曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
CFIT maneuvers that were to be flown in the airplane the following day.
Several CFIT avoidance maneuvers were flown in the simulator cab. There are no hard limits
on angle of attack, load factor, pitch rate, and pitch angle in the B777. The evaluation pilots
were able to use both the visual display of terrain, and the EGPWS system to set up the
maneuvers, and to execute the avoidance maneuvers. Four entries were flown:
1. clean, 300 kts, idle, 1500 fpm descent, smooth pull up
2. clean, 300 kts, idle, 1500 fpm descent, aggressive pull up
3. Vref+5, flaps 30, 1500 fpm descent, smooth pull up
4. Vref+5, flaps 30, 1500 fpm descent, aggressive pull up
The maneuvers were flown toward the simulation terrain, and recovery initiated when the
ÒPull-up, Pull-upÓ aural warning was heard. The smooth pull up was flown several times to
evaluated what the actual rate was, comparing pitch rate to the g that was produced
Revision 14.0 13
AIRCRAFT TEST CARD
Capt Rogers
1. Taxi
2. Takeoff
3. Normal climb
4. CFIT maneuver evaluation:
With the protections fully demonstrated, an investigation into the performance and pilot
techniques necessary to get optimum performance during a CFIT avoidance maneuver was
begun. A total of seven maneuvers were flown, with the parameters as follows:
1. clean, 300 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 1.5 deg/sec pull, 1.4g
2. clean, 300 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 3.5 deg/sec pull, 1.8g
3. clean, 300 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 4.9 deg/sec pull, 2.2g
4. clean, 300 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 6.0 deg/sec pull, 2.25g
5. flaps 30, 149 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 4.8 deg/sec pull, 1.6g
6. flaps 30, 149 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 4.0 deg/sec pull, 1.6g
7. flaps 30, 149 kts, 1500 fpm descent result: 7.6 deg/sec pull, 1.7g
FO Stowe
5. Dynamics eval, 15,000Õ/250 kts, in Normal and Direct
6. Stalls (clean, PA)
7. Manual override of the autopilot from a trimmed PA configuration
FO Lutz
8. Clean stall
9. Turning stall (flaps 5, 30 degrees bank)
10. Evaluate trim characteristics (effectiveness, precision to hold speed)
11. Dynamics (s.p., phugoid, roll mode time constant, dutch roll), max L/D
12. Descent for landing at Moses Lake
13. Direct law landing, flaps 20
14. Normal landing from a 1200 ft offset, sidestep at 500 ft
15. V1 cut on the go, clean up on downwind
FO Stowe
16. Normal landing, capture 6 degrees after TD
17. Normal landing from 1200 ft offset, flaps 20
Capt Rogers
18. Normal landing from 1200 ft offset, V1 cut on the go
Revision 14.0 14
19. SE pattern, landing
Capt Kohler
20. Normal full-stop landing, delay TD to Vref-5, full thrust reverse on upwind engine
21. Taxi evaluation on narrow taxiways
22. Normal takeoff, V1 cut on the go, SE pattern and landing
23. Climb to FL 350, accel to .86 mach, evaluate noise
24. Slow to 250 kts at altitude
25. Descent to 11,000 ft in Direct Law
Capt Rogers
26. Flight on RAT only for hydraulic power
27. Normal landing at Boeing Field
Revision 14.0 15
FLIGHT TEST DATA
B777-300 Flaps 30o Gear Down Vc=150 KIAS
9.8
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Time (sec)
Altitude (kft) )
Pitch rates: 7.6o/sec 4o/sec
Source: Boeing Flight Test Data
to
ho= entry altitude
Dt = 4.8
Dt = 5.7
ho +50’
ho -50’
ho -67’
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (sec)
Altitude (kft)
B777-300 Gear & Flaps Up - 300 KIAS
ho= entry altitude
ho- 60’
ho- 80’
ho+ 180’
to Dt = 3.1 D t = 4.7
Source: Boeing Flight Test Data
Pitch rates: 6o/sec 3.5o/sec
Revision 14.0 16
Data
Plots
Manevuer Q
(°/Sec)
Nz (G) Vc (Kts) D T
(Sec)
Alt Loss
(Ft)
D Zp
Vs (Ft)
15 30F/DN 4.0 1.6 150 5.7 50 -
16 30F/DNâ 7.6 1.7 150 4.8 67 50 (15)
11 CLEAN 3.5 1.8 300 4.7 80 -
13 CLEANâ 6.0 2.25 300 3.1 60 140 (11)
777-300 AIRCRAFT
For the B777-300 in the landing configuration, the aircraft with the rapid rotation rate
initially performed worse. This was in contrast to the simulator data that showed improved
performance. A rapid rotation led to a greater altitude loss during the maneuver, 67 feet
versus 50 feet. The exposure time below the entry altitude was still less, 4.8 sec vs 5.7
seconds. But, the aircraft with the rapid rotation was only 50 feet above the aircraft with the
normal rotation rate, as it was just returning to the entry altitude. The aircraft with the rapid
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
FLIGHT TEST RESULTS OF THE CFIT AVOIDANCE IN FLY-BY-WIRE TRA(6)
