This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Monterey, California

C)CN_

00

SA t#,-S

Iz

itTIC

THESIS

FLIGHT DYNAMICS OF AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE By Eric J. Watkiss March 1994 Thesis Advisor: Richard M. Howard

G

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

94-22862

Unclassified

SECU`RIT CLASSIFICATION OF THIES PAGE

**REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
**

1*. kUU(HY EI~RT

-01- ZKEJI

ON

o 0'704-0188

Unclassified

3. DIS1R18U11U!%/AVA1LA5LUIY1

**,1&StECULIUJY LLASSL~iCAIIUN ALLI-tUR1lY
**

___________________________________

2b tJ1U..ASU-ICAII

NI)OWN VUWALANU Mj1'i2JLLU 4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ k)KINUAL(N iAZA1U PROMN

**Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
**

.MONIT1ORIIN URUANILATION KtFUKT NUaMB(5)

1i

5&.NAJMh it- PhkU4(1WAL,

**Nava Schol NvlPostgraduate ScolAA OC AI.)CK±ŽS ILt~Y.
**

Slat, &OdLIP Lode)

OKU~ANILAIWIN

**I6b Ot~l i(-h Sa YMBUCL
**

(f

NAATE (ii- MUNLIUiW1

URUA!"IZAILd

appltcble)

/b. AUULKX-13 (Lity. -Wat,&GOId -W L dtl

**Naval Postgraduate School
**

,

**Monterey. CA 93943-5000
**

8.. NAME 01- rUNDENC,/1ýJUNSLKLM,

ORGANIZATIN

ac ADLDRESSCity. Swae.and LIP Code)

TEý--Montere 5 011IS YIBOL

I

**CA 93943-5000
**

LbKUl[ltll'(AjNLB NLNOEXS ACCESSION NO.

Y.M^Urvt

(If appheable)

U0 SULK(-h

OFIi-LNUC'.C N. N.NO.

ELM-? 11. I 11Uiinclude SewurayCnadlfcation)

**FLIGHT DYNAMICS OF AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
**

12'. PU(SUNAL Al UI4SI)

**Eric John Watkiss
**

]a. FR

~

f1b

UEC~KO1

AEO

Master's Thesis F-FROM _ TO March 1994 9 10. KYt.1-N INAX I NUCI IIUN Ž,L A The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

iLW.All WUhS. ;8,

.KKI(e.M..OnULy yl C-P

u

rL-

SLIDEC. I

tMM

(Continue on revaen if oces~ary and idenufy ey block ',umber)

MAC on

t

oceanr

ad IenttyUnmanned = ufyby biocx numbner)

Aerial Vehicle, UAV, Flight Test, Right Dynamics

Moments of inertia were experimentally determined and longitudinal and lateral/directional static and dynamic stability and control derivatives were estimated for a fixed wing Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV). Dynamic responses to various inputs were predicted based upon the estimated derivatives. A divergent spiral mode was revealed, but no particularly hazardous dynamics were predicted. The aircraft was then instrumented with an airspeed indicator, which when combined with the ability to determine elevator deflection through trim setting on the flight control transmitter, allowed for the determination of the aircraft's neutral point through flight test. The neutral point determiined experimentally corresponded well to the theoretical neutral point. However, further flight testing with improved instrumentation is planned to raise the confidence level in the neutral point location. Further flight testing will also include dynamic studies in order to refine the estimated stability and control derivatives.

:9 AS IRAC ý ýoninu oo eveu i nZ=Zyo

-)

i iI91

F(),v

-kiAHL

f OF

]'VA

**'X INf-A.SSW\WTFT1.-UWD
**

75. 7,7 ýA

7

I'-L7z

SAME ASRrT

2 mIC USERS

-.

Unclassified

HE U 'fl inc e

IC

CL 5il

.777

A177

Richard M. Howard

tmu "m cnn, 1re7i, Nyn a1,

CIe Code

-Z

ClM

.4U

(1408) 656 - 2870 S/N 0102-LF-014-6603

1

47Ce17

AA/Ho

Unclassified

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Flight Dynamics of an Unntmined Aerial Vehicle

by

Eric John Watkiss Lieutenant, United States Navy Bachelor of Aerospace Engineerring Georgia Institute of Technology, 1986 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Author:

___________________

rc J. Watkiss

Approved By'

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __"'

Richard M. Howard, Thesis Advisor

Daniel J. Ccilins, Chairman Department of Aeronautics n Astronautics

further flight testing with improved instrumentation is plantled to raise the confidence ievel in the neutral point location. Special J ./ Di•t IH. Accesion For NTIS CRA&I DTIC TAB Unannounced Justification By Dist: ibIJtion ! Availabilffy Codes I-3 avai'i" aldl or //. but no particularly hazardous dynamics were predicted. However. The ah'cra/• was then instrumented with an airspeed indicator. which when combined with the ability to determine elevator deflection through trim setting on the flight control transmitter. The neutral point determined experimentally corresponded well to the theoretical neutral point. Dynamic responses to various inputs were predicted based upon the estimated derivatives. allowed for the determination of the aircraft's neutral point through flight test. A divergent spiral mode was revealed. Further flight testing will also include dynamic studies in order to refine the estimated stability and control derivatives...III II ABSTRACT Mcments of inertia were experimentally determined and longitudinal and lateral/directional static and dynamic stability and control derivatives were estimated for a fixed wing Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV).

...................................I STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE ............... ........... 3 BACKGROUND.......... I A.............. D................ PREDICTED DYNAMICS ... 19 29 30 iv ............ C.................................................................... GENERAL DESCRIPTION..... A.. B... B......................... 4 4 5 8 10 EVOLUTION OF AN AIRCRAFT...... ]MISSION NEED....... PIONEER AIRCRAFT....... LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS............. C..--10 STABILITY DERIVATIVES ....................19 LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS .................................... INTRODUCTION .................................................. ........ A........ B. 19 GENERAL.........................................................TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.......... III......... REMIARKS ...................................................... A... H... MOMENTS OF INERTIA .............. PARAMETER ESTIMATION ............... THEf AIRCRAFT . C................................ B......... 10 14 IV...........

................................ FLIGHT TEST .......................................... ....................................................... 44 MOMENT OF D TIA CALCULATIONS ............. 34 34 INSTRUMENTATION ............... LIST OF REFERENCES .. C.................................................V....................................... INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .......... 41 VI............. D.. B. B........................................... 59 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: MATLAB PROGRA MS USED TO ESTIMATE AIRCRAFT DYNAMICS .. 35 TEST PROCEDURES ...... A.................................... 42 MATLAB PROG S USED TO ESTIMATE STABILITY AND CONTROL DERIVATIVES ............................................. LONGITUDINAL DYNAh fCS .......... 36 RESULTS ............. 81 V ......... SUMMARY ... TEST DESCRIPTION ............ LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS ........ 59 59 72 79 A......................

G. tail CL. Center of gravity Coefficient of lift Coefficient of lift.NOMENCLATURE AAA AoA Anti-aircraft artillery Angle of attack AR AR. CLT O-25' a •-' Q". b Vertical tail aspect ratio Wing span b. Coefficient of lift in the trimmed condition vi . c c-bar. CL fa = ea c--L L CL8. CL . CL CL. Wing aspect ratio Horizontal tail aspect aatio AR. b. 0 CD CDO Horizontal tail span Vertical tail height Wing chord Wing meanr aerodynamic chord Coefficient of drag Coefficient of drag at zero lift CD CD& ='C = C.

= act. = a:. IC.. CX Cr Horizontal tail chord Axial force coefficient Lateral force coefficient vii . =a:.= C" Coefficient of yawing moment CM. Coefficient of rolling moment Cl. =c. Cmq=" C.C. = • ad. = CM Coefficient of pitching moment C. C. 42 Cis. C1. CIO = Ic.

QSb ec 1. 1. L7• I. Moment of inertia about the x-axis Moment of inertia about the y-axis Moment of inertia about the z-axis Length or x moment component 1. 2~2Vd LO =QS. L L Q~bb ac. QSb ac. =-• ar= 2b' Gyar C. Q~s'b b ac' Normal force coefficient Gravitational constant Center of gravity location in percent mean aerodynamic chord Incidence angle of tail Moment of inertia. M Rolling moment Distance between quarter chords of wing and horizontal tail Distance between quarter chords of wing and vertical tail Y moment component viii . g h I I.Cy.ec.

sm Reference area S1 Horizontal tail planform area S.a. Q'v al* 1. e•ec N.S? Ve U Io 2k yL Np= Mr m = s~Qs•C.c. In a~a b -Sb. ' Hoiotlti pa'toae n PMARC p Yawing moment Panel Method.Mq SM = •-• 2Vm p. or period Dynamic pressure Pitch rate Yaw rate S.= QSb b 6.. 2VOA 21' Q"T'- in 2V 21' Wor Np S asi u N. are. or pitching moment Mean aerodynamic chord Megahertz Z moment component N. I. Vertical tail planforni area S wtmWing planform area SAM Surface-to-air missile u/U Ratio of change in airspeed to trim airspeed q r Q ix . Ames Research Center Roll rate. I. QZ aac. S' N. J• JriC m. N. MHZ N l a Mass. N8.=QSb ar.

.__I x . alpha Distance from pivot to center of gravity Angle of attack •. QS aL 2V Z -QS L'C Z a. QS Ocr Yý QS bCr M6r -~I.mV 21'd U QSact - =.Velocity Vertical tail volume coefficient in roll W mV OI U Horizontal tail volume coefficient Vertical tail volume coefficient in yaw Weight x QS -QS lcD ax y _ sb8Cr 2V - QSX.

aL.beta 8a 8e 80&" 8r O.theta O. aom.phi w Subscripts LONG M M+S S SHORT Angle of zero lift Angle of attack in the trimmed condition Sideslip angle Aileron deflection Elevator deflection Elevator deflection in the trimmed condition Rudder deflection Pitch angle Bank angle Weight per unit length Long chain Model Model and support Support Short chain xi ... O3.

in conuact with. A very special thanks is due to Professor Richard M. His generosity with his time and seemingly infinite patience go well above and beyond the call of duty. Her tolerance of the endless hours spent with books instead of her. She deserves a commendation medal. The biggest thank-you of all goes to the most immortant person in my life. He would make an outstanding commanding officer. Lynne. He is the finest model craftsman and pilot I have come in contact with. . is truly commendable. T'ank you to all I have com. xii . A very special thanks is also due to Mr. when she had every right to my time. Don Meeks.. I love you. Her support throughout my tour here is appreciated more than she knows. His ability to listen open-mindedly to a student's craziest ideas and discuss them in a sensible and reasonable manner make him a true team player. '" "• ~&"•__ . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The staff and faculty of the Naval Postgraduate School Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics are responsible as a whole for making my education an outstanding one. Lynne. Howard. His encol'ragement and guidance provided me with the motivation to start this project and the endurance to see it through. my wife. .

Reviews of lessons learned from Desert Shield and Desert Storm reveal the outstanding successes of UAVs. The Marines quickly reacted to an Iraqi attack into Saudi Arabia observed by a UAV and decisively crushed the Iraqi invasion with airborne Cobras and Harriers. perform reconnaissance missions for SEAL teams. and troop movements. and search for Iraqi Silkworm sites. and anti-aircraft artillery sites. There are many examples of effective UAV use during the war. The Army provided their Apache pilots with route reconnaissance acquired from UAVs shortly before the Apache missions. targeting for gunfire support. MISSION NEED Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are gaining acceptance as an integral part of the operations of todays armed forces. Desert Storm provided the first-ever combat test of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by U. I]. revealing the exact reaction of the Iraqi forces to Marine armor.. Preceding and during Operation Desert Storm.issions including recrnnaissaiice. UAVs flew a variety of r. a commander of a Marine task force was able to monitor UAV imagery of Kuwait as his task force approached the city. spot for gunfire support. In one instance.. and battle damage assessment. The Navy used UAVs to seArch for mines.L INTRODUCTION A. forces [Ref.S. . command and control bunkers. artillery. Spotting for air strikes and naval gunfire support 1 .

Finally. composite construction. UAVs are frequently very hard to detect with radar or infrared systems due to their small size. however. UAVs have many advantages over manned aircraft which help account for their effectiveness. The Pioneer. and small and inexperienced in terms of personnel. for example. UAVs also have an advantage from being unmanned. Acquisition and support programs are relatively new and underdeveloped. truck beds. Five Pioneers were lost due to mechanical 2 . no prisoners of war taken. First.s. UAVs are also extremely flexible with respect to launch platform They can be launched from small fields.. and their slow speed. the best advantage of all is that when a UAV crashes or is lost to enemy fire. and practically any ship in the Navy inventory.000 for the onboard camera.became so successful that Iraqi soldiers were seen attempting to surrender to UAVs as they flew overhead [Ref. costs approximately $500. bringing the total cost of the package to a mere one to two percent of the cost of most manned tactical aircraft. This results in a UAV force that is relatively small in number of aircraft. The aircraft is not limited by the "g" tolerance of a pilot or by pilot fatigue. 2]. The Pioneer showed signs of these underlying problems during Desert Storm. the cost of a UAV is a very small fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft. small engines (sometimes electric motors). UAVs are not without their problem. Six Pioneers were damaged badly enough to require return to the factory for repair due to no intermediate level maintenance facilities being available. there is no search and rescue mission required. and no loss of life.000 for the aircraft and $500.

2]. Thorough and frequent training through simulation can keep operators performing at their peak.malfunction or operator error [Ref. accurate aerodynamic data for the aircraft must be available. Aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft can be determined from its physical characteristics. and flight tests of actual or scale models. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE To provide realistic simulation for training. losses are very costly and operator errors need to be avoided if possible. Flying-qualities parameters were estimated using analytic techniques. Due to the small number of available aircraft. 3 . and the resulhant flight dynamics were simulated to provide expected behavior for future test flights. It is the objective of this work to provide the ground work for determining whether flight test can effectively be used to accurately estimate the static and dynamic stability and control characteristics of a fixed wing UAV. wind tunnel tests. B.

The first method of determining an aircraft's derivatives begins early and continues throughout the design process. which determine the flying characteristics of the aircraft. however. properties such as stability and control derivatives. this methcd is relatively simple..ITL BACKGROUND A. Derivatives can be reasonably approximated. Requiring little more than a few well-educated engineers and some calculators or desktop computers. These derivatives are used to size control surfaces. measurements of wind tunnel testing. EVOLUTION OF AN AIRCRAFT For any aircraft to get from an idea to an actual flying vehicle. This method is more complicated than simple pencil and paper calculations due to the necessity for model making and wind :unnel operation. and program training devices such as simulators. but must be refined through other methods. must be determined. The second method of determining derivatives is through aerodynamic. due to factors such as scale effects and interference from wind tunnel walls and 4 . This step involves determining derivatives mathematically from physical characteristics of the airc7. but much better results can be achieved. Derivatives must still be refined. There are typically three ways to determine or estimate derivatives. design flight control systems.

General P. recognized the effectiveness of the Israeli UAVs. This action resulted in heavy Syrian losses and minimal Israeli losses.S. dynamic effects are often difficult to properly account for in most wind tunnels. B. Anxious to get UAVs to the fleet. developmental and operational testing took place concurrently. X. such quick integration into . Scaled flight test provides a viable option for this third method. This approach resulted in quick integration of the Pioneer into the fleet.supporting hardware. PIONEER UAV In June 1982. Unfortunately. Israeli forces very successfully used UAVs as a key element in their attack on Syria. Also. Navy launched strikes against Syrian forces in the same area with losses much higher for the Navy than those of the Israelis (Ref. The final step approach to determining the derivatives of an aircraft is through flight test. but it is also the most precise and complete. Secretary of the Navy John Lehman then initiated development of a UAV program for the U. Kelly. 3]. 4]. Secretary Lehman stipulated that UAV technology would be off-the-shelf [Ref. After the contract award to AAI Corporation of Baltimore. Maryland for the Pioneer UAV.S. This method is by far the most expensive and complicated way to determine the aircraft's derivatives. A year and a half later. The Commandant of the Marine Corps. Scout and Mastiff UAVs were used to locate and classify SAM and AAA weaponry and to act as decoys for other aircraft. the U.

the fleet can result in problerm identified during operational use which had not been fully explored in the test and evaluation process. The UAV Office a. In order to provide support to the research being done at Pt. 3. NAWC. a research program was begun at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). 2. 6. Mugu was tasked to develop a computer simulation of the Pioneer in order to provide cost-effective training for pilots. slow pitch response causing degraded maneuverability at high gross weights. 5. severely limited lateral control. Pt. Mugu) was tasked with Developmental Test and Evaluation of the Pioneer. Weapons Division. now the Naval Air Warfare Center. Aerodynamic data were needed to provide the stability and control derivatives necessary for the simulation as well as to answer questions concerning basic flying qualities of the Pioneer. insufficient testing to determine the effects of the icew wing on flight endurance.6]: 1. the Pacific Missile Test Center (PMTC. tall boom structural failure. apparent autopilot-related pitch instability. time to climb. Mugu and to provide for future UAV project support. Testing revealed the following concerns which warranted further investigation [Refs. An instrumented half-scale radio-controlled model of the Pioneer was used 6 . 4. and fuel flow at altitude. The Target Simulation Laboratory at Pt. discrepancies in predicted with flight-tested rate of climb. 5.

Drag polars were constructed using the component buildup method for profile drag. Lt. Aerodynamic data obtained by Capt. 8]. Initial NPS research on the Pioneer. in an attempt to alleviate the vibration 7 . Robert Bray later conducted wind tunnel tests of a 0. vibration problems with the onboard recorder rendered much of the data unusable [Ref 10]. Lyons work. performed by Capt. designed by Lt. Lyons and Bray have been supplied to PMTC to be used for simulation. Lt. Capt. Jim Salmons performed initial flying qualities flight testing using an onboard data recording system in order to determine static stability parameters. Kevin Wilhelm. and crosswind limitations were calculated. Following up on Lt. Salmons' work. involved a computer analysis of the Pioneer in its original configuration and with a proposed larger tail. the neutral point.for the research at NPS. Kent Aitcheson installed the CHOW-IG telemetry system. and numerical modeling. James Tanner conducted wind tunnel' tests to determine propeller efficiencies and thrust coefficients for drag studies [Ref 8]. and drag reduction measures were considered [Ref 7]. In conjunction with Capt. 9]. Research performed included wind tunnel tests. Lt. Tanner also conducted flight tests to determine power required curves and drag polars [Ref. flight tests.4-scale model at Wichita State University to determine static stability and control derivatives [Ref. Daniel Lyons. A low order panel method (PMARC) was used for the aerodynamic analysis. Lt. Static longitudinal and directional stability derivatives. Unfortunately.

though not enough data were acquired for a complete and thorough analysis of the Pioneeres characteristics. The vibration problem experienced by Lt. Salmons.147 UAV using both MMLE and a more robust non-linear model. 8 . Resolution needed to be improved for flight control position indication [Refs. Static longitudinal stability results from the flight tests correlated well with theoretical predictions and with simulations of a full-scale Pioneer. Lt. concerning instrumentation. C. Lcdr..probiem experienced by Lt. Much insight was gained. 13]. Robert Graham successfully used the Modified Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MMLE) technique with MATLAB software to analyze simulated and actual flight test data of several aircraft. Paul Koch conducted further flight tests of the Pioneer with the CHOW-IG telemetry system.12]. however. Electromagnetic interference with the flight control system at the test site resulted in loss of the half-scale model Pioneer before further data collection and analysis could be performed [Ref. Analysis of simulated UAV data revealed the effect of signal-to-noise ratio on the estimator. and the need for proper control-surface excitation for a paticular response [Ref 14]. The new flight test configuration was used to test static longitudinal and lateral-directional stability characteristics of the Pioneer. pEst. and compared the results of the two approaches. Cdr. 11. PARAMETER ESTIMATION Parameter estimation is used to derive stability and control derivatives from dynamic flight test data. Noise was found to be a problem when the system response was in the same general frequency as the noise. Salmons was overcome. Patrick Quinn analyzed flight test data from the Marine Corps BQM.

Limited available data and noise at the frequency expected for the system's response prevented a successful resolution of all stability and control derivatives of interest. especially concerning the most challenging method of aircraft analysis. much has been learned. 15]. This work initiates the implementation of the lessons learned from previous worx into dynamic simulation and flight testing of a generic UAV in order to properly prepare the UAV lab at NPS for further support of future projects and to demonstrate the value of scaled UAV flight test to the fleet. 9 . The pEst model was found to be the estimator of choice when aircraft maneuvers exceed what is generally considered reasonable for linear approximation of flight dynamics [Ref. While previous work with UAVs at NPS has at times been frustrating. flight test.

and metal. foam. STABILITY DERIVATIVES The initial estimates of tht stability derivatives of the Bluebird were made using the physical characteristics of the aircraft such as airfoil data. 16-19]. The left receiver controls the left aileron. It is constructed of wood. and flap. geometric measurements. and weight [Refs. nose-wheel steering. and engine ignition and onboard electronics package cut-off. mass. the Bluebird has two receivers which share control of the aircraft.5 hours.H11 THE AIRCRAFT A. and 10 . GENERAL DESCRIPTION The "Bluebird".7-cubic-inch two-stroke gasoline engine which drives a 24 inch two-bladed wood propeller. elevator. ind flap. shown in Figures 1-3. and rudder. elevator.710 MHz. To enhance reliability. Table I describes physical specifications of the Bluebird. and throttle. B. It is controlled by a nine-channel pulse-code-modulated Futaba radio operating at 72. relative positions of aircraft components. composites. It is powered by a Sachs-Dolmar 3. while the right receiver controls the right aileron. The Bluebird can fly within visual range for approximately 1. The assumed flight condition with the associated aircraft configuration is described in Table 2 Nondimensional stability and control derivatives estimated are shown in Table 3. is a high-wing tricycle-gear radio-controlled airplane.

.. 1....0247 V .....89 *....................) ... ..................................67 ft............. Altitude ......2 c .........701 S.........o.............. .21 ft...............86 AR ........... .......c............. 0 ........ Wing Airfoil (est...................................... b ....14 AH ............................................ 27% of m....2866 A....38 fL2 ft........... 5............. C t " ...... IV.........04 ft.0023 .......... 1.............58 slug 1ft 2 IY ........ Height ............. TABLE 2 FLIGHT CONDITIONIAIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION 57. 4... 13 .. Airfoil (est...... 3... 22............. 800 ft MSL .....a...... 12.. 1................................802 ft.. 1. .......281 ft....... ....... bt ......... 3.... ...) ... Weight ....... 1.............. AR .....................38 1 ft..................... C! ....... .................... 1.6 degrees 11 ......... Density Center of Gravity ... ................ .... 5 .......... 0............................. ......................... ...................... 3 0.... ......................... I= ..........79 lbs... S1 ................................... TABLE I SPECIFICATIONS 9.. 2 ................A....99 slug*ft2 ............................ b 6.277 ft................................. 12.....84 ft..dimensional stability and control derivatives estimated are shown in Table 4......38 1 ft.............. NACA 4412 2 S..42 ft....................... .... Length ...............002327 slugs/ft ...... GO 769 Horizontal Stab............ 3..... MATLAB programs written for the physical and derivative calculations appear in Appendix A....6274 Vv ...... (Sr) .........21 slug*ft2 19......................... 0................................ AR................. 0.....................................8 degrees Eleva ory........ I 60 mph/88 ft/sec Velocity .................

NAVY • 1 IF Figure 2 Top View Figure 3 Front View 12 .6 Figbre I Side View U.s.

7966/sece No ...4130 C....TABLE 3 NONDIMENSIONAL DERIVATIVES CL ... ... 1........ .. 16.... .0330 C... 0.. .0000 /ft*sec Ma ..8146 ff/sec Z................ -0.. ... 0..9173 C ... ...........0326 CIO .2928/Isec yo .. Ci. 1.. .0000 ft/sec2 Lp .4 .......... ..... ... .... 0..0967 . .. -34... ... 4.. 0..7894 ft/sec Z .3100 CL.... CL ..8282 ftfsecz Lp ......... C.. 0. ......6730 /sec2 Y. .. .......0526 0....... CD..........0650 Cyo ........ . 0. 6. .........0697 0...... .. ..1370 C..0000 ft/sec Ya..0311 CD.....9852 ft/sec& Zq ... ... .-..0000 C...... -1.............0258 ... C .. . .5027 ft/sec M..0914/sec X& ..7312 /sec Z....0484 CY. 0.. .......C...... 0..0593 Isec2 N..... ..0000 0.3167/sec Nu ........0000 0. ... -46................. .. -0. Cla........ -0...... ...... . ........................ 0.. ...... 0...........2652 -0... . ...3178/sec mu . -4........ 0.0358 CY..... -0...3579 0....6790 C. .... .... .. 0..5787 /sec2 6 L..0613/sec L..... -468.. -33..2242 C..... 4.4647/sec N&.368 ft/sec2 M...... -7..... .... CIO..... 5589 /sec Np ........ ...... ....8021 ft/sec2 Y. ... . C. .. -3..2375/sec2 X. .... 0...0281 Isec Ls .. 0..7663 ft/sec Ys.0028 C...... ..... -29................. ... 0.... -11... -0.......0755 ... .. Co. .. .. 52.......... .... Cy C... ...0900 /sec2 13 .... 0.. .......1417 1. . ... -0........... 0...............0358 CD ......6918 CD .......... .. -0.......5..... -0.. ......... ......2961 ft/sec2 Z...... ...........2559 /see Mq ......063 3............... ..... -0. -7.0000 TABLE 4 DIMENSIONAL DERIVATIVES x ...5787 -1. -1..... C ............. -3.2866 4.

Specifications for the geometry of each test can be found in Appendix B. 14 . Determination of the moments of inertia by test is much more practial and precise. the model must be hung from the ceiling and swung three different ways.JZ. 20-2 1]. p is the period. the aircraft is hung from the ceiling and swung.s _2 y WSZS 2 pM - 7ps WMZV 4 8 gu= (1) W is the weight. and g is the gravitational constant. Z is the distance from pivot to center of gravity. The Bluebird was hung by chain and swung as pictured in Figures 4-6. w•. In order to calculate the moment of inertia about all axes. each such that as the aircraft swings. Using the period exhibited and the principles of compound pendulums. MOMENTS OF INERTIA Having accurate moments of inertia is critical to ensuring the accurate prediction of aircraft dynamics.C. M and S are subscripts designating either the model or the support. Direct calculation of a model's moments of inertia by consideration of the contributions made by individual parts is impractical and inaccurate. Reference 21 provides equation (1) for calculating the moment of inertia of a swinging model. the moments of inertia of the model can be extracted [Ref. In the determination of moments of inertia by test. The changes in a model's moments of inertia due to addition or subtraction of equipment or structure can be calculated directly. thereafter. it is rotating about the axis of interest.

Figure 4 I= Test (not to scale) 15 .

Figure 5 ITest (~not to scale) 16 .

Test (not to scale) 17 .Figure 6 1..

there were two "long" chains and two "short" chains. These three variables were measured for each of the three configurations and calculations were made. 22]. The new form of equation (1) is I = . Four periods were timed during the swing tests. and the tests were repeated ten times.Ls)-S 3g (2) where Ls is the length of a chain and the summation is taken over all chains (four in this case).2. The moments of inertia calculated are shown in Table 2.It was determined that swinging the support (the chains) in the configuration it would be in when supporting the model would not be possible.s. Appropriate substitutions were made to yield I = [-w2*Lvxw+LL)]2"us4 W. all having a weight per unit length co. 2m. - (ws). Equation (1) was therefore manipulated in order to treat the chains as long slender rods and to calculate their moments of inertia as such [Ref.W. and px. 2m(L2 2 (3) Having the equation in this form fixes the values for all variables except ZM+s. 18 .sAd4 4~2 PMs * w2. since the chains would not maintain their positions without the model in place. In particular.

19 . LONGITUDINA L DYNAMICS The MATLAB prgrai named "longnat.m" uses the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "impulse" function to determine the short and long period natural responses. C omputational programs were written in MATLAB and appear in Appendix C.IV. GENERAL When flight testing an aircraft. A diary of the values computed and output by the program provides eigenvalues. The information provided by the predictions can be used in briefing the pilot as t what to expect from the aircraft and also to avoid any potentially dangerous flight regimes. it is important to attempt to predict the results of the testing prior to the actt flights. and damped and undamped natural frequencies for both modes as shown in Tabl 5. PREDICTED DYNAMICS A. B. Longitudinal and lateral-directional dynamics of the Bluebird have been predicted usi g the stability and control derivatives estimated in chapter three along with computational methods based upon the six equations of motion as described in references 18 and 23. damping ratios.

083 +/.0. It should be noted that normal acceleration is defined opposite in sign to load factor. m".401 rad/sec 4.TABLES LONGITUDINAL DATA Short Period Lona Period -5.03 rad/sec 0. while pitch rate dies out. it can be seen that the short period response is almost completely damped out after about two seconds. In the first plot. Due to held elevator input. It can be seen that the short period response is almost completely damped out after only two seconds.723 0. Response beyond two seconds is primarily long period. The MATLAB program named "nstep. Again. Figures 9 and 10 show the short and long period response to a step input.4. The long-period response is seen to be much 20 . Figure 11 shows the short period normal acceleration response to a unit step input. The phugoid mode is seen to be lightly damped. The short and long pericd response to a unit step elevator input is determined by using the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "step" function in the MATLAB program named "stepper. the long-term response is to trim to a new angle of attack.400i 0. the long period can be seen to be much more heavily excited than the short period mode.037 +/.861 i -0.86 rad/sec 0.093 7.399 rad/sec Eigenvalues Damping ratio Undamped Natural Frequency Damped Natural Frequency Figures 7 and 8 show the combined short and long period natural response.m" uses the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "step" function to determine the normal acceleration or load factor response to a unit step elevator input.

........... at* = ~... .......6 ... ... ................" .... ... .."......... ............................. ... ..........5 .. . ..... ....•.. .... .... --...... ....... ............ 4....5 "'.. * 0... .... ................... 0 ----------n 'alpha ............. ....•1. ....... ....... 0 ..-----------------------------. . ...5 i......" "•• "'.. - ....Iq ..... .. -1 "0 5 Time.. .. r .. .......0.. :.......... -2 20 40...... .... sec Figure 7 10 15 Natural Response (short time) 2 1. . 1.. ............ .. •............... ........ .s5.....5 . ................ ...... ..........""I"................... i.. .... I 80 80 I 100 Time..... i. -o. i. .. -1. ......5 0 • S" 'A X"1S " " '5'' S0...... .... sec Figure 8 Natural Response (long time) 21 ........ -1 .... . ..... -o~ -...... .... ...5 -...

.. . :.... ...../.......... ...... 2---/...... ........... .. .. ... ----...•.. ...."arpha . -...--... ..... .. .......' . .. :... N......3 ". ..L 2 ---. O -. ........ ...: : 2 :•'•' £ .-........ .. -5 0 10 Time..............---........-'--------------" ............... 2 ............... ... .........._ . Time...•. -3 ""'-.. ............. ..•-...........--..... .... -:• ...... '•.-------.. .. -------. .. sec Figure 10 Response to Step Input (long time) 22 ... 2 ...... . sec Figure 9 Response to Step Input (short time) 5 15 3 7 .... . ........ ....... .. . . ....

...----------- C 0 ....................m" uses the full (4x4j longitudinal plant and the transition matrix (using the MATLAB "exponential" function) to find the 23 ..1 .... Figures 12 and 13 show the longitudinal response to the initial conditions.. q = 8...............34.. 10-. theta ..... 0................. .... The initial conditions ( u/U = ... ..... -- 5 10 15 Figure 1 Normal Acceleration Response to Step Input The longitudinal response to given initial conditions is determined using the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "initial" function in the MATLAB program named "homogen..... The MATLAB program named "doublet. .8 deg) are provided for all states from the step input results after initial dynamics have died out (approximately 15 secnds)...... .4 ---. 1 0.. -... .. 0......... .. ... . ....more critical than the short-peiod response in generating large load factors for this aircraft..-0.......3 032 -... The long-period is again seen to be lightly damped..--s ...........m"...... alpha = 5 deg.......... The response in angle of attack is small while a significant pitch rate is developed in both the short-period and long-period responses.... ......8 deg/sec......

.... ..............g e .. ... .. t +Figure . =:---"-•'-==-•-.--------------------.-.. . . .. 4)1 -".. :--'". "=--........... -.-> .... ...2 . L ' ..... .... +..........24 I]:....--... ... -...........1 . ........4 /'-•=•2"-2.. .... ..................... . . ...... -0 ......... -----------------------.......2 0..--.....................yW -0...3 0...... e u Res ons "......... .. ....1.>•-i......... ...3 ...... .--...... .... ... ... 0 ------... S'....) ..1 -0.............. ...2"• 0 .. 0 .... tim e).................. ......... .• -ri.. ....... 5 Time soc 10 Is Figure 12 Homogeneous Response (short time) 0... ---.... ... q-radlsw -- .i t ..... ...-.... f 24 ... O we ~ ' f• • .0. m... H mo (----.......

399 radians/second respectively where their respective gains peak.response to a unit pitch doublet input at approximately the short period damped natural frequency. the short-period response is masked by the long-period gain.4 radians/second corresponding to an elevator cycle period of approximately 2. The angle of attack gain can be seen decreasing from a peak at a very low excitation frequency.m' uses the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "bode" function to fi. While the gain demonstrated at the long-period damped natural frequency is quite significant. The response (transfer function gain and phase) to a harmonic eievator input is found using the full (4x4) longitudinal plant and the MATLAB "bode" function in the MATLAB program named "spbode.6 seconds. the low-frequency response is of little interest. The MATLAB program named "n bode. An excitation near the short-period damped natural frequency is much more likely. In actuality. The short and long-period damped natural frequencies can be observed at 4.m".86 radians/second and 0. Figures 16 and 17 show the gains and phase shifts from an elevator frequency sweep. and Figure 15 shows the response. the aircraft would not be expected to be excited at that frequency. Flight test pilots and 25 . Pitch rate shows a maximum gain at approximately 2. Figures 18 and 19 show the normal acceleration gains and phase shifts from an elevator frequency sweep. Though the doublet is commonly used to observe only the short-period response. Figure 14 shows the input pitch douolet.d the normal acceleration or load factor response (transfer function gain and phase) to a harmonic input. the angle of attack response indicates the long-period response is also excited.

.----10 .. . . sec Figure 15 Doublet Response 10 15 26 .5-05 Time.--------------. .... 15 5 ~\ q CD 2 alpha: S0- 0 5 Time... Sec Figure 14 Unit Elevator Doublet Input -------..... ~05 w -1..

.....--j- -30E ------------- lop 10.. radluc 0 Figure 16 Frequency Response (Gain) 320 :... radlsee Figure 17 Frequency Response (Phase) 27 . 3 --220 -----i- -----. ------ .-------- 05-0 10 10' Frequency.10 Frequmncy.

...1. radlsac Figure 18 Normal Acceleration Response to a Harmonic Input (Phase) ~-28 . 0... --- 10..O 0 0 10Figure112 Frwpemcy. . ... ......2 .4---6-----0.-_ ..

m" using the fill (4x4) lateral-directional plant. which is easily tolerated structurally. This would equate to approximately -0. Also. and time constant and time to double or half for the spiral mode are calculated by the MATLAB program named "lat dir. LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS Undamped natural frequency.engineers should be aware of the fact that excitation at that frequency will produce Ig"s"per degree of elevator deflection or that it takes a harmonic approximately 0. daz.40 sec 0. and damping ratio for the Dutch roll mode. Values calculated are described as follows. damped natural frequency. The Bluebird has a maxdmum of 15 degrees of up elevator and 12 degrees of down elevator available. C.. Dutch roll mode: Undamped natural frequency Damped natural frequency Damped natural period Damping ratio Roll mode: Time constant Spiral mode: Time constant Time to double amplitude 2.8 to +3.29 sec The Dutch roll mode is observed to be lightly damped. 29 . time constant for the roll mode.28 sec 20.148 0.195 sec -29. the spiral mode is divergent with a fairly short time to double bank angle.65 rad/sec 2.2 "g's'.7 degrees of elevator to produce one "g"of acceleration.p-ed natural period.62 rad/sec 2.15 amplitude of about 6.

2 seconds.The MATLAB program named "rudkick.m" uses the full (4x4) lateral-directional plant and the MATLAB "impulse" function to find the response to a unit rudder impulse. while the divergent spiral mode can be observed. The MATLAB program named "roll. Figure 20 shows the unit rudder kick response in bank and sideslip angles. and sideslip angle is 13. The lightly damped Dutch roll mode can be seen by observing the oscillations of both bank angle and sideslip angle. The response to an initial sideslip is determined by the MATLAB program named "sideslip. Figure 21 shows the homogeneous response to the initial sideslip.by the increasing bank angle.m" using the full (4x4) lateral-directional plant and the MATLAB "initial" function.6 seconds or 80 degrees of phase and is approximately 60 percent larger in magnitude. The maximum high-frequency roll angle gain is seen to occur at approximately 2. The program also finds the bank angle at the end of 100 seconds which is approximately four degrees in the direction of the rudder kick. 30 . Sideslip lags bank angle by approximately 0. Figures 22 and 23 show the roll angle gains and phase shifts from the harmonic aileron input. Initial conditions for sideslip and bank angle are provided by a steady-sideslip condition where bank angle is ten degrees.7 degrees.m" uses the full (4x4) lateral-directional plant and the MATLAB "bode" function to find the roll angle response (transfer function gain and phase) due to a harmonic aileron input.8 radians/second which corresponds to an aileron input period of approximately 2.

. .. --- -- 0 ..----.......................................... . r. .. bets 2.-..-----------------..4 --........ 02 -+-'-. .......... ._---ax 8 10" 4\ o.'o ......------. t•+.1 .35 0... suc Figure 20 Unit Rudder Kick Response 0...... . :---------------.mi i Scos 10 15 Figure 21 Homogeneous Response to an Initial Sideslip 31 ................... ... ..... 0. ---------------.... .---... -0......... 1..i...-.....3 . ... . .... ....... ...1SO 05 .. ..... .. 0-2 ...5 - .--- 0-- Smu....... ........0..--....-- S ---......-..-----..----..... ..... "--.. . "....-...•IL --........--- -- al 1.

-IS _-19n..... - 10.10 Frequncy. raIs(ec 101 1e Figure 23 Roll Angle Phase S~i~ft due to a Harmonic Aileron Input 32 .. rad/we 10 10 Figure 22 Roll Angle Gain due to a Harmonic Aileron Input -100 .10 100 Frequmncy.

33 . Particular characteristics of the Bluebird's behavior worth noting include a very heavily damped short period longitudinal mode. The Bluebird demonstrates no particularly dangerous flying qualities. for example. aileron doublet. and a divergent spiral mode.D. a ighdy damped Dutch roll mode. REMARKS Analysis has been conducted for the most common modes. or elevator impulse ("stick rap"). a lightly damped phugoid mode. Additional analysis could be easily done by analogy to those modes all ready analyzed. the response to a step aileron input. Further analysis might include.

This fact can be used to experimentally determine the aircraft's neutral point. TEST DESCRIPTION The relative positions of an aircraft's center of gravity and neutral point are critical to the aircraf's longitudinal stability and handling qualities. less and less change in elevator trim is required to achieve steady. its center of gravity must be forward of its neutral point. and CLa are constants. dC. d•. In order for a conventional (aft tail) aircraft to be statically stable. front of the neutral point (relative to the chord length). the more statically stable the aircraft is. X. Reference 23 provides equation (4) which describes the relationship between change in pitching moment coefficient with change in coefficient of lift and the required cnange in elevator deflection with change in coefficient of lift.!dC... approaches zero. Since V. level flight for a given change in airspeed. = . 34 .!dCL must also approach zero.S. As an aircraft's center of gravity is moved aft toward the neutral point.V. FLIGHT TEST A. the aircraft becomes statically unstable and more maneuverable. The farther the center of gravity is it. c- (4) As the center of gravity moves aft and approaches the neutral point.CL.M*. As the center of gravity is moved aft beyond the neutral point.

The manufacturer's claimed accuracy is +/. dSe/dCL versus center of gravity is plotted. Each airspeed and the corresponding elevator deflection are recorded. the center of gravity where d8ie/dCL equals zero is the aircrafts neutral point. the aircraft must be flown at various centers of gravity.0. A best fit line is then drawn through these data points. The airspeed indicator was installed on the left wing of the Bluebird by mounting it on the end of a boom which extended approximately I8 inches (approximately 80 percent of c-bar) in front of the leading edge of the wing. commercially-available airspeed indicator was installed. the aircraft is trimmed at several airspeeds (coefficients of lift). Plots are then generated showing elevator deflection versus coefficient of lift at each center of gravity tested. B. Finally. A line is then best fit through the data points for each center of gravity. a simple. The Digicon TT-01 Tele Tachometer/ASI senses the spinning of a small wind-diiven propeller blade using a cadmium disulphide optical sensor. The slope of this line represents d~e/dCL for that particular center of gravity. Measuring elevator trim was done in an indirect manner. The frequency of the changes in light intensity sensed is transmitted to a hand-held receiver which converts the frequency to airspeed which can be read directly in real-time.In order to determine the neutral point by flight test. The flight control transmitter has a digital display which can show elevator trim on a generic scale of -100 to 35 . At each particular center of gravity.5 feet per second. INSTRUMENTATION In order to acquire the airspeed of the Bluebird. Using the best fit line just drawn.

Post flight analysis of the data was conducted in accordance with the procedures described in Section A. elevator deflection in degrees was measured for various trim settings. C. TEST PROCEDURES In order to fly the Bluebird at various centers of gravity. and the relationship between transmitter displayed trim number and actual degrees of elevator deflection was determined. This calibration allowed for the determination of elevator deflection in degrees during post flight analysis. 36 . Each flight consisted of 12 passes at various airspeeds. Flights were kept short in order to minin ize the shift in the center of gravity due to fuel burn. Airspeed and trim setting for each pass were recorded for post flight analysis. Test Description. The aircraft was then configured with various amounts of weight and the location of the center of gravity determined for each configuration. air pressure. an access panel in the aft fuselage of the aircraft was modified to accept added weights. Centers of gravity were determined by weighing each wheel with a strain-gage balance. and aircraft weight were noted in order to calculate coefficient of lift. Shifts in center of gravity during testing were kept to one percent or less of the wing chord. and the average center of gravity was used for calculations. Prior to flight test. The location of the center of gravity was determined both before and after the flight. Additionally. A total of seven flights were flown at various centers of gravity.100. The resulting graphs are shown in Figures 24-31. air temperature.

= .6 0.5 CaOefdent of Lil 0. Flight I -2 0.3 0.5 0. = .2 0.7 Figure 25 Flight 2 of 7 37 .1 *.2735 25 FEB 94.G.G.3 0.11 641 0.C.1 Slope 4. -t.6 0.03140 0.2 0.7 Figure 24 Flight 1 of 7 C.270 25 FEB 94.4 .4 0.4 0. Flight 2 .

Flight 1 5 -4 "50.3 0.l561 Figure 26 Flight 3 of 7 C.6 0.6 0.1 ' 0.G.G.2868 04 MAR 94. = .2 0.1.7 Figure 27 Flight 4 of 7 33 .3 0.5 0.4 0.3198 04 MAR 94.5 :0.2 0.4u44n 7* 0.7 Slop .C.1 Slap .4 0. 5 4 = .-7. Flight 2 Codrcsn of Lift ~0 -2 -4 ".

.5 0.2 "51 03 04. Flight 4 50 0.6 0.3 •of 0.3493 04 MAR 94.1 S" s.4. _----_.3752 04 MAR 94.4 Lint 0.7 Figure 29 Flight 6 of 7 39 . = . Flight 3 50 3 -4 .7 Figure 28 Flight 5 of 7 C.5 0.G.G.2421WO 0.6 0.2 0. __ 0. = .C. Co•flImnt of LIft 0.

Flight 5 5 2 is 0 92 3 4 -5 "0.3848 04 MAR 94.4 0. = .5277 Figure 31 All Flights 40 .5 Cento of Gravity 0.G.8 0.213W6 Figure 30 Flight 7 of 7 Neutral Point Determination 01 -2 -10 6.C.1 0.7 SIV@ .-4.53W TheowetkW NeutW Point .55 Ev~~wnwtw NewiU'u Poft .4 04.2 0.25 0.5 Co.5 0.ffiint of Lt 0.35 0.3 0.

due to wind gusts and possibly small unintentional changes in aircraft attitude. Also. it was very difficult to ensure a perfectly level pass of the aircraft at each particular airspeed. Assuming a normal distribution of the data. The neutral point estimated through conventional calculations was approximately 52. The pilot was positioned on the ground and the plane was flying approximately one hundred feet above him. This second problem will be overcome by the improved data acquisition system. Ideally. the pilot would like to be elevated (such as in a tower) such that the aircraft is at eye level for each pass. Such data scatter is unacceptable for accuracies required. This is not an optimum vantage point for the pilot. RESULTS The neutral point estimated by flight test was found to be about 54 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord. First. For the flight testing done. and the tests will be repeated when the improved instrumentation under development comes on line. the airspeed was not always steady.8 percent of the mean aerodynamic chord. 41 . and therefore somewhat difficult to read consistently. two sources of potential error are of particular interest. one must not overlook the scater in the data presented in Figure 31. there is a 68 percent confidence that the experimentally determined neutral point is within five percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord of the location determined experimentally. Future plans include using an altitude-hold autopilot to maintain the desired trim conditions.D. While such a close match between the neutral point locations found by each method is highly encouraging.

Programs were written in MATLAB in such a mainer that future changes to the aircraft or different flight conditions can be accounted for quickly and accurately. MATLAB programs were written to predict the dynamics. Such methods involve considering characteristics of the aircraft such as lift-curve slopes of airfoils and the locations of particular aircraft components relative to each other.V1. SUMMARY A determination of the moments of inertia by the component contribution method was decided to be too cumbersome for analysis of the complete aircraft. The initial estimates of the derivatives can be used in the preliminary design of a flight controller. The initial estimates of the stability and oontrol deriviatives were used to predict the dynamic rtsponse of the aircraft to several different excitations. Several characteristics of the aircraft's responses are worth noting. removed.. Initial estimates of stability and control derivatives were made by conventional aircraft-design-type methods. and any future modifications to the aircraft or flight conditions can be accounted for easily. Little or no evidence of the short period response can be observed beyond 42 . the short period longitudinal response was found to be heavily damped. Future changes to the configuration of the aircraft can be accounted for by considering the contribution of the component added. Moments of inertia were found through a compound pendulum analysis. First. or relocated. and appear reasonable.

While this mode is not particularly dangerous for a radio controlled aircraft which is flown visually (open loop). The data collected through flight test were somewhat scattered. The long period response can still be observed relatively easily after 100 seconds. Finally. 43 . The neutral point of the aircraft was found to be 53 to 54 percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord by two different methods. Second. Similarly. it is estimated that the neutral point location is known within +1-five percent of the wing mean aerodynamic chord with a confidence of about 68 percent.approximately two seconds. It is also recommended that flight controller designs incorporate bank angle feedback for wing leveling. It is recommended that flight tests with improved instrumentation continue to verify or update all predicted stability and control derivatives. the Dutch roll mode is also fairly lightly damped and can be observed easily for ten to 15 seconds. the spiral mode was found to be divergent with a time to double bank angle of approximately 20 seconds. Further flight testing with improved instrumentation is recommended to raise the confidence of the neutral point estimation. the long period longitudinal response was found to be lightly damped. the pilot should be aware of this tendency of the aircraft in order to avoid trim problems.

0 rho =.m % Last Update: 02 MAR 94 g = 32.002327 Ixx = 12. blbrdfcl. thetanaut = 0.APPENDIX A: MATLAB PROGRAMS USED TO ESTIMATE STABILITY AND CONTROL DERIVATIVES 1.174.02 Wring 23. Watkiss % AA0810 Thesis % File for Bluebird data which change with flight condition % blbrdfc 1.07 - % Accelleration due to gravity % Weight on left main in lbs % Weight on right main in lbs % Weight on nose gear :n lbs % Flight speed in miles per hour % Flight speed in feet per second % Air density in slugs/(cubic ft) % Moment of inertia about x-axis % Moment of inertia about y-axis % Moment of inertia about z-axis % Assumed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! % Lift to drag ratio % Initial pitch angle Umph = 60 Ufps = 88. Wlmg = 24.58 Iyy = 13.91 Wng = 11. 44 .21 Iz_ = 19.m % Eric J.99 Ixz = 0 LD = 8.

bt f 3. cbar = 1.42. % % da0ddr = .208.281. % •horizontal % c4wing = 2.6715. ai 3.479.c. distance from centerline to outer edge of aileron in ft.c.6ý5. % distance from centerline to inner edge of aileron in I. % % CLalphaafv 2*pi. % % CLalphaaft 5. c4tail = 7. % da0dde = .878. % Height of vertical tail in ft. 5*pi/180.) in feet % Lift curve slope of wing airfoil (GO 769) in per radian % Lift curve slope of horizontal tail airfoil (NACA 4412) in per radian % Lift curve slope of vertical tail airfoil (flat plate) in per radian % Coefficient of moment about aero.4.443. % Location of quarter chord of tail in feet from firewall % Location of quarter chord of wing in feet from firewaUl % Section flap effectiveness for 33% flap (elevator) Abbott and Doenhoffp. % Mean aerodynamic chord (m.802 % CLalphaafw 5. % alphaOl = -6. deda . bluebirdri % Eric I.o. 190 % Section flap effectiveness for 38% flap (rudder) Abbott and Doenhoff p.2. % % .06 % ct = 1. % % b f 12.a. ctr.197. for zero lift (radians)ao =6. Ws tdss % AA0810 'Thesis % File for B uebird data which are fixed % bluebird. % Span of wing in ft % Span of horizontal tail in ft. % a. bv 1.67. (GO 769) % m.587. % % CMac = -. % Aileron chord in ft. 190 % Downwash angle derivative 45 .a.a.r % Last Upd te: 02 MAR 94 ac = . of horizontal tail in ft.

83*pi/180.245. % Zwf= . in ft. ee = .% Df = 1. % Width of fuse. (estimated) % Verticle height of wing above fuse. 5. ctr.a. % Vertical tail area in sq.277.047.547. in ft. g = 32. % Assumed epsilon naught % Assumed span efficiency factor % gravitational constant % Location in percent chord of aero. % it = 4. ft.75/12. ft.557. St = 4. tail height to m. ft. in ft. % Rudder area in sq. % S = 22. e0 = 0.380. hac = .5. Sr = . % letail = 7. % Horizontal tail area in sq.c. (NACA 4412) % Incidence angle of hor. C.67.a. % ng= .174. 46 .595/12. Wf= . ft. tail % Location of leading edge of wing in feet from firewall % Location of leading edge of horizontal tail in feet from firewall % Location of main gear in ft from firewall % Location of nose gear in ft from firewall % Reference (wing) area in sq. % % mg = 37. ybar = b/4. Sv = 1. zv -.L. lewing = 2. % Spanwise location of m.8.c.701. % Vert. % estimated from Perkins/Hage % Depth of fuse.

Xde Zde Mdc Xalpha Zaipha -.3. dderiv.m %Last Update: 12 FEB 94 %Run nondimensional derivative program ndderiv %Calculate dynamic pressure qbar = . CDde~qbar*S/m. %per second -2*CD*qbar*S/(m*U1fs). % ft per second %ft per second %per ft second %ft per secooA2 %ft per secondA2 %per second A2 %ft per secondA2 %ft per secondA2 =CLq*(cbar/(2*Ufps))O(qbar*S/m).5*rho*Ufps^2. %per second Maiphadot Xu = =CMalphadot*(cbar/(2*Ufps))*qbar*S*cbarIlyy.-2*CL~qbar*S/(m*Ufips). % ft lbs % per secondA2 Mq =CMq*(cbar/(2*Ufips))*qbar*S~cbar(Iyy. =(CL - CDalpha)Oqbar*S/rn -I*(CLalphaw+CD)*qbar*S/m. Malpha = CMalpha~qbar*S~cbarflyy.mn % Eric J. Watkiss. Zalphadot Zq = CLalphadot*(cbar/(2*Ufps))*(qbar*S/m). I -I CLdekta*qbw*rS/m. CMde~qbar*Scbar/Iyy-. % AAOS 10 Thesis % File to calculate dimensional derivatives % dderiv. %per second %per second Zu . 47 . Mu =0.

% I/ISec2 % 1/se'2 % 1/secA2 Nda = Cnda~qbar*S*bflzz. % I1/secA2 Maiphaprime = Maipha + Malphadot*(ZalphalUfps). Cyp*b*qbar*S/(2*Ufps*m). Nr =Cnr*(b/(2*Ufps))*qbar*S*b/Tzz. Mqprime = Mq + Maiphadot. Ndr = Cndr*qbar*S*bflzz. Mdcprirne =Mde + Malphadot*(Zde/Uf~ps). Np = Cnp*(b/(2*Ufps))*qbar*S~b/Izz. Lr = Clr*(b/(2*Ufps))*qbar*S~b/Lxx. Lp =Clp*(b/(2*Ufps))*qbar*S*b/Ixx. CDB*qbar*S*b/lzz. YdaO= .YB LB NB Yp = = = = CyB~qbar*S/ni %ft/second^2 CIB~qbar*S~bfbo. Ydr =-l *Cydr*qbar* S/rn. Ldr = Cldr*qbar*S*b/Ixx. Lda =Cida~qbar*S*b/Ixx. % I/secord^'2 % 1/secondA2 %ft/sec %ft/sec % 1/sec % I/sec % 1/sec % 1/sec % fIJSeA2 %ft/SeCA2 Yr = Cyy~b*qbar*S/k2*ufps*r). 48 .

Watkiss % AA0810 Thesis % File to get values of dimensional and nondimensional derivatives % godallas.dia diary on % Run progrems to calculate derivatives ddefiv % Nondimensional Derivatives CL CD CDO CLalphaw CMalpna CDalpha CLalphadot CMalphadot CLq CMq CLdelta CDde CMde CyB CnB CIB Cyp Cnp CIp Cyr Cnr Cir Cyda Cnda Cida Cydr Cndr 49 .4.m % Eric J.adia diary bluebird. godallas.m % Last Update: 04 FEB 94 Wdel bluebird.

Cldr

CDq

Cyq % Longitudinal Dimensional Derivatives Xu Xalpha Xde Zu Zalpha Zalphadot Zq Zde Mu Malpha Malphadot Mq Mde % Lateral/Directional Dimensional Derivatives YB Yp Yr Yda Ydr

LB

Lp Lr Lda Ldr NB Np Nr Nda Ndr diary off

50

5. ndderiv.m % Eric J. Watkiss % AAO810 Thesis % File to calculate nondimensional derivatives % ndderiv m % Last Update: 12 FEB 94 % Load Bluebird data with flight condition physcalc % Calculate coefficients of lift and drag CL = W/(.5*rho*UfpsA2*S); CD = CL/LD; % Calculate lift curve slope of wing in per radian CLalphaw = CLalphaafwi( 1+CLalphaafw/(pi*ee*AR)); % Calculate lift curve slope of horizontal tail in per radian CLalphat = CLalphaaft/( I+CLalphaafll(pi*ee*ARt)); % Calcu!ate lift curve slope of vertical tail in per radian CLalphav = CLalphaafv/(l +CLalphaafv/(pi*ee*ARv)); % Calculate change in hor. tail lift with change in elevator % per radian dcLtdde = daOdde * CLalphat; % Calculate change in vert. tail lift with change in rudder % per radian dcLvddr = daOddr * CLalphav; % Calculate zero lift pitching moment CMO = CMac + VH * CLalphat * (it + eO); % Calculate CMalpha in per radian CMalpha = CLalphaw*((h-hac)-VH*(CLalphat/CLalphaw)*(I-deda)); % Calculate change in aircraft lift with change in elevator CLdelta = dcLtdde*(St/S); % per radian % Calculate chng in aircraft pitching moment w. chng in elevator % per radian CMde = -I*VH*dcLtdde; % Calculate angle of attack and elevator angle for trimmed flight

51

%

% % % % % % CM = CMO + CMalpha*alpha + CMde*de Cl = CLalphaw*alpha + CLdelta*de ICLalphaw CLdelta-alphaI CMde_ X

I CL

I=I

II

LCMalpha A

I

de] C

1_-CMOJ

A = [ CLalphaw CLdelta CMalpha CMde ];

C=[

CL

% trim a.o.a. in radians % trim elevator in radians

-1 *CMO ]; X = inv(A)*C; atrim = X(1,1); etrim = X(2, 1);

% CaLulate change in yawing moment with change in rudder % "rudder power"

% assumes VF/Virfinity = I

Cndr = -1 *VWV*dcLvddr; % in per radian % Calculate CnB contribution from vert. tad % CaB = CLalphav*VV*(VF/V-ifinity)r2*(1-dsigma/dbeta) % assumes VF/Vinfinity = I and dsigma/dbeta = 0 CnB = CLalIhav*WV;% in per radian % Calculate change in rolling moment with change in sideslip % First calculate dihedral contribution from wing % Raymer p. 439 CLBwf = -1.2*sqrt(AR)*Zwf (Df+Wfb2; CIBw = CIBwCL*CL+CDBwf,

"%Next calculate contribution from fin "%C1Bv = -1 *Clalphav*Vprime*(VFIVinfinity)"2*(1-dsigma/dbeta) "%Assume VF/Vinfinity = I and dsigma/dbeta = 0

CIBv = -1 *CLalphav*Vprime; % Combine CIBg and CIBv into CIE CIB CIBw4- CIBv; % in per rad % in per rad

52

% Calculate change in drag due to change in elevator % Smetana pp. assuming etat = I CLq = 2*(lt/cbar)*CLalphat*(St/S).t. 107 CyB = -.155-. i39-141 Cldatau = Cldatauo . %in per radian 53 . p. Clda = Cldatau*tau. Clda %See Smetana pp. %in per radian (lt/cbar)*(St/S). etat assumed = 1 CMalphadot ..% Calculate "aileron power". % in per radian % Calculate change in yawing moment w. alphadot %Smetana pp. % in per radian % Calculate side force due to rudder Cydr = CLalphav*taur*Sv/S. % Calculate change in lift with pitch rate % Smetana pp. % Calculate change in pitching moment w.-2*CLaphat*deda*otprimncbar)*. 78-81. 82-85 % Neglecting wing contribution..r.31. %in per radian % Calculate side force due to aileron % By Smetana. 95-100 % Using Figure 26 at 8 degrees aoa CDde = ((. 138 Cyda = 0. aileron deflection % in per radian Cnda = 2*K*CL*Clda. %in per radian % Calculate change in drag with change in aoa % Smetana pp. % Calculate side force due to yaw % By Smetana p. 64-65 % Assuming dCDO/dalpha is negligible %in per radian CDalpha = 2*CL*CLalphaw/(pi*ee*AR).047)/(20Opi/l 80))*St/S. % Calculate rolling moment due to rudder % in per radian Cldr = Cydr*zv/b.Cldataui.

% in per radian 54 ...% Calculate change in lift with alphadot % Smetana pp. 122-125 % Neglecting contribution from vertical tail Clp = -. 3-23 % Assume etat = I Cyr = 2*VV*CLalphav.475*(AR+4)/(2*pi*AR/CLalphaw+4). pitch rate % Smetana pp. 87-88 % Assuming etat = I CMq = -2*(cbar/4-h)*abs(cbar/4-h)*CLalphaw/(cbarA2) % in per radian 2*(lt/cbar)"2*CLalphat*(St/S). 136 CDO = CD-CL"2/(pi*ee*AR). 3-25 % Tail contribution Cnrv = -l*ov/b)*Cyr. % in per radian % Wing contribution from Smetana p. % in per radian % Calculate change in pitching moment w. % in per radian % Total COr =Clrv + Clrw. 3-24 % Tail contribution CIrv= (zv/b)*Cyr. % in per radian % Wing contribution Clrw = CIJ4. % Smetana pp. % in per radian % Calculate change in rolling moment w. Cnrw = -.3*CDO. % in per radian % Total Cnr Cnrv + Cnrw. 75-76 CLalphadot = -I *CMalphadot/(lt/cbat).02*CL^2-. % in per radian % in per radian % Calculate change in side force with yaw rate % From Schmidt p. % Calculate roll damping -. % Calculate change in yawing moment due to rolling % Smetana pp. 126-129 % Neglecting contribution from vertical tail Cnp = -I *CL/8. yaw rate % Schmidt p. % in per radian % Calculate yaw damping % Schmidt p.

% The following 3 derivatives are negligible and taken to be 0 CDqO0. Cyq 0. % in per radian % in per radian % in per radian % A few misc. Cyp O. calculations % Static Margin/Neutral Point statnmar =CMalpha/(.1*CLalphaw) hn statmar + h 55 U l _ .

c4wing. % Calculate "tail length" from c. tail volume coefficient VII lt*St/(S~cbar).m %Last Update: 04 FEB 94 %Load fixed Bluebird data bluebird %Load flight condition blbrdfc I %Calculate aircraft weight W =W1mg + Wring+ Wng. IV It.6.(lewing + h*cbar).c. % same for horizontal and vertical It =c4tail .m %Eric Wafiss %AA08 10 Tiesis %File to calculate physical considerations %physcalc. %Calculate hor. %Calculate aspect ratio of hor.g. %Calculate aspect ratio of Vert. to horizontal tail a. 56 . %Calculate "tail length" from d/4 wing to c/4 tail ltprirne =c4tail . tail ARv = bv"A2/Sv. tail ARt = btA2/St. %Calculate longitudinal center of gravity h = ((ng*Wng + mg*(Vlmg+Wr~ng))/W-lewing)/cbar. % Calculate aspect ratio of wing AR =b2/S. %Calculate aircraft mass rn = Wig. physcalc.

141) antisymo = ao/(b/2). p. 57 . K -. tail volume coefficient (yaw) VV = lv*Sv/(b*S).52. tau = . Cldataui = .21. 145 vratio = Sr/Sv. 142. % for yawing moment due to aileron. cacw = ac/cbar. % for side force due to rudder deflection. taur = . see p. % for rolling moment due to sideslip.74.% Calculate vert. % Calculate vert. % Unit antisymmetrical angle of attack for outer and inner % edge of aileron (See Smetana p.04. antisymi = ai/(b/2). see Smetana p. 439 CIBwCL = -. tail volume coeffilient (roll) Vprime = zv*Sv/(b*S). Fig. See Raymer. 16. 17.62.23. Cldatauo = . Smetana eta = ai/(b/2).

