'+?)

A look-up table of the pseudo stability derivative Cn'+ has as many variables as a look-up table of the
stability derivative C,
6,
. "*.and C, . Only the C": look-up table is smaller
The same is true of C'
6.
than the corresponding stability derivative table. And of course, there is no table of C
, in a pseudo
stability derivative model, because C., =O . This is why a pseudo stability derivative model of lateral-
directional aerodynamics may require about one third less memory than a true stability derivative
model.
Now let's illustrate how a combination pseudo stability derivative and true stability derivative model
of yawing momnt aerodynamics can be used to determine C,. Suppose we want to determine the
yawing moment coefficient of a simulated ailplane at the following test condition:

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simu&tom
. -.
p =5 &pees a = 5 &pees
a,= 10 degrees Mach mrmber = 0.6
R = 15 &grees/second V, = 642 feeflsecond
=.26 radiam/second a,=O &pees
P-30 degrees/secd
= 0.52 radkam/second
To determine C, we will use Equation (20-17), which we repeat here as Equation (20-20):
b
C, = Cn;p + -(C,,P + C,,,R) + C'"a. + C*
5 6, (20-20)
2K
Because the test conditions are 0.6 Mach number, a =5 degrees, and a,=o degrees we may use
Tables 20-14 and 20-15. FromTable 20-14 we obtain Ca;=0.010140 per degree, and from Table 20-15
we obtain C'
5
= -0.0100
.
per degree. From simulator look-up tables of C.,. C.,, and Ca:. (which we
have not shown) we obtain C,, = -0.3 per radian, C,=O.o4 per radian, and c* =0.00110 per degree.
"8.
When the wingspan, b , is 40 feet, we use Equation (20-20) to calculate

b
C-=C,',p +2y,(C5P+Cn,R)+C' 80+C' 6,
"8. %
= (.0140)(5) + -[(.040)(.52) + (-.30)(.26)] + (.00110)(0) + (-.0100)(10)

2(642)
= -.a18
At the specified test condition the airplane will have a nose left yawing moment.
Although the procedure for calculating pseudo stability derivatives from wind tunnel data is less time
consuming than that for determining true stability derivatives, a great deal of work is nevertheless
involved. This is a drawback of pseudo stability derivative models.
sensitivity testing. However, pseudo stability derivative models are not easily adapted to sensitivity
testing. Recall from section 20.6.3 that we adapted true stability derivative models to sensitivity
testing by applying a gain to each derivative in the force or moment coefficient equation. If we
pursue the same approach using pseudo stability derivatives we get

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnulato&
20.6.4 Pseudo Stability Derivative Aerodynamic Model$
But applying a gain to a pseudo stability derivative is not equivalent to applying the same gain-io the
corresponding true stability derivative. For example, setting kl=1.2 multiplies Ci, by 1.2, but this
is not equivalent to multiplying C*,by 1.2. Calculations must be undertaken to determine how much
to change the pseudo derivatives in order to achieve the desired change in the true derivatives. This
is inconvenient and time consuming. Hence we may conclude that pseudo stability derivatives are
not well suited to aerodynamic sensitivity testing. This is a drawback of pseudo stability derivative
models.
necessary corrections to the wind tunnel predicted pseudo stability derivatives and demonstrating that
the corrected model matches flight test results. When the aerodynamics are nonlinear the corrections
to pseudo stability derivative models can be troublesome to determine, because flight test results are
presenkd in terms of stability derivatives. This is an important drawback of pseudo stability
derivative models. However, when the aerodynamics are linear, pseud; stability derivatives are
indentical to true stability derivatives. In this case, there is no need to convert from the flight test
to the model form.
One method of correcting the aerodynamic model is to replace the inaccurate wind tunnel data with
testing that the p =5 degree and &,= 15 degree entry in Table 20-15 should be C;,= -0.010 per degree
instead of -0.0080 per degree. We could correct the model by simply replacing -0.0080 in the table
with -0.0100. (As you can imagine, this method is not so simple in practice. It requires
interpolation, experience, and judgement.) This approach has the advantage of requiring no
additional computer memory. But it also suffers from drawbacks. One of these is that once a
correction is made, the wind tunnel model is gone. This is more serious than it might seem. It is
often desirable to switch back and forth between the wind tunnel model and the flight test validated
model. This is useful, for example, when comparing predicted and actual airplane motion on the
simulator. Another drawback of replacing wind tunnel aerodynamics with flight test validated
aerodynamics is that validating an aerodynamic model is not a one step procedure. Until validation
testing is completed, there may be discontinuities between the validated and unvalidated parts of the
model. These discontinuities can prove troublesome.
terms to the wind tunnel model. We may visualize this method by modifying the model in the
following way:
Flying Q u a l ~ e sTesting 20-65

