Sunteți pe pagina 1din 154

2672

IlAYSH-OAE

SYSTEMS

FRONTAGE

ROADY

MO

.

TA N4

E,

OGY, INC.

NASA CR-152139

, CALIFORNIA 94043 * PHONE [415] 961-46T4

STI

Technical

Report

No

1095-1

(NASACR 1521 39 1

STUDY OF A SAFETY EM4ARGIN

Jan. 1978 (Systems

N78-2l11

SYSTEm FOR pOWERED-LIFT STOL AIRCRAFT

Report, Dec. 1976,- Inc.#

TechnOlOgy, 16 pHC A08/IPAOl

Final

Mountain View, Calif.)

cosc

Unclas

OacG13/05 ,_2144

Study of a Safety Margin

System

For Powered-Lift STOL Aircraft

.

.

Robert K Heffley

Wayne F. Jewell

t May 1978

HOM.1VE

OPPICE.

National

$WHaY.cn

.Oontract

NAS2-9418

Aeronautics

and

Space

Administration

Ames Research

Center

Moffett

Field,

CA

94035

1

Report No

NASA CR-152139

4 Title and Subtitle

2

Government Accession No

STUDY OF A SAFETY MARGIN SYSTEM FOR

POWERED-LIFT

STOL AIRCRAFT

7 Author(s)

Robert K. Heffley

and Wayne F.

Jewell

9 Performing Organization Name and Address

Systems Technology,

Inc.

2672 Bayshore-Frontage Road, Suite 505

Mountain View,

California

94043

12 Sponsoring Agency Name

and Address

Natienal Aeronautics

Ames Reserch

Moffett Field,

and Space Administration

Center California 94055

15

Supplementary Notes

16

Abstract

3

Recipient's Catalog No

5

Report Date

May 1978

6

Performing Organization Code

8

Performing Organization Report No.

STI

TRh1-95-1

10

Work

Unit No

11

Contract or Grant No

NAS2_9418

13

Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14

Sponsoring Agency Code

A study was conducted to explore the feasibility of a safety

margin

system for powered-lift aircraft which require a backside piloting tech­

nique. The objective of the

safety margin criteria as a single or automatically and which could be

safety margin system was to present multiple

variable which could be tracked manually monitored for the purpose of deriving

pilot-in-the-loop

analysis

and a simulation

experiment to

of

promise of

providing a good solution.

compromises

in

to regulate

safety margin status. The study involved a

several safety margin system concepts evaluate those concepts which showed

A system was

ultimately

configured which offered reasonable

and the ability

controllability,

the safety margin at some expense

envelope.

status information content,

of the allowable

low speed flight path

17

Key Words (Suggested by Author(s])

Powered Lift

Safety Margins

Airworthiness Criteria

19

Security Classif [ofthisreport)

20

18

Distribution Statement

Security Classif (of this page)

21.

N of Pages

22 Price'­

'For sale by the National Technical Informaton Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161

t

'

WSA CR-1521 39

SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Technical Report No. 1095-1

STUDY OF A SAFETY MARGN SYSTEM FOR POWERED-LIFT STOL AIRCRAT

Robert K. Heffley Wayne F. Jewell

May 1978

Contract NAS2-9418

National Aeronautics

and Space Administration

Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, CA

94035

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to explore the feasibility of a safety margin

system for powered-lift

nique. The objective of the safety margin system was to present multiple safety margin criteria as a single variable which could be tracked manually or automatically and which could be monitored for the puirpose of deriving

safety margin status. The study involved a pilot-in-the-loop analysis of several safety margin system concepts and a simulation experiment to

aircraft which require a backside piloting tech­

evaluate those concepts which showed promise of providing a good solution. A system was ultimately configured which offered reasonable compromises in

controllability, status information content, and the

ability

to regulate

the safety margin at some expense of the

allowable

low speed

flight path

envelope.

TR 1095-1

"i"

FORORD

The research reported here was performed under NASA Contract NAS2-9418.

The

Center, and the Systems Technology, Inc., Project Engineer was Robert K.

Heffley. STOLAUD simulator modification and checkout was supervised by

NASA Contract

Technical Monitor was

Donald W.

Smith of Ames Research

Wayne

F.

Jewell of Systems Technology,

Inc.

The

primary

research

pilot

was Gordon H. Hardy of Ames Research Center. Work on this project was

accomplished during the period from December 1976 to January 1978.

The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by

Robert L.

Stapleford,

Roger

H.

Hoh,

and Warren F.

Clement

of Systems

Technology,

Inc.,

William S.

Hindson

of the National Aeronautical

xe-ort

Establishment

(Canada),

and the ,c6arefuIprepartion

of

the

-

mann-

Script by Sharon A.

Duerksen

of Systems

Technology,

Inc.

PIRECEDING PAGE BLANK

NOT ?[LMED'

TABLE OF COlNTS

Section

Page

I

INTRODUCTION

.

.

1

A.

Background

 

.

1

B.

Program Objective

 

4

C.

Technical Approach

5

D.

Report Organization

6

II

DEFINITION OF SAFETY MARGIN SIlTEM CONCEPTS

 

7

A. Safety Margin Criteria

 

7

B. Cockpit Instrument Display Concepts

 

9

 

1.

Flight

Reference

(FR)

9

2.

Safety Reference (SR)

 

9

C. Safety Margin System Implementation Concepts

1. Safety Margin System

2. Dynamic Safety Margin

3. Static Safety Margin

4. Lift Margin

.

.

.

10

10

10

12

12

III

ANALYTICAL

INVESTIGATION

17

A.

Analysis of Approach

17

B.

Survey of Implementation Concepts

22

 

1.

Flight Reference Based on Dynamic

 

Safety

Margin

25

 

2.

Flight References Based on Static ,Safety Margin

36

3.

Flight Reference Based on Lift Margin

42

 

C.

Implications

for the Experimental

 

Investigation

4

TR 1095-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section

Page

IV

EXPRIME TA1

INVESTIGATION

.

.

.

49

A.

Experimental Procedure

.

.

.

49

B.

Investigation of Display Features .

.

 

.53

 

1.

Flight Reference

Indication

53

2.

Safety Reference Indication

56

3.

Flight Reference Status Lights

57

4.

Other Features

 

58

 

C.

Preliminary Evaluation of Safety Margin System Concepts

 

58

 

I.

Evaluation

of FR[DSM].

 

.

.

60

2.

Evaluation of FR[SSM

e]

63

3.

Evaluation

of

FR[SSM1]

 

and SR[DSM]

64

4.

Evaluation of FR[DSM+f(6)]

6

5.

Evaluation

of

FR[DSM+k 6 e] and SR[DSM]

 

.

67

6. Evaluation of a Flight Path Reference, ,GR (Gamma Reference)

 

67

7.

Conclusions from the Preliminary System Evaluations

68

 

D.

Investigation of FR Design Adjustments

68,

 

1.

Alleviation of Adverse 7-e Cross Coupling

 
 

in High Thrust

Region

 

68

 

2.

Evaluation of a General u,w Flight

 
 

Reference (with Implications for the

Use

of Lift Margin)

 

70

 

E.

Compatibility of Manual, Automatic, and

 
 

Flight Director Functions - and Operation

 

Implementation

72

1.

System

Implementation

 

.

72

2.

System Operation

 

73

 

F. Evaluation of a Refined System Configuration

.

.

.

75

1.

System Description

75

2.

System

Analysis

79

3. Simulator Results

4. Departure From a Fixed Configuration System

80

82

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Concluded)

Section

Page

V

CONCLUSIONS

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

85

A.

Summary of System Objectives Constraints

and Design

85

B.

Definition of Recommended Safety Margin System

86

C.

System Benefits

87

D.

Implementation Considerations

 

88

E.

Recommendations

for Further Study

89

REFERENCES

91

Appendix

A

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS AUGMENTOR WING AIRPLANE

OF THE NASA

 

95

B

SUMMARY OF

MULTILOOP

SYSTEM

ELA.TIONSHIPS

95

C

DETAILED ANALYSIS

OF FLIGHT

REFERENCES

BASED ON

STATIC SAFETY MARGIN

 

101

D

FLIGHT

REFERENCE LOOP PARAMETER COMPUTATION

121

E

SPERRY

1819A DIGITAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE

 

MODIFICATIONS

 

125

TR 1095-1

Vi--'

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

I-I

Examples of Safety Margins for Conventional and Powered-Lift Aircraft

 

2

1-2

An Example of the Determination of the Minimum Safe

 

Flight

Envelope by Various

Safety Margin Criteria

.

