SAWE Report - Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

13 Cockpit
Cockpit Design began with the RFP requirement of a crew of two. Comparison trades of tandem
versus side-by-side seating configurations were performed as shown in Figure 13.1. Analysis of
the two configurations was based upon a cockpit solid model where instrumentation, controls,
circuit breakers and military aft pilot vision requirements (MIL-STD-850B) were used to
construct the tandem and side by side arrangements.
Figure 13.1 - Cockpit Width Trade Study
Tandem vs. side by side configuration has very little effect on frontal area of the cockpit
configuration in military aircraft. It was found due to instrumentation and control placement,
which were the major cockpit width contributors, that other factors must be taken into account
before a final decision could be made on pilot placements. Weapons configuration, the use of the
180 in (457 cm) MPRL, favored side by side seating placement. The rational was the width of
the rotary launching system allowed for the use of a side-by-side seating arrangement. This
arrangement allowed greater pilot communication as well as
the elimination of many redundant circuit breakers as well as
instrumentation. However preliminary stability and control
analysis revealed a need to narrow the forward fuselage, as
shown in Figure 13.2, due to adverse C mα characteristics of a
wide nose section (see stability and control section).
Figure 13.2 - Forward fuselage
Comparisons
Therefore the decision was made to utilize a tandem seating
configuration. This configuration offered a smaller frontal
area, a much more ideal supersonic (M=1.6) area plot, and a
better field of vision for the primary pilot.
86