2.
Basic PCA track/.ightpath angle is excellent for all normal tasks. Use of fully coupled ILS/MLS/FMS, etc., is the safest concept.
3.
Pilotage with manual throttle consistently induced both phugoid and dutch roll tendencies. The insertion of PCA damped these modes out.
4.
The PCA is an enhancing characteristic and will increase the level of safety of the aircraft. This technology should be further developed.
5.
I had trouble .ying manual with throttles only for pitch and roll. When on auto, it smoothed out. I think this program will be good for future backup systems, or partial control for normal systems.
6.
Simulator evaluation was perfect setup to understand principles for PCA and see small throttle maneuvers. Aircraft was easier to .y in manual mode than simulator, but got better feel for phugoid in the aircraft. Controlled .ight with autopilot more consistent than manual mode.
7.
PCA manual track very controllable—smooth pitch corrections. Side force during turn initiation was noticeable but not objectionable. Pitch and glidepath angle were easily achieved using the thumbwheel. ILS was intercepted using this mode, and tracking, while requiring attention, was a nonevent.
8.
Manual manipulation of throttles for pitch/roll control was very workload intensive. Bank control to within 5° moderately dif.cult. Pitch control extremely dif.cult. Utilization of track/bank and .ightpath angle modes was impressive. These modes took a marginally controllable aircraft (especially in pitch) and made it extremely easy to .y.
9.
Manual .ying—to control phugoid, needed a couple of simulator approaches for experience. But when PCA engaged, it could be controlled perfectly. PCA .ightpath angle control was smooth and better than expected.
10.
Very useful demonstration of a system which shows good potential for use in some serious failure cases. An obvious limitation is that the system can only work (without the center engine) about a trim speed, which will vary with circumstances. Thus, its ability to maneuver is limited, but it works well on a well-constrained task such as a level entry to a glideslope with a small intercept angle to the localizer.
11.
Aircraft very controllable in autopilot modes (PCA). Manually, control next to impossible. Coupled, very impressive—a safe landing should be possible.
12.
Basically, takes what had been a very challenging, if not impossible, situation into what could be considered a textbook lesson with no exceptional pilot skills required.
13.
Amazing! Overall, you have to see it to believe it! All involved people have done a great job.
14.
I was amazed that the roll response was very quick and positive compared to the simulator. I experienced manual throttle control, PCA is very helpful.
15.
Pitch and roll rates experienced with the PCA system engaged were comparable with those routinely used by the airlines. A small lateral acceleration was felt as the system commanded differential thrust. Noticeable, but not uncomfortable, this sideways pulse was only evident with roll initiation.
Pilot PCA System Interface
The existing autopilot .ightpath and Heading/Track knobs were used without modi.cation. In general, this approach worked well, but there were exceptions. The rapid change mode on the knobs was undesirable for PCA control, because a pilot would occasionally engage the rapid mode of a knob and get a larger-than-desired command (for example, .g. 22 at T = 55 sec). Also, no tactile feedback (such as a detent) was available to determine where the 0° position was on the Heading/Track knob when used as a bank angle command or on the .ightpath command knob. For a pilot on .nal approach, while concentrating on looking out of the windscreen, a tendency was to inadvertently select the speed knob rather than the adjacent Heading/Track knob.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Development and Flight Test of an Emergency Flight Control System Using Only Engine Thrust on an MD-11 Transport Airplane(38)