.

.

.

3

II-1

/ -

V Plot

Showing

Conditions

of 100% Dynamic Safety

 

Margin

for

the Powered-Lift Airplane

Example

Used in

 

this Study

 

11

11-2

y

-

V Plot

with Trajectories

of Constant e,

N 3 ,

o

and

SSM

.

13

11-3

Mapping of SSM as a Function of V and 0

 

14

11-4

y

-

V

Plot

Showing

Contour

of Constant

Lift'Margin

.

.

.

16

III-1

y

-

V Curve

Showing

Steady State

Trajectory

for

DSM.= 100%

 

27

111-2

DSM Control Response Asymptotes

(With and Without

 

Flight

Path Regulation)

 

30

111-3

Regions of Varying 7 ­ e Cross Coupling

 

32

111-4

Pitch Attitude Required to Maintain Flight Reference During a Step Change in Flight Path

 

34

111-5

Effect

of Regulating

DSM

on Reducing

Safety Margin

 

Excursion

 

35

IV-1

Simulator Block Diagram

 

50

IV-2

Assumed Loop Structure for Pilot Identification

 

55

IV-3

STOLAND

EADI

Display for

Safety Margin Evaluation

 

.

.

.

59

IV-4

Illustration

of DSM Regulation

in

Sustained Wind

 

Shears

 

62

IV-5

y - V Plot Showing Trajectory for FR[DSM+k 0 0] = 100%

 

78

TR 1095-1

,Viii

iV-6

IV-7

C-I

C-2

eCC,3

c-4

C-5

E-1

LEST OF FIGURES

(Concluded)

Page

Relative Effectiveness of FR[DSM+kee] in Maintaining

Dynamic

Safety Margin

 

81

Comparative Effectiveness

of FR[DSM+ke]

in

Regulating

DSM in

Wind Shears

.

83

Reduction in Flight Path Overshoot Using u-6 Static Safety Margin

103

Behavior

of SSM u

e to Gusts with

Pilot Holding Pitch

Attitude Where the Vertical Gust Margin is Critical

105

Ineffectiveness of SSM

Path Overshoot

in Eliminating Flight

1o8

1.8

Ineffectiveness

of SSM w,0

in

Regulating DSM

113

Frequency Response of =

Compared

to

FR

DSM

DSM/u

with FR = SSM

114

Flow Chart

of 1819A Computer Program for Calculating

SR,

FR,

and Gl

 

126

LIST OF TABLES

Page

III-1

List

of Features

Considered

in

the Safety Margin

 

System Survey

19

111-2

Summary

of Flight Path/Flight

Reference

Dynamics

 

.

23

111-3

Definition

of FR[DSMJ

26

ii-4

Summary

of Linearized

Safety Margin Functions

.

.

40

111-5

Summary

of Static

Safety Margin Analysis

 

43

111-6

Summary of the Survey of Flight Reference Implementation Concepts

46

TV-1

Strip Chart Recorder Assignments

.

.

.

.

.54

IV-2

Flight Reference

Based on DSM and f(e)

 

66

IV-3

Refined Safety

Mrgin

System

76

A-1

Basic Flight

Condition Parameters -

NASA

 

Augmentor

Wing Airplane

94

E-i

Listing

of Sperry 1819 A Assembly Language Code

.

.

I1.28

LIST OF ADBRE

TIOfS

cg

Center of gravity

CTOL

Conventional Takeoff and Landing

DSM

Dynamic Safety Margin

FADI

Electronic Attitude

Director Indicator

EAI

Electronics Associates,

Inc.

FAA

Federal Aviation Administration

FR

Flight Reference

GR

Gamma Reference

IS

Instrument Landing System

TM

Lift Margin

MFTD

Multifunction Display

 

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

PIO

Pilot Induced Oscillation

 

PISDWG

Powered-Lift

Standards

Development Working Group

rpm

Revolutions

per minute

SAS

Stability Augmentation System

SR

Safety Reference

 

SSM

Static Safety Margin

STOL

Short Takeoff

and Landing

d

FR

GR

h

AAltitude

ka

k

U

k w

k 5Flight 8

-Vistine of

LZSB OF SflSOLS

g' above

and normal-toglide

slope

Inertial velocity normal to -glide slope

Flight reference

Gamma reference

Altitude

rate

Flight reference partial derivative with respect to

Flight reference partial 'erivative with respect to U

Flight reference partial derivative with respect to w

reference partial derivative with respect to 6

k e

Flight reference partial derivative with respect to a

k-

Dynamic safety margin partial derivative with respect to u

u

k-

Dynamic safety margin partial derivative with respect to w

k-

Dynamic safety margin partial derivative with respect to 5

ERI

- iot-gain for-integral flt ght--reference-error

K

Pilot gain for glide slope error

'K e

Pilot gain for pitch attitude error

x

N61 1

XlX2

Numerator for state x I and control 81

N515 2

Coupling numerator for states x,

x 2 and controls 51, 52

NH

Engine rpm

s

Laplace operator

SR

Safety reference

LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued)

t

Time

TF

Flight reference filter time constant

 

Tel,

Long term time constant associated with e-fixed response

T8 2

Short term time constant associated with 0-fixed response

TI71

Inverse

of numerator

zero appearing

in

d/e

or y/o numerator

u

Inertial velocity perturbation

 

ua

Airspeed perturbation

Ug

Horizontal gust velocity perturbation

Ug

Horizontal gust velocity rate or shear

V

True airspeed

Vm n

Minimum speed at approach thrust

Vminm

Minimum speed at maximum thrust

Wg

Vertical gust velocity

W

X u

Weight

Partial

derivative of x-force with respect to u

X Partia! derivative of x-force with respect to

X 5

Partial derivative of x-force with respect to thrust

Yd Pilot compensation in flight path feedback loop

YFR Pilot compensation in flight reference feedback loop

Z Partial derivative of z-force with respect to u

Z w

Z! Partial derivative of z-force with respect to w with 6 constrained

Partial derivative

of z-force with respect

to

w

Z

w

w

(1

-

Z0e5M1 eeNe

xeZw

Z 8

LIST OF SYI1BOIS

(Concluded)

Partial derivative of z-force with respect to thrust with e

constrained

Z w

(i

-

Z3eMJMeZ)

Z Partial derivative of z-force with respect to a

M Angle of attack

Olmal Maximum allowable

angle

of attack

7 Blight path angle

7max Maximum flight

path angle

7rin Minimum flight

8 Throttle deflection

path angle

6 c

a e

Control column deflection

Elevator deflection

'F

Flap deflection

8 V

Nozzle deflection

AL Denominator

in

e-constrained

eGS

Glide

slope

error

equations, of motion

e Pitch attitude, pitch attitude perturbation

e Pitch attitude command

c

a 0Flight

'ug

OIe

acFR

reference constant

Standard deviation

of u

Crossover frequency

Flight reference crossover frequency

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

Safety margins for powered-lift aircraft are inherently different from their counterparts for conventional aircraft both in how they are defined and in how they are controlled. This is illustrated by the low speed flight path versus airspeed envelopes shown in Fig. I-1. While both the conven-1,,

tional and powered-lift examples possess a commonidle-thrust stall speed,

their minimum safe target speeds vary greatly. As demonstrated in Refs.

1

through 3, powered-lift safety margins can involve several criteria including

various explicit forms of airspeed, angle of attack relationships, and lift

margin - not just a simple proportion of stall speed. Also, when operating under multiple margin criteria, the pilot or autopilot is confronted with

either (i) evaluating and maintaining several airspeed and angle of attack

functions simultaneously or (ii) utilizing conservative margins and tracking

a nearly constant airspeed or angle of attack.

In

addition

to the complex nature

of powered-lift

safety margins,

some

powered-lift aircraft require a different piloting technique from that of conventional aircraft. Where flight path changes cannot be easily sustained

using pitch attitude commands, it is necessary, to',vary, the magnitude of a vertically inclined thrust vector to regulate flight path and to vary pitch

attitude

technique.

to maintain safety margins -

the so-called backside

or STOL

The implication the minimum allowable

thereby to take full advantage

example.

combine to establish a maximum safe flight envelope as shown in Fig. 1-2 in the form of a 7 - V envelope. The problem is how to utilize effectively the

of the above ideas

is

thatit

may be

difficult

to utilize

safety margins of a given powered-lift

of its

aircraft and

short landing capability.

Consider an

For a

given powered-lift

airplane,

'several safety margin criteria,

0406

AIRSPEED,

V

kt

B 4 CONVENTIONAL w 4­ 03 Safety margin z 8- "l LL 12 idle A
B
4
CONVENTIONAL
w
03
Safety margin
z
8-
"l
LL
12
idle
A
Target speed
do60
80
POWERED
LIFT
max
-.
-j
z
-
-
15

<8

12

Figure 1-1.

[,Bidle

Examples

of Safety Margins

for

Conventional and Powered-Lift Aircraft

Flight

Path

Angle,

y'

Steepening

jvCriteronn

Figure 1-2:

Safe Flight

Criteriono

Airspeed, V

Criterion®

-

Increasing

(The various criteria

Minimum

indi~cated

are in Section fl.A)

on this

sketch

described in detail

safe

flight envelope

\Increasing

An Example

of the Determination

of the Minimum

Envelope by Various

Safety Margin Criteria

thrust

lowest

manual or automatic operation. There is no obvious solution to safe opera­

tion and maximum utilization of the low speed flight envelope through use

of existing displays such as pitch attitude, indicated airspeed, or angle of

speed

defined by the

safety margin criteria

consistent with suitable

attack. Therefore, we must examine more sophisticated alternatives.

These

ideas

are based,

in

part,

on

the results

from a

series

of simula­

tor experiments to explore airworthiness criteria needs for powered-lift

aircraft as summarized in Ref. 4. As a result of the FAA-sponsored Powered-

Lift Standards Development Working Group (Pt5DWG),

standards

was

produced

and presented

in

Ref.

1.

a

set

of tentative

The

problem

of how to

maintain

a

minimum allowable

margin using

a

special cockpit

gauge was

addressed briefly

on an

experimental basis

 

in

Ref. 5.

A more general treatment was given in Ref. 6 which, in turn, led

to the program reported here.

B. PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

The

objective

of this

study was

to investigate

safety margin system

concepts which would

ing the state of the aircraft with respect to its flight engrelope, and (ii)

provide the pilot with crucial information regard­

(i)

maintain a level of safety consistent with present-day standards.

The fundamental safety margin for a powered-lift

aircraft was assumed

to be

Powered-Lift

are a function of angle of attack, airspeed, and thrust for given configura­

tion conditions, e.g., flap angle, nozzle angle, and weight.

can be interpreted as defining safety margins in both unaccelerated and

accelerated flight.

composed of

the

speed

and angle

Development Working

of attack margins

Group

(Ref.

recommended by the

1).

These margins

The criteria

Standards

Some of the problem areas and tradeoffs which were considered in the

selection

0

and development

of a safety margin

system included the

Performance

utilizing a display which may not show margins directly

in

maintaining

safety margins while

following:

o

Ease of both automatic and manual aircraft control in tracking a given safety margin error

o

Ease of system monitoring on reversion from automatic to manual operation

o

System mechanizations

as they relate

to sensor

requirements

and computer requirements

o

Envelope tradeoffs when backing off from the minimum allowable margins in order to enhance characteristics of a safety margin system.

The

effort undertaken

in

this program was primarily a feasibility study

of the problem. In order to minimize cost and time, the NASA Augmentor Wing

aircraft was used as the subject of the study, and the flight phase was

limited to final landing approach.

fill

The Sperry STOLAIN

system was used to

basic

computational

and display needs.

o. TEDlUUOAL APPROACH

The

approach used to

study a safety margin

system for powered-lift

STOL

aircraft was both analytical and experimental.

the study primarily involved examination of a large number of possible

The analytical

portion of

mechanizations

methods. This analysis considered ease of control, display of safety margin status, and performance in maintaining safety margins. The analysis

which made full use

of multiloop control

system analysis

also considered implementation

The ultimate goal of the analysis was to sort a large number of possibilities

and to find a few which would be worth examining experimentally on a ground­

of the

system in

an airborne

digital computer.

based simulator.

The

objective

of the experimental program was to study safety margin

system concepts

in

a realistic

environment

taking

into account the

complexi­

ties

of the

aircraft,

its systems,

and a human pilot.

Assuming

that

a

feasible safety margin system were found, the ultimate

goal would be to

propose further

developmental work including

experiments

which

could be

flight tested on the NASA Augmentor Wing aircraft in

expand on the simulator results.

order

to verify and

D.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The

chronological progress

of the

safety margin system program is

reflected in the organization of this report. Section II contains the

definition of a number of important concepts

study. These include definition of the assumed safety margin criteria,

which form the

basis of this

special terms which are useful in

dealing with safety margin systems,

and

finally, a list of useful implementation concepts. Section III describes

the analytical investigation which includes a systematic survey of imple­

mentation concepts followed by a discussion of implications for the experimental investigation. Section IV then describes the experimental

investigation with a description of the simulation and the results obtained

from viewing preliminary system configurations, various design adjustments, implementation matters, and a refined safety margin system. Finally, in

Section V, conclusions and recommendations are presented. Appendix A

contains aircraft stability and control data used in the system analysis.

For a concise summary of multiloop analysis relationships, Appendix B is offered. Appendix C gives a detailed analysis of a class of safety margin system concepts. Appendix D provides a description of an on-line pilot

identification procedure used during the

simulator experiment.

Finally,

Appendix E presents airborne digital computer modifications used in the

system implementation.

The reader

who wishes

to

obtain

an overview

of the program and a

thorough account of the refined system configuration ultimately developed

should consult Sections II and IV with particular emphasis on Subsection IV.F.

The reader interested in understanding the conceptual development should

study Section III in addition. Finally, for a detailed treatment of the closed loop analysis methods, Appendices B and C should be studied in

conjunction with Section III.

SECTION I1

DEINITION OF SAFETY MARGIN SYSTEM CONCEPTS

It

is

convenient

a

to

precede

the reporting

concepts

of analytical

connected with

and

experimental

efforts

of powered-lift

with

definition

aircraft.

of various

We

safety margins

shall begin

by citing

the

safety margin

criteria which are to be addressed. Next, important cockpit instrument

display concepts will be identified. Finally, we shall define certain

safety margin system implementation concepts which are relatively uncon­

ventional and may require clarification.

A. SAFETY MARGIN CRITERIA

 

The

safety

margin

criteria

addressed in

our safety margin

systemr

design

were

those recommended

by the

FAA-sponsored

PISDWG

and which

are

presented

in

Ref.

1.

In

order

to avoid unnecessary

complexity,

the

condition

of

inoperative

power

units

was

set

aside.

The

following

applicable

criteria

thus

remained:

 

1 . Percent airspeed margin relative to minimum airspeed

at approach

thrustt:

Vmin

man

> 15%

2. Absolute airspeed margin relative to minimum airspeed

at approach

thrust:

V

-

V

.

>

m n ­

10

kt

*

The

term "safety margin system"

itself

t

According to Ref.

1,

"approach

thrust"

will be defined shortly in

refers

to the trim thrust

II.C.1.

for

a given approach flight path angle. In order to facilitate implemen­

tation,

thrust setting.

"approach

we chose

to interpret

thrust" as the instantaneous

5.

4.

5.

Percent airspeed margin relative to minimum airspeed at maximum thrust:

V

-

Vnin

vmi

VMinM

- > 30%

Absolute airspeed margin relative to minimum airspeed at maximum thrust:

Instantaneous

V

- Vm -

>

20

kt

vertical gust margin at approach thrust:

Vsin(

-a)>20kt

In effect, these criteria combined to form an operating envelope in

terms of any three independent flight condition variables (e.g., e0, V. and

m); or, if constrained to steady unaccelerated flight, any pair of inde­

pendent flight condition variables (e.g., V and m or V and e). We shall

make use of these relationships shortly.

In addition to the above safety margin criteria, we must also mention

the flight path control power criteria because they were included in our

consideration of a design example. Simply stated, Ref. 1 suggests that

for any specified nominal operating condition (normally in terms of V and

y), the aircraft shall be capable of an upward flight path angle increment

of 4 deg or level flight,

decrement of 4 deg.

nominal 7.5 deg glide slope in headwinds from zero to 35 kt, it must have

whichever

is

larger,

and a

flight path angle

Eebuce, if the aircraft were to operate at 65 kt on a

a flight path angle capability of:,

 

7in

<

-7.5 - 4

=

-11.5

deg

and

 

7max

>

-7.5(0

- 35/65) + 4