JETSIM Simulator Development
Author: Shamaz Khan
Flight Science and Technology Lab (FS&T), Liverpool
Abstract
This paper summarises the development of JETSIM simulator in University of Liverpool Flight
Science and Technology Lab. The fixed base simulator was developed to assist students enrolled in
pilot studies degree. The simulation runs X-Plane home version, and comprises of actual aircraft
hardware (Jetstream 31). The aircraft flight model for Jetstream was developed using Plane Maker in
X-Plane, and validated against the flight test data. Handling qualities analysis was performed on the
model to validate against more sophisticated FLIGHTLAB model. This was done to ensure that model
does not exhibit serious limitations before installed on the simulator.
Introduction
The quantification of simulation fidelity
underpins the confidence required for the
expanding use of flight simulators in design,
research and pilot training. Whilst regulatory
simulators standards exist and new standards
are in development, but the research has
shown that these standards do not provide
fully quantitative approach for assessing
simulation fidelity, even in research
environment. This report progress on
developments of JETSIM Simulator at the
University of Liverpool, and its subsequent
use in a research project (Lifting Standards)
aimed at creating new predicted and perceived
measures of simulator fidelity assessment. The
analysis used throughout the report, has been
evolved from handling qualities engineering.
The results from flight test of Cranfield
University’s Jetstream 31 research aircraft,
JetSim simulator equipped with X-Plane
simulation software and HELIFLIGHT piloted
simulation trials are presented to show the
strong connection between handling qualities
engineering and fidelity assessment. The issue
of pilot perceived fidelity is examined, along
with the pilot-in-the loop analysis and
development of new metrics discussed for the
aircraft landing task.
In context on training simulators, regulatory
authorities
have
produced
functional
performance standards, along with associated
training credits, to provide a framework for the
acceptance of the synthetic training device.
Documents such as JAR-FSTD 1A and JARSTD A describe the qualifying criteria and
procedures for the fixed wing flight training
device and detail the component fidelity
required to achieve a fit for purpose approval.
Whilst these standards serve a vital role in
regulatory process, the influence of the cueing
environment on the pilot opinion during
qualification needs to be understood better.
Currently, there are no quantitative methods
used to assess the fidelity of the overall
simulator, with pilot performing the task.
For a fidelity assessment procedure to be
demonstrated, a pilot-vehicle structure was
created for the nominal flight vehicle. This
includes a pilot dynamic model in both
primary and outer loops. Later the simulation
limitations were included within the model.
Flight simulator limitations will include two
sets of motion dynamics (no motion and
1
motion), with the visual cue quality model, the
latter can be implemented in X-Plane using the
Instructor Operating system (IOS). A control
strategy for a particular task and vehicle was
developed for the Landing manoeuvre. The
results obtain from this model were used to
address the simulator’s limitation on pilot’s
primary control loop. Within this sort of
model, the visual time delays within the
simulator were modelled using appropriate
gain values.
Overall Methadology
The handling qualities of the Jetstream 31
aircraft were evaluated in two phases, first for
the longitudinal axis, and second for lateral
axis. The analysis was carried out using
FLIGHTLAB and X-Plane, in order to develop
an initial framework for the simulator flight
model. Within FLIGHTLAB, a standardised
Jetstream 31 model is available and allows
both linear and nonlinear responses to be
modelled. Data from FLIGHTLAB and XPlane was then exported for visualisation and
analysis in Matlab. The obtained data was
compared and assessed according to the MIL1797A standards, and the aircraft was then
defined in terms of predicted handling
qualities per these specifications. Offline
analysis is intended to produce predicted
HQRs – these are not the actual handling
qualities of the aircraft, but are intended to be
used as a guide to estimate how the aircraft
will perform online. The sections of offline
analysis are:

Stability analysis (Longitudinal and
Lateral)

Control Anticipation parameter (CAP)

Control Power Analysis

Bandwidth analysis (longitudinal pitch
One underlying idea of this analysis is the
notion that pilot is part of the system that is
intended to accomplish a mission. The
different task difficulties were distinguished
by defining Flight Phase categories A, B, and
C. Category A consists of demanding tasks
such as air-to-air combat and refuelling,
Category B includes less demanding tasks
such as cruise and climbs and descents, and
Category C includes terminal tasks such as
landing and takeoff. It is the formal category,
which is a main focus of this research.
In this phase, the Jetstream aircraft model
was modelled in a full-motion base flight
simulator where it carried out a set of
prescribed Mission Task Elements (MTEs).
Simulation trials were run within JetSim
and HELIFLIGHT simulators, latter
incorporating motion. This gives us an
additional test metric, to differentiate the
rating under the influence of motion. In
order to acquire a pilot rating, the desired
and adequate bounds of piloting task
were defined to the test pilot. The Pilot
rated each MTE using the Cooper Harper
rating scale, justifying his decisions. These
HQRs are known as the assigned handling
qualities. The data recorded from these MTEs
was then analysed in the same way as the
data exported from the FLIGHTLAB software;
plotted using Matlab and compared with the
MIL-1797A requirements alongside the
desired and adequate performance limits
stipulated in the MTEs. Correlation between
the pilot experience and the simulation data
were also checked as both are equally
merited in flight handling qualities
assessment.
Offline Analysis
attitude and roll attitude)

Static stability assessment

Mode Excitation
A number of methods are employed to define
the short period dynamics criteria, such as
bandwidth criterion, together with its
2
The control anticipation parameter is used in
place for the thumb-print short period
requirement, since the pilot’s ability to control
the short period motion is affected by both the
short period mode and the numerator.
Therefore, this numerator effect has been
incorporated into a criterion in the form of
Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP).
It has been pointed out that CAP is
proportional to the manoeuvre margin. The
analysis for CAP was conducted for both
simulators, but obtaining the natural frequency
and damping of short period mode, according
to the MIL-1797A specifications. These
standards define the CAP as the ratio of initial
pitch acceleration to steady state normal
acceleration.
The results for Control
Anticipation Parameter, from FLIGHTLAB
and X-Plane are illustrated in Figure 1. Both
simulations were run at different speeds, for
category B flight phase (cruise). The CAP
values were evaluated based on the natural
frequency and damping ratio from the time
history.
Control Anticipation Parameter Criteria CAT-B
1
10
Level 2
0
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
Level 1
CAP
10
-1
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
Damping Ratio SP
Figure 1: short period frequency boundaries for
Category B flight phase. This data represents the
eight different flying speeds (150 knots to 240 knots),
from both of the simulators.
Short Period Frequency Requirement - CAT B
2
10
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
1
10
Level 2
 nSP (rad/sec)
components, phase delay and dropback
criterion. The analysis uses the nonlinear
aircraft models, from both simulators. Better
understanding of the nature of the manoeuvre
and vehicle can be obtained by studying the
control input transfer functions. For
longitudinal dynamics, the two modes are
phugoid (generally with the frequencies below
1 rad/sec) and short period (with frequencies
between 1 to 10 rad/sec). Both of these modes
represent the flying qualities of a conventional
aircraft, or if augmented with active control
one that is on a conventional response type.
Short period flying qualities are of more
interest here, since the mode is relatively rapid
that governs the transient changes in angle of
attack, pitch, flight path and normal load factor
that occurs following a rapid control or gust
input. Forward speed here remains relatively
constant, and the mode usually is stable
underdamped second order oscillation. These
modes were triggered in both simulators by
applying step inputs.
Level 1
Level 1
0
10
Level 2 & 3
-1
10
0
1
10
2
10
n
-1
10
(g/rad)
Figure 2: Frequency against Load Factor for CAT B
Flight
It must be noted that all the configurations by
FLIGHTLAB model, falls within the Level 1
Category. For X-Plane model, it is evident that
at low speed the flight model is rated Level 2
or worse, but at higher speeds (above
170knots) the model is rated Level 1. The
boundaries correctly predicted pilot ratings
about 80% of the time. The data in Figure.2
represent those cases for which the short
3
period natural frequency and Fs/n were within
the present Level 1 boundaries.
Level 3
80kts
100kts
130kts
160kts
180kts
18
16
14
Level 2
 p (sec)
12
10
8
6
4
Level 1
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
 BW (rad/sec)
Pitch Attitdue Bandwidth Criteria X-Plane
20
80kts
100kts
130kts
160kts
180kts
Level 3
18
16
14
Level 2
12
10

 p (sec)
A bandwidth frequency for an aircraft is a
frequency at which the close loop tracking can
take place without threatening the stability of
the aircraft. It follows that an aircraft capable
of operating at a large enough value of
bandwidth will have a superior performance
when regulating against disturbances. A
bandwidth criterion is particularly useful for
highly augmented aircraft in which the
response characteristics are non-classical in
form. In other words, it is defined as the
highest frequency at which the pilot can
double his gain or allow a 135 degree phase
lag between control input and aircraft attitude
response without loss of stability. If the gain
bandwidth is sufficiently lower than the phase
bandwidth the aircraft is more prone to pilot
induced oscillations (PIOs).
Pitch Attitdue Bandwidth Criteria FLIGHTLAB
20
8
6
MIL 1797A sets out separate handling quality
levels for the pitch, roll, and yaw bandwidth.
Different charts are available for high and low
speed flights where the boundary between the
two is set at 150kts.
Level 1
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
 BW (rad/sec)
Figure 3: Pitch Axis Bandwidth handling qualities
from XPLANE and FLIGHTLAB model
Pitch Attitdue Bandwidth Criteria
20
Level 3
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
18
16
14
Level 2
12
 p (sec)
The bandwidth values are obtained differently
for each of the simulator. For FLIGHTLAB a
linearised model was extracted from Xanalysis in order to obtain values for the
bandwidth of the aircraft and the phase
response. However, for X-Plane, the
bandwidth values were calculated directly
from the time histories obtain from the step
responses. The Fourier Transform (FFT) was
applied to translate these time histories into a
frequency domain data to obtain phase and
amplitude plots. The results from these
analyses are displayed on the associated charts
defining the level of the bandwidth.
4
10
8
6
4
Level 1
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
 BW (rad/sec)
Figure 4: Pitch attitude bandwidth Criteria
All of the results in the charts shown above
indicate a phase response of zero; this is likely
due to the linear model used to obtain the
results as it does not have a time delay.
4
Pitch Attitdue Bandwidth Criteria Low Speed
0.5
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
0.45
0.4
0.35
 p (sec)
0.3
Level 3
0.25
Level 2
Level 1
0.2
Table 1: Required Bandwidth for CAT A and CAT C
0.15
Susceptible if flight path BW insufficient
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5

(rad/sec)
BW
3
3.5
4
4.5
Figure 5: Longitudinal axis bandwidth requirements
MIL-1797A
Figure 5 illustrates the pitch attitude
bandwidth criteria for level C flying phase.
The bandwidth hypothesis is that the pilot can
adequately follow input commands with
frequencies up to the bandwidth frequencies. If
he tries aggressively to follow higher
frequency commands, this will lead him to
instability. It is clear from the above figures
that for pitch attitude, for lower speeds the
bandwidth frequency is in level 2, while the
higher speeds (not presented on the figure)
have much higher bandwidth frequencies. This
allows for high frequency inputs in these axes
without concern for a lack response from the
aircraft.
With reference to MIL 17917A, and natural
frequencies obtained from above set of results,
it is evident that for X-Plane model at higher
speeds the 𝟏⁄𝑻𝟐 is much higher than the
natural frequency of the short period mode,
unlike the FLIGHTLAB model, in which the
𝟏⁄𝑻𝟐 remains consistently lower than the open
loop natural frequency. If 𝟏⁄𝑻𝟐 is sufficiently
higher than 𝝎𝑺𝑷 the pitch and the attitude
response may not be separated enough to give
pilot the additional cues he needs in order to
control the outer slower loop.
For Roll axis, the recommended values of
bandwidth for roll axis according to the MIL
1797A standards depends on a piloting task
associated with certain mission and mission
phases. For roll axis phase crosses 180 degree.
5
There were some difficulties calculating the
roll bandwidth, as the aircraft does not return
to its steady state condition. The time and
frequency response to step aileron input for
200kts speed is shown below for reference
purpose.
Positive FFT Frequency Response
5
Amplitude (dB)
0.05
0
-5
-10
-15
-1
10
0
1
10
2
10
10
1
Phase (deg)
No PIO
0
-1
-2
-3
-1
10
0
1
10
2
10
10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6: Roll response to lateral input (frequency
response – X-Plane)
The Dutch roll damping according to MIL1797 specifications for X-Plane are given in
Figure 7.
Dutch Roll Requirement CAT-C Phases
1
X-Plane
0.9
0.8
Dutch Roll Damping dr
PIO tendency
0.7
Worse
than Level3
0.6
0.5
0.4
Level 1
0.3
0.2
Level 2
0.1
0
Level 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
Dutch Roll Freq dr (rad/sec)
Figure 7: Dutch Roll Damping Requirements
5
Perceived Handling Qualities
standards desired and adequate are given in
Table 2 and Figure 8
Based on the above observations, results and
analysis the handling qualities ratings for the
math model of the aircraft from both
simulators in summarised below. The analysis
is divided into three colours (red, yellow,
green) representing level 3, 2 and 1. It must be
notes that these ratings were used to predict
the accuracy of Jetstream 31 flight model used
during the testing phase, not to assess the
aircraft handling qualities. Of particular
interest is the X-Plane model (running on
JETSIM). These results show, the satisfactory
performance by the aircraft though minor
improvements are required in lateral axis,
which were found slightly sluggish. Since the
selected MTE requires testing to be done in
longitudinal axis only, these limitations were
ignore, but may become a part of further
research in assessing the handling qualities of
the aircraft with improvements, such that the
model is error free and meet Level 1 qualities
before being tested. Such level of accuracy
will allow, to pick up simulator limitations (in
all axis) more accurately. The results from
Precieved handling qualities are given in
Appendix of this paper.
Performance
standards
Maintaining ILS
glide slope of ±X
dots
Piloted Assessments
The results from test flights flown by both
pilots are shown for landing task in different
simulator configurations (motion and no
motion). Two landings were performed by
each pilot (excluding the trail landings) in each
simulator. The results are given for each pilot
performance in both simulators.
The landings were performed under clear
visual conditions, thus the approaches were
performed without using any navigational aid.
This allowed testing the visual cue quality in
both simulators. The tests were done to check
the aircraft dynamic response characteristics,
and how the motion cue affects the pilot
performance and workload. The performance
Desired X
Adequate X
1/2
1
Keep aircraft aligned
with the runway
centerline
Minimum Normal
Landing Speed
5
10
VREF +X knots
Table 2: Landing Mission task element performance
standards
Figure 8: Landing Mission Task Element
Analysing the results shown above for
JETSIM simulator, a less frequency but high
frequency stick movements are apparent by
the pilot. Considering the longitudinal stick
inputs (shown in Figure 5.11) the trends
clearly shows that pilot struggles to maintain
the aircraft attitude near the flare point, this is
confirmed by the time history for the pitch
attitude (shown in Figure 5.13) at time greater
than 85seconds. Furthermore, during the
approach phase strong variations in the pitch
attitude and rate are apparent. Pilot late
commented that it was difficult for him to
capture the glide slope, due to the seating
position
in
the
simulator.
Unlike
HELIFLIGHT simulator, the JETSIM have
control column operating by hydraulics
system, and is twin seat simulator. Thus pilot
position does seem to affect the result,
seriously effecting pilot eye point view of the
runway.
6
There was some serious simulator limitations
came in front after performing the test flight.
Some of the prominent issues picked up during
the test are:

Poor visual drift (20-30°)

Delays between pilot input and aircraft
responses

Inaccuracies in aircraft instrument
hardware

Strong coupling between lateral and
longitudinal axis, requiring pilot to
apply corrections

Limitations in pitch attitude estimation
Although there may be many reasons
contributing to above limitations, it was
obvious from the results seen so far, that
vertical acceleration is a key parameters in
pilot’s performance. Although, the approach
was performed visually, there were some
discrepancies observed in altitude and airspeed
indicator. Latter is particularly true for pilot
station instruments, not correlating with the
actual simulator instruments.
Hard landing was seen, and the task does not
meet the requirements. Pilot gave the HQR of
7 for the task, commenting on the sluggish
hardware controls, and large pilot eye point.
Referring to the offline handling qualities, it
seems that there seems to exist little or no
deficiencies in the flight mode. Major
deficiencies arise from the simulator hardware.
Based on the MIL 1797A specifications, for
short period frequencies both models exhibit
Level 2 ore better rating at higher speeds, but
very sensitive at lower speeds. Both
FLIGHTLAB and X-Plane model were
awarded Level 3 for short period frequency
requirements.
Overall Assessment
The online and offline analysis were
conducted primarily to address the simulator
fidelity issue instead of assessing the handling
qualities for the aircraft. However, during the
offline analysis phase, flight model handling
qualities were indeed assessed to quantify and
understand the nature of the accuracy of the
flight model that will later be used as a part of
flight testing. Analysing the offline and online
analysis, several deficiencies have been
identified, which are discussed below.
Offline analysis shows that there are severe
problems in X-Plane’s Jetstream flight model
in lateral axis, and there is an evidence of
strong coupling between the two axes, which
seem to affect the pilot workload during the
task performance. This coupling is in Level 3
for X-Plane and Level 2 for FLIGHTLAB
model. The rating becomes better (excluding
bandwidth) as the speed increases for both
simulators, hence showing that coupling
affects the flight at lower speeds than higher.
For the X-Plane model, bandwidth analysis
shows that the model is in Level 2 overall, but
FLIGHTLAB model approaches level 3 at
higher speeds. However, although it is in level
1, but low bandwidth frequency has serious
limitations on the aircraft performance.
Results: Motion Influence
The direct comparison of the frequency
response behaviour provides a clear picture of
model fidelity as a function of frequency. This
is critical for validating piloted simulations
since the requirements on the pilot cueing
accuracy are also frequency dependant. The
separate display of magnitude and phase
responses allows the sources of the simulator
discrepancies to be more easily determined.
For example an excessive time delay in
simulation hardware causes a linear phase shift
with a frequency. Scaling errors in a
simulation model appear as a clear vertical
7
shift (in dB) in the magnitude curve. These
effects are all combined in the time domain
and therefore are not easily discernible in a
conventional time response comparison.
30
Error (dB)
20
10
discussed previously that identification tools
provide a systematic and accurate approach to
determine these correction factors which are
excessively and routinely used by the
simulation
community.
Comprehensive
simulation studies are often used to define the
flight control system hardware requirements.
0
Simulation Data
Proposed Level D Fidelity Criteria
-10
-20
-2
10
-1
0
10
10
1
10
Frequency (Hz)
Pilots were asked to comment to following
parameters:
200

Error (deg)
100
0
Primary
Aircraft
Responses:
this
includes response magnitude, control
-100
-200
-300
-2
10
-1
0
10
10
sensitivity, control efficiency and
1
10
Frequency (Hz)
control position
Figure 9: Jetstream 31 math model error function
and proposed fidelity criteria

Secondary
Aircraft
Responses:
response magnitude, and undesirable
Figure 9 re-plots the frequency data for
longitudinal stick inputs at 200knots, in terms
of magnitude and phase errors as a function of
frequency. Here 0 dB magnitudes and 0 deg
phase indicate perfect tracking of the JETSIM
simulation with HELFILIGHT simulation
results. Also shown in the figure are the
mathematical model mismatch boundaries
proposed herein for the highest fidelity
training simulations (FAA Level D). These
boundaries correspond to the LOES mismatch
criteria from the fixed wing handling qualities
criteria.
The Jetstream 31 simulation math model
compiles with the proposed Level D fidelity
criteria (more accurate however at lower
frequencies). The result is consistent with the
pilot comparison of a simulator and the flight
behaviour of Jetstream 31 aircraft. However, a
serious mismatch in phase is evident at higher
frequencies
(frequencies
greater
than
6.2rad/sec).
Furthermore, a direct comparison of stability
and control derivatives identified from the
simulator or flight test with values identified
mathematical models can be used to derive
correction factors for significantly improving
the model fidelity. It has been seen and
secondary
effects
(such
effects
involves the pilot’s ability to make
corrections)

Task
Execution:
to
assess
the
difficulty of task execution, stability
characteristics
of
the
aircraft,
similarities and differences between
two
simulator
environments,
and
configuration (motion and no motion)
The developed rating scale (PRS) goes from
scale of 1 to 6, where 6 represent the highest
similarity. The difficulty of execution (DOE)
scale goes from 1 to 5, again maximum 5,
represents the highest similarity, and 1
represents the largest differences in task
execution.
Mathematical Model vs Piloted
Assessment
Direct frequency response comparison of endto-end performance of a complex simulation
model with the conceptual design model (XPlane aircraft) and its specifications constitutes
an important dynamic check, which often
exposes unexpected processing delays. These
8
delays may arise from the numerical
integration techniques used by the simulator,
or errors in the digital implementation of the
control laws. Furthermore, this technique is
also useful in exposing degradation in aircraft
control system performance or other hardware
dynamics modelled in the advanced design
simulation model that may have been ignored
at model conceptual design stage.
0
Math Model
Simulation
-5
-10
Amplitude (dB)
-15
commands to the aircraft model, resulting in a
larger phase lags (as seen by the downward
shift in the phase curve).
Model Limitations and
Conclusion
Although both model and the simulator proved
to be adequate for the wide range of flight
conditions, several issues were not covered
during the frequency response analysis and
identification analysis. Some of these issues
are:
-20

-25
-30
allow pilot to select the flaps up to 30°
-35
(required at landing), the
-40
-45
-50
-2
10
HELIFLIGHT does not give pilot this
-1
10
0
10
Frequency [Hz]
1
2
10
10
luxury. Based on the mathematical
model, the flaps can only be selected
100
Math Model
Simulation
0
as OFF (0 deg) and ON (50 deg)
-100

-200
Phase (deg)
Flaps configuration: although JETSIM
-300
Lateral Trim effects: such as increase
in drag due to sideslip angle, are not
-400
modelled
-500

-600
-700
-800
-2
10
Instrumentation: there were some
limitations and discrepancies in
-1
10
0
10
Frequency [Hz]
1
10
2
10
Figure 10: Frequency response (Amplitude and
Phase) for Simulator versus math model
Figure 6.1 compares the longitudinal axis pitch
rate response to longitudinal stick input from
fixed based JETSIM against the mathematical
model. Both responses exhibit the properties
of second order system with no zeros and two
poles. In the 0.03-0.3 Hz (0.19-1.88rad/sec),
the simulator visual drive response follows the
math model, although the visual is less than
one to one, as seen by the vertical shift in
magnitude plot. Comparing the phase
response, at lower frequencies both math
model and visual response remains the same
(at zero degree phase). At higher frequencies,
the visual drive is unable to follow rapid
simulator instruments which was not
addressed in the report, increasing
pilot workload
Acknowledgement
This document is the summary overview of
flight model validation process, thus omits
some details and results, and is extracted from
the Thesis written for MSc Simulation in
Aerospace Engineering Course “Closed Loop
Assessment of Flight Simulator Fidelity”. The
developed JETSIM is shown in Appendix.
9
Appendix
Perceived Handling Qualities Results
Bare Airframe - X-Plane
Pitch Attitude Bandwidth,
L1,2,3
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
Bare Airframe - X-Plane
Short Period Frequency
Requirements-N/Alfa
Level 1, 2 and 3 CAT-B
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
Bare Airframe - X-Plane
Short Period Frequency
Requirements-N/Alfa
Level 1, 2 and 3 CAT-C
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
Speed
(knots)
130
L2
L2
130
L3
L3
130
L3
L3
148
L2
L2
160
L2
L2
180
L2
L2
200
L1
L2
230
L1
L3
250
L1
L3
148
L2/L3
L3
Speed
(knots)
160
L2/L3
L2
180
L2/L3
L2
200
L1
L2/L1
230
L1
L2/L1
250
L1
L2/L1
148
L2/L3
L3
Speed
(knots)
160
L2/L3
L2
180
L1
L2
200
L1
L2
230
L1
L2
250
L1
L2
Roll Axis Control Power
Speed Limits
L
M
H
Bare Airframe - X-Plane
Short Period Damping Ratio
Angle of Attack Response
Levels
CAT A
CAT B
CAT C
X-Plane
L2
L1
L1
FLIGHTLAB
L2
L1
L1
130
148
Speed
(knots)
160
0.208
L3
L2
L3
0.242
L3
L1
L3
0.367
L2/L1
L1
L2
180
200
230
250
0.41
L1
L1
L2
0.64
L1
L1
L1
0.689
L1
L1
L1
0.91
L1
L1
L1
10
Bare Airframe - X-Plane
Stick Forces per g
Requirement
X-Plane
FLIGHTLAB
Speed
(knots)
130
L3
L3
148
L3
L3
160
L2
L2
180
L1
L1
200
L1
L1
230
L1
L1
250
L1
L1
JETSIM Simulator
11