Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Wing Bug: a Portable, Low-Cost

Flight Test Instrumentation System


Brian A. Kish Matthew Rhoney Ralph D. Kimberlin
Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology
150 West University Blvd 150 West University Blvd 150 West University Blvd
Melbourne, FL 32901-6975 Melbourne, FL 32901-6975 Melbourne, FL 32901-6975
321-674-7042 224-595-6226 931-273-3853
bkish@fit.edu rhoney1776@gmail.com r.kimberlin1@verizon.net

Katarina Vuckovic Erfan Attarian


Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology
150 West University Blvd 150 West University Blvd
Melbourne, FL 32901-6975 Melbourne, FL 32901-6975
321-961-7962 321-831-8913
kvuckovic2012@my.fit.edu eattarian2015@my.fit.edu

Abstract—The WingBug was an innovative concept by Straight 21-126, “Temporary 2 (T-2) Modification of Aerospace
& Level Technologies to measure airspeed, altitude, Vehicles”. Civilian aircraft can be put into “Experimental”
temperature, Euler angles, angular rates, and acceleration category, get a Supplemental Type Certificate, or fly under
information. The unit was portable, self-powered, streamed an FAA Form 337. These processes (for both military and
data via WiFi to any tablet or smart phone in the cockpit, and
civilian aircraft) require paperwork, time, and money. A
cost less than $1000. It measured 8”x3”x3”, weighed 6 ounces,
and used a GoPro mount to attach externally to any aircraft. non-intrusive, self-powered, portable DAS avoids these
This paper covers results from the initial flight test program processes and can be reused on other aircraft.
flown at Florida Institute of Technology in 2016. The WingBug
was flown on a Piper Warrior. Data from the WingBug were Table 1: Flight Test Parameter List
compared to “truth” data from the Piper Warrior. Test points Parameter Units
were limited to static points (e.g. constant bank-angle turns). An
evaluation of the tablet display was also performed. Overall, the
1 Indicated Airspeed mph
prototype WingBug shows promising potential as a flight test 2 Pressure Altitude feet
system or primary flight reference system for home-built 3 Outside Air Temperature (OAT) °C
aircraft. The recommendations provided can be used by 4 Pitch Attitude degrees
Straight & Level Technologies to further improve their system. 5 Bank Angle degrees
6 Heading degrees
TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 Pitch Rate degrees/sec
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1 8 Roll Rate degrees/sec
2. AIRPLANE AND WINGBUG DESCRIPTION ............. 4 9 Yaw Rate degrees/sec
3. TEST PROCEDURES................................................ 5 10 Normal Acceleration (nz) g's
4. RESULTS ................................................................ 6 11 Elevator Position degrees
5. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 8 12 Aileron Position degrees
REFERENCES ............................................................. 8 13 Rudder Position degrees
BIOGRAPHY ............................................................... 8 14 Pitch Control Force pounds
15 Aileron Control Force pounds
1. INTRODUCTION 16 Rudder Control Force pounds
Any flight test program involves recording data to get 17 Engine RPM RPM
answers for decisions makers. Data can be hand-recorded 18 Engine Manifold Pressure inches Hg
from reading cockpit gages or acquired using a Data 19 Engine Oil Temperature °C
Acquisition System (DAS). Depending on the program, the 20 Engine Oil Pressure psi
list of parameters can be small (e.g. airspeed, pressure 21 Angle-of-Attack degrees
altitude, ambient temperature) or large such as the list in 22 Sideslip Angle degrees
Table 1. Along with the list of parameters comes the sample
rate. Some parameters are needed every minute, and others The cost of a DAS can vary greatly. Dedicated systems
are needed at 10 Hz or higher. installed on modified military aircraft can cost over $1M.
Costs are impacted by the number of parameters, the
A DAS typically requires an aircraft to be modified. In accuracy, and the sample rate. As with other electronics, the
military aircraft, this can be done by following published size and cost of some sensors (e.g. inertial measurement
guidance. For example, the Air Force uses AFMC Instruction
978-1-5090-1613-6/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
1
units) is decreasing, while accuracy is improving. In addition, something. The potentiometers were each connected to the
computers and data processing software (with more DAS as shown in Figure 4. Ultimately, data from the
capability) are also coming down in price. These trends are potentiometers were fused with parameters 4-10 using a
good for flight test. National Instruments Data Acquisition (DAQ) component.

In 2014, Florida Institute of Technology built the DAS shown The LORD Microstrain inertial measurement unit (IMU)
in Figure 1 for less than $25K. It sensed and recorded came with a Global Positioning System (GPS). The GPS
parameters 4-13 in Table 1 at sample rates up to 100 Hz. To antenna is shown in Figure 4 on the top of the DAS. Next to
cover parameters 1-3 and 17-20, GoPro cameras (shown in the GPS antenna are buttons for system master power, record
Figure 2) were used. The DAS turned the cameras on and off, on/off, GPS status, and event marks. Data were displayed in
but engineers had to view the video files and record the data real-time via Bluetooth to two ASUS tablets programmed
by hand at whatever frame rate was needed. In practice, with LabVIEW. The displays could be customized with dials,
engineers skipped the GoPro videos and simply recorded digital fields, graphs (or strip charts), etc. Units, axis ranges,
parameters 1-3 and 17-20 from cockpit gages real-time on number of decimal places, etc. could all be adjusted based on
test flights. For static points, hand-recorded data works fine. user preference. As with any tablet, screen captures could be
done at any time with the simple press of a button.

Figure 1 – Flight Test Data Acquisition System


Rather than rely on the GoPro cameras, the DAS could have
been linked to a pitot-static source and used pressure
transducers to record parameters 1-3. Control force
parameters (14-16) could have been integrated into the DAS
as well as engine parameters (17-20). But, funding was
limited to $25K for the initial configuration. These upgrades
are planned for the future pending additional funds become
available.

Figure 3 – Potentiometers Clipped to Control Cables

Figure 2 – GoPro Cameras to Video Cockpit Gages


Control surface positions were obtained by clipping
potentiometers to the cables as shown in Figure 3. The clips Figure 4 – Potentiometers Inputs in the DAS
were such that any pilot could overpower them (or the clips
would disconnect on their own) if they got snagged on

2
Power to the main components inside the DAS came from When Straight & Level Technologies approached Florida
two rechargeable 20V DeWalt batteries. These two batteries Tech with their WingBug concept, we were eager to try it out.
provided over four hours of continuous operation. A list of On paper, it seemed attractive. The unit was portable,
main components is provided in Table 2. self-powered, streamed data via WiFi to any tablet or smart
phone in the cockpit, and cost less than $1000. It measured
Table 2: DAS Main Components
8”x3”x3”, weighed 6 ounces, and used a GoPro mount to
Computer Intel NUC PC attach externally to any aircraft. It provided parameters 1-10
DAQ National Instruments USB-6212 in Table 1.
IMU LORD Microstrain 3DM-GX3-35 with GPS
In addition to a flight test DAS, the WingBug could prove
While real-time data were available on the tablets, post-flight valuable for home-built aircraft. Rather than run tubes and
data were available from files automatically saved to the Intel cables, along with mechanical instruments or expensive glass
NUC PC. These files could be obtained by inserting a thumb cockpits, people could mount an iPad on the dashboard and
drive into a USB slot on the side of the DAS. The DAS was fly with WingBug data. Figure 6 shows an example of the
designed to operate without opening the outer shell. The 10” traditional “six-pack” layout as depicted in the Pilot’s
wide by 8” deep by 12” high shell could be strapped down in Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge [1]. The WingBug
an aircraft by feeding nylon straps through the black brackets could drive all six gages. Obviously, a more rigorous test and
shown in either Figure 1 or Figure 4. evaluation program would need to occur before the system
The volume of the DAS was chosen to allow for future could be approved for primary flight references.
growth. As Figure 5 shows, there is space for adding pitot-
static ports, pressure transducers, control force connectors,
etc. The National Instruments USB-6212 also had capacity
for future growth.

Figure 6 – Traditional Cockpit Gage Layout


Florida Tech could use the WingBug as a standalone DAS or
potentially fuse it with our existing DAS. Since it was
externally mounted, we used an aircraft in “Experimental”
category to legally flight test it. As with any prototype
system, our expectations were realistic. We expected
calibrations would require adjustments, data dropouts would
occur, filters would need to be added, etc. We saw these with
our existing DAS. The next section describes our test aircraft
along with the WingBug.

Figure 5 – Inside View of DAS


The DAS has proved to be robust in operations for two years.
It traveled from Florida to Georgia to Maryland and back.
Summers in the southeastern United States are hot and
humid. The DAS has yet to have an issue. But while it fits
well in our Piper Cherokee Six (Figure 1), it is a bit
cumbersome in our Piper Warrior. Not having parameters 1-3
in Table 1 is also a weakness.
3
2. AIRPLANE AND WINGBUG DESCRIPTION The WingBug was a prototype developed by Straight & Level
The test aircraft was the Piper Warrior shown in Figure 7. It Technologies. It was a self-contained, externally-mounted
was a four-place, low-wing, single-engine aircraft equipped and portable prototype that was capable of independently
with a fixed tricycle landing gear. The aircraft was powered measuring all data necessary to reproduce a standard aircraft's
by a Lycoming O-320 engine, a four-cylinder, normally- six pack gauge set. It included a differential pressure sensor,
aspirated, air-cooled, carburetor-equipped engine capable of a barometric altimeter, as well as a 9 degree of freedom
producing a maximum of 160 horsepower at 2700 RPM [2]. (DOF) inertial measurement unit (IMU). The WingBug was
The aircraft had a maximum gross takeoff weight of 2440 battery powered, had internal recording capabilities and
pounds and was capable of carrying a maximum useful load communicated with mobile and tablet devices via Wifi. It
of 878 pounds [3]. measured 8”x3”x3”, weighed 6 ounces, and used a GoPro
mount to attach externally to any aircraft. Rather than fasten
the GoPro mount to the aircraft using standard sticker, we
used metal fasteners attached to an inspection plate as shown
in Figure 8.

Figure 7 – PA-28-161 Warrior N618FT


Table 3 presents specific identifying information about the
test aircraft, engine, and propeller.
Table 3: Test Aircraft Information [2], [3], [4]
AIRFRAME (Piper Aircraft, Inc.)
Aircraft Model PA-28-161 Figure 8 – WingBug Mounted on Wing Inspection Plate
Registration Number N618FT
Aircraft Serial Number 28-8516048 One of the potential benefits of the WingBug was the ability
Max Takeoff Weight 2440 lbs. to mount it at different locations on the aircraft. For example,
Empty Weight 1568.5 lbs. one could mount it on the centerline of the top fuselage as
shown in Figure 9. We restricted the location to underwing
Best Rate of Climb Airspeed 79 knots
inspection panels for this paper. But one could envision an
ENGINE (Lycoming)
experiment to determine the optimal location for minimizing
Engine Model O-320-D3G
pitot-static correction error; thereby determining the actual
Engine Serial Number RL-7479-39E flow field around an aircraft.
Fuel Delivery Carburetor
Cylinder Configuration Horizontally Opposed
Temperature Regulation Air Cooled
Number of Cylinders 4
Rated Horsepower 160 hp
Rated Speed 2700 RPM
Displacement 319.8 in3
Compression Ratio 8.5:1
Oil Capacity 8 quarts
PROPELLER (Sensenish)
Model 74DM6-0-60
Propeller Type Fixed Pitch
Number of Blades 2

Figure 9 – WingBug Mounted on Top Fuselage


4
As mentioned previously, data were streamed via Wifi to a 3. TEST PROCEDURES
mobile device in the cockpit. For this paper, we used an iPad The objective of this program was to compare the initial
mini. A screenshot of the display is shown in Figure 10. The output of the WingBug to the data read from the cockpit
top three gages are airspeed, attitude, and altitude. The gages. Although the cockpit gages have some error, we
bottom three gages are turn/slip indication, heading, and assumed the data to be the “truth”. For purposes of teaching
vertical speed. System calibration numbers and raw counts flight test techniques, data from cockpit gages are sufficient
for things like temperature and time were displayed in the in fundamentals courses. If the WingBug was within 5% of
banner between the two rows. These displays can be the “truth”, we could use it in our fundamental courses. A
customized with dials, digital fields, graphs (or strip charts), tighter accuracy would be required for use in research
etc. Units, axis ranges, number of decimal places, etc. could projects.
all be adjusted based on user preference. While Florida Tech
would eventually like to fuse the WingBug system with our We confined the data to parameters 1-6 in Table 1 (i.e.
existing DAS, this paper only covers the WingBug as a indicated airspeed, pressure altitude, OAT, pitch attitude,
standalone system. bank angle, and heading). Our test point matrix is shown in
Table 4. Flaps were up and the gear was fixed (i.e. down).
The pilot was instructed to achieve the numbers listed. The
other fields were “as required”. Heading was maintained at
whatever was convenient for airspace.
Table 4: Test Point Matrix
# Airspeed Altitude Pitch angle Roll angle
1 70 kts 2000 ft as req’d 0°
2 90 kts 2000 ft as req’d 0°
3 110 kts 2000 ft as req’d 0°
4 as req’d as req’d +10° 0°
5 as req’d as req’d +5° 0°
6 as req’d as req’d 0° 0°
7 as req’d as req’d -5° 0°
8 as req’d as req’d -10° 0°
9 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d +20°
10 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d +30°
Figure 10 – Tablet Screenshot 11 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d +45°
The WingBug in Figure 9 really shows how small the system 12 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d -20°
is. It literally fits in the palm of a hand. That expands the 13 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d -30°
possible applications. A WingBug could be installed on 14 as req’d 2000 ft as req’d -45°
something as small as a remote-controlled (RC) hobby 15 70 kts 4000 ft as req’d 0°
aircraft, or on a wide-body aircraft the size of Boeing 747. 16 90 kts 4000 ft as req’d 0°
17 110 kts 4000 ft as req’d 0°
While the WingBug can’t measure parameters 11-20 in
Table 1, it could add angle-of-attack and sideslip vanes. It When the pilot was stable, he called “read”. Cockpit gage
may also be possible to derive angle-of-attack and sideslip values were recorded by hand, and screen captures of the iPad
using additional probes as shown in Figure 10. were taken. In addition to the data in Table 4, engine RPM
was recorded.

It was assumed the installed location in Figure 8 had minimal


position correction errors. A pitot-static calibration on the
aircraft was performed. Thus in the case of airspeed,
WingBug data were compared to calibrated airspeeds, rather
than cockpit airspeeds. All other data (altitude, pitch attitude,
roll angle) were compared to cockpit gages. It was assumed
the WingBug calibration coefficients were accurate. If they
were off, the data collected could be used to update the
coefficients.

In addition to the data collected in Table 4, we performed a


qualitative assessment of the iPad display. Students and
researchers should be able to easily read and operate the iPad
Figure 10 – WingBug with Multiple Pitot-Static Probes
in a real cockpit environment (lighting, vibration, etc.).
5
Table 5 shows the qualitative survey used.
Table 5: Display Survey
Bad Good
Readability 1 2 3 4
Brightness 1 2 3 4
Contrast 1 2 3 4
Clutter 1 2 3 4
Glare 1 2 3 4
Buttons 1 2 3 4
Size 1 2 3 4
Weight 1 2 3 4
Heat 1 2 3 4 Figure 11 – WingBug Airspeed Errors

4. RESULTS If the linear fit in Figure 11 is applied to the WingBug’s air


Two dedicated WingBug test flights occurred. The first was data computer, the results are within one knot of the “truth”
on 13 Oct 2016, and the second was on 27 Oct 2016. Prior to as shown in Table 7. We recommend Straight & Level
that, the WingBug was flown as a “tagalong” on test flights Technologies incorporate this linear fit when the WingBug is
for a different program. In three of those flights, it was installed at the inspection plate under the main wing of a
discovered the original Bluetooth concept had intermittent Piper Warrior. Since airspeed position correction depends on
errors. There appeared to be electromagnetic inference with aircraft as well as pitot-system location, further flight tests
the Bluetooth signal. Straight & Level Technologies would need to occur for other aircraft or pitot-system
modified the system to operate using WiFi. The WingBug locations. Straight & Level Technologies could keep a library
maintained data lock with the iPad for the duration of the of correction curves in its data base and have them
flights on 13 and 27 Oct 2016. user-selectable on the iPad.
Table 7: Airspeed Calibration Comparison
Results will be listed by airspeed, altitude, attitude (pitch and
roll), and display quality. All data were collected with the Aircraft calibrated WingBug calibrated ∆
flaps up. Recommendations provided are based on the limited airspeed (knots) airspeed (knots) (knots)
data acquired and are not statistically rigorous. As this was 115.94 116.00 -0.06
an initial look at a prototype system, more flight testing 113.16 112.15 1.01
would be required to establish an operational configuration. 108.07 108.70 -0.63
101.39 101.81 -0.42
Table 6 lists the raw pitot-static airspeed results. Clearly there
92.07 92.09 -0.02
were bias issues with the WingBug outputs. As is, these
results are not suitable for use in flight test (either training or 82.91 83.17 -0.26
research). However, if the biases are accounted for (with 75.44 75.06 0.38
software), the results show potential. Figure 11 shows the
biases are clearly linear. With respect to altitude, Table 8 lists the raw pitot-static
pressure altitude results. The WingBug’s altitude read higher
Table 6: Pitot-Static Raw Airspeed Comparison
than the aircraft and was generally within about 10% of the
Aircraft calibrated WingBug indicated ∆ aircraft. Ideally, we would have collected data at regular
airspeed (knots) airspeed (knots) (knots) intervals in a climb from sea level to 8000 feet. Instead, we
115.94 95.50 20.44 gave priority to airspeed calibration and bank-angle points.
113.16 90.75 22.41
Table 8: Pitot-Static Raw Pressure Altitude Comparison
108.07 86.50 21.57
Aircraft WingBug ∆ Error
101.39 78.00 23.39
altitude (ft) altitude (ft) (ft) (%)
92.07 66.00 26.07
740 795 -55 7.4
82.91 55.00 27.91
75.44 45.00 30.44 1980 2170 -190 9.6
2000 2220 -220 11.0
2140 2245 -105 4.9
2480 2625 -145 5.8
3690 4175 -485 13.1
4000 4405 -405 10.1

