5
$\begingroup$

I have been reading a LOT of research papers and many articles, but none of them tell how the C* parameter in Airbus is used for the vertical augmentation of the aircraft.

I am aware that with a deflection in sidestick, a G-load is demanded through a COM channel {(-1,+2.5) -> in clean config} but I have many questions :

  1. What is the relation of this G-load demand with the Load factor(Nz) and C* ?
  2. I know that C* = Nz + (Vco * Q)/g, where Vco for A320 is 210 knots, how is this computed C* parameter used ?
  3. What is the final parameter that can be used for demanding an elevator deflection through a controller?
  4. What control structure lies between the G-load demand and the final elevator deflection? I want to know the proper Math behind it.

Many people have no idea about all this and keep spreading misinformation on various platforms because of which I got extremely deviated from the right information so I am here asking these questions :)

Thank you

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ > "I am aware that with a deflection in sidestick, a G-load is demanded [...]" Not exactly. A C* is demanded, not G-load. A given deflection of the sidestick corresponds to a C* demand. Then the controller simply targets that C* demand. Answer to questions 3 and 4 probably involves airbus proprietary data. $\endgroup$
    – sbabbi
    Commented Mar 23 at 21:05

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

C* is easier to understand if you start with pure g-force control. The basic components are:

  • The control stick, where the pilot commands a load factor in the -1.0 to 2.5 range.
  • The accelerometer, which measures the actual load factor in the body-z-direction.
  • A PID controller, which controls elevator deflection so that measured load factor always matches the pilot's command. The P, I, and D gains in this controller are not considered part of the C* law and must be tuned for a specific airframe.

When we go from g-force control to C*, we replace the feedback source of the PID controller with a calculated value C*:

$$ C^* = n_z + \frac{v_{co}}{g} \dot\theta$$

This "fake load factor" C* has the same units (none) as the measured load factor it replaced. It goes into the feedback input of the PID controller. The command input of the PID controller (from the pilot via control stick) remains unchanged.

$n_z$ is the measured load factor, $v_{co}$ is crossover speed in meters per second and $\dot\theta$ is pitch rate in radians per second. $g$ is specific gravity in meters per second squared, as usual. The second part of the formula is basically "what would be the centrifugal force if the aircraft was traveling at crossover speed." We add this value to our fake load factor regardless of actual speed.

The C* law is a compromise between pure g-force control and direct elevator control. If we look at both laws in isolation, we can clearly see the disadvantages that we want to cure:

  • With direct elevator control, pitch rate is approximately proportional to stick deflection. This feels natural at low speed, but a careless pull on the stick at high speed results in excessive g-forces.

  • Pure g-force control (through a PID controller) works well at high speed, but at low speed your aircraft will simply not reach high g-forces, period. If you pull on the stick anyway, the PID controller's "whatever it takes" behavior results in excessive elevator deflections and pitch excursions.

C* is mostly g-force control, but with an additional fake feedback term based on pitch rate. From the PID's point of view, the aircraft now always responds to more elevator deflection with more g-forces (fake g-forces at low speed, actual g-forces at high speed), thus ensuring that the "whatever it takes" behavior does not cause problems. The aircraft still pitches more at low speed because actual g-forces are lower, which means overall feedback is lower, which makes the PID controller deflect the elevator harder.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Hi ! Thank you so much for your explanation ! I have tested what you have said in XPlane 12 and yes this works ! But I still have some questions... 1) Shouldn't the aircraft be more pitrchrate responsive at lower speeds than Vco ? 2) I read it somewhere that at Vco the pitch-rate and the G-load inputs are equally weighted....G at speeds higher than Vco and pitchrate at lower speeds than Vco... So how does this approach account for that, or does it ? Thank you $\endgroup$
    – Shogunrv
    Commented Apr 5 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ Awesome ! Thank you so much for the explanation ! :) $\endgroup$
    – Shogunrv
    Commented Apr 6 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ By "specific gravity," I assume you mean "the acceleration of gravity?" Specific gravity is usually used to refer to density relative to water. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Commented Sep 30 at 16:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .