AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit AIAA 2006-6493

21 - 24 August 2006, Keystone, Colorado

The Use of Flight Simulation for Research and Teaching in Academia.

Mark D White* and Gareth D Padfield†

The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GH, U.K.

The use of high fidelity flight simulation facilities for research has, until relatively
recently, been limited to large Government and Industry research organizations and there
have been few opportunities to use such facilities for Engineering Education. However, with
the arrival of low-cost, high performance computing and PC based simulation technologies,
the utilization of flight simulators has become viable within an academic environment to
support both research and teaching activities in undergraduate Engineering degree
programs. This paper describes the operation and activities carried out utilizing such a
system, HELIFLIGHT, at the University of Liverpool. The simulator combines a 6 degree of
freedom motion platform, wide field of view visuals and programmable force-feel system
with the FLIGHTLAB modeling environment, to produce a high fidelity research tool
available to undergraduates. This enables the in-depth examination of flight vehicle handling
qualities and pilot-vehicle technology issues. Building on the modeling and simulation
activities carried out in industry related research activities, the facility is utilized as a
valuable interactive teaching device in undergraduate degree programs and is central to the
development of new problem-based-learning (PBL) modules. A novel approach to the
teaching of Flight Handling Qualities to undergraduates using PBL, highlights from
undergraduate project work and the Royal Academy of Engineering HEADSTART
Aerospace Focus summer school program, are drawn on to illustrate the operation of
HELIFLIGHT at Liverpool and the lessons learned during six years of operation.

Nomenclature
= roll attitude change
h = height change
e = elevator deflection
h& pk = peak height rate
Q = attitude quickness
q = pitch rate
w = downward velocity

I. Introduction

W ith advances in aircraft and simulation technology, the relatively high cost of flight simulation facilities
ensured that their development and utilization was limited mainly to large training organizations and
government research agencies. More recently, PC hardware advances in processing chips and graphics cards
has resulted in the price of computing being halved every two years over the last twenty years1. This allows the level
of processing performance and image quality required for high fidelity flight simulations to be accessible to smaller
institutions such as Academia who typically operate within a more limited financial regime. The primary role of an
Academic institution is the delivery of degree programs and this paper will primarily consider Aerospace
Engineering degree programs in the U.K. and in particular at The University of Liverpool. It may be considered that
the final product of an Aerospace Engineering degree program are capable graduates for the Aerospace Industry.
Once committed to a degree program, students should be provided with the opportunity and environment to develop
their technical and inter-personal skills as fully as possible through challenging modules and exposure to active

*
Flight Simulation Laboratory Manager, Flight Science & Technology Research Group, The University of
Liverpool
†
Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Head of Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
learning methods. A key part of this learning environment are the tools available to instill the desire for self-
improvement amongst the students. U.K. Universities have acquired a range of flight simulators to support
aerospace undergraduate teaching and research activities and this paper focuses on such a system, HELIFLIGHT,
which has been in operation in the Flight Science and Technology Research Group at the University of Liverpool for
almost six years.
This paper presents the simulation facility’s capabilities and discusses the utilization of the facility for
undergraduate teaching and research activities. The teaching aspect of HELIFLIGHT is highlighted via a new
Problem Based Learning Module (PBL) on Flight Handling Qualities and the development of a more interactive
learning environment for other undergraduate modules such as Flight Control Systems. The PBL theme will be
further examined with a description of an aerospace summer school activity, HEADSTART, aimed at providing 17
year old school students with an insight into University life prior to the formal application process.
A typical requirement for Aerospace Engineering programs is that undergraduates must complete a research
project in either the final year of a Bachelors program or during the final two years of a Masters program. The scope
of these projects can be broad and varied and it would not be feasible to propose the projects without suitable
facilities to allow a realistic chance for the undergraduates to complete them. HELIFLIGHT provides this research
environment and the results from selected undergraduate research projects are presented.
The paper concludes with the lessons learned from the operation of a flight simulation facility to support
undergraduate teaching and research activities and offers some thoughts regarding the future development of the
facility and enhancements to the learning environment.

II. The HELIFLIGHT Simulation Facility

HELIFLIGHT is a relatively low-cost, turnkey and re-

configurable flight simulator with five key components2:

1) selective fidelity, aircraft-specific, interchangeable

flight dynamics modeling software, FLIGHTLAB3
with a real time interface (PilotStation)
2) 6 degree of freedom motion platform (Maxcue),
(Figure 1)
3) four axis dynamic control loading (Loadcue)
4) a three channel collimated visual display for forward
view, plus two flat panel chin windows, providing a
wide field of view visual system (Optivision), each
channel running a visual database
5) re-configurable, software-generated head-down and
head up display using Engenuity Technologies VAPS
software v6.3.1.

Typically, a simulation session is controlled from an

adjacent control room which has a viewing window into the
simulator cockpit room. An authorized simulator operator
controls the real-time operation of the simulator from the main Figure 1. HELIFLIGHT 6-degree-of-
host PC running PilotStation in the control room and interacts freedom motion simulator
with the pilot in the cockpit using a two-way communication
system. From this viewpoint, the operator can observe both the motion of the cockpit and also the visual displays
which are duplicates of those present in the cockpit pod.

A. Modeling and Simulation Software Environment

The primary modeling package used to develop flight models for the system is Advanced Rotorcraft
Technology’s FLIGHTLAB software. FLIGHTLAB provides a range of tools to assist in the rapid generation of
highly complex, non-linear, multi-body models, reducing the effort required for computer coding that is typical of
most flight simulation activities.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 To aid the generation and analysis of
flight models, four graphical user interfaces
(GUIs) are available: GSCOPE, Control
System Graphical Editor (CSGE),
FLIGHTLAB Model Editor (FLME) and
Xanalysis. A schematic representation of the
desired model can be generated using a
component-level editor called GSCOPE.
Components are selected from a menu of
icons, which are then interconnected to
produce the desired architecture and data is
assigned to the component fields. When the
representation is complete, the user selects
the script generation option and a simulation
script in FLIGHTLAB's Scope language is
automatically generated from the schematic.
CSGE provides a development environment
allowing a user to design and build control
Figure 2. FLME Representation of a Generic Rotorcraft system schematics and then integrate the
control system with FLME. FLME is a
subsystem model editor which allows a user to develop models from higher level primitives such as rotors and
airframes (see Figure 2). Typically, a user will select and configure the subsystem of interest by inputting data
values and selecting options that determine the level of sophistication. This approach provides a selective-fidelity
modeling capability, while maximizing computational efficiency. Models are created hierarchically, with a complete
vehicle model consisting of lower level subsystem models, which in turn are collections of primitive components.
Prior to running a real-time simulation, the model generated using the above tools can be analyzed using Xanalysis.
This GUI has a number of tools allowing a user to change model parameters and examine the dynamic response,
static stability, performance and handling qualities characteristics of design alternatives. Hence the current
simulation environment provides the ability to create models from physics-based components and the assembly of
tree-like model structures, to assess trim, stability and handling qualities off-line, and conduct real-time piloted tests.
This allows a wide range of pilot-vehicle problems to be investigated and taught. A user can adopt a number of
approaches to the modeling and simulation of a desired aircraft e.g. a ‘Multi-body’ and ‘Multi-table lookup’ model.
A companion paper examines the relative merits of these approaches in more detail4. Students have access to
FLIGHLTAB modeling environment through a number of dedicated workstations.
Since its commissioning in 2000, the simulation
environment has undergone a number of hardware xPC HOST PC
(Simulink Model)
and software upgrades carried out in-house. These
upgrades have primarily been driven by the research
xPC TARGET PC Real-
needs of industry related projects which in turn have Time application
benefited the undergraduate activities. In particular,
the implementation of BAE’s run-time environment,
C++ COMMS BRIDGE
Landscape5, has allowed a user to more readily
generate moving visual models or entities, apply a
range of visual conditions at run-time (fog, cloud
etc.) and display user defined Head Up Display
(HUD) symbology and novel Head Down Display
panels. HUDs and HDDs are built using Engenuity
Controls &
Technologies’ VAPS tool suite and integrated into Sound Motion base
Landscape
Visuals
the simulation environment once the prototyping
process has been completed. The software
development work has also increased the scope of Figure 3. MATLAB-HELIFLIGHT Integration
the flight modeling activities. A new C++
communication bridge (Figure 3) allows a user to
integrate Matlab/Simulink models or other flight models e.g. X-Plane, FlightGear into the simulation environment.
In terms of undergraduate simulation activities, access to these lower cost simulation tools increases the scope for

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
introducing a modeling and simulation element into their learning and teaching environment at an earlier stage in
their studies.

B. Facility Utilization

HELIFLIGHT has been available for use in undergraduate teaching and research since 2000 and Figure 4 shows
the increase in simulator utilization for undergraduate and schools activities to year end 2005 (72 hours in 2001 to
over 300 hours in 2005). This increase in facility utilization reflects not only the development and introduction of
PBL and interactive teaching concepts into undergraduate module specifications but also the growing interest from
schools and colleges to try and broaden the outlook of students when considering their choices for higher level
studies. Approximately one third of total
1080 facility utilization is dedicated to
Commercial Visits
2%
960 System Work
7%
undergraduate and schools related
Undergaduate

840
Activities
25%
activities which are discussed in more
detail later in the paper. During its
720 UCAS/Schools operation lifetime this share of the overall
Visits 8% 2001
600 Applied Research 2002 utilization has not changed significantly
Hours

58%
2003 but the overall number of hours dedicated
480 2004
2005
to schools and undergraduate activities has
360 increased significantly. The hours shown
240 do not include the more substantial time
spent in off-line analysis and model
120
development. In the following sections a
0 number of simulator related undergraduate
Undergaduate UCAS/Schools Applied Research System Work Commercial Total
Activities Visits Visits and schools teaching and research
Figure 4. Annual facility utilization activities are detailed.

III. Undergraduate Teaching Activities

The University of Liverpool offers 10 undergraduate degree programs which have an aerospace theme, including
Aerospace Engineering, Aerospace Engineering with Pilot Studies, Avionics and Avionics with Pilot Studies. As
part of the ongoing teaching and learning developments within the Department of Engineering there is a drive to
enable students to engage in all elements of the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) cycle6. Hence a
number of undergraduate Aerospace engineering taught modules have been adapted, or new ones developed, to
include an element of either problem based learning or interactive teaching utilizing the capabilities available within
the HELIFLIGHT environment. In particular, four modules covering Introduction to Aerospace Engineering - Flight
Awareness Exercise (Year 1 of study), Flight Control Systems (Year 3 of study), Rotorcraft Flight (Year 3 of study)
and Flight Handling Qualities (Year 4 of study) have benefited from these developments. The following sections
provide an overview of each module, the manner of simulator utilization and the perceived benefits derived by the
undergraduates.

C. Flight Handling Qualities – A Problem Based Learning Module

October 2002 saw the introduction of a new Problem Based Learning (PBL) core module into the M.Eng
Aerospace undergraduate program, Flight Handling Qualities (FHQ)7. The aim of the module is to equip students
with the skills and knowledge required to tackle handling qualities (HQ) and related whole system problems that
may be experienced in Industry. The problems were examined using a combination of off-line desktop analysis
using FLIGHTLAB and piloted simulation trials using HELIFLIGHT. Access to the simulator was freely available
throughout the module and the students were encouraged to carry out their own HQ trials in preparation for the main
simulation trials flown by test pilots.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Four themes underlie PBL:

1) Explore problems using background knowledge and experience

2) Analyze problems and formulate hypotheses that might explain them
3) Design and conduct experiments or perform theoretical analysis to test hypotheses
4) Develop new understandings and formulate problem solutions.

In the Flight Handling Qualities module, the aircraft and its associated handling deficiencies become the focus
for knowledge acquisition. This method of learning helps the student to develop transferable, technical and
interpersonal skills that will serve them throughout their careers. The students are formed into 5 Teams of 3 or 4,
depending on class size, and each team presented with a task of assessing and quantifying the HQs of a particular
aircraft in a given role and developing fixes to any handling deficiencies identified. The students are provided with a
comprehensive set of notes and attend a number of semi-formal lectures to help develop the knowledge of Handling
Qualities theory and the intellectual capabilities to solve HQ problems and carry out the associated analyses,
parameter calculations and evaluations to model, simulate and improve Flight Handling Qualities. This is
supplemented with team building exercises and a number of workshops providing them with the practical and
transferable skills to enable them to use the software tools available and design their own experimental
arrangements. A “mentor” is assigned to each group to help facilitate the learning experience and regular meetings
with mentors are encouraged to assess progress and direct the group’s focus to solve any problems. The students
have various deliverables during the course of the module including a personal learning journal (every 2 weeks), an
interim report and oral presentations for results from off-line analyses and simulation trials and associated test plans
and planned improvements. A final presentation is made to a “customer” group derived from members of staff,
another student team and visiting Industrialists, with the aim of demonstrating the ability of the modified aircraft to
fulfill its role.
Test aircraft used in the module were the Bo-105 (to be upgraded for an anti-submarine warfare role ), the
FLIGHTLAB generic rotorcraft similar to the UH-60 Blackhawk (assigned a tactical transport role), Grob G-115
Tutor (required upgrading as an advanced combat trainer), the 1903 Wright Flyer (assigned role as an observation
platform) and the XV-15 (to be used for search and rescue missions). The specification of the roles assigned to each
aircraft can be changed from one year to the next. A snapshot of the work undertaken by the teams follows using the
Grob team as an example.
The Grob Tutor team was presented with the
problem of carrying out design upgrades to allow the
basic training aircraft to fulfill a new aircraft role as Adequate
an advanced combat trainer (ACT), the TutorPlus.
An increase in maximum cruise speed at sea level
from 135 kts to 200 kts was specified, with a
capability of sustaining a 3g turn and track a moving
Desired
or fixed target at 200 kts. For the expanded Upgraded Grob
operational flight envelope mission task elements Original Grob
(MTEs) were designed to evaluate the effectiveness
of the aircraft in different mission phases, the
effectiveness being measured in the form of Cooper
Harper handling qualities ratings8 using piloted
simulation and analysis using MIL STD 1797
criteria9.
Piloted simulation and offline analysis indicated
that the basic aircraft had insufficient engine power Figure 5. Improvements in Grob roll performance
and roll control power and was poorly damped in
pitch. To meet the requirements the span and chord of the ailerons were increased, a power plant upgrade was
implemented and a longitudinal state feedback control system was designed (feeding back downward velocity, w,
and pitch rate, q). The technical and economic viability of each modification was assessed. The effect of these
changes on handling qualities performance in the roll axis may be seen in Figure 5 for a roll-step Mission Task
Element (MTE). During the roll-step MTE shown, the pilot is required to fly the maneuver at different speeds,
crossing from one side of the runway to the other, flying a precise flight path through the gates. The higher the
speed, the less time available to cross the runway, hence the higher the required bank angle and turn rate. The pilot
is required to fly to the desired and adequate performance standards, as defined in Figure 5. Throughout the task the

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
pilot has to monitor the speed and height constraints, whereas the remaining performance parameters (lateral
position, bank angle and heading) are only an issue between the gates along the runway edge. Through a number of
design changes, the pilot was able to achieve the desired performance for this task and the aircraft was able to satisfy
the other requirements for its ACT role. A number of other MTEs were carried to examine the HQ in different axes
and the TutorPlus design was found to have addressed the HQ deficiencies identified in the original aircraft.
A crucial resource utilized during the module was the students having access to test pilots. The simulation trials,
designed and directed by the students, were flown by visiting former Test Pilots who were tutors at the United
Kingdom’s Empire Test Pilot School. Access to the test pilots provided unique learning opportunities for the
students especially with reviewing experimental design procedures, determining relevant mission task elements and
performance standards and aiding their understanding of the importance of flight handling qualities to operational
effectiveness and flight safety. Ensuring the test pilots were adequately briefed and debriefed within a limited time
period added to the sense of responsibility experienced by the teams and instilled a professional outlook on the
proceedings.
Other than the academic scores achieved by the students, the success of the module and the PBL approach taken
can be measured by the feedback from the students. Whilst some students find the transition from a more traditional
“chalk and talk” lecture arrangement to the PBL approach challenging at first, they do adapt and undergo a
significant amount of personal and academic development. Comments such as “I have found myself using my time
much more constructively than ever before” and “Writing a learning journal has been a completely new skill that I
have learned. I have found writing this journal very beneficial – gets me thinking more in depth about what I have
just been doing” are typical of the experiences garnered by the students. The students feel that the module provides a
focal point for them to integrate the intellectual material they have collected throughout their academic studies.

D. Interactive Teaching Activities

The previous section detailed a module that was developed specifically along a PBL theme. Given the success of
this approach, the challenge facing lecturers with existing modules is how to best update them to provide an element
of interactive teaching. Including the FHQ module, there are currently four undergraduate modules that now contain
some form of interactive teaching, utilizing the flight simulation facilities at Liverpool to reinforce the material
delivered in a traditional classroom environment.
Introduction to Aerospace Engineering is an undergraduate module taken by all Year 1 Aerospace Engineering
students. The aim of the module is to provide the students with a broad understanding of basic aerospace
engineering principles. The module includes a practical laboratory exercise in which the students are expected to
utilize the technical material delivered within a class room session and then demonstrate a practical knowledge of
the effects of a pilot’s controls on a fixed wing aircraft in flight, in this case by flying the Grob Tutor on the
simulator. Students attend the laboratory session and are briefed on the primary flight instruments which they will
use during their sorties. The students take off and climb to 2000ft where they are required to demonstrate the
primary and secondary effects of controls e.g. the primary effect of aileron is roll which generates a secondary effect
of (adverse) yaw. Whilst the majority of students have some basic insight into the theory of aircraft performance, the
concepts can be new to them and an important part of flying that an engineer should understand. The students
continue with coordinated turns with rudder whilst holding height using the Vertical Speed Indicator before they
attempt more complex maneuvers such as stalling and spinning. The sortie finishes with a few circuits maintaining
correct height and pattern. Throughout the session the students are asked to consider the underlying principles
involved and it is this combination of experiential and classroom learning that the students find beneficial in
developing their intellectual capabilities.
Aerospace students entering their third year of study take a number of compulsory core modules and choose a
number of elective options. One of the options available is the Rotorcraft Flight module, the key aim of which is to
provide students with a firm grasp and understanding of the principles of rotorcraft flight mechanics. This is attained
through lectures and laboratory exercises using the flight simulator with FLIGHTLAB’s generic rotorcraft model
(FGR), akin to the UH-60 Blackhawk. The module is designed to enable students to solve a wide range of rotorcraft
problems and through modeling and simulation allow them to investigate the roll and heave response characteristics
of the FGR. The latter involves laboratory session with a piloted assessment of different configurations by a test
pilot. It allows the students to direct the focus of the investigation with regard to the roll and heave response
characteristics of the FGR to pilot control inputs, whilst performing a roll-step and bob-up MTE. The objective of
the experiment is also to show how these relate to pilot perceived handling qualities when flying a test maneuver.
Using reference material recommended for the course11, 12 students develop the necessary theoretical foundations

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
and apply them to a practical evaluation of the test aircraft. A laboratory script is provided which suggests the open
and closed loop tests to be carried out and the performance standards and assessment criteria which should be
utilized during the sessions. In particular students are introduced to the concept of attitude quickness, Q, defined as:

p pk
Q= (1)

for the roll axis, where ppk is the peak roll rate achieved and is the attitude change which resulted and for the
heave axis:

h& pk
Q= (2)
h

where h& pk is the peak height rate achieved and h is the height change which resulted. A typical set of roll
quickness open loop results can be seen in Figure 6, along with the corresponding ADS-33 handling qualities
boundaries. From such a starting point, the students are free to investigate a range of rotorcraft design issues such as
the effect of switching the Stability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS) off, an increase in vehicle all up
weight due to operational requirements and main rotor design and assess their impact on the ability of the aircraft to
carry out its mission task. As with the FHQ module,
an important asset in the delivery of this module is
the use of an experienced test pilot. The detailed
feedback provided by the pilot generates discussion
points amongst the students. Guided by the requisite
theory available “live” from the module coordinator
during a simulator session, it is possible to introduce
and investigate a fundamental concept almost in real
time and generate sufficient simulation data to allow
a more detailed analysis of the findings to be
produced at a later date. The interactive nature of
the laboratory classes and the ability of the students
to experience the complexities of rotorcraft flight by
flying the simulation themselves instills an
appreciation and understanding of the subject matter
Figure 6. FGR Roll quickness that would not be available from a more
“traditional” approach.

Over the years, undergraduates have expressed the opinion that at times they have almost become disconnected
from the learning outcomes that a module is designed to deliver. In this instance they go through the motions of a
piece of work to gain the academic credits necessary for them to progress through their studies without necessarily
becoming fully engaged with the material. A continuous assessment in the Year 3 Flight Dynamics and Control
module provides this connection between key learning outcomes and a real world application. The aim of this
module is to give the students a good understanding of Flight Dynamics/Flight Control Systems principles and to
equip them to solve related problems. A real world problem relating to stability of a fixed wing aircraft was
formulated using the flight simulator to enable the students to apply their knowledge to the design and evaluation of
a feedback controller design. A linear model of the longitudinal dynamics of a fixed-wing aircraft using stability
derivatives was produced and used as the test vehicle in the exercise. At a specified flight condition the aircraft is
required to carry out a terrain following mission over undulating ground at a radar altitude of less than 250 ft. The
baseline aircraft exhibits poor handling qualities in its assigned role due to the poor short period dynamics. The
objective of the exercise is to design and implement a feedback flight control system to achieve Category A MIL-F-
8785C terrain following requirements13. Prior to attending the simulator evaluation, students are required, using the
two-degree of freedom short period approximate model, to determine a state-feedback control law and a
proportional feedback controller feeding back pitch rate, q and downward velocity, w to elevator deflection, e to
give Level 1 flying qualities. Typically, students at the simulator session have carried out the paper controller design

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
exercise with little appreciation for the impact their design can have on the handling qualities of an aircraft. Once
they carry out an initial piloted evaluation of the test aircraft, both open and closed loop, their attention is soon
focused on the problem in hand. The aircraft is unstable in pitch and pilot induced oscillations are a key feature of
the terrain following mission, for those students who are able to fly that far through the exercise. It is rare for
students to arrive with similar design gains for the controllers and so the evaluation of all the designs and associated
damping ratios gives them the opportunity to evaluate a range of solutions. Generally a session begins following the
approach prescribed within the exercise guidance notes but soon develops into a more open “what if?” exercise that
goes beyond the initial scope of the class; if the role of the aircraft is changed what gains would be required? This
part of the session usually develops from discussions within the student groups with little or no prompting.

IV. Undergraduate Research Activities

HELIFLIGHT is extensively utilized as a research tool in a large number of undergraduate projects for both
fixed wing and rotary wing studies. Students entering their third year of study are required to undertake either a one
year research project if following the B.Eng program or a two year project if enrolled on the M.Eng program.
Research projects are typically proposed by members of the academic or research staff but undergraduates can also
suggest their own areas of interest. Figure 7 shows the variety of the projects that have been undertaken by the
undergraduate students in recent years. Ideally, projects are developed from ongoing research within the FS&T
research group which have an industrial relevance or are generated to provide tools and support for future research
and teaching developments. Having an active research group with an established research portfolio is an important
resource for the undergraduate students who can use the researchers as a sounding board for their ideas and as
guides in their research projects.
In a typical project, students are required to research the problem, use the modeling and simulation tools
described in Section II, design and conduct experiments and present their results to an assessment panel. The project
work complements the teaching and learning activities that take place in the taught modules and supplies the
framework from which they can attach and apply the knowledge gained during their studies. Examples of
undergraduate projects include:

1. Development and analysis of a Puma FLIGHTLAB rotary wing model, allowing a HQ assessment of
the aircraft using ADS-33 metrics to be carried out. A control system was implemented which resulted
in a significant improvement of the Dutch roll and phugoid behavior of the aircraft and a general
reduction in pilot workload during MTEs.
2. The development of a Boeing 747-100 FLIGHTLAB model and validation against a NASA simulation
model. The eigenvalues and aerodynamic derivatives for various conditions were investigated and
found to be most accurate in the low speed and altitude ranges. One of the aims of the project that was
realized was the production of a baseline model that can be utilized in future undergraduate and
industrially relevant research projects.
3. Pitch/ Flight Path Handling Qualities of Tilt Rotor Aircraft in Airplane Mode – the aim of the project
was to contribute to the risk reduction studies for the flight control system of a future European civil tilt
rotor aircraft that was undertaken by FS&T, Rotorcraft Handling Interactions and Load Predictions14.
This undergraduate project focused on the pitch dynamics of a FLIGHLTAB XV-15 tilt rotor model in
airplane mode at speeds of between 160-300kts. The undergraduate study also involved the
improvement of Handling Qualities (HQs) through the design of a stability and control augmentation
system using a flight simulation model of the XV-15 tilt rotor.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Rotary Wing
• Tail rotor failures - control concepts
• Simulating Helicopter Engine Off Landings
• Helicopters in Steep Descent
• Encounters with fixed-wing aircraft vortices
• Puma helicopter development
• Fairey Rotodyne development

Fixed Wing
• Model development:
• Grob, B747
• Space Shuttle
• Bristol Boxkite
• X-29
• Jetstream
• Centaur Seaplane

Tilt-rotor
• Pitch/Flight Path Handling Qualities of Tilt Rotor Aircraft
• High Altitude Assessment of Dutch Roll Stability
• Actuator Failure Analysis with Turbulent Encounters
• Lateral Handling Qualities of the XV-15 Tilt-rotor

Display Systems & Visual Perception

• Investigation into How Peripheral Vision Affects Situation Awareness in Flight
• Visual perception in fixed wing/rotary wing approaches

Simulation Fidelity
• Adaptive Pilot Model For Simulation Fidelity
Assessment – Yaw Axis Maneuvers,
• Evaluation of Low Cost Flight Simulator
– Fixed and Rotary Wing

Figure 7. Undergraduate Aerospace Engineering Research Projects

The following section highlights an example of one the undergraduate projects that have been undertaken
recently. One of the interesting aspects of this research project is that one of the deliverables of this project was the
formulation of a new undergraduate PBL module focused on an aircraft accident investigation.

A. Diagnostic Tools for Aircraft Accident Investigations15

An engineer is often tasked with the design and development of a new system, with pre-defined operational
criteria, which is then expected to enter service and function according to those specifications. Unfortunately,
despite attempts to ensure that the probability of a failure within the system is acceptably small, systems do fail and
“accidents do happen”. When accidents happen, they provide insightful learning opportunities for engineers. The

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
original design ethos can be examined and the mitigating factors that led to the failure determined. This newly
acquired knowledge can then be incorporated into the design of safer systems in the future.
Such a learning opportunity can be provided in the form of the investigation of an aircraft accident. Typically the
cause of an accident can be attributed to one of or combinations of three categories; human factors, atmospheric
conditions and mechanical/electrical/design failures. An investigator must examine the evidence in a systematic
manner, utilizing tools developed using engineering principles to work backwards from the catastrophic event to
determine the root cause(s) of the accident. The main objective of this research project was to develop a suite of
diagnostic tools that could be used to support a new 2nd year undergraduate aerospace engineering PBL module that
allows a simulated aircraft accident investigation to be carried out.
In order to produce an effective scenario, the project student was required to draw on a range of academic
disciplines in order to “engineer” an exercise in which undergraduates could fully engage with the PBL process.
Central to the learning outcomes of the new module is the method in which the underlying principles can be
delivered to the students. The input from an undergraduate student regarding the design of the knowledge delivery
process is key to ensuring students are presented with a constructive learning environment. The PBL scenario is set
with students being presented with black box data and they are expected to determine the cause of the accident using
a combination of piloted simulation trials and desktop analysis and simulation tools.
The project required the development and analysis of an existing FLIGHLTAB model of a Generic Large
Transport Aircraft GLTA (similar to a Boeing 707). A simulation was developed to replicate an accident in the
approach to landing phase of a flight, involving a rudder malfunction as experienced in United Airlines Flight 585
and USAir Flight 42716, 17. For the PBL exercise, the test aircraft would be rolling out of a left bank in order to set up
the aircraft for landing. A cross wind was introduced whilst the aircraft was heading towards the runway. This
would require the pilot to use pedal inputs to maintain steady heading. At this point a rudder actuator malfunction
would be initiated, resulting in a rudder hard-over. This would require additional pilot lateral stick activity but the
model is engineered such that there is insufficient roll power to overcome the rudder which results in loss of control
of the aircraft.
The GLTA model was modified to demonstrate the characteristics of a Boeing 737 aircraft via a re-design of the
control system and adjustment of the aerodynamic properties of control surfaces. A failure point was introduced into
the control system to affect a rudder hard over at a predefined point and realistic gust models developed to produce
an initial flight path disturbance.
To carry out the accident investigation students would be given 62 recorded flight parameters excluding the
control surface deflections as this information would readily indicate the rudder problem. The students would be
provided with a simple logic tree (Figure 8) and using desktop simulations would be able to explore the various
branches of the tree using packaged tools for inverse simulation, system identification, trim and stability analysis to
determine the likely cause of the accident.
Throughout this project, and subsequent projects to follow, the research requires the integration of a number of
disciplines and a systems approach to developing the PBL exercise. The production of this PBL exercise is a PBL
exercise in itself and one in which the student’s academic knowledge and general transferable skills are given the
opportunity to develop significantly. The research project to develop the PBL exercise has completed its first year
and has seen the development of an accident scenario and a desktop simulation environment that enables students to
re-create the pilot inputs from data available from a virtual black box. Diagnostic tools have been proposed to allow
students to investigate the accident and provide them with an interactive environment to successfully accomplish the
task of identifying the cause of the accident. It is anticipated that as the project completes it second year a new
undergraduate PBL module will be available for introduction into the aerospace engineering degree program.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Evaluate original atmospheric conditions. Did the
aircraft encounter any atmospheric changes?

YES NO

Re-simulate pilot inputs offline whilst including Re-simulate pilot inputs offline. Is
atmospheric changes. Is data similar to black box? data similar to black box?

YES NO YES NO

Human Factors Human Factors Human Factors Human Factors

and/or Atmospheric and/or Atmospheric and/or Mechanical
Conditions Conditions and/or Failure
Mechanical Failure

Did aircraft encounter Did aircraft encounter

any adverse conditions any adverse conditions
which would have which would have
caused an accident? caused an accident?

Human Factors Human Factors

YES and/or Atmospheric YES and/or Atmospheric
Conditions Conditions and/or
Mechanical Failure

NO NO
Human Factors Human Factors and/or
Mechanical Failure

Figure 8. Accident Logic Tree

V. Engineering Education and School Activities

A growing area of Engineering Education that the simulation facility has been utilized for has been the hosting
of Secondary Schools and Higher Education college visits for students aged 11-18. The purpose of the visits is to
expose the students to the challenges still to be faced by the Aerospace Industry and the career opportunities that are
available to them. One important role the visits play is to dispel the illusion that the majority of students have, if they
have not taken a design and technology course, is that the main job of an engineer is to fix something, be it a car in
the case of a Mechanical Engineer or an aircraft in the case of an Aeronautical Engineer. Aerospace taster sessions,
primarily utilizing the simulation facilities, allow the students to experience first hand what they may experience as
an engineer. The HEADSTART program discussed in the next section details a significant commitment to this
process.

A. HEADSTART Summer School

HEADSTART is an activity of the Engineering Development Trust and forms part of the Royal Academy of
Engineering’s Best Program that aims to provide high quality Year 12 (Scottish Year 5) students normally aged 17,
who are interested in science and engineering, an opportunity to spend up to a week at University, exploring
appropriate degree courses prior to making their applications to the Universities of their choice. Applications for
entry to a Higher education establishment are processed via a central organization, the Universities and Colleges
Administration Service (UCAS). The courses are designed to demonstrate what science and engineering is about,
provide opportunities to meet university lecturers, recent graduates and engineering organizations and to show that
engineering is a worthwhile and dynamic career. Courses are either offered to demonstrate a wide range of
engineering disciplines or can be a Focus program, targeted at a particular branch of engineering e.g. Automotive,
Civil.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Since July 2003, students have been attending the Aerospace Focus program at Liverpool, which has had a
theme celebrating the Wright brothers’ achievements in pioneering Aerospace engineering. HEADSTART at
Liverpool is a four day residential course operated within the FS&T research group. A simulation of the Wright
brothers 1903 Flyer had already been developed in the Flight Science and Technology Research Group10 and was
used as the baseline model for testing and development. The requirement for the program was for the students to
evaluate the baseline 1903 Flyer model and, where necessary, carry out upgrades to produce a vehicle which could
be used as a basic observation platform, flying circular flight paths over the ground in winds up to 10kts. In essence,
the students are posed with the same problem as that given to the 4th year M.Eng FHQ students.
In order to accomplish this, the students were required to carry out a number of research activities to produce an
aircraft with improved performance that was evaluated using the HELIFLIGHT simulator. In the latest version of
the activity a group of 40 students operate in teams of six or seven and worked to tight deadlines in order to produce
a solution prior to presentations on the final day. The students are supported in this process by a team mentor, all of
whom have either taken the FHQ module as an undergraduate or act as a group mentor for the FHQ module. The
program took the form of a number of lectures, laboratory sessions and simulation experiments:

1. Lectures on the Wright brothers achievements in the period up to 1905, aircraft performance and
stability and control
2. Planning of flight tests – students split into their teams and using the information packages provided
were required to scope out a set of flight simulation tests that would highlight the handling quality
deficiencies of the aircraft. Each group was required to design a flight test program and test pilot brief
detailing the performance standards to be used.
3. Control laboratory – although the Wright Brothers did not have access to modern control hardware, the
demonstration of the principles of flight control design for an inherently unstable aircraft was examined
using desktop simulations
4. Wind tunnel tests – each group carried out lift/drag measurements on a Wright aerofoil section and
compared the results against wing sections fabricated by the students themselves.
5. Modeling and simulation tutorial – dedicated session to help inform the effect on the simulations of the
design configurations under consideration.

Throughout the program the students had access to a test pilot, whose flight experience was invaluable to give
the initial piloted assessment to the complete student body as well as detailed group assessments based on the test
programs developed by individual groups. Significant support from members of the academic and research staff was
required during the program, especially with the implementation of model changes using FLIGHTLAB. An
evaluation of the modified aircraft was carried out with the test pilot on the afternoon of the third day. Students were
then required to present their results, acting as a potential supplier to a customer group consisting of the other teams
and members of the academic and research staff. This requirement to act as both customer and supplier during the
final presentation session provided the students with contrasting perspectives regarding the performance of their
own designs and those produced by other teams and also introduced a significant element of competition into the
course.

Moved back 3ft

Rudder
Moved forward 6ft

Main
wheels
Canard

70 bhp Tail
engine wheel Bigger by 25% Added tail plane

Figure 9. Proposed design solutions for the 2006 Flyer

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Although the students had not yet embarked
Straight and level flight on an aerospace undergraduate program, they
10
were very adept at utilizing the resources
8
Landing (Power on) Roll step available to correctly identify the major
6
handling deficiencies of the 1903 Flyer, namely
4
2
sideslip issues due to limited lateral directional
Stall 0 1903 Flyer
Climb control, lateral and longitudinal instability,
2006 Flyer asymmetric turning characteristics and adverse
yaw problems. Figure 9 shows two examples of
configurations tested during HEADSTART
Right turn <10° Descend 2006. Whilst the main objective of the program
is to demonstrate to the students the challenges
Left turn < 10° faced by engineers and that the final goal for
Figure 10. HQ ratings improvements for 2006 Flyer the exercise was to produce a “better” aircraft,
one of the most valuable learning experiences the students received was when the designs failed. The aircraft on the
left hand side of Figure 9 represents a successful design, illustrated in Figure 10 by the improvements in HQ ratings
observed in the modern solution, the design on the right hand side of Figure 9 can only be categorized as a failure as
the modifications carried out only exacerbated the deficiencies inherent in the original 1903 design and produced a
significant degradation in HQ ratings. However the group gained a valuable learning experience from this result and
in conjunction with the test pilot were able to gain a greater insight into the HQ deficiencies of the original aircraft
and a more detailed understanding of the consequences of their design changes on the performance of the aircraft.
This stood them in good stead during their role as customer during the final presentations as they could ask more
discerning questions relating to the modifications of other group’s aircraft.

VI. Conclusion
The use of flight simulation at the University of Liverpool is becoming more widespread as an undergraduate
teaching and research tool. The PBL approach to learning is a positive step forward in producing capable graduates
with the skills that are required by the aerospace industry and who can easily integrate into that environment. The
simulation facilities at Liverpool provide the opportunity for students to engage with aerospace problems using a
holistic systems approach in an area of study that is highly multi-disciplinary in nature. Interactive teaching and PBL
modules have been developed to provide undergraduates with a hands on experience drawing on intellectual
material accrued during their academic studies. Flight simulation and modeling provides academia with an
affordable method of delivering a design, test, build module with students taking responsibility for their own
learning and knowledge development. It is anticipated that additional teaching modules will be developed having a
flight simulation and PBL component and that there will be a closer integration of modules to ensure that students
can benefit from the cross fertilization of learning outcomes.
Existing collaborations between academia and the Aerospace industry are important and a closer partnership
between the two groups will be desirable to both parties. Cheaper and faster simulation hardware will mean that the
simulation technology gap that exists between industry and academia will continue to close and it will become more
economical to use academia for research with their large resource pool and expertise. In return, academia will gain
access to information and tools that will strengthen their simulation capabilities.
Academia is faced with a number of challenges and opportunities in the field of flight simulation and it is hoped
that this will inspire more students to consider a career in aerospace engineering.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and enthusiasm of the undergraduate students who have
ventured through the Aerospace degree programs at the University of Liverpool and whose work is presented in this
paper. In addition, authors would also like to acknowledge the commitment of numerous technical, clerical, research
staff and test pilots who are involved in day-to-day operation of HELIFLIGHT and whose professionalism is greatly
appreciated. Sunith de Fonseka is specifically acknowledged for his research project reported in this paper.

References

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 1
Sage, A. P. Information Technology and Civil Engineering in the 21st Century, ASCE Talk, September 2002.
2
Padfield, G. D. and White, M. D., Flight Simulation in Academia – HELIFLIGHT in its First Year of Operation, The
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 107, No. 1075, pp 529-538, September 2003.
3
DuVal, R. W. A real-time multi-body dynamics architecture for rotorcraft simulation, The challenge of realistic rotorcraft
simulation, RAeS Conference, November 2001, London.
4
Lawrence, B and Padfield, G. D. Flexible Uses of Simulation Tools in an Academic Environment, To be presented at AIAA
Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, 21 - 24 Aug 2006, Keystone, Colorado
5
Bickerstaffe, I. H. Portrait of Landscape: a visualisation solution for military aircraft development, presented at 1998 IMAGE
Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2-7 August 1998.
6
http://www.cdio.org
7
Padfield, G. D., FLIGHT HANDLING QUALITIES A Problem-Based-Learning Module for Final Year Aerospace Engineering
Students, The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 110, No. 1104, pp 73-84., February 2006.
8
Cooper, G. E. and Harper, P. J. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities, NASA TN-D-5153, 1969.
9
Anon. MIL-HDBK-1797, Flying qualities of piloted aircraft, U.S. Department of Defense, 1997.
10
Lawrence, B. and Padfield, G.D, Flight Testing Simulations of the Wright 1902 Glider and 1903 Flyer, 34th Annual Society of
Flight Test Engineers Symposium, Portsmouth, Virginia, U. S. September 15-19, 2003.
11
Padfield, G. D., Helicopter Flight Dynamics, Blackwell Science, 1996.
12
anon., Aeronautical Design Standard-33E-PRF, Performance Specification, Handling Qualities Requirements for Military
Rotorcraft, US Army AMCOM, Redstone, Alabama, March 21, 2000.
13
anon., Military Specification – Flying qualities of piloted airplanes, MIL-F-8785C, US Department of Defense, 1980.
14
Padfield, G.D. and Meyer, M., Progress in the Development of Handling Qualities Criteria for a Civil Tilt Rotor, 29th European
Rotorcraft Forum, Friedrichshafen, Germany, Sept 2003
15
De Fonseka, S. D., B.Eng Dissertation, Diagnostic Tools for aircraft Accident Investigations, University of Liverpool,
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, L69 3GH, U.K. 2006
16
anon., Aircraft Investigation Report: USAir Flight 427, Boeing 737-300, N513AU – Uncontrolled Descent and Collision with
terrain, Near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, September 8, 1994, National Transportation Safety Board.
17
anon., Aircraft Investigation Report: American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053 – In Flight Separation
of Vertical Stabilizer, Belle Harbour, New York, November 12, 2001, National transportation Safety Board, 2002.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics