MCAIR NO.

84009

F/A-18 FLYING QUALITIES

DEVELOPMENT
J.M. ABERCROMBIE

Presenled a l ll1f Uni versity of

IUtnsas Af ro Coll oq 11l11m
Lawrf nce. Ka ns1u
?SMan:h, 19113

http://aviationarchives.net/F-18
%20Flying%20Qualities
%20Development.pdf

NICDONNEl...L AIRCRAFT COIMPANY

Beu. 5 16, ~m I.OU/I. Mi=Juri 63166 Ttl. 1314/2:12-0232
/
MCOONNELL OOUGL~
Flyin1 Quali t hl/flight Controls Raqu.tre1Hntl and Guidelines

The flyin& 11 uslith 11 re11uin1Hn ts and guideline& us ed for the initial

design of t he flight control ays ter1 are outlined in Flgure 6. EsHnthlly,
ght
the 1969 version of t he fly i ng qualitiu pcificsllon and th e 1955 fli
control specification , each with IAlno r 111odificationa, W<l.re used . Crl.teda
a nd
which were used but not .sufficiently spplled wars th tracking, PIO,
this
equivahnt .sy.s ta11 criteria th<! n ln existence ot develop.ient {11ore on
later) . An d we d r e w froni ou r very s ucce u ful F- 15 high angle of attack
experience for depertur a naistanca cti t ede.

U~~811111~~: :~l~~~~:~~F~~u"::~!O FOR

- ROLL PERFORMANCE REFINEMENTS
- SPECIFICOEGRA00MOOECHAR.<.CTERISTIC$
- AOOITIONALHIGHMIGlE-OFATIJ.CKAEQ1,11REMEN1S

M~~~~~!~!~~re~:~:~l~ABILI TY R!OUlll EMENTS

- AUTOMHICCAllAl!llLANDINO

TRACKI NG CRITERION
PILOT INDUCED OSCILLATION CRITERIA
EQUIVALENT SYSTEM TI ME DELAY CRITER IA
DEPARTURE RESISTANCE CRITERIA
PILOT OPINION (F LIGHT SIMULATION)

FIGURE 6. F/A18 FLYIN G QUALITIES / FL IG HT CO N TRO LS

REQUIREMEN TS AND GUIDELI N ES

Nose whee l Lif t off

Figute 1 il lusttatea the flra t prob l e111 encountued in the flight teat
p roenm which wa1 expsrienced on the first fli1ht1 poor Uokeoff rotation
time
chatac t erls t ic.s - - h l&h rotation speed and, as a ruult of a very brie f
between nose &ea r liftoff and m<1ln ge.ar liftoff {not 11uc h t1e for pilot
vaa
r aactlon} a clulractetiatic that was de .scribed &6 "axplo.slv" The cause
t wo-fold . Fi r.st, a inal n a.o:. t wdl a ft of the center of a.nvity (to satisfy
t he un nal1'tlc tip back requira11ent to be able t o apply fu ll brake.s tolling
0
dopln& d<!ck without bu11piu& the tail on tha
backwrd.s downhill on a )
deck) . Se c ondly, a horhontal tail O..t was virt\l.llly Ulled at full
ai'tp l ana no se up defle.ctlon at takeoff attitudu . This problem wu antici -
ou r
pated by u1 in the flyin& qualities buline.ss {aa a matter of fact,
prefiut-f li gh t dubtion.s wue virtually i dentlcl to actual flia.ht
a ny
experience) but i t vu dac:ided to a wait fli&ht verifica tion befot'e makiQ.&
inejorchanges .
 FIRST FLIGHT CONFIGURATION PROILEMS
HIOH NOSfWHEEL UFTOfl' SPUD
SHOl'IT TI ME BETWEE.H HWl..O MIO MGLO
A8AUPTAOU.TI0NAFTElltlFTOl'I'
CRftlCAI. PILOT ACTION llEOUIRUI

CAUSES
UNAEAUSTIC flPBACK llf.OUIRfMEHTS
MAIWGfAA TOO FAA A'1"
HORIZONTM.STABIU.TOllSTA.LUO

~
It

~1 0 -TAIL ~ ~ un

AT Hlll'l.0 AEltOOrfWAIOC atOllfHTl WEIGHT MOMfHTJI,- ll

FIGURE 7. NOSEWHEEL LIFTOFF

'Jhl ~y have been, in the flnal ana lysi s , fortunate. The problem
forced. ua to beco11e very innovative, aa Flg11re 8 illustrates. Through the
!Ulgic of a1rodyna111ic1 and digital technolOiY we were able afu,r an11e 110n t h11
of teatlng to aolve the noaewheel liftoff problana rather pah1leuly. l"irat,
we sllgh tl y increued the tt.abilato r ahe by filling in a leading edge snag
a re a which had originally baan incorporar.d fo r lprovemenu to the predicted
flutter tpeed . Then, later on, aftftr a &rut deal of 11llionry work. to
convince people that it would work, we incoTporated (first on a trial basis)
the capability of toeing the two nidders trailing edge inboard for a pre-
dicted tiieable lacreue ln ai rpla ne noae up pi tchin& moment . The uoorthodox
concept workad, and non - ballavan became bel.iavers. Still later, an addi -
tional improvement wa s ruolhed throu&h the incorporation of angle of a ttack
schedullng of the L,E. fl1p1 u oppo.ed to the p r evio1,1a fixed 30 down
posltlon for takeoff and landing. As a re1u lt of all this, we realil;ed a 2S
to JS kt l11prove111ent ( 18%) in nos e wheel liftof f speed , depending on g r oss
weight (on a t the hesvl er welghtt).

Had lt not been for the nosewheel liftoff prob l em and the par tial sol1,1-
tion by toeing in the r1,1dders, we 11lght heve been longer in tol vlng ano the T
proble ... The control lsw develop<1ent of the landing configuntion presented
a unl q1,1 challenge. The basic configuntlon wea statically unstable at
approach engle. of attack u thown in Figuu 9, The precise t.atk. of anele of
attack and 1peed control for thla unatable platfon1 was -.o r e than the control
law cone.apt and 1tablla t or de{lactlon r'lt'I could handle. The eol1.1tion was to
ached1.1le the angle of toe-in/flare of the ndden wi t h sngle of att.aclt --
pTovi4ing abo ut 7% ~ lriprovoment in sbotlc iu.rgi n 1 while retaining tha
airplan e -nose 1,1pr10111e ntatnosewheelliftoffconditions.
 INCREASE HORIZONTAL TA IL LIFT BY FILLING.IN SNAG AREA

(,,)
/4 ~,~,, "8JE
~
'

lEF
OEG
"~---,
11 I

'a ~
DEG
I
:
"'"'m.
SCHEDULE LEADING EDGE FLAP WITH ANGLE.OFATTACK

C,.
JOLf'

PROVIDE PILOT STICK STOP TO PREVENT ST ABILA TOR SATURATION

SC H EDULE RUDDER TOEINIFLARE WITH ANG LEOFATTACK

FIGURE I. NOSEWHEEL LIFTOFF IMPROVEMENTS

RUDOERS
U'11 0EfLECHO
(~R(l" fl)O)

...
DEG ~
1 OH -5 '
OlffEREIHIAL~
~~~~~~
3%
I
UNSTASLE
OEG Oi--__,___ _,

I 2 4 6 a 10 12
RUOOERSTot:Ol'11 NJA[)EG
(6,i--30"1+30)

0
PITCHl'IGMOMENT
PHCHIHGMOMNT
COf.FFICIENTCMo!lot
CCEFFIC!EMTC~ ~
0
FIGURE 9. RUDDER SCHEDULE IMPROVES LONGITUDINAL STABILITY