The present invention relates to a method and a device for yaw controlling of an aircraft.
It is known that yaw controlling of an aircraft is mainly ensured by a rudder jointed to a vertical stabilizer, being able to rotate in two opposite rotating directions between an aerodynamically neutral position and a maximum rotation breakpoint. To this end, the rudder is controlled by a mobile commanding system (directional crossbar) available to the pilot of the aircraft. This system is generally provided with two pedals which, upon their respective depressions, result in the system being moved in two opposite directions associated respectively with two opposite rotating directions of the rudder. In particular, this directional crossbar controls the rotation of the rudder so that the extent of the rotation of the rudder depends on the extent of the movement of the directional crossbar. Thus, depressing the right pedal, for instance, results from the pilot's intention to generate a yaw moment tending to move the nose of the aircraft to the right, such a moment being achieved by a deflection to the right of the rudder. Thus, when the pilot of the aircraft wishes to correct the lateral trajectory of the aircraft, he can act on the directional crossbar with the purpose of implementing the rudder.
It is also known that it could be provided, when the speed of such an aircraft exceeds a limitation speed threshold, to limit the rotation of the rudder inversely proportionally to the speed of the aircraft, with the purpose of limiting the constraints said aircraft is submitted to at a high speed and, thus, allowing yaw maneuvers to be achieved, including at a high speed.
Thus, when the speed of the aircraft is lower than this limitation speed threshold, if the pilot moves one of the pedals of the directional crossbar until one of the maximum rotation breakpoints of the rudder is reached (in one of the two rotating directions of said rudder), the directional crossbar has itself reached a breakpoint. On the other hand, when the speed of the aircraft is at least equal to this limitation speed threshold, if the pilot moves one of the pedals of the directional crossbar until one of the maximum rotation breakpoints of the rudder is reached (in one of the rotating directions of said rudder), he is still able to move the directional crossbar. In such a case, the movement of the directional crossbar by the pilot could overcome the position of the latter corresponding to the maximum rotation breakpoint of the rudder in one of the rotating directions of said rudder, and the pilot could therefore generate an over-command at the level of said rudder.
It should however be noticed that, when the speed of the aircraft is higher than this limitation speed threshold, if the pilot has beforehand moved one of the pedals of the directional crossbar so that the movement of the directional crossbar overcomes the position of the latter corresponding to the maximum rotation breakpoint in one of the rotating directions of the rudder, with the purpose to carry out, thru an over-command, a yaw maneuver in this same direction, it is possible that the latter suddenly wishes to carry out an opposite yaw maneuver, that is in the other direction, also thru an over-command. To this end, the pilot moves the other pedal of the directional crossbar so that the movement of said directional crossbar overcomes the position thereof corresponding to the maximum rotation breakpoint in the opposite rotating direction of the rudder.
Now, upon such a sudden inversion of the position of the rudder (from one of the maximum rotation breakpoints of the rudder to the other, the aircraft undergoes excessive charges at the level of the vertical stabilizer, linked to too a quick variation of the rotation amplitude of the rudder.
The object of the present invention therefore aims at preventing such a risk for the aircraft upon a yaw maneuver.
To this end, according to this invention, the method for yaw controlling of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising:
Thus, thanks to the invention, when the pilot initiates an inversion of the over-command of the rudder, he is warned of the risk involved by such a maneuver, allowing to give him the possibility to decide whether it is appropriate to maintain his inversion instructions, or even, on the contrary, to cancel his inversion instructions, moving the commanding system so as to avoid a complete rotation of the rudder from a maximum rotation breakpoint to the other.
Preferably, the duration of the first time interval is at most equal to 3 seconds. It has been reported that a duration ranging between 1 and 2 seconds is a satisfactory compromise between, on the one hand, the detection of an inversion of command of the rudder and, on the other hand, the alert releasing speed.
If the movement of the commanding system cannot overcome the positions of the latter corresponding respectively to the maximum rotation breakpoints of the rudder when the speed of the aircraft is at least equal to a limitation speed threshold, the alert can only be released when the speed of said aircraft is at least equal to an alert speed threshold being itself higher than the limitation speed threshold. Thus, the alert could only be released at high speeds of the aircraft, just where the risks involved by a yaw inversion are the highest.
When the alert is released, it could be maintained during a second time interval of a predetermined duration being at least approximately equal to 5 seconds.
Furthermore, the alert could be released as a visual or a sound signal to the attention of the pilot.
For implementing the method according to the present invention, a device for yaw controlling of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising:
The aircraft is remarkable in that it comprises:
The FIGS. of the appended drawing will better explain how this invention can be implemented. In these FIGS., like reference numerals relate to like components.
The airplane 1, schematically shown on
As shown on
The rudder 5 is able to rotate, in each one of the two rotating directions G and D, between an aerodynamically neutral position, corresponding to an angle θ0 (with a nil value), and a maximum rotation breakpoint, referred to be θGmax (with a positive value) for a rotation in the direction G (to the left) and θDmax (with a negative value) for a rotation in the direction D (to the right). The total potential amplitude of rotation of the rudder 5 is therefore equal to θGmax−θDmax.
It should be noticed that for a symmetrical rudder 5, θGmax is the opposite of θDmax and the total amplitude is therefore equal to 2.θGmax.
As shown on
To this end, the commanding system 6 is able to rotate around a vertical axis B-B (considered in a reference system (A-A, B-B, C-C) likely to be different from the reference system (X-X Y-Y, Z-Z) of the rudder 5), according to two opposite rotating directions being respectively associated with the two rotating directions G and D of the rudder 5. The commanding system 6 is, to this end, provided with two respectively left 7G and right 7D pedals, depressing the left pedal 7G being able to generate a rotation of the commanding system 6 in the rotating direction associated with the rotating direction to the left G of the rudder 5, whereas depressing the right pedal 7D being able to generate a rotation of said commanding system 6 in the rotating direction associated with the rotating direction to the right D of said rudder 5
The mobile commanding system 6 can therefore rotate (see
Also, the mobile commanding system 6 can rotate (see
It should be noticed that, when the commanding system 6 is symmetrical, the values of βGmax and βG(θGmax) are respectively opposed to those of βDmax and βD(θDmax).
The yaw controlling device of the airplane 1, according to the present invention, is arranged between the mobile commanding system 6 and the rudder 5 so that the amplitude θ of the rotation of said rudder 5 depends on the amplitude β of the movement of said mobile commanding system 6.
To this end, a transducer 9 is associated with the commanding system 6, so as to measure the amplitude β of the rotating movement of said system. Thus, when the pilot, with his left (or right) foot, depresses the left 7G (or the right 7D) pedal, the movement in translation of said pedal is converted into a rotating movement of the mobile commanding system 6, the amplitude β of such movement being able to be measured by the transducer 9.
This command β is addressed to an adder 11, to which are also addressed orders issued from a yaw damper 12 and an automatic pilot 13. Thus, when the yaw damper 12 is activated, the command β addressed by the mobile commanding system 6 is taken into account when said damper 12 carries out a damping of the yaw maneuver of the airplane 1.
This command β is then addressed to a limiter 14, the function of which is limiting the rotating movement β addressed by the mobile commanding system 6 to values respectively βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) for which the maximum rotation breakpoints θGmax and θDmax of the rudder 5 are reached in the two rotating directions G and D, respectively, as a function of the speed V of the airplane 1, from a beforehand determined limitation speed threshold VminL (that could be for instance equal to 165 knots).
In this latter case, the movement of the commanding system 6 could overcome respectively the positions βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) of the latter corresponding respectively to the maximum rotation breakpoints θGmax and θDmax of the rudder 5.
More precisely, the limiter 14 is arranged so that, when the airplane 1 moves at a speed V lower than VminL, the limiter 14 does not apply any limit of movement βG(θGmax) or βD(θDmax). On the other hand, when the speed V of the airplane 1 is at least equal to VminL, new values are calculated of maximum rotation breakpoints θGmax and θDmax for the rudder, and then, there are applied at the level of the limiter 14, limits βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) so that:
The resulting order of command β′ is afterwards transmitted to a plurality of actuating devices 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 of the rudder 5, so as to adjust the amplitude of rotation θ of said rudder, said amplitude of rotation θ being an increasing function of the resulting order of command β′ and, consequently, of the command β.
In addition to being addressed to the above described limiter 14 with reference to
This system first comprises, similarly to the limiter 14, a calculator 20 intended for calculating the new values of maximum rotation breakpoints θGmax and θDmax of the rudder 5, as a function of the speed V of the airplane 1 and of the beforehand determined limitation speed threshold VminL. The limits of movement βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) are then estimated from values θGmax and θDmax (via the increasing function linking the rotation amplitude θ of the rudder 5 to the command β). When the speed V of the airplane 1 is higher than the limitation speed threshold VminL, the limits of movement βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) are fractions respectively of the movements βGmax and βDmax of the mobile commanding system 6, respectively in the two rotating directions G and D, for which the latter are in breakpoints, and the pilot can therefore overcome said limits of movement βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax).
The amplitudes respectively of the command β and of the limits of movement βG(θGmax) and βD(θDmax) are addressed to two binary comparators 23 and 24, respectively of the “A>B” and “A<B” types. In the example that follows, it will be assumed that βG(θGmax) is equal to βD(θDmax) and these two values will be referred to as βmax.
The first binary comparator 23 compares the values of β and βmax and transmits in outlet a state OD, equal to ‘1’ when β is at least equal to βmax and to ‘0’ otherwise. Before addressing the value of βmax to the second binary comparator 24, the latter βmax is transformed into βmax by inversing multipliers 21, 22 adapted for multiplying βmax by the value ‘−1’. The second binary comparator 24 compares the values of β and βmax and transmits in outlet a state OG, equal to ‘1’ when β is at least equal to −βmax and to ‘0’ otherwise. The states OG and OD therefore allow to determine whether the pilot has moved one of the commanding systems 6G or 6D so that the movement of the system 6G or 6D overcomes the position βG(θGmax) βmax negative) or βD(ηDmax) (βmax positive) of the latter corresponding to the maximum rotation breakpoint θGmax or θDmax in one of the rotating directions G or D of the rudder 5. Indeed, the couple {OG,OD} is equal to {0.1} when β is at least equal to βmax (over-command of the left commanding system 6G), {1.0} when β is at most equal to −βmax (over-command of the right commanding system 6D) and {0.0} otherwise.
These two states OG and OD are subsequently used for detecting a sudden possible inversion of over-command, that is switching of the value β from −βmax to +βmax (or inversely) in a first time interval of a predetermined duration T1.
To this end, a first “AND” gate 27 is provided, addressing a state DG, and to which there are addressed, on the one hand, the state OG without delay and, on the other hand, the state OD with a time delay equal to the above duration T1 (via a retarder 26).
Similarly, a second “AND” gate 29 is provided, addressing a state DD, and to which there are addressed, on the one hand, the state OG with a time delay equal to the above duration T1 (via a retarder 28) and, on the other hand, the state OD without delay.
As a result, at the level of these two “AND” gates 27 and 29:
The “OR” gate 30, to which the states DG and DD are addressed, then allows to address in outlet a state E being equal to ‘1’ when an inversion of over-command has been detected in the time interval with a duration T1, and to ‘0’ otherwise.
For the alert to be released, it is important that the state E is equal to ‘1’ and, in addition, that at the level of the “AND” gate 31:
If all these conditions are gathered (alert system 16 being activated, speed V at least equal to VminA, D in the state ‘1’), an alert is released during a time interval with a beforehand determined duration T2 (for instance of the order of 5 seconds), via a retarder 38.
The thus released alert could occur in the form of
The duration T1 is determined so that, on the one hand, the need to have available a high releasing speed of the alert is taken into account and, on the other hand, it could be determined, for sure, that an inversion of over-command has been initiated. To this end, a duration T1 at most equal to 3 seconds—or preferably ranging between 1 and 2 seconds—is found particularly adequate.
In a particular embodiment of the yaw controlling device according to this invention, it could also be provided, in the alert system device 16, for manually releasing the alert, for, for instance, performing operating tests without however requiring to effectively carry out an inversion of a yaw maneuver. To this end, a test button 35 could be made available to the pilot. Therefore, if simultaneously, at the level of the “AND” gate 37, the pilot depresses this test button 35 and the front wheel assembly 4 of the airplane 1 is compressed (this being determined by the module 36), the alert could be released similarly as described above with reference to the elements 38, 17 and 18.
Thus, in this case, via the “OR” gate 34, releasing the alert could occur either manually, or following the detection of an inversion of over-command.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
11 51225 | Feb 2011 | FR | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
H2206 | Milgram | Dec 2007 | H |
8200379 | Manfredi et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
20020022910 | Kubica et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20090222151 | Averseng | Sep 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102004029196 | Jan 2006 | DE |
1160158 | Dec 2001 | EP |
2007048960 | May 2007 | WO |
Entry |
---|
French Patent Office, French Search Report FR 1151225, Nov. 28, 2011 (2 pgs). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120205495 A1 | Aug 2012 | US |