Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:11:56.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimising the yaw motion cues available from a short stroke hexapod motion platform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S.J. Hodge ,
P. Perfect ,
G.D. Padfield  and
M.D. White
S.J. Hodge*
Affiliation:
Simulation Department, BAE Systems, Preston, UK
P. Perfect
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G.D. Padfield
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
M.D. White
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
*
steve.hodge@baesystems.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents findings from research conducted at the University of Liverpool aimed at optimising the motion cues available from a short-stroke hexapod motion platform. Piloted simulation experiments were conducted to gather both objective and subjective measures of pilot performance and motion fidelity for a typical helicopter low-speed yaw axis capture task. These measures included subjective ratings taken for the first time using a new motion fidelity rating scale. During the experiment four baseline configurations were presented to the pilot; – No motion, Rotational-only motion, Translational-only motion and Rotational + Translational motion, and within these baseline configurations various values of motion filter gains were examined. The key findings from the experiment show that the most acceptable motion fidelity was obtained when congruent cues were presented in both the rotational and translational axes. A possible explanation for this result is postulated to lie within the relative motion perception thresholds of the human semicircular canals. These results contrast with previous research which suggested that yaw axis motion cues were of less importance than translational motion cues.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1211 , January 2015 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Takats, J.Motion Cueing Requirements – ICAO 9625 Ed 3 and Beyond, RAeS Flight Simulation Group conference on Flight Simulation Technology: Future Potential, London, UK, 9-10 June, 2010.Google Scholar
2. Anon, Manual of Criteria for the Qualifcation of Flight Simulators, ICAO Doc 9625, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
3.Padfield, G.D. and White, M.D.Flight simulation in academia – HELIFLIGHT in its frst year of operation at the University of Liverpool, Aeronaut J, September 2003, 107, (1075), pp 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Barnes, A.G.Operating Experience of a Small Six Axis Motion System Inside a Dome with a Wide Angle Visual System, Paper AIAA 1987-2437, AIAA Simulation Technologies Conference, Monterey, California, USA, August 1987.Google Scholar
5.Alponso, B., Beard, S.D. and Schroeder, J.A.NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator – A Facility Engineered for Realism, RAeS Flight Simulation Group conference on Flight Simulation: Towards the Edge of the Envelope, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
6.White, M.D., Perfect, P., Padfield, G.D., Gubbels, A.W. and Berryman, A.Acceptance and Testing of a Rotorcraft Flight Simulator for Research and Teaching: The Importance of Unifed Metrics, 35th European Rotorcraft Forum, Hamburg, Germany, 22-25 September 2009.Google Scholar
7.Burki-Cohen, J. Literature for Flight Simulator (Motion) Requirements Research, US Department of Transportation, September 2006.Google Scholar
8.Meiry, J.L. The Vestibular System and Human Dynamic Space Orientation, NASA CR 628, 1966.Google Scholar
9.Schroeder, J.A.Evaluation of simulation motion fidelity criteria in the vertical and directional axes, J the American Helicopter Society, April 1996, 41, (2), pp 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Schroeder, J.A. and Johnson, W.W.Yaw Motion Cues in Helicopter Simulation, AGARD FVP Symposium Proceedings on Flight Simulation – Where are the Challenges?, Braunschweig, Germany, 22-25 May 1995.Google Scholar
11.Schroeder, J.A. Helicopter flight simulation motion platform requirements, NASA TP-1999-208766, 1996.Google Scholar
12.Groen, E.L., Smaili, M.H. and Hosman, R.J.A.W.Perception model analysis of fight simulator motion for a decrab maneuver, J Aircr, March-April 2007, 44, (2), pp 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Grant, P.R., Yam, B., Hosman, R. and Schroeder, J.A.Effect of simulator motion on pilot behavior and perception, J Aircr, November-December 2006, 43, (6), pp 1914–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Ellerbroek, J., Stroosma, O., Mulder, M. and van paassen, M.M.Role identifcation of yaw and sway motion in helicopter yaw control tasks, J Aircr, July-August 2008, 45, (4), pp 1275–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Hosman, R.The use of pilot models to support flight simulation: the sky is the envelope, RAeS Simulation Group Conference on Flight Simulation: Towards the Edge of the Envelope, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
16.Advani, S.K. and Hosman, R.J.A.W.Revising Civil Simulator Standards – An opportunity for Technological Pull, Paper AIAA 2006-6248, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 21-24 August, Keystone, Colorado, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Franklin, J.A.Dynamics, Control and Flying Qualities of V/STOL Aircraft, AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
18.Nahon, M. and Reid, L.D.Flight simulation motion-base drive algorithms – A designers perspective, J Guidance and Control, 1989, 13, (2), pp 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Grant, P.R. and Reid, L.D.Motion washout flter tuning: rules and requirements, J Aircr, March-April 1997, 34, (2), pp 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P. The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities, NASA TN D-5153, April 1969.Google Scholar
21.Sinacori, J.B. The Determination of Some Requirements for a Helicopter Flight Research Simulation Facility, NASA-CR-152066, September 1977.Google Scholar
22.Perfect, P., White, M.D., Padfield, G.D. and Gubbels, A.W.Rotorcraft simulation fidelity: new methods for quantifcation and assessment, Aeronaut J, March 2013, 117, (1189), pp 235–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Wentink, M., Bos, J., Groen, E. and Hosman, R.Development of the Motion Perception Toolbox, Paper AIAA 2006-6631, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 21-24 August 2006, Keystone, Colorado, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Hosman, R.J.A.W.Pilot’s Perception and Control of Aircraft Motions, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
25.Van der Steen, H.Self-Motion Perception, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1998.Google Scholar
26.Heerspink, H.M., Berkouwer, W.R., Stroosma, O., van Paasen, M.M., Mulder, M. and Mulder, J.A.Evaluation of Vestibular Thresholds for Motion Detection in the Simona Research Simulator, Paper AIAA 2005-6502, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 18-21 August 2005, San Francisco, California, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Samji, A. and Ried, L.D.The Detection of low-amplitude yawing motion transients in a flight simulator, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, March-April 1992, 22, (2), pp 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar