The effects of the cues of aircraft motion, of delays in a visual scene, and of movement of a ship model were examined by measuring pilots' ability to hover a simulated helicopter near a destroyer class ship. Fourteen Navy helicopter pilots were tested in a within subjects, factorial combination of fixed base, moving base, and g-seat conditions where delays of approximately 66 or 128 milliseconds existed in the simulator's visual display, and the pilots were to hover near a moving or stationary ship. In addition, an effort was made to determine the effect a head-up display of aircraft position had on the measures of control. Best performance was seen with the moving base simulation while poorest control was associated with the fixed-base conditions and in-between performance was measured under the g-seat conditions. The addition of the longer delay uniformly elevated scores, but movement of the ship model had little effect. Also performance was not affected by removal of the head-up display. A recommendation is made for the configuration of trainers for aircrews of marginally stable vehicles. This is that motion cuing is likely to be useful for flight regimes such as hover, and that currently platform technology is the recommended source of these cues. (Author)
The Effects of Various Fidelity Factors on Simulated Helicopter Hover
1981
72 pages
Report
No indication
English
Human Factors Engineering , Flight simulators , Hovering , Pilots , Cues(Stimuli) , Acceleration , Pilot seats , Motion , Visual perception , Delay , Head up displays , Aircraft landings , Helicopters , Destroyers , Ship motion , Flight training , Man machine systems , Flight control systems , Naval aviation , LAMPS Mark-3 aircraft , Fidelity , Motion cueing , VMS(Visual Motion Simulators) , NTISDODXA
Analytic Comparison of Helicopter Hover Control Systems
NTIS | 1970
|Autonomous helicopter hover positioning by optical tracking
Online Contents | 1995
|