Kruk R, Regan D
Aviat Space Environ Med. 1983 Oct;54(10):906-11.
We compared flying performance with the results of laboratory and airborne visual tests. Pilots flew high-performance, telemetry-tracked A4 and F-14 aircraft. In the low-level task, the index of performance was bombing accuracy; in air-to-air combat, performance was assessed by the number of missile hits scored per hit received (win/loss ratio). The chief laboratory tests comprised discrimination between two speeds of a radially-expanding flow pattern, and manual tracking of a visual target. Airborne tests comprised visual acquisition distance of an A4 aircraft, and visual sensitivity to a change in the course of an approaching A4 aircraft. We found that the flow pattern and movement-in-depth tracking test results correlated with bombing accuracy, confirming previously reported simulator findings. The results of airborne visual tests correlated with the win/loss ratio in combat, and tracking test results correlated with the number of missiles fired per combat engagement. Subsidiary tests of motion, grating contrast, and visual acuity thresholds were carried out for comparability with other studies, but these measures did not predict flying performance.
我们将飞行性能与实验室及空中视觉测试结果进行了比较。飞行员驾驶高性能、装有遥测设备的A4和F-14飞机。在低空任务中，性能指标是轰炸精度；在空对空战斗中，性能通过每次被击中所获得的导弹命中数（胜负比）来评估。主要的实验室测试包括区分径向扩展流型的两种速度，以及手动跟踪视觉目标。空中测试包括对A4飞机的视觉捕获距离，以及对接近的A4飞机航向变化的视觉敏感度。我们发现，流型和深度运动跟踪测试结果与轰炸精度相关，证实了先前报道的模拟器研究结果。空中视觉测试结果与战斗中的胜负比相关，跟踪测试结果与每次战斗交战发射的导弹数量相关。为了与其他研究进行可比性，还进行了运动、光栅对比度和视力阈值的辅助测试，但这些指标并不能预测飞行性能。