6
Figure 12 shows a linear fit of the data from Table 8. vector until 100 minutes later (i.e. after a typical one-hour test
Obviously, the scatter in the data results in a lower R2 value. flight). We recommend Straight & Level Technologies look
More data at different altitudes is needed to refine the curve further into the IMU settings to see if a similar feature exists.
fit, which may prove nonlinear.
Table 10: Attitude Comparison
Aircraft WingBug ∆ Aircraft WingBug ∆
pitch pitch roll roll
+10° -32° 22° +20° -16° 4°
+5° +15° 10° +30° +31° 1°
0° +10° 10° +45° +36° 9°
-5° -23° 18° -20° -17° 3°
-10° -19° 9° -30° -20° 10°
-45° -79° 34°

Finally, we evaluated the WingBug’s display as implemented


on the iPad. Table 11 lists the results of the display survey.
These were determined based on agreed scores by the pilot
Figure 12 – WingBug Altitude Errors and test engineer. Overall, the iPad display was suitable for
use in flight test. Recommendations for the display shown in
However, if the linear fit in Figure 12 is applied to the Figure 10 include making the white and yellow arcs on the
WingBug’s air data computer, the results are within 80 feet airspeed indicator user-defined, adding pitch attitude
of the “truth” as shown in Table 9. We recommend Straight numbers next to the tick marks (along with adding tick marks
& Level Technologies incorporate this linear fit when the for negative pitch angles), and properly spacing the roll angle
WingBug is installed at the inspection plate under the main tick marks.
wing of a Piper Warrior. Since pitot-system errors are Table 11: Display Survey Results
dependent on system location with respect to a given aircraft,
further flight tests would need to occur for other aircraft or Bad Good
pitot-system locations. Straight & Level Technologies could Readability 1 2 3 4
again keep a library of correction curves in its data base and Brightness 1 2 3 4
have them user-selectable on the iPad Contrast 1 2 3 4
Clutter 1 2 3 4
Table 9: Altitude Calibration Comparison Glare 1 2 3 4
Aircraft WingBug calibrated ∆ Error Buttons 1 2 3 4
altitude (ft) altitude (ft) (ft) (%) Size 1 2 3 4
740 Weight 1 2 3 4
783 -43 -5.8
Heat 1 2 3 4
1980 1998 -18 -0.9
2000 2042 -42 -2.1 Overall, the prototype WingBug shows promising potential
2140 as a flight test DAS or primary flight reference system for
2064 76 3.5
home-built aircraft. As with any new concept, more
2480 2400 80 3.2 development is required. The recommendations provided can
3690 3770 -80 -2.2 be used by Straight & Level Technologies to further improve
4000 their system. Florida Tech will continue to gather flight test
3973 27 0.7
data on the WingBug in the next year.
Table 10 lists the attitude results (both pitch and roll). These The views and opinions expressed in this paper represent
were snapshots in time. Pitch angles differed in magnitude by those of the authors and do not represent an official
9° to 22°. Roll angles differed in magnitude by 1° to 10°, with assessment of Florida Institute of Technology. The mission
one outlier at 34°. If the raw data had variances due to noise,
of the Flight Test Engineering program at Florida Institute of
these “jumps” may need to be removed with filters. We
Technology is to train and educate students to become highly-
encountered similar issues with our current DAS. Ultimately,
adaptive, critical-thinking flight test engineers in industry or
we had to reset some of the values of the IMU, because of the government. Flight test programs like WingBug are great
way it determined the gravity vector with respect to the experiences for our students. We thank Straight & Level
aircraft z-vector. Some off-the-shelf IMUs recalculate (or Technologies for giving us the opportunity to test their
sense) the gravity vector every 10 seconds. In a coordinated
prototype product.
turn, the IMU would sense a gravity vector that aligned with
the aircraft z-vector. Our fix involved setting the gravity
vector while the aircraft was level on the ground and not
allowing the system to recalculate (or sense) a new gravity
7
5. CONCLUSION
This paper examined the Wing Bug, which was an innovative Dr. Ralph Kimberlin wrote the text book
concept by Straight & Level Technologies to measure “Flight Testing of Fixed-Wing Aircraft”. He
airspeed, altitude, temperature, Euler angles, angular rates, is a Fellow of the Society of Experimental
and acceleration information. The unit was portable, self- Test Pilots with 8500 flight hours in over 250
powered, streamed data via WiFi to a tablet in the cockpit, different aircraft including 25 first flights.
and cost less than $1000. It measured 8”x3”x3”, weighed 6 He earned a Doctor of Engineering from the
ounces, and used a GoPro mount to attach externally to any Technical University of Aachen, Germany.
aircraft. The Wing Bug was flown on a Piper Warrior. Data He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and was commissioned
from the Wing Bug were compared to “truth” data from the as an Air Force officer. While serving in Vietnam, he was one
Piper Warrior. Test points were limited to static points. An of three officers responsible for the development and combat
evaluation of the tablet display was also performed. Overall, evaluation of the AC-47 side-firing gun ship. He was a test
the prototype WingBug shows promising potential as a flight pilot and flight test engineer for Piper, Rockwell
test DAS or primary flight reference system for home-built International, and Beech Aircraft companies for 10 years. He
aircraft. The recommendations provided can be used by was a professor and program chair at the University of
Straight & Level Technologies to further improve their Tennessee Space Institute for 27 years. Dr. Kimberlin has
system. taught courses in Performance Flight Test and Stability &
Control Flight Test at Florida Tech since 2012.
REFERENCES
[1] “Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge”, Katarina Vuckovic is a senior student at
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Florida Institute of Technology. She is
Aviation Administration, Airman Testing Standards pursuing her degrees in Aerospace
Branch, Oklahoma City, OK, 2016 Engineering and Electrical Engineering.
[2] Piper Aircraft Corporation, “Warrior II PA-28-161 Currently, she is interning at Rockwell
Pilot’s Operating Handbook,” Section 1 General, Vero Collins in the Communication department.
Beach, Florida, 1982, pp. 1-3 – 1-4. Her research interests are in the fields of
[3] Piper Aircraft Corporation, “Warrior II PA-28-161 flight test, control systems, and airborne
Pilot’s Operating Handbook,” Section 8 Handling, and space borne communication.
Serv & Maint, Vero Beach, Florida, 1982, pp. 8-11.
[4] Piper Aircraft Corporation, “Warrior II PA-28-161
Pilot’s Operating Handbook,” Section 5 Performance, Erfan Attarian is a junior student at
Vero Beach, Florida, 1982, pp. 5-12 – 5-21. Florida Institute of Technology. He is
pursuing his degree in Aerospace
Engineering. His research interests are in
BIOGRAPHIES the fields of flight test, aerodynamics,
Dr. Brian Kish is the Chair of Florida Tech’s propulsion, and space systems.
Flight Test Engineering Program. He earned
a Ph.D. in Aeronautical Engineering from
the Air Force Institute of Technology. He is a
graduate of the Air Force Test Pilot School,
and has accumulated over 1300 flight hours
as a Flight Test Engineer in 49 different
aircraft during his 20-year Air Force career. He held
leadership positions at three Flight Test units and served as
the Vice Chair of the Education Department of the Air Force
Test Pilot School from 2005-2008. Since retiring from the Air
Force in 2011, Dr. Kish has taught Control Systems, Aircraft
Stability & Control, and Avionics courses at Florida Tech.

Matthew Rhoney is a Graduate Student at


Florida Tech. He earned his Bachelor’s
Degree in Aerospace Engineering in 2014
from Florida Tech. Last summer, he had an
internship with the FAA in New Jersey as a
Flight Test Engineer.

S-ar putea să vă placă și