JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY 55, 022004 (2010)

V-22 Roll-on-Deck Control Law Design

David G. Miller∗ Erik T. de Brun Yi Lu Major Paul C. Hagar

Technical Fellow Engineer/Scientist Engineer/Scientist Chief Operational Test Director
The Boeing Company, Philadelphia, PA Marine Helicopter Squadron One
U.S. Marine Corps, Patuxent River, MD

Control law design, simulation, and shipboard verification of flight control software enhancing V-22 operational effectiveness
on and near the ship deck are discussed. The control law design effort centers around the use of regime recognition, enhanced
predictive techniques, and active control technologies to increase lateral control power, enhance control response bandwidth
and predictability, and improve disturbance rejection due to ship motion and rotor wake impingement from other aircraft.
Simulation predictions, flight test data, and sea trials test results are presented to validate the effectiveness of the control
laws in improving handling qualities and flight control precision while mitigating V-22 roll responses to ship deck motion
and rotor wake impingement from other aircraft.

Nomenclature δSMAX maximum cockpit lateral stick deflection

δTCL thrust control lever position
A1CCMD lateral cyclic pitch command θ0CMD collective pitch command
D(s) desired response command model φ aircraft bank angle
GDC steady-state gain from stick to actuators φC commanded bank angle
GTCRS torque command regulating system (TCRS) τCF complementary filter time constant
error feedback gain ωD desired bandwidth
H (s) stability compensation
KDC plant canceller numerator DC (steady-state) coefficient
KFCAA ground state feedforward control authority
Introduction
augmentation gain
LP normalized dimensional roll rate damping stability
In 2003 the V-22 program designed, developed, and implemented
derivative, rad/s
a series of control law features that improve the Osprey’s operational
LδS normalized dimensional roll control sensitivity derivative,
effectiveness for its primary mission of sea-based assault. Amphibious
rad/s2 /inch
assault operations require multiple aircraft to operate in close proximity
P (s) aircraft plant model
to one another, often in sea states that cause significant ship deck roll
p aircraft roll rate
and pitch motion. Combined force operations on the ship deck entail the
pC commanded roll rate
potential for rotor wake interactions between the participating aircraft
pMAX maximum commandable roll rate
during virtually all phases of launch and recovery. Since the proprotors of
ṗMAXL maximum leftward roll acceleration
the V-22 are separated laterally, creating the potential for rolling moments
ṗMAXR maximum rightward roll acceleration
due to asymmetric rotor wake impingement on the two proprotors, and
QMAST sensed average (symmetric) mast torque
because ship motion couples most strongly with aircraft roll motion, these
QMASTCMD commanded average (symmetric) mast torque
control law features focus on improved roll stability and are therefore
QMASTPRE predicted average (symmetric) mast torque
referred to as “roll-on-deck (ROD)” software.
s Laplace variable
Design of flight control software was just one part of the overall
|X| absolute value of variable X
effort to define performance metrics, understand and model the ship-
z discrete “z-transform” variable
board aerodynamic environment, and perform dynamic interface testing
T computational cycle update time, s
to evaluate both modified and unmodified flight control software config-
δS pilot lateral stick position
urations. References 1 and 2 overview the multiphase analytical, wind
tunnel, flight test, and sea trials activities that support V-22 dynamic
∗ Corresponding author; email: [email protected]. interface verification. Reference 1 discusses wind tunnel investigations
Presented at the American Helicopter Society 62nd Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, of the aerodynamic interactions between helicopters and tiltrotors in
May 9–11, 2006. Received November 2007; accepted October 2009. a shipboard environment. Reference 2 describes full-scale rotorcraft

DOI: 10.4050/JAHS.55.022004 022004-1 

C 2010 The American Helicopter Society
D. G. MILLER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

downwash surveys in a shipboard environment that defined

worst-case wake interaction scenarios for ROD software design and
verification.
References 3–9 illustrate the importance of performing tiltrotor flight
control system (FCS) design within a framework that assesses handling
qualities (HQ), aerodynamic interactions, and structural load alleviation
using comprehensive design guidelines and the mission task oriented
framework of Aeronautical Design Standard ADS-33E-PRF (Ref. 10).
Significant design care must be exercised when exploiting the control law
task tailoring flexibility offered by fly-by-wire (FBW) active flight con-
trol technology (Ref. 4). Hence, the pre-ROD lateral axis flight control
laws of the V-22, referred to subsequently as the “baseline” software or
control laws, are the simplest design that provides excellent HQ perfor-
mance and flight safety with minimum structural weight requirements.
“Minimum structural weight” means that the FCS meets all maneuver-
ability and agility requirements without requiring excess structure to
react flight control induced airframe and rotor loads (Ref. 11).
Parameter values in the baseline lateral axis control laws of the V-22 Fig. 1. Specific implementation of explicit model following control
had been optimized in flight test through exhaustive evaluation of alter- law architecture in the V-22 flight control system.
native gain and time constant settings by separate groups of test pilots
during the Engineering Manufacturing Development program in 1993
Background
and again after initial sea trials in 1999. Both flight test evaluation ef-
forts identified similar optimal settings for all alterable parameters and
Differential collective pitch (DCP) and lateral cyclic pitch are geared
identical roll rate and attitude error feedback gains. Authority and rate
to lateral stick in the V-22 to generate roll moments for flight path control
limitations in the baseline lateral axis control laws were identified as the
in VTOL mode. Gearing of lateral cyclic pitch to lateral stick is referred
primary performance constraints during these optimization efforts and
to as lateral stick gearing (LSG).
during initial sea trials. Hence modifying feedback loop shaping for the
The V-22 uses a triply redundant, digital, FBW FCS. An explicit
shipboard disturbance environment (Ref. 12) was unlikely to provide
model following control law architecture, illustrated in Fig. 1, provides
significant benefits using the baseline control law structure. Therefore,
high-fidelity command following, disturbance rejection, and high levels
significant progress toward improved shipboard operational effectiveness
of stability augmentation. The V-22 FCS is partitioned into primary flight
could only be achieved by altering the fundamental constraints that gov-
control system (PFCS) and limited authority automatic flight control sys-
ern the trade-offs between HQ performance, aircraft weight, and control
tem (AFCS) flight control computers (FCCs). The PFCS provides basic
law design simplicity.
flight control capability with the simplest possible implementation. The
These fundamental design constraints were altered by leveraging
AFCS implements advanced features required for optimum mission ef-
the advances made in recent years in digital flight control technology
fectiveness and low pilot workload. Control law features requiring sensor
and structured software design practices under programs such as the
feedback or relatively high levels of complexity are implemented in the
U.S. Army’s Helicopter Active Control Technology (HACT) program
AFCS to ensure robustness to sensor failures or unforeseen behavior in
(Ref. 13) in the areas of regime recognition and task tailored control
complex functions. Figure 2 provides more detail on the explicit model
laws. HACT technologies were applied to tailor control laws for the
following control laws used to provide the roll rate command attitude
shipboard regime without sacrificing HQ performance in any other flight
hold (RCAH) response type in the V-22.
regime, increasing aircraft weight, or decreasing the ability to compre-
hensively verify, validate, and test the FCS. Reference 14 introduces
the concept of limit prediction technology for airplane mode flight en-
velope cueing in tiltrotor aircraft. The ROD flight control software ap-
plies limit prediction in vertical takeoff or landing (VTOL) mode to
increase lateral control power, mitigate “ROD” effects, and improve lat-
eral axis control response bandwidth characteristics for all amplitudes of
pilot.
References 15 and 16 found that handling qualities determine oper-
ating limitations at the helicopter/ship dynamic interface. Reference 17
concluded that dynamic interface analysis requires investigation of all
aspects of integrating helicopter and ship operations related to ship mo-
tion. V-22 ROD control law design documents expansion of shipboard-
operating envelopes due to HQ improvements and demonstrates that
simulation can predict the benefit of control law modifications at the
tiltrotor/ship dynamic interface. References 18 and 19 describe the chal-
lenges associated with managing transitions between ground and air-
borne states in FBW rotorcraft flight control systems and review currently
used landing, takeoff, and ground-handling control law architectures.
The ROD control laws advance the state of the art by enabling roll rate,
roll attitude, and lateral flapping feedback functions during ground state Fig. 2. Baseline V-22 roll axis explicit model following control law
conditions. architecture in airborne regime.

022004-2
V-22 ROLL-ON-DECK CONTROL LAW DESIGN 2010

Design Constraints and Approach

Although explicit model following control laws do much to alleviate

design constraints, such as decoupling stability from control response
characteristics, design of the Osprey’s lateral axis control laws is still
bounded by the constraint of maintaining mast torque loads within struc-
tural limits. The V-22 ROD control law design approach exploits the
capabilities of the Osprey’s FBW FCS to navigate this design constraint
while tailoring the flight control laws to increase control power to offset
the worst-case wake interaction and provide robustness to inattentive
pilots on the ship deck.
Differential collective pitch is the primary roll controller in VTOL
mode but increasing collective pitch on either rotor increases torque and
must be constrained to respect peak mast torque limits. Each rotor’s
mast torque limit is the sum of its share of the symmetric torque and the
additional increment due to DCP. Thus more DCP input can be allowed
at lower average mast torque as illustrated by the diagonal constraint
shown in Fig. 5. The vertical constraint shown in Fig. 5 represents the
symmetric mast torque limit enforced by the torque command regulation
system (TCRS) on the V-22.
Fig. 3. Lateral axis pole-zero map for tiltrotor aircraft in hover.
The baseline control laws provide constant lateral control authority
ABT, asymmetric body torsion mode; ADS, asymmetric drive system
at all values of mast torque. Thus roll control power is limited to the
mode; APY, asymmetric pylon yaw mode; AWB, asymmetric wing
solid “constant control authority” line in Fig. 5 allowed at maximum av-
beam mode; AWC, asymmetric wing chord mode; AWT, asymmetric
erage mast torque. The simple approach of using constant lateral control
wing torsion mode; and RIP, rotor in-plane mode.
authority provides acceptable design space in the lighter shaded area in
Fig. 5 for meeting airborne control power and load-limiting requirements.
However, for the worst-case wake interaction scenarios, wherein the
While the lateral axis dynamics of tiltrotor aircraft involve many
V-22 is operating on the ship deck with one of its rotors immersed in
modes, as illustrated by the pole-zero map in Fig. 3, programming the
the rotor wake of a nearby heavily loaded airborne helicopter, a larger
simplest 1-degree-of-freedom (DOF) roll axis plant canceller dynamics
amount of lateral control power is required than in any airborne flight
into the flight critical PFCS computers exemplifies the overarching V-22
regime. Deck operations are the only remotely probable scenarios where
FCS design philosophy of minimizing complexity. As shown in Fig. 4,
a V-22 could operate in the downwash of a hovering rotorcraft without
the 1-DOF roll dynamics model matches the frequency response of the
any ability to increase separation distance to mitigate the interaction.
high-order linear model corresponding to Fig. 3 within the bandwidth of
Thus the ROD software tailors maximum lateral control power as a
interest for FCS design.

Fig. 4. Effectiveness of the simple 1-DOF aircraft model in repre- Fig. 5. Optimal tailoring of lateral control authority subject to mast
senting tiltrotor roll dynamics in hover. torque limits.

022004-3
D. G. MILLER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

function of symmetric mast torque, as illustrated by the dashed “torque-

based control authority allocation” line in Fig. 5, to provide the lateral
control authority necessary to overcome worst-case disturbances when
the aircraft is constrained on the ship deck at low rotor thrust settings.
Control law tailoring with average mast torque provides a design solu-
tion within the acceptable ROD design space, represented by the darker
shaded area in Fig. 5, without violating mast torque structural load limit
constraints at higher power settings.

Design Philosophy and Control Law Features

The ROD control law design philosophy mirrors the robust and fail-
safe design approach used throughout the V-22 baseline FCS. Core ROD
control law features required for adequate HQ by a fully attentive pilot
in the on-deck flight regime are implemented in the PFCS. Additional
automatic control features are implemented in the AFCS that minimize
pilot workload and provide margin for instances of unanticipated wake
interference or ship deck motion during ground operations requiring
divided pilot attention. An additional set of ROD control law features is
implemented to improve control response bandwidth both in the air and Fig. 6. Torque prediction block diagram.
on the ground.
Weight-on-wheels (WOW) sensing is used to tailor the control laws
for optimal HQ but never depended upon for flight safety. Where pos-
sible, parameters that remain essentially constant across ground-to-air
and air-to-ground transitions, such as thrust control lever (TCL) posi-
tion, symmetric mast torque, or nacelle angle, are used for control law
tailoring to reduce transients during the delicate tasks of VTOL from
confined areas in winds or from sloped surfaces.

Core primary flight control system roll-on-deck control law features

Core PFCS ROD control law features include increasing lateral con-
trol power available to the pilot in the air and on the ground and using
regime recognition to reduce minimum collective pitch on the ground in
VTOL mode.
Pilot lateral control power is increased by scheduling DCP authority
in the air and on the ground as a function of predicted average mast
torque. Torque prediction is used to maintain functionality if sensed mast Fig. 7. Differential collective pitch authority allocation and tailoring.
torque is unreliable and to provide signal smoothing with no induced
latency during normal operation. Predicted torque for the ROD control
laws is synthesized by complementary filtering measured torque with the
TCRS mast torque command as shown in Fig. 6. The V-22 TCRS feeds
back sensed mast torque to collective pitch to minimize errors between
commanded and measured mast torque. Hence commanded mast torque
is a highly accurate indicator of actual mast torque as a result of the
feedback robustness provided by the TCRS.
As shown in Fig. 7, predicted mast torque is used to calculate al-
lowable DCP authority envelopes for both airborne and on-deck flight
regimes. Allowable DCP authority is constrained by maximum allowable
individual mast torque load considerations at high symmetric mast torque
levels and by negative individual mast torque sensing considerations at
low symmetric mast torque settings. Negative mast torque is limited so
that mast torque out of negative range can be used as a criterion for
identifying mast torque sensor failures.
Control law tailoring is performed based on the operative allowable
DCP envelope, nacelle angle, and airspeed. Total DCP authority
allocated for combined lateral and directional axis commands, lateral
stick to DCP gearing ratio, DCP authority allocated to lateral axis
commands, and lateral stick input rate limits used for mast torque
structural loads limiting are optimized based on predicted symmetric
mast torque. As shown in Fig. 8 for the on-ground regime, lateral axis
AFCS feedback commands are scaled with a factor that compensates Fig. 8. Roll-on-deck lateral axis control laws in on-ground regime.

022004-4
V-22 ROLL-ON-DECK CONTROL LAW DESIGN 2010

Fig. 10. Predicted V-22 percent airborne trends with symmetric rotor
Fig. 9. Lateral AFCS authority tailoring based on the cockpit tip collective pitch.
stick position. —, Baseline control laws (CLAWS); - - -, roll-on-deck
CLAWS.
Automatic flight control system roll-on-deck control law features

The ROD software enables several AFCS stability augmentation func-

for changes in the DCP-gearing ratio, eliminating lateral coupling tions on the ground to provide precise control of aircraft roll attitude and
due to power changes. DCP-gearing changes are compensated for by rotor lateral tip path plane orientation. Commanded roll rate and attitude
scaling AFCS port commands in both airborne and on-ground modes are synchronized to the sensed roll rate and attitude when weight is on
of the ROD control laws. The maximum allowable lateral AFCS port both main landing gear, effectively eliminating the roll rate and attitude
size is also adjusted based on allowable DCP authority to ensure that command models as illustrated in Fig. 8. A lateral stick feedforward
steady-state control surface actuator saturation cannot occur unless the control authority augmentation path is added through the AFCS port
lateral stick is positioned on the cockpit control stops. to augment pilot control power and offset bank angle feedback during
Lateral control power accessible through the pilot direct path to the ground regime tasks requiring significant bank angles such as crosswind
actuators is increased on the ground by increasing the steady-state (DC) takeoffs. More restrictive limits are applied to bank angle feedback com-
gain of the lateral axis feedforward shaping filter. Referring to Fig. 2, the mands at higher TCL settings to minimize required stick displacement
direct path steady-state gain in the baseline control laws from cockpit when the pilot wishes to bank the aircraft prior to lifting gear off the
lateral stick to equivalent actuator command is ground.
Lateral AFCS authority is tailored based on TCL position to provide
  a high level of disturbance rejection at low TCL settings where pilot
GDC = (Lp pMAX ) LδS δSMAX (1)
attention may be divided and to limit AFCS authority at higher power
settings as shown in Fig. 11. Note that the lateral AFCS is disabled in
For the V-22 in VTOL mode, the value of GDC is 0.7 eq-inch/inch. the baseline control laws when weight is on both main landing gear.
As shown in Fig. 8, the ROD control laws tailor the characteristics of The HACT ground mode rotor tip path plane (TPP) response type
the plant canceller when the aircraft is on the ground to increase GDC to (Ref. 13) is employed to provide roll rate, roll attitude, and lateral flap-
1.0 eq-inch/inch by changing the numerator DC coefficient (KDC ) from ping feedback stabilization and feedforward steady-state control author-
a value of LP in the baseline control laws to a value of LδS δSMAX /(pMAX ). ity augmentation when the aircraft lateral axis is constrained by both
Pilot control in AFCS failure scenarios is increased by reducing lateral
AFCS authority when AFCS commands counter large pilot stick inputs
as shown in Fig. 9. Additional steady-state control power is gained by
increasing AFCS authority in situations where the AFCS command aug-
ments large pilot lateral stick inputs.
The V-22 rotor speed governor commands full down collective pitch
when tip collective is reduced below the minimum point in the torque ver-
sus collective pitch curve. Regime recognition is used to take advantage
of this characteristic in the ROD control laws to minimize rotor thrust and
improve roll stability on the deck. Minimum tip collective pitch that can
be commanded by the rotor speed governor is reduced from the baseline
value of –7 deg to a value of –9 deg when the TCL is on the aft stop and
weight is on both main landing gear in the VTOL mode.
A 2-deg reduction in symmetric collective pitch roughly halves thrust
over a wide range of wind conditions at minimum TCL settings as shown
in Fig. 10. The minimum collective pitch command mode also gives the
pilot proportional command of symmetric collective pitch on the ground
in the VTOL mode by increasing the minimum collective pitch that
can be commanded by the rotor governor from –9 to –7 deg as TCL is Fig. 11. Ground state lateral AFCS authority tailoring based on the
advanced from 0 to 1 inch in the appropriate flight regime. TCL position.

022004-5
D. G. MILLER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

Fig. 12. Effectiveness of roll-on-deck control laws for rolling ship

deck scenario.
Fig. 13. Actuator rate prioritization block diagram .

main landing gear in ground contact. The roll attitude and rate feedback
loops in the ROD control laws generate LSG path commands that com- Roll control response is improved by prioritizing DCP actuator rate
mand proportional lateral flapping changes on the rotor masts. Lateral demands over LSG actuators rate demands when total actuator rate com-
flapping controllers on each rotor mast sense lateral flapping angles and mands are predicted to exceed the physical rate limitations of the swash-
adjust lateral cyclic pitch actuator settings to achieve the desired tip path plate actuators. The concept of prioritizing DCP rate demands over LSG
plane angles. rate demands, referred to as ARP, is illustrated in Fig. 13. ARP calculates
In the rotor TPP response type, neutral lateral stick position in the and compares the rates of collective and cyclic pitch commanded by the
cockpit aligns the total rotor thrust vector with gravity regardless of wind control laws with the maximum rate capability of the actuators to de-
conditions or aircraft roll angle. Lateral stick deflection from neutral termine the least restrictive lateral cyclic pitch rate limit that prioritizes
produces a proportional tilt of the rotor tip path planes and thrust vectors. swashplate rise and fall over swashplate tilt when actuator rate limits are
The rotor TPP response type automatically applies “stick into the slope” encroached. The lateral cyclic pitch rate limit determined by the ARP
or “stick into the wind,” reducing pilot workload during takeoffs or algorithm is limited to a range that ensures robust performance at ex-
landings from sloped surfaces and/or crosswind conditions. Bank angle tremes of ambient temperature and hydraulic system pressure. Figure 14
feedback is inherent in this response-type, automatically alighting the quantifies the improvement in roll control response provided by ARP for
aircraft when aerodynamic effects or ship deck motion disturb the aircraft a moderate amplitude step input that impinges upon actuator rate limits.
lateral axis. The AFCS RACML feature bounds roll acceleration commands to
Asymmetric landing gear deflection exaggerates aircraft bank angle values that can be obtained within the physical capabilities of the aircraft.
during rolling ship deck scenarios with the baseline control laws as a Figure 15 shows a block diagram depicting the unaugmented roll rate
result of landing gear flexibility and aircraft roll inertia. The bank angle response of a theoretical aircraft with ideal damping and control sensi-
feedback provided by the rotor TPP response type mitigates asymmetric tivity to aid discussion of this feature. Referring to Fig. 15, the maximum
landing gear deflection and minimizes the relative roll angle between achievable right and left roll acceleration capabilities of an ideal aircraft
the ship deck and aircraft. The simulation predictions in Fig. 12 show vary linearly as a function of roll rate:
that the ROD control laws decrease relative roll between the V-22 and  
ṗMAXR = δSMAX LδS − Lp p (2)
the ship deck at the periods of oscillation characteristic of amphibious  
assault class ships, where relative roll angle is plotted as a percentage of ṗMAXL = − δSMAX LδS − Lp p (3)
the threshold angle for WOW sensor toggling. In contrast, consider a “nonideal” aircraft with equivalent control
surface authority but considerably lower rate damping and control
Control response phase improvement features

The ROD control laws incorporate actuator rate prioritization (ARP)

and roll acceleration command model limiting (RACML) features to
improve command following bandwidth and predictability for large am-
plitude and high rate pilot inputs.
Lateral stick inputs should result ideally in simultaneous swashplate
tilt due to LSG and swashplate displacement due to DCP. However, ac-
tuator rate limiting can distort the response of the swashplate to high rate
lateral stick inputs under some circumstances. LSG-generated actuator
rate commands can overwhelm DCP actuator rate commands, causing
pure swashplate and thrust vector tilt without the desired accompanying
change in collective pitch and thrust vector magnitude. Since DCP is Fig. 14. Impact of actuator rate limiting and prioritization on roll ac-
roughly twice as powerful in generating rolling moment about the air- celeration responses. —, Unlimited (ideal) actuator rate capability;
craft center of gravity as LSG, the tendency to produce pure thrust vector – –, baseline control laws with realistic actuator rate limits; - - -,
tilt during the short-term response to high rate lateral stick inputs delays roll-on-deck control laws with realistic actuator rate limits and
and degrades roll rate response to high rate lateral stick inputs. actuator rate prioritization.

022004-6
V-22 ROLL-ON-DECK CONTROL LAW DESIGN 2010

Figure 17 shows commanded and actual roll acceleration responses

to a moderate amplitude lateral control doublet for the ideal aircraft and
the nonideal aircraft with and without RACML. Values of 0.7 rad/s and
0.175 rad/s2 /inch are used to represent, respectively, the roll rate damping
(LP ) and roll control sensitivity (LδS ) derivatives of the nonideal aircraft.
The roll rate error, defined as the difference between commanded and
actual roll rates, is reduced significantly by maintaining commanded
accelerations within the physical capabilities of the aircraft. Thus roll
rate errors are prevented from integrating into bank angle errors that
could result in phase loss or saturation of lateral AFCS commands.
Nonideal and ideal aircraft roll rate responses are matched as closely as
Fig. 15. Block diagram of theoretical unaugmented aircraft with possible when the RACML function is enabled. RACML eliminates the
ideal damping and control sensitivity. L δ S = 0.6125 rad/s2 ; L p = delay, or phase loss, in roll rate decay to zero after the lateral stick is
3.5 rad/s; δ SMAX = 4.0 inches. returned to trim that is present in the baseline nonideal aircraft roll rate
response.

Test Results and Simulation Correlation

sensitivity that is augmented by the explicit model following control laws
illustrated in Fig. 2 to “mimic” the dynamic characteristics of the “ideal”
M97 and Aeroelastic Stability Analysis Program (ASAP) high-
aircraft. To cancel the slower dynamics of the nonideal aircraft and re-
fidelity linear analyses (Ref. 20) and piloted simulation were used to
place them with the faster dynamics of an ideal aircraft, the plant canceller
design and predict the performance benefits of the ROD software. The
feedforward shaping filters must supply a considerable amount of lead
piloted simulation environment modeled ship deck motion, landing gear
shaping. Lead shaping amplifies high-frequency control inputs, implying
dynamics, deck spot visual cues, downwash from other aircraft, and
that rapid moderate and large amplitude cockpit control inputs will re-
aerodynamic disturbances near the ship deck using the high-fidelity non-
sult in control surface commands that impinge upon authority limits and
linear 6-DOF generic tilt rotor simulation (GTRS) aircraft math model
generate an essentially constant level of roll acceleration. Commanding
(Ref. 21). Both fixed base and moving base simulations were conducted
a maximum level of acceleration that does not reduce proportionally as
in support of ROD software design.
the roll rate builds differs from an ideal aircraft and increases the control
The ROD software performance was then verified in ground-based
response phase loss when cockpit controls are reversed.
flight tests and sea trials, including specially designed rotor downwash
As shown in Fig. 16, the ROD software modifies the baseline ex-
experiments with various aircraft aboard ships in a broad spectrum of
plicit model following control law architecture so that roll acceleration
wind-over-deck (WOD) conditions as illustrated in Fig. 18. During these
commands are limited to levels that are physically achievable and con-
specially designed experiments, H-1, H-46, V-22, and H-53 aircraft con-
sistent with the maximum roll acceleration capability versus rate profile
figured at various gross weights flew into, out of, and hovered in posi-
of an ideal aircraft. Commanded roll acceleration is limited based on the
tions upwind and above a V-22 while it operated on the deck of a landing
predicted profile of roll acceleration capability versus commanded roll
helicopter dock (LHD) class ship. The upwind aircraft flew mission rep-
rate.
resentative launch and recovery profiles and also evaluated worst-case
conditions that were not mission relatable to determine critical combi-
nations of upwind aircraft position, gross weight, and WOD. Simulation
predictions, ground-based flight test data, and sea trials test results vali-
date the effectiveness of the ROD software.
Figure 19 demonstrates the correlation between measured mast torque
and the predicted mast torque signal used to tailor DCP authority in the
ROD control laws. The predicted mast torque signal is smoother than
measured mast torque, attenuating noise and eliminating the potential
for aeroservoelastic coupling. Signal smoothness of the predicted mast
torque signal is achieved without introducing the long-time delays asso-
ciated with standard, or nonpredictive, filtering.
The ROD software performance during wake interaction scenarios
was predicted prior to sea trials based on data obtained from full-scale
downwash surveys of CH-53E and H-46 helicopters conducted aboard
ship (Ref. 2). The data were recorded using an anemometer array to mea-
sure the variation of wake-induced velocities across a span and at a height
above deck corresponding to the rotors of a V-22 spotted on deck. Mea-
sured downwash velocities were averaged over the rotor disks to produce
time histories of equivalent right and left rotor inflow disturbances that
were input into the GTRS math model to predict aerodynamic forcing
functions during wake interaction events.
Figure 20 illustrates predicted and actual performance of the ROD
software during the worst-case dynamic wake interaction scenario iden-
tified during sea trials testing. This scenario represents the worst-case
rolling moment perturbation that results from maneuvering an upwind
Fig. 16. Roll acceleration command limiting block diagram. CH-53E helicopter into and out of the altitude and position that results

022004-7
D. G. MILLER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

Fig. 17. Responses of ideal aircraft and nonideal aircraft with and without roll acceleration command model limiting.

in the strongest and most asymmetric wake interaction on the V-22. This inputs and bank angles relative to the threshold for WOW sensor toggling
represents an extremely unlikely operational scenario in which the pilot agree with sea trials results. The piloted simulation predictions in Fig. 20
would be fully attentive and actively on the controls if it ever were to also indicate that WOW sensor toggling could not have been prevented
occur. Figure 20 shows that piloted simulation predictions of lateral stick

Fig. 18. Specially designed rotor downwash experiment with CH-53E Fig. 19. Comparison of predicted and measured mast torque for
helicopter. takeoff maneuver.

022004-8
V-22 ROLL-ON-DECK CONTROL LAW DESIGN 2010

Figure 22 shows the reduction in control response phase loss pro-

vided by the ROD control laws. The measured improvement in control
response phase matches simulation predictions, verifying the expected
improvements in control response bandwidth and phase delay due to
RACML, ARP, and DCP authority tailoring. Test pilots commented that
lateral control precision was increased by the improvement in the lateral
control response phase that they noticed in the ROD control laws.
Handling qualities ratings (HQRs) taken in ground-based mission
task element (MTE) flight testing also match closely with simulation
predictions as shown in Figs. 23 and 24. In general, piloted simulation
provides a slightly pessimistic prediction of HQRs for all configura-
tions, as one would expect for a RCAH response type. However, piloted
simulation is relatively accurate in predicting the difference in HQRs
between the baseline and ROD control laws. Figure 23 shows that HQRs
with the ROD software improve as predicted by simulation for the V-22
lateral reposition MTE (Ref. 7), a task designed to expose any defi-
ciencies in control response bandwidth or phase delay characteristics.
The ROD control laws optimize HQ by improving control response
predictability for all levels of maneuver aggressiveness, quantified using
peak lateral velocity as the aggressiveness metric for the lateral reposition
MTE.
Seamless control mode transitions between airborne and ground
regimes in the ROD control laws are substantiated by the solidly Level 1
HQRs obtained for takeoffs from and landings on 9-deg sloped surfaces
Fig. 20. Predicted and actual performance of roll-on-deck control
laws in the worst-case dynamic wake interaction scenario.

during this extreme scenario without the ROD control law modifications
to the PFCS.
Figure 21 compares V-22 roll responses during the H-46 wake inter-
action scenario described in Ref. 1 with and without the ROD control
law modifications. Uncommanded roll during this more realistic opera-
tional scenario is virtually eliminated by the AFCS features of the ROD
software.

Fig. 22. Roll rate to lateral stick control response phase improvement
due to roll-on-deck control laws. —, Simulation prediction for
1.0-inch stick input amplitude; – –, simulation prediction for 2.0-inch
stick input amplitude; - -- -, flight test manual frequency sweep.

Fig. 21. Performance of roll-on-deck control laws during H-46 wake Fig. 23. Predicted and actual handling qualities ratings for V-22
interaction scenario. lateral reposition mission task element.

022004-9
D. G. MILLER JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HELICOPTER SOCIETY

expansion with the new software. It is a testament to the accuracy and

utility of the ROD piloted simulation environment and analytical model-
ing tools that none of these FTIP parameters needed to be adjusted from
the values defined using these tools prior to flight test and sea trials.

Conclusions

1) Piloted simulation has proven to be an effective tool for predicting

the benefit of control law modifications that improve operational effec-
tiveness in the shipboard environment. The correlation between simula-
tion predictions and sea trials results using the GTRS math model and
M97 and ASAP high-fidelity linear analysis tools is excellent in regard
to predicting control law performance.
2) Numerous shore-based and shipboard tests with various upwind
aircraft, gross weight, and WOD conditions validate the effectiveness of
Fig. 24. Predicted and actual handling qualities ratings for V-22 the ROD flight control software modifications. Extensive testing, con-
9-deg lateral sloped landing and takeoff mission task elements. ducted in a range of sea states, shows that advanced automatic flight con-
trol functions utilizing aircraft roll rate, bank angle, and lateral flapping
feedback can improve takeoff, landing, and on-deck handling qualities
shown in Fig. 24. The ROD control laws improve HQ in the sloped in production shipboard operational rotorcraft.
takeoff MTE as predicted by piloted simulation. Test pilots commented 3) Active digital flight control technologies such as regime recognition
that the rotor TPP response type in the ROD control laws allows and prediction and task-tailored control laws provide new opportunities to
takeoffs from sloped surfaces to be performed as a nearly uncoupled improve operational effectiveness, flight safety, and handling qualities for
vertical axis task, significantly reducing workload for this demanding control law design problems that have proven historically to be severely
task. constrained.
The shaded area in Fig. 25 represents the increase in shipboard WOD 4) The ROD control laws exploit the full potential of the tiltrotor
and wind azimuth operating envelope due to the ROD flight control mod- configuration in the shipboard environment. Active full authority digital
ifications for multiple Ospreys operating with no deck spot separation flight control technology is a critical enabling technology that allows
between them. The ROD software has been instrumental in removing new rotorcraft configurations with higher than traditional ground state
operational restrictions between on deck V-22 aircraft and upwind air- lateral axis control power and inherent gust sensitivity, such as tiltrotor
craft. As a result, marine assault missions can now launch roughly twice aircraft, to meet amphibious assault mission requirements.
as fast with the Osprey as with the CH-46 Sea Knight, the helicopter that
the Osprey will ultimately replace.
Acknowledgments
The Osprey’s flight test interface panel (FTIP) was provisioned with
capability to adjust seven key parameters in the ROD control laws to
The authors thank Mr. James B. Dryfoos, Mr. Walter Happell,
reduce risk during flight test and shipboard dynamic interface envelope
Mr. Jeffrey Nicholas, and Lt. Col. David Thorn for their contributions to
this article.

References

1
Silva, M. J., Yamauchi, G. K., Wadcock, A. J., and Long, K. L.,
“Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Aerodynamic Interactions between
Helicopters and Tiltrotors in a Shipboard Environment,” AHS Fourth
Decennial Specialists’ Conference on Aeromechanics, San Francisco,
CA, January 21–23, 2004.
2
Silva, M. J., Geyer, W. P., and Nelson, J., “Full Scale Rotorcraft
Downwash Surveys in a Shipboard Environment,” American Helicopter
Society 60th Annual Forum Proceedings, Baltimore, MD, June 7–11,
2004.
3
Meyer, M., and Padfield, G. D., “First Steps in the Development
of Handling Qualities Criteria for a Civil Tilt Rotor,” Journal of the
American Helicopter Society, Vol. 50, (1), 2005, pp. 33–45.
4
Padfield, G. D., “Progress in Civil Tilt-Rotor Handling Qualities,”
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 51, (1), 2006, pp. 80–91.
5
Rollet, P., “RHILP—A Major Step for European Knowledge in Tilt-
Rotor Aeromechanics and Flight Dynamics,” Aeronautics Days 2001,
Hamburg, Germany, January 28–31, 2001.
6
Desopper, A., Heinze, D., Routhieau, V., Roth, G., van Grunhagen,
W., and Haverdings, H., “Study of the Low Speed Characteristics of a
Fig. 25. Roll-on-deck software validation and envelope expansion for Tilt Rotor,” 28th European Rotorcraft Forum Proceedings, Bristol, UK,
V-22 on V-22 rotor wake interaction scenarios. September 17–20, 2002.

022004-10
V-22 ROLL-ON-DECK CONTROL LAW DESIGN 2010

7 14
Weakley, J. M., Kleinhesselink, K. M., Mason, D. H., and Mitchell, Horn, J. F., Calise, A. J., and Prasad, J. V. R., “Flight Envelope
D. G., “Simulation Evaluation of V-22 Degraded-Mode Flying Qual- Cueing on a Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Using Neural Network Limit Prediction,”
ities,” American Helicopter Society 59th Annual Forum Proceedings, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 46, (1), 2001, pp. 23–31.
Phoenix, AZ, May 6–8, 2003. 15
Padfield, G. D., and Wilkinson, Lt. C. H., “Handling Qualities Cri-
8
Manimala, B., Padfield, G. D., Walker, D., Naddei, M., Verde, L., teria for Maritime Helicopter Operations,” American Helicopter Society
Ciniglio, U., Rollet, P., and Sandri, F., “Load Alleviation in 53rd Annual Forum Proceedings, Virginia Beach, VA, April 29–May 1,
Tilt Rotor Aircraft through Active Control: Modeling and Control 1997.
Concepts,” The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 108, (1082), April 2004, 16
Carignan, S. J. R. P., and Gubbels, A. W., “Assessment of Vertical
pp. 169–184. Axis Handling Qualities for the Shipborne Recovery Task: ADS 33
9
Rollet, P., Sandri, F., and Roudaut, T., “Latest European Achieve- (Maritime),” American Helicopter Society 54th Annual Forum Proceed-
ments in Tilt Rotor Piloted Simulation and Handling Qualities Assess- ings, Washington, DC, May 20–22, 1998.
ments,” 29th European Rotorcraft Forum Proceedings, Friedrichshafen, 17
Langlois, R., and Tadros, A. R., “State-of-the-Art on-Deck Dynamic
Germany, September 16–18, 2003. Interface Analysis,” American Helicopter Society 55th Annual Forum
10
Anon., “Handling Qualities Requirements for Military Rotorcraft, Proceedings, Montreal, Canada, May 25–27, 1999.
Performance Specification, ADS-33E-PRF,” U.S. AAMC, Aviation En- 18
Bauer, C. J., “A Landing and Takeoff Control Law for Unique Trim,
gineering Directorate, March 2000. Fly-by-Wire Rotorcraft Flight Control Systems,” American Helicopter
11
King, D. W., Dabundo, C., Kisor, R. L., and Agnihotri, A., Society 49th Annual Forum Proceedings, St. Louis, MO, May 19–21,
“V-22 Load Limiting Control Law Development,” American Helicopter 1993.
Society 49th Annual Forum Proceedings, St. Louis, MO, May 19–21, 19
Landis, K. H., Davis, J. M., Dabundo, C., and Keller, J. F., “Advanced
1993. Flight Control Technology Achievements at Boeing Helicopters,” Inter-
12
Horn, J. F., and Bridges, D. O., “A Model Following Controller national Journal of Control, Vol. 59, (1), 1994, pp. 263–290.
Optimized for Gust Rejection during Shipboard Operations,” American 20
Parham, T., Popelka, D., Miller, D. G., and Froebel, A. T.,
Helicopter Society 63rd Annual Forum Proceedings, Virginia Beach, VA, “V-22 Pilot-in-the-Loop Aeroelastic Stability Analysis,” American Heli-
May 1–3, 2007. copter Society 47th Annual Forum Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, May 6–8,
13
Miller, D. G., Einthoven, P. G., Morse, C. S., and Wood, J., “HACT 1991.
21
Flight Control System (HFCS) Control Law Overview,” American Ferguson, S. W., “A Mathematical Model for Real-Time Flight Sim-
Helicopter Society 58th Annual Forum Proceedings, Montreal, Canada, ulation of a Generic Tilt-Rotor Aircraft,” NASA CR-166536, September
June 11–13, 2002. 1988, Rev. A.

022004-11