20.6.5 Siunmarg of Advantages and Disadvantages
.. -
where C: is the correction that must be added to C";, and so on, to make the aerodynamic
-e
model match flight test results. For example, if the predicted wind tunnel value of C,,, at a specified
test condition is -0.0130 per degree, and flight test results indicate that the true value is -.0110 per
degree, the correction term is
= -
c.I,. cn*bW.. Cm+b-
= -0.0110 - (-0.0130)
= 0.oOu) I degree
Unfoaunately, this approach doubles the computer memory required for the simulator aerodynamic
model. For example, the Clb, look-up table must be supplemented by a like-sized C
' look-
%-
up table, and so on. This approach also requires more table look-ups and additional mathematical
operations. ,
At the outset of this section, we noted that pseudo stability derivative models use computer processing
power less efficiently than coefficient models. This is evident from the following relationship:
where C: is the static yawing moment coefficient that is determined from wind tunnel test data. We
see that three pseudo stability derivative look-up tables are needed to match a single yawing moment
coefficient look-up table. Hence the pseudo stability derivative model often requires more time to
perform the lookups. Moreover, after the pseudo stability derivatives have been retrieved from
memory, they must be multiplied by associated variables (for example, C:
a,
times a,) and the
products summed to form a yawing moment coefficient. In contrast, in a coefficient model the
yawing moment coefficient is ready to use immediately after retrieval. These are drawbacks of a
pseudo stability derivative model.
20.6.5 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages In Table 20-16 we summarize the advantages
and disadvantages of the coefficient, stability derivative, and pseudo stability derivative forms of
aerodynamic modeling. Although the aerodynamics being modeled can have an affect, the assessment
of advantages and disadvantages offered in Table 20-16 generally reflects Flight Test Center
experience.

Flying Qualiiies Flight Test Simulators
20.7 Flight Control System Models for Flight Test Simulatok
stability Pseudo
Coefficient Stability
Derivative Derivative
Form
Form
Form
Easily related to flying qualities I + -
Easy to build
Memory requirements
Efficient use of computer processing power
Adaptabdity to aerodynamic sensitivity testing
Adaptab~tyto aerodynamic model correction and +
validation
I Ease with which stabfity derivatives may be

extracted I + I -
I + = advantage - = disadvantage 0 = neither a significant advantage nor disadvantaze 1
Tabk 20.16 Swunory o f a d v w g e s n n d disadvanrages of a e i o d y m ’ c modcl*rgfOrms.
20.7 Flight Control System Models for Flight Test Siulators We noted at the beginning of
section 20.6 that two models are critically important to flying qualities simulators: the aerodynamic
model and the flight control system model. In section 20.6 we introduced you to the large amount
of work required to build an aerodynamic model from wind tunnel data. As you might imagine, the
amount of work required to build a flight control system model depends on the size and complexity
of the control system.
Today, most simulators use digital computers to model the flight control system, even when the real
flight control system is analog. This means that the flight control system model will be cast in the
form of difference equations. We showed you how to create difference equations when we outlined
the rudiments of digital flight control system design in Chapter 15. The techniques you learned in
that chapter are directly applicable to modeling a flight control system in a simulator.
When the flight control system is digital, it might be possible to transfer some of the code used in
the airplane flight control computers to the simulator, although programming language or compiler
differences might make this difficult.
In most cases, simulator flight control system models are created from flight control system block
diagrams provided by the contractor. These block diagrams are quite similar to the block diagrams
we introduced and used in Part III. Yon will find that gain schedules, filter time constants, and other
1

Flying Quulities Flight Test Simulators
20.9 Waypint: Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulators
important details are sometimes omitted from these block diagrams. You must be sure the contractor . =
provides these data.
20.8 Configuring a Flight Test Simulator In Chapter 19 we discussed the importance of

configuring flying qualities test airplanes for testing. It is equally important to configure flight test
simulators for testing. In sections 20.3 and 20.6 we discussed the use of simulators for aerodynamic
sensitivity testing and aerodynamic model validation testing. Flight test simulators should be
configured to support these uses. They should have the following capabilities as well:
programmed test inputs

variable flight control system parameters
flight test head-up display
fault simulation and clearing
data Pump
' data analysis
Given the power of computer hardware and software, it has become common to have a full suite of
data analysis software resident on the simulator computers. This is an important advantage that
increases the amount of work that may be accomplished and reduces the time required to accomplish
it. Flight test simulators have always included a strip chart capability, but it is now possible to
perform a full range of data processing immediately following a maneuver, including stability
derivative estimation and fresuency response estimation.
As you learned in section 20.3, flight test simulators are used in many important ways during the
course of a flying qualities test program. If the simulator is not properly configured, you will not
realm its full potential. The simulation engineers you work with will help you configure your
simulator properly.
It is important that the capabilities listed above be easy to use. For example, it should be possible
to modify a programmed test input signal, or change a flight control system gain or time constant,
or select a failure state quickly and easily. During a test program, the demands on your time will
not allow you to spend a significant amount of time making each of the many changes you will want
to make. This will be especially true once flight testing begins.
20.9 Waypoint: Hying Qualities Flight Test Simulators In this chapter we briefly described the
types of simulators you are most likely to use in flying qualities flight testing. We also explored the
meaning and importance of simulator fidelity; outlined a few of the many uses for a flight test
simulator; showed why an independent simulator at the Flight Test Center is important; discussed the
rudiments of building a simulator; showed how to convert wind tunnel data into a simulator
aerodynamic model; and remarked briefly on flight control system models for a simulator.

Flying Qualities Flighi Test Simulators
20.9 Waypoink Flight Test Simulators
..
The types of simi tors we intro ce ;pannedthe gamut of those you are likely to encounter during
a flying qualities test program. These include batch simulators; piloted, ground-based simulators;
hardware-in-the-loop simulators; iron bird simulators; and piloted inflight simulators.
Simulator fidelity refers to how closely a simulator matches the airplane it is simulating. We
discussed motion fidelity and the pitfalls attendant on trying to achieve motion fidelity, particularly
in a ground-based simulator. We discussed other aspects of fidelity as well, sueh as visual fidelity;
control stick, rudder pedal, and throttle fidelity; aerodynamic and flight control system fidelity;
equations of motion fidelity; cockpit fidelity; and an elusive but important element of fidelity we
called "risk fidelity." Risk fidelity refers to our ability to make pilots flying a simulator respond to
hazards or surprises just as they would in a real airplane.
The uses of a flight test simulator include educating the engineers and pilots; handling qualities
prediction and evaluation; developing new or modified test maneuvers and analysis techniques;
designhg programmed test inputs; test planning; sensitivity testing; performing tests that are too
hazardous to conduct in flight; analyzing and correcting deficiencies; augmenting test data; conducting
limited hardware-in-the-loop testing; and, in special cases, conducting preflight dress rehearsals.
It is important that an independent flight test simulator be available at the Flight Test Center.
Unfortunately, a flight test simulator is often viewed by Air Force procuring agencies and contractors
as an unnecessary expense. In fact, however, a flight test simulator and a properly configured test
airplane are the two elements of a test program that have the greatest potential for minimizing cost
and schedule over-runs. For example, in one test program it was estimated that the cost of the flight
test simulator was repaid 120 times over.
Building a simulator is a very big job. We noted that work should begin in time to have the
simulator operational six months to a year before first flight of the airplane. We also noted that the
first task of the flying qualities engineers is to determine how the simulator will be used. These uses
will determine the level of fidelity the simulator must meet.
Two critically important models used in a flight test simulator are the aerodynamic model and the
flight control system model. Aerodynamics can be modeled using coefficients, stability derivatives,
or pseudo stability derivatives. Often, an aerodynamic model is composed of two or more of these
forms. We showed you how to transform wind tunnel test data into each of these modeling forms.
We also remarked on the advantages and disadvantages of each form.
Flying Qualities Testing 2049

Flying Qualities Flight Test Sirnuhiom
References
. -,
References
20-1. Nagy, Christopher J., "Use of Simulation in Flight Testing" (course notes), Quartic
Engineering, Inc., PO Box 2718, hcaster, California, 93539-2718.
20-70 Flying Qdities Testing

Chapter 20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flying QuaZitiesFlight Test Simulators

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulators

20.1 Types of Flying Qualities Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-2

20.2 Simulator Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-10

20.3 Uses and Benefits of a Flight Test Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-16

20.4 Justifying a Flight Test Simulator ................................ 20-20

20.5 Building a Flight Test Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-23

20.6 Aerodynamic Models for Flight Test Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-26

Flying Qualities Testing 20-i

20.9 Waypoint: Fiying Qualities Flight Test Simulators ...................... 20-68

204 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Flight Test Simulators

Flying Qualities Testing 20-1

20-2 Flying Qualities Testing

Piloted, ground-based, flying qualities simulators consist of a cockpit, a visual display, an

Flying Qualities Testing 20-3

20-4 Flying Quulities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-5

Figure 20-2 A piloted, ground-basedsimulator at the Right LJynarniisLaboratory.

20.1.3 Hardware-in-the-LoopSimulators In hardware-in-the-loop simulators, real flight control

20-6 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-7

Figure 20-3 The USAFNeridian VISTA/F-I6.

20-8 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-9

r In Figure 20-5 we present a schematic diagram

Despite its small size and somewhat innocuous

20-10 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-11

Another interesting aspect of motion fidelity is sometimes encountered in motion-based simulators.

20-12 Flying Qualities Testing

Flpng Qualities Testing 20-13

stick simulators tend to be complex and expensive.

20-14 Flying Qualities Testing

Hying Qualities Testing 20-15

20-16 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-17

20-18 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-19

20-20 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-21

20-22 Flying Qualities Testing

Flying Qualities Testing 20-23

20-24 Flying Qualifies Testing

Flying Qualities Testing

The variables, or arguments, of an aerodynamic

Flying Qualities Testing 20-27

20-28 Flying Qualities Testing

The aerodynamic pitching moment is

Flying Qualities Testing 20-29

The pitching moment coefficient is

The static, wind tunnel pitching moment is

20-30 Flying Qualities Testing

In Figure 20-8 we show a wind tunnel model

Next, one control surface is deflected (the

Fly&! Qualities Tesiing 20-31

20-32 Flying Qualities Testing

a,, -5 -9600 -99600 -166800 -21m

Flying Qualities Testing 20-33

where the wing area is 300 feet2, the

20-34 Flying Qualities Testing

In Figure 20-9 we present a surface plot of

The plotted curves of wind tunnel test results

A common way to present the effect of