Unified Flight Control Mapping for Tilt-Thrust Aircraft Transitions
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Tilt thrust aircraft present control challenges due to changing forces and moments during transitions between hover and airplane regimes, leading to high cognitive workloads for pilots, especially in urban air mobility contexts with frequent short flights and transition periods.
Innovation Solution
A unified command system and method that translates user inputs into desired aircraft responses independently of flight regimes, decoupling control axes and providing consistent control mapping to reduce cognitive workload and prevent modal confusion, using an input mechanism, flight processor, and effectors to automatically determine actuator control instructions based on sensor measurements and rules.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Ease of operation
If manual control over tilt angle and thrust is maintained, then pilot control authority is preserved, but cognitive workload increases significantly during regime transitions
Solution Approach 1:
The flight control system acts as an intermediary between the pilot and the aircraft's propulsion units. The system receives pilot inputs and automatically computes the appropriate tilt angles and thrust commands, eliminating the need for the pilot to manually manage multiple effectors during regime transitions. This mediator approach preserves pilot authority while reducing cognitive burden.
Solution Approach 2:
The control system dynamically adjusts the mapping between pilot inputs and effector commands based on the current flight regime. During transitions between hover and airplane flight, the system automatically reconfigures which effectors are active and how they respond to pilot inputs, providing consistent control characteristics across all flight phases without requiring pilot intervention.
2Adaptability or versatility
If multiple effectors are controlled during transitions, then flight regime flexibility is improved, but control mapping complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The flight control system provides a universal control interface that functions across all flight regimes (hover, transition, and airplane flight). The same pilot inputs produce appropriate aircraft responses regardless of the current regime, eliminating the need for pilots to learn and manage different control mappings for each flight phase. The system handles effector reconfiguration automatically.
Solution Approach 2:
The control system segments the management of multiple effectors into distinct, regime-specific control laws. During hover, the system manages tilt and thrust independently; during airplane flight, it manages different effector combinations. This segmentation allows complex multi-effector control to be broken down into manageable, regime-appropriate control strategies without overwhelming the pilot.
3Ease of operation
If traditional manual control is used, then direct pilot authority is maintained, but operational errors increase during frequent transitions
Solution Approach 1:
The flight control system continuously monitors aircraft state and provides feedback to automatically adjust effector commands during regime transitions. This closed-loop control ensures that the aircraft responds predictably and safely during transitions, reducing the likelihood of operational errors while maintaining pilot authority through the preserved control interface.
Data Source
Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4A~4B
AI summary
The unified command system and/or method includes an input mechanism, a flight processor that receives input from the input mechanism and translates the input into control output, and effectors that are actuated according to the control output. The system can optionally include: one or more sensors, a vehicle navigation system which determines a vehicle state and/or flight regime based on data from the one or more sensors, and a vehicle guidance system which determines a flightpath for the aircraft.