95 ft Zw 13. NG. Weight per unit length of chain. 00 ft g 32.: =12.224' _-. 01 ft ZM 12. Length of long chain. W~.00 ft I.. Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model. Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model.81 ft 4. Average period of model and support. Average period of model and support.33 ft Pms= 4. 58.3 5 ft Pm+s = 3.: Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model and support.1472 ft/sec2 Wu = ZM+s= 12.APPENDIX B: MOMENT OF INERTIA CALCULATIONS For the formula I = WM+2*)LSH0+LwoA5)1ZA#. Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model.. Gravitational constat.976 sec I. Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model and support.45 lbs (D= 0.49 ft 2y Pw+s = 12. 4 the following data were used for extraction of the moments of inertia.: =12. 15. (adjusted for latitude and elevation) Variable values: I.077 sec 58 . Length of short chain.spW.' Fixed values: Weight of the model. Distance from pivot to center of gravity of model and support.109 sec IY. Average per'od of model and support.06133 lbs/ft LSHORT = 13.

d. =0:. 0 0. 0 1].dia diary longnat. cig figure( 1) %plotting alpha and q. Ufps*Zu Zaipha Utps+Zq -I *g*sin(thetanaut). 0.1l. eye(size(a)).x~t] = impulse(a~b.APPENDIX C: MATLAB PROGRAMS USED TO ESTIMATE AIRCRAFT DYNAMICS A.m % Determines the short and long period natural response %using the full longitudinal plant clear dderiv !del longnat. a c d t inv(in)*an. [0. [y. dia %Inertial Matrix in[jUfps. Ufps*Mu Maipha Mq 0.01:106. 0 o Ufps-Zalphadot o -I*Malphadot 0 0 0 0. 0]. short period 59 . % Aircraft Matrix an=[Uf~ps*Xjj Xalpha 0 -1*g~cos(thetanaut).0.c. 1 0.t). LONGITUDINAL DYNAMICS longnat. 1. 0 0 1 0].

gtext('theta') xlabel('Tin':.hold off danip(eig(a)) diary off 60 .gtext('u/IU) pio4.2)).grid.5]).'y(:.iot(t.4)).)ause fgure(21.y(..5 1.). I.y(:.gtext('q') ~xlabel('Tinie..ylabel('Response Gain') %title(¶Natural Resporose') Wrold off i. sec').3)).axis([0 100 -2 2]). sec').ylabe!('Response Gain') %title(Natura! Response").pl~ot(t. %p-'dng and theta.y(:.grid.axis((0 15 -1. phugoid u/U ?lc*ý*.gtext('alpha!) I I I .

cig figure( 1) %/rplotting alpha and q.2)) aXIs((0 15 .c. Ufs*Zu Zalpha Ufps+Zq -1*g*sin(thetanaut). t =0:.2. c = ye(size(a)). 1.gtextCq') xlabel('Time. [y.y(:.t).01: 100. an = [Ufps*Xu Xalpha 0 4lg*cos(thetanaut). 0 % Aircrafi Matrix. 0 0 1]. a = inv(in)*an. 0 Utjps-Zalphadot 0 0. Ufps*Mu Maipha Mq 0. b = inv(in)*bn. 0 0 1 0]. sejylabel(`Resporv" Gain') %title('Short Period Step Response') hold off 61 . %Control Matrix bn = [Xde Zde Mde 01'.3)).5 3]) grid.d. short period plot(t. 0 -P*Malphadot 1 0.x. stepper-m %Determnines the short and long period step response %using the full longitudinal plant clear dderiv % Inertial Matrix in = (fps 0 0 0.d =[0 0 00]'.gtecxt('alpha') hold on plot(t.t] = step(a~b.y(:.

y(:.gtext('theta!) xlabel('Time.ylabel('Response G-ain') %title('Long Period Step Response') hold off 62 . phugoid grid.gtext('q') xdabel('Time.ylabel(rResponse Gain') %title(Long Period Step Response').3)). sec'). hold off pause figure(3) %plotting alpha and q. long period plot(t.y( :. sec').gtext('alpha') hold on plot(t.pause figure(2) %plotting u/U and theta.4)).gtext('u/IU) hold on plot(t.2)) grid.y(: .

t).ylabel('Normal Acceleration: g s/deg') %title('Acceleration Response to Unit Step') 63 . o 0 0 1].c.t] step(a~b. n~step. =inv(in)*bn. Ufps*Mu Maipha Mq 0. 1. % Control Matrix bn. 0 0 1 0].05:15.x.d. a b c d -inv(in)*an.rn % This program uses STEP ftrnztion to determine % normal acceleration response to a unit step input clear dderiv %Inertial Matrix in =L~fps 0 0 0. Ufps-Zalphadot 0 0. 174*pi/180. sec'). =( ZuZalpha Zqo]0 =Zde. = [Xde Zde Mde 0]'. t = 0:0. o -l*Malphadot 1 0. %Aircraft Matrix an =.[Ufps*Xu Xalpha 0 -1*gcstetnu) Ufps*Zu Zaipha Ufps+Zq -1 g*sin(thetaauwt). for i -1: length(t) y2 = y/32. end % plotting g's/deg plot(t.y2).grid xlabel("Time.3. 0. [y.

m % Determines the short and long period homogeneous response % using the full longitudinal plant clear dderiv % Inertial Matrix 0 0. 0 0 0 1].:). [y.c.x.t). 0 in = [Ufps 0 Ufps-Zalphadot 0 0.t).01:100.d. Ufps*Mu Malpha Mq o 0 1 0]. 0 -l*Malphadot 1 0.x. xO = xO/xO(2)*5/57.2. grid axis([O 15 -. 1. t = 0:. x0 = y(find(t 15). a b c d = inv(in)*an. % Control Matrix bn = [Xde Zde Mde 0]'.t] = step(ab. homogen. =[0000]'. % Aircraft Matrix -1 g*cos(thetanaut). short period plot(t. 0.t] = initial(ab.2]). = inv(in)*bn.c. = eye(size(a)).dxO.y(:. clg figur-(l) %plotting alpha and theta.4.2)) %title('Short Period Homogeneous Response').3 [y. an = [Ufps*Xu Xaipha 0 Ufs*Zu Zalpha Ufps+Zq -1*g*sin(thetanaut). 64 .

hold off 65 . hold off pause figure(2) %plotting u/U and theta. ylabel('Response Gain'). ylabel('Response Gain').3)). sec').).4).gtext('q . gtext('u/U'.gtextCalpha .getm('theta . sec'). grid axis. xlabel('Tine.rad'). hold on plotQt.y(:.y(:. hold on plot(t.rad'). xlabel('Tiie.rad/see). long period %title('Long Period Homogeneous Response').

dO = -1.0. sec % end of doublet. Ufps*Zu Zalpha Ufps+Zq -1*g*sin(thetanaut).0.length(t)).u] x = zeros(4. 0 in = [Ufps 0 Ufps-Zalphadot 0 0. sec % midpoint of doublet.05:tim. doublet. for i = I:length(t) ift(i) >= tI de(i) = dO. b = inv(in)*bn. x2 = zeros(4. bn = [ Xde Zde Mde 0 ]'. tim = 15. 0. % initialize solution matrices 66 . % set end time nput (1 rad) [t.e.5.length(t)).length(t)). a = inv(in)*an. t = 0:0. tl = 1. t2 = 2. % Aircraft Matrix an = [Ufps*Xu Xalpha 0 -1*g*cos(thetanaut). x3 = zeros(4. % start of doublet. Ufps*Mu Malpha Mq 0 0 1 0]. t3 = 3. 0 -I*Malphadot 1 0. xl = zeros(4.m % This program uses EXPM function to find response to pitch doublet clear dderiv % Inertial Matrix 0 0.0. sec % unit elevat.length(t)). 0 '0 0 1].

- eye(size(a)))*inv(a)*b. if t(i) >!=t2 de(i) = de(i) . flgure( 1) plot(t. axis flgure(2) %plotuing alpha and pitch rate plot(t.x(3.:)).de). sec')ylabel('¶Response Gain') hold off 67 .xl(:. yrnax 2*abs(dO).i) end x(:. =xl(:. V = [0 tim yniin ymax]f. %title('Elevator Input') pause.axis(V) xlabel('Time.gtext('alpha') hold on plot(t..i) x2(:. ylabel('Elevator.i) = -2*d0*(expm(a*(t(i)-t2)) end if t(i) >= 03 de(i) = de(i) + do. x3(:.2*d0.eye(size(a)))*inv(a)*b. Rad'). x2(:.x(2.:)) %title('Doublet Response') grid. sec').gi id.gtwx('q') xlabel("Tirne.i) + () ymin =-2*abs(dO).i) end = dO*(expm(a*(t(i)-t3)) + - eye(size(a)))*inv(a)*b.i) end d0*(expm(a*(t(i)-t 1)) .

an = [Ufps*Xu Xalpha 0 Ufps+Zq -1*g*sin(th. 1. c = eye(size(a)).150). 0 -1*Malphadot 1 0. spbode.1. Ufps*Mu Malpha Mq 0 0 1 0]. bn [Xde Zde Mde 0 ]'.phase.anaut).6. d = zeros(size(b)). w = logspace(. end end clg figure(l) % Plotting alpha and pitch-rate gains 68 . for i = L: length(w) forj = 1:4 if phase(ij) > 0 pnaseij) end' = phase(i j) . in = [Ufps 0 Ufps-Zalphadot 0 0.360. % Aircraft Matrix -l *g*cos(thetanait). a = inv(in)*an.d.m % This program uses the BODE function :o find the % short-period response (transfer-function gain and phase) % to a harmonic input clear dderiv % Inertial Matrix 0 0 0. b = inv(in)*bn.#. Ufps*Zu Zaipha 0.w).2. 0 0 0 1]. [inag.w] = bode(ab.c.

radlsec').ylabelChase.gtext~q') xlabel(ffrequency.grid. 1 )).gtext('q') xlabel('Frequency.2)).phase:.gnid~gtext('alpha') %title('Short-Period Frequency Response') hold on semilogx(wnmag(:.znag(:.semilogx(w. deg') hold off 69 .phase(:.:At('alpha') %title('Short-Period Frequency Response!) hold on senmilogx(w. radlsec').ylabel('Gain') hold off pause figure(2) %Plotting alpha and pitch-rate phase angles sernilogx(w.gt. I)).2)).

rnag). 1. b = inv(in)*bn. n-bode.m % This program uses the BODE function to find % the normal-acceleration response % (transfer-function gain and phase) to a harmonic input clear dderiv % Inertial Matrix 0 0. rad/secr). o 0 0 1]. o -P*Malpbadot 1 0. %Aircraft Matrix -1* *cs(thetanaut). a = inv(in) an. end end %converting to g's/deg %Plotting load factor/deg elevator input figure(l) sernilogx(w.pi/lso.360.1. [mag. ylaboq('NorniaI Acceleration Gain') 70 . if phase(i) > 0 phase(i) . Ufps*Mu Maipha Mq 0 0 1 01.I g*sin(thetanaut). 0 in = [Ufps o Ufps-Zalphadot 0 0.7.pbasc(i) .150).w).c. an = f7Ufps*Xu Xalpha 0 Zaipha UfWsZq .w] = bod~a~b.d.. c =[(Zu Zalpha Zqo]0 d = Zde. Ufps*Zu 0.grid xdabel(Trequency. for i = :length(w) mag(i) = mag~ivg .phase. w = Iogspece(.2. %Control Matrix bn = [Xde Zde Mdc 0]'.

grid x Iabel('Frequency. ylabel('Normal Acceleration Phase. rad/sec').phase). deg') %title('Normal Acceleration Response to Harmonic Input') 71 .i4title(Normal Acceleration Response to Harmonic Input') ause . Plotting normal acceleration phase angle figure(2) s•milogx(w.

Pj = damr(a) [xd] = eig(a) r=[0 0 0o0.3) = x(:.*cos(tihetanau:) Yr-Ufps LB Lp 0 Lr 0 1 C 0 NEi Np 0 Nr]. 1..4)/xz. x2 = zeror( 1.*Ixz/Ix.ex6.i) er. x2(j. xz = x(4. LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS lat_2irm % Solves the full 4x4 lateral-directional response clear dderiv !del !atdir.B.(j.2) = 180/pi*ang.2). furj = 1:4 x2.dia in = [Ufps 0 0 0 0 1 0 . xy = x(3. a = inv(in)*an. x3(:.2) . x3(:. x3(:. 1)/xx.2) = x2(:. end xx = x2( 1. an = [YB Yfu A.2z.. I)). fori= 1:4 •(i) --d(i.2). [wn. 0 0 1 0 0 -*Ixyzlzz 0 1].1).3)/xy. 1) = abs(xoj.3).2). 1) = x2(:. x3 diary off 72 . I)'.. x3(:.4) = x(:.dia diary latdir.x2(1.

2.

rudkick-rn

% Response to unit rudder impulse clear dderiv 0 0 in-=R[fps 0 0 1 0 -I* IxzI(xx 0 0 1 0 0 -I*IxzIIz~z 0 1] % Plant Matrix an = (YB Yp g~cos(thetanaut) Yr-Ufps LB Lp 0 Lr 0 1 0 0 0 Nr]; NB Np %Control Matrix bn = [Ydr Yda Ldr Lda 0 0 Ndr Nda]; a = inv(in)*an; b = irlv(in)*an; c =eye(size(a)); d zeros(size(b)); t =0:.03:10, [x,y,t] =impulse(a~b,c,d, I,t); % plotting sideslip (beta) and bank angle (phi) plot(t,y(:, 1));grid;gtext(1b,,ta') hold on plot(t,y(:,3 ));gtwx('phi') xiabel(Trine, see');yiabe('Respowse Gain') */tidle(Rudder Kick Response) hold off pan 5, /~integrate p for final bank angle

73

phi 0; t =0:.05:100; [x,y,t] = impulse(a,b,c,d, 1,t); for i = :length(t) phi phi + y(i,2)*.05; end phi

74

3.

sideslip.m

% Solves the fuill 4x4 lateral-directional response for % initial sideslip condition clear dderiv in [Uf. s 0 0 0 0 1 0 - IxzfIZLxx 0 0 1 0 0 -1*Ixz/Izz 0 1]; an=- YB Yp g*cos~thetanut) Yr-Ufps LB Lp 0 Lr 0 1 0 0 NB Np 0 Nr]; bn=[Ydr Yda Ldr Lda 0 0 Ndr Nda]; a = inv(in)*an; b = inv~in)*bn; c = eye(size(a)); d =zeros(size(b)); t =0: .05: 15; %calculate sideslip per bank angle f=(0 0 -*CL] k CnB, Cndr Cnda CIB Cldr Cida CyB Cydr Cyda]; perphi = inv(k)*f; betaperphi =perphi(l); PHI = l0*pi/lBO; BETA =betaperpbi*PFU; xin=(BETA 0 PHI 0]J'

75

gtext('phi') hold off xlabel('Time in Seconds') ylabel('Aniplitude') 76 .gtext('beta') %title('Dutch Roll Response for Sideslip I.3 ).-Y).'-').y.y(:. I).d.xin~t).y(:.grid.c. Cs') hold on piot(t.[x.t] =initial(a~b. plot(t.

360.2.w). for i = 1:length(w) forj = 1:4 if phase(ij) > 0 phase(ij) = phase(ij) .1.w] = boe(ab.phase.m % Solves the full 4x4 lateral-directional for roll response % (transfer function gain and phase) due to % a harmonic aileron input clear dderiv in = [Ufps 0 0 0 0 1 0 .tanaut) Yr-Ufps LB Lp 0 Lr 0 1 0 0 NB Np 0 Nr] bn = [.*IxztIxx 0 0 1 0 0 -l*Ixz/Izz 0 1] an =[YB Yp g*cos(tht. end end end clg figure(l) % Plotting roll angle gain 77 ./° // 4. roll.2.150).Ydr Yda Ldr Lda 0 0 Ndr Nda] a = inv(in)*an b = inv(in)*bn c = eye(size(a)) d = zeros(size(b)) w = logspace(.c. [mag.d.

semilogx(w. phase(:. radlsec').3)).ylabel(Response Gain') pause * - figure(2) %Plotting roll angle phase semnilogx(w.tle( t Harmnonic Aileron Input') xlabel('Frequency.vlabel(Thase in Degrees') 78 .3 )).grid %ti.grid %title('Harmonic Aileron Input') xdabeI('Frequency.mag( . radlsec').

December. James C. Steven M. Master's Thesis. 1990. Bray. 86-87. Naval Postgraduatt School. H. September. Targeting of Iraqi Forces. March 11. Developmental Flight Testing ofa Half-Scale Unmanned Air Vehicle. Point Mugu. R. Master's Thesis. Pacific Missile Test Center. 6. Naval Postgraduate School." Aerospace America. 1988. Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publishers. 10. 1989. Monterey. Point Mugu. "Pioneer Short Range Remotely Piloted Vehicle Flight Test Based Aerodynamic and Engine Performance. War Without Men: Robots on the Future Battlefield. Monterey. Wize. Shaker.. A Wind Tunnel Study of the PioneerRemotely PilotedVehicle. "Pioneer is Operationally Capable. 2. Alan R. p. 3. 1991.. 7. Naval Postgraduate School. 8. 1991. June 1989. Naval Postgraduate School. Richard and Barr." Unmanned Air Vehicle Office. Monterey. California. 30. Tanner. February 1989. (ed). California. 5. Philpott." Fleet Combat Systems Laboratory. pp. pp.. Navy andMarine Corps Unmanned Air Vehicle. Lyons. June. Sandoval. Irwin. 1991. California. "Unmanned 7oy' Played Big Role in U." Navy Times. Robert M. Pacific Missile Test Center. Master's Thesis. p. California. California.S. 4. Salmons.. 8-11. December 1987... Navy Half-Scale UnmannedAir Vehicle. 79 . Daniel F. 9.S. Rumpf. April 22.. "Initial Report for Contractor Development Tests on Baseline Pioneer and Associated Modifications. California. Master's Thesis." Aviation Week & Space Technology. "Gulf War Experience Sparks Review of RPV Priorities. James D. 6..LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Development of a Flight Test Methodologyfor a US. March 1989. Tom. Monterey. Aerodynamic Analysis of a U.

Monterey. Beer. New York. 190. July 1992. Stan. Sport Aviation.... 80 . Hoffman. An Application of ParameterEstimation to the Stability and Control of the BQM-147 UnmannedAerial Vehicle. New York.. Stability and Control. AE-3340. Master's Thesis.. Naval Postgraduate School. Louis V. Master's Thesis. Implementation of a PersonalComputer BasedParameter Estimation Program.. 1950.. September.Stability and Control. AE-3340. Flight Testing of a Half-Scale Remotely Piloted Vehicle. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 20. Ira H. Airplane Performance. Wilhelm. 14. 21. September. 1988. 1984. Monterey. 1992.. Stability and Control Flight Testing of a HalfScale PIONEER Remotely PilotedVehicle.. p. 18. March. Aitcheson. Howard. Koch. Kevin T. G:aham.. Class Notes.. Patrick J. 16. Naval Postgraduate School. Perkins. 222-224. "Dynamic Modeling". 23. Theory of Wing Sections. Inc. California. 13. Development and Testing of an UnmannedAir Vehicle Telemetry System. Monterey. New York. 1991. Master's Thesis.. California. Albert E. California. Summary of TransformationEquations and Equationsof Motion Used in Free Flight and Wind Tunnel DataReduction Analysys. Fifth Edition. March. Courtland D. Hall..11. 30-35. Naval Postgraduate School. California. Master's Thesis.. Russell E. Naval Postgraduate School. pp. Computer Assisted Analysis ofAircraft Performance. 17. Paul A. Statics. 19. New York. Gainer. NASA SP-3070. Johnson.. Schmidt. 30 July 1987. John Wiley and Sons.. California. Class Notes. Jr. von Doenhoff. 12. Thomas G. Monterey. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1959. Naval Postgraduate School. Hage. Ferdinand P. June. Vector Mechanicsfor Engineers. Robert G.. 1991. Introduction to Flight Mechanics. Naval Postgraduate School. 15. Naval Postgraduate School. Quinn. 22. Engineer's Thesis. pp. California. 1993. Monterey. Dover Publications. Richard M. Frederick 0. Monterey. Abbot. Robert E. July 1992. California. 1972. Monterey. Kent R. 1992. Sherwood. Inc.. Smetana. Introduction to FlightMechanics.

Code 52 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. . Virginia 22304-6145 Library. Watkiss 2520 Brookline Ct. DC 20374 81 -_ 2. Code AA Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. Code AAHo Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. Howard. Richard J. Code 5712 4555 Overlook Ave. 4. #112 Arlington.INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST No. 3 5. Copies 2 . Texas 76007 Mr. 7. SW Washington. Defense Technical Information Center Cameron Station Alexandria. Peggy Toot Naval Research Lab. California 93943-5000 Professor Richard M. Code AANe Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. Don Meeks. 8. Foch Ms. Newberry. California 93943-5002 Chairman. California 93943-5100 Mr. Code AA Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Naval Postgraduate School Monterey. California 93943-5100 Professor Conrad F. 6. California 93943-5100 LT Eric J. 2 3.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd