American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1
SixDoF Dynamic Modeling and Flight Testing of a
UAV Helicopter
Subodh Bhandari
and Richard Colgren
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Philipp Lederbogen
University of Stuttgart, D70569 Stuttgart, Germany
and
Scott Kowalchuk
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
This paper presents the continued research on UAV dynamic modeling at the
Aerospace Engineering Department of the University of Kansas using a Thunder
Tiger Raptor 50 V2 remote control (RC) helicopter. Previously, an uncoupled
threedegreeoffreedom (3DoF) linear parameter varying (LPV) dynamic model
based on stability and control derivatives was presented. The response obtained
from this model showed a high degree of correlation with the actual flight test data.
The previous paper also highlighted the flight test instrumentation and data
collection procedures. As a result of the ongoing research on the dynamic modeling
of the UAV helicopter, a complete sixdegreeoffreedom (6DoF) LPV model has
been developed in the MathWorks MATLAB and Simulink environment. An
effort has been made to take into account the aerodynamic and inertial coupling
between the longitudinal and lateral dynamics of the helicopter. Validation of the
model was accomplished by comparing the results of the simulation with flight test
data along with the data obtained from CIFER (Comprehensive Identification from
FrEquency Response) model. The 6DoF model showed a good correlation between
actual flight test data and CIFER.
_______________________________________
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 2129C Learned
Hall, and AIAA Student Member.
Associate Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 2120D Learned Hall, and
AIAA Associate Fellow.
Graduate Student, University of Stuttgart Aerospace Engineering and Geodesy,
Pfaffenwaldring 27, D70569 Stuttgart, Germany, and AIAA Student Member.
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 215 Randolph Hall, Blacksburg, VA
24061, and AIAA Student Member.
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit
15  18 August 2005, San Francisco, California
AIAA 20056422
Copyright 2005 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2
Nomenclature
a
1s
= longitudinal flapping coefficient
CH = main rotor Hforce
F
x
, F
y
, F
z
= forces along X, Y, and Z axis
g = acceleration due to gravity
I
x
= moment of inertia about X axis
I
xz
= product of inertia about XZ plane
I
y
= moment of inertia about Y axis
I
z
= moment of inertia about Z axis
L = aircraft rolling moment
L
u
, L
q
, L
v,
Lp
,
L
r
= rolling moment stability derivatives
L
0
, L
A1
, L
B1
, L
0T
= rolling moment control derivatives
M = aircraft pitching moment
M
u
, M
w
, M
q
, Mv, Mp, M
r
= pitching moment stability derivatives
M
0
, M
A1
, M
B1
, M
0T
= pitching moment control derivatives
N = aircraft yawing moment
N
w
, N
v,
Np
,
Nr = yawing moment stability derivatives
N
0
, , N
0T
= yawing moment control derivatives
p = roll rate in body fixed coordinate system
q = pitch rate in body fixed coordinate system
r = yaw rate in body fixed coordinate system
R = radius of the main rotor
u, v, w = velocity component along X, Y, and Z axes
X
u
, X
w
, X
q
, X
v
, X
p
, X
r
= X force stability derivatives
X
0
, X
A1
, X
B1
= X force control derivatives
Y
u
, Y
q
, Y
v
, Y
p
, Y
r
= Y force stability derivatives
Y
0
, Y
A1
, Y
B1
, Y
0T
= Y force control derivatives
Zw = Z force stability derivatives
X
0
= Z force control derivatives
= advance ratio
= main rotor blade angular velocity
A
1
= lateral cyclic
B
1
= longitudinal cyclic
o = main rotor collective
o
T
= tail rotor collective
= pitch angle
 = roll angle
I. Introduction
There has been a significant growth in the use of UAVs for a multitude of military
and civilian applications. This has led to substantial research on a variety of UAVs.
Various organizations have been conducting research on both fixed and rotary wing
UAVs over the past few years. The Department of Aerospace Engineering at the
University of Kansas (KU) is also conducting such research. Other universities that are
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
3
involved in UAV research are the Georgia Tech, Carnegie Mellon University, and the
MIT. Georgia Tech is conducting dynamics and control research on Aerial Robotics
using an RMAX UAV helicopter
1
, while Carnegie Mellon is using its Yamaha R50
helicopter for research on parameter identification and control system design
2
. MIT
researchers, on the other hand, are using an XCell 60 UAV helicopter for autonomy
research and dynamic modeling of aerobatic maneuvers
3, 4
.
Intelligent Unoccupied Air Vehicles represent a major area of multidisciplinary,
systems oriented research and development at KU. Current research is being conducted
using both fixed and rotarywing UAVs. These vehicles are both purchased from the
manufacturers and assembled as it is, are modified to meet the goals of our research, or
are completely new vehicle designs developed by the Department of Aerospace
Engineering. The research emphasis at KU is on designing, modeling, and flighttesting
these vehicles to develop accurate dynamic computer simulations. Another key research
topic in this area to enable unpiloted vehicles as viable systems is the development of
reliable autonomous control technologies implemented within embedded computer
systems.
Figure 1: Yamaha RMAX and Thunder Tiger Raptor 50 V2 Helicopters
This paper focuses on the dynamic modeling of the Thunder Tiger Raptor 50
helicopter. The model being developed will eventually be used to model the dynamics of
a Yamaha RMAX helicopter (RMAX). The two helicopters are as shown in the Figure
1. Table 1 lists the mass and geometric characteristics of the two helicopters. The
dynamic modeling is based on stability and control derivatives derived from rigid body
equations of motion
5, 6
. The stability and control derivatives are functions of the
aerodynamic, geometric and mass characteristics of the rotorcraft. Once validated
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
4
through extensive flighttesting, such models can be used for the stability and control
analysis of any other UAVs just by replacing the aerodynamic, geometric and mass
characteristics.
Comprehensive dynamic models, similar to the one discussed in this paper allow
the control system engineers to analyze the stability and control characteristics of a
specific UAV indepth, which leads to reduced time and cost in the flight test phase.
These models can also be used in the design of stability augmentation systems (SAS) and
automatic flight control systems with the goal of significantly reducing the overall cost of
UAV design
7
.
Table 1: Raptor and RMAX Helicopter Specifications
Parameter Raptor 50 V2 Yamaha RMAX
Fuselage Length 47.24 in. 142.8 in.
Fuselage Width 5.51in.
Main Rotor Diameter 52.95 in. 122.4 in.
Tail Rotor Diameter 9.26 in 21.0 in.
GR
mr
8.5:1 6.7:1
GR
tr
4.56:1 6.7:1
Uninstrumented Vehicle
Empty Weight 7.5 lbs. 140 lbs.
Instrumented Vehicle
Weight+Fuel 10.5 lbs. 200 lbs.
x
cg
15.26 in. 29.0 in.
y
cg
0.47 in. 0 in.
z
cg
7.12 in. NA
I
xx
0.0769 lb ft s
2
NA
I
yy
0.1973 lb ft s
2
NA
I
zz
0.1912 lb ft s
2
NA
Engine Displacement 0.50 cu. in. 15 cu. In.
Endurance 6 min. 60 min.
Fuel cost $15 /gal. $2 /gal.
Onboard Starting No Yes
Water Cooled No Yes
Currently, research is underway in the development of a coupled 6DoF
theoretical model for the Raptor 50 V2 RC helicopter. This paper discusses the
background research leading to the development and validation of the 6DoF dynamics
model. The instrumentation of the Raptor 50 along with the flight tests is also discussed.
Finally, the simulation result of the 6DoF model and the comparison of the result with
flight data and CIFER model simulation is presented.
II. Previous Research on Dynamic Modeling
The Aerospace Engineering Department at The University of Kansas procured 2
Raptor 50 V2 RC helicopters for dynamics and control research. The helicopter was
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
5
instrumented for flight data acquisition as discussed in the next section. A theoretical 3
DoF LPV model for longitudinal dynamics was developed. As shown in Figure 2, a
comparison between the simulation and the flight data showed a good correlation for
pitch rate and pitch angle
8, 9
. However, the comparison for forward and vertical velocities
was not so satisfactory. The fact that the coupling between the longitudinal and lateral
dynamics was not considered in developing the 3DoF model led to the conclusion that
the disparity between the flight data and the simulation was the result of such neglected
coupling effects.
Figure 2: 3DoF Simulation vs. Flight Data for a Pitch Sweep in Hover
Unlike fixed wing aircraft, the helicopters possess significant coupling between
longitudinal and lateral dynamics. The coupling comes from different sources. One of
the main sources is the flapping due to pitch and roll velocities
10
. An offset in the
flapping hinge also causes a coupling between the two dynamics. Helicopters like the
Raptor 50 have a teetering rotor hinge and, therefore, no coupling due to the hinge offset.
Reference 10 talks in detail about different sources of coupling between longitudinal and
lateral dynamics of a helicopter.
Almost concurrently, a nonparametric model of the Raptor 50 was developed
using CIFER which is a system identification software tool developed by the U.S. Army,
NASA, and Sterling Federal Systems
11
. It is an interactive software for system
identification and verification based on a comprehensive frequencyresponse approach.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6
A number of flight test frequency sweeps were conducted in order to get frequency
domain data. The data were then used to identify singleinputsingleoutput (SISO)
transfer function models and multipleinputsingleoutput (MISO) statespace models.
The models were simulated and the results compared with the flight data
12
. The
comparison showed a good correlation between the flight data and the CIFER model. The
improved quality of the match was attributed to the fact that the CIFER model, unlike the
3DoF dynamic model, took into account the coupling between the longitudinal and
lateral dynamics of the helicopter.
III. Instrumentation of the Raptor 50 V2 and Flight Data Processing
Figure 3 shows the instrumentation of the Raptor for the purpose of flight data
acquisition
13
. Also shown is the stock helicopter that serves as a training helicopter. The
helicopter was instrumented to obtain the pilot command inputs and the response of the
helicopter. These response measurements include the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical
accelerations along with pitch, roll, and yaw rates. The instruments used and their
purpose are listed in Table 2. The flight test instrumentation package is capable of
simultaneously recording 12 analog channels and 4 digital channels while sampling from
0.00027 to 512 Hz. The sampling frequency and number of channels being recorded
dictates the data recording duration.
Table 2: Raptor 50 V2 Flight Article Instrumentation Equipment
Instrumentation Purpose
4 Position Transducers To measure the inputs from the pilot:
Main Rotor Collective Servo
Pitch Cyclic Servo
Lateral Cyclic Servo
Tail Rotor Collective Servo.
Crossbow Dynamic Measuring
Unit (DMU) Model H6X
To measure the 3 axis linear accelerations and the 3
axis rotation rates.
Crossbow 16 Channel Data
Acquisition Unit Model Ready
DAQ AD2012
To collect and store flight data for postprocessing.
Ultrasonic Sonar Sensor To measure the height above the ground from 0.5
feet to 40 feet.
Power Supply (4 9Volt
Batteries)
To provide constant 18volt power to the
previously mentioned devices.
Governor To maintain constant main rotor rpm.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
7
Figure 3: Raptor 50 V2 Test Flight Vehicle
A number of flight tests were carried out to collect the flight data. The flight tests
accomplished were for both the hovering and forward flight conditions. Initially, the
flight tests were done for the purpose of generating CIFER models and for the simulation
of the 6DoF mathematical model. Once the CIFER models were generated and the
simulation completed, further flight tests were carried out in to collect data for the
validation of CIFER models and simulation results. Figure 4 shows an example of such a
flight test for the hovering flight condition.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
8
Figure 4: Raptor 50 V2 in Hover
After the flight data is collected, it is necessary to filter the noise out and apply
the proper conversion to interpret the data. The flight data is collected as analog signals
of 05 and 5 volts. The filtering of the data is done using a 2
nd
order Butterworth filter
with a cutoff frequency of 6 Hz. All the post processing of the data has been done using
MATLAB and Simulink. Once the filtering is accomplished and conversion to
engineering units is completed, the data is ready for use in the parameter identification
and dynamic model simulations. More information on post processing techniques can be
found can be found in the References 8 and 12.
IV. 6DoF Dynamic Model for Raptor
The dynamic model for the Raptor is derived using equations of motion for the
helicopter. The principles of Newtonian mechanics are used to derive the equations. The
equations relate the helicopter response to the forces and moments acting on the
helicopter. The equations used during model development process are the three force (X,
Y, and Z) equations and the three moment (rolling, pitching, and yawing) equations as
given below
14
:
) ( v r w q u m F
x
+ = &
(1)
) ( w p u r v m F
y
+ = & (2)
) ( u q v p w m F
z
+ = & (3)
q p I I I r q r I p I L
xz y z xz x
+ = ) ( & & (4)
) ( ) (
2 2
r p I I I p r q I M
xz y x y
+ + = & (5)
r q I I I q p r I p I N
xz x y z xz
+ + + = ) ( & & (6)
The total forces and moments result from the contribution of the main rotor, tail
rotor, horizontal tail, vertical tail, and fuselage. The equations given above are nonlinear.
Small perturbation theory and Taylor series expansion can be used to linearize these
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
9
equations. The linearized equations are much easier to use. Furthermore, the main
advantage of the linearized equations is that they can be used in statespace modeling
15
.
The linearized equations, for example, can be written in the following form:
1 1 0 0
B A r p q w u
X X X X r X p X q X w X u X u m
T M
= A + A + A + A + A +
u u
& &
(7)
In the above equation, X
u
X
u
c
c
= , X
w
X
w
c
c
= and so on are called the stability
derivatives and X X
M
M
0
0
u
u
c
c
= , X
A
X
A
1
1
c
c
= et cetera are called the control
derivatives. The stability and control derivatives are functions of aircraft speed and
altitude similar to the aircraft lift, drag and moments. The formulae for these derivatives
are similar to the formulae for lift and drag. For example, the formula for X
u,
the speed
damping derivative, is as follow
u
a
a
CH
R A X
s
s
b u
c
c
c
c
O =
1
1
2
) (
o
(8)
These derivatives represent the stability or controllability of the aircraft and form the
basis for statespace representation of equations of motion given by:
u B x A x + = & (9)
u D x C y + = (10)
where x is the state (u, w, q, u , v, p, r, )  vector, A is the system matrix consisting of
stability derivatives, B is the control matrix consisting of control derivatives, C is the
output matrix (which is usually an identity matrix), D is the matrix representing coupling
between input and output (which for aircraft applications usually consists of zeros), u is
the input vector ( ) , , ,
0 1 1 0
T M
B A u u , and y is the output vector. The statespace equations
can be used for the simulation of aircraft motion following a pilot input using MATLAB
and Simulink. The statespace equations have a further advantage in that the equations
can be used to simulate not only the single input single output (SISO) motion, but also
the multiple input multiple output (MIMO) motion of the aircraft.
The 6DoF model developed for the Raptor 50 employs the statespace
representation of the equations of motion. As mentioned earlier, some excellent progress
has been made in the development of the dynamic model for the hovering flight
condition. The development of the model for the forward flight is underway. There is a
slight difference between the models for hovering flight and forward flight due to the
effect of coupling between longitudinal and lateral dynamics of the helicopter. Rotor
flapping is the main source of this coupling. Reference 10 discusses in detail about rotor
flapping and the coupling between longitudinal and lateral dynamics of the helicopter.
But, the effect of the rotor wakes in the induced flow and consequently in the coupling
between longitudinal and lateral dynamics has not been accounted for in Reference 10,
resulting in an offaxis response in the wrong direction. This has been a topic of research
over the last few years. As a result of this research, it has been possible to accurately
model the coupling between the longitudinal and lateral dynamics of the helicopter,
resulting in the correct offaxis response
16, 17, and 18
.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
10
The present hover model accounts for the coupling between longitudinal and
lateral dynamics of the helicopter, and the effect of the rotor wake. The model also takes
into account changing flight conditions due to pilot input. This means that the aircraft
states, A and B matrices, and outputs are constantly changing with time. In other words,
parameters are varying with changing flight conditions over the time leading to a LPV
model, unlike the linear parameter invariant (LPI) models in which the parameters are
held fixed. The statespace equations for the LPV model are given by:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t u t B t x t A t x + = & (11)
) ( ) ( ) ( t u D t x C t y + = (12)
For a coupled, 6DoF dynamic model, A and B matrices also consist of the
derivatives that represent the coupling between the longitudinal and lateral dynamics of
the helicopter. In hover, the longitudinal and lateral dynamics are weakly coupled and
the coupling between directional dynamics and the other two dynamics are almost
negligible. However, the model being discussed considers the coupling between all the
three dynamic axes of the helicopter. The A and B matrices for the 6DoF coupled model
are given by the equations (13) and (14)
19
. In these equations, the terms such as X
v
, M
A1
,
Y
u,
L
r
et cetera represent the coupling effect between the various dynamics. Though there
are a number of derivatives that come from the coupling between the various dynamics,
very few of them have a pronounced effect on the helicopter dynamics. The others have
a negligible effect on the dynamics. It has been found that the exclusion of those
derivatives from the model does not affect the results of the simulation. For example, the
derivative X
r
, a change in the Xforce due to a change in the yaw rate, has a negligible
effect on the dynamics of the helicopter and can be excluded from the model.
The coupled 6DoF model in statespace form thus obtained is used for the
simulation of the helicopter motion using Simulink. The Simulink model is as shown in
the Figure 5. It can be seen that the output of the simulation is being fed back into the
model in order to take into account the changing flight conditions after any perturbation
from the reference flight condition. At each time step of the simulation, the model
calculates new A and B matrices depending on the flight condition at that time step. This
is the essence of an LPV model. The benefit of an LPV model is that any changes in the
flight velocities and attitude angles are considered while calculating the stability and
control derivatives that constitute the A and B matrices. Thus, the model will be able to
more accurately predict the behavior of the helicopter after the perturbation.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
r p v w
r p v q u
r p v q u
r p v q w u
w
r p v q w u
N N N N
L L L L L
Y g Y Y g Y Y
M M M M M M
g g Z
X X X g X X X
A
0 0 0 0
tan cos 0 1 0 0 tan sin 0 0
0 0 0
cos cos sin sin 0
0 0 0 0 0 cos 0 0
0 0
0 cos sin 0 0 sin cos 0 0
0 cos
u  u 
u  u 

u  u 
u
(13)
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
11
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
T
T
T
T
N N
L L L L
Y Y Y Y
M M M M
Z
X X X
B
A B
A B
A B
A B
0 0
0 1 1 0
0 1 1 0
0 1 1 0
0
1 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
u u
u u
u u
u u
u
u
(14)
states
B1
To Workspace6
position
To Workspace5
B
To Workspace4
A
To Workspace3
A1
To Workspace2
control_inputs
To Workspace1
state_space
To Workspace
Velocity Input Position
Position
input_collective
From
Workspace4
input_tail
From
Workspace3
input_lateral_cyclic
From
Workspace2
input_long_cyclic
From
Workspace1
Flight Data Comparison
inputs
inputs1
inputs2
states
states2
Dynamic Equations
em
State Space
Command Input
A
B
A1
B1
Calculate next A &B
Matrix
v
p
phi
r
u
w
q
theta
Figure 5: 6DoF Simulink Model
V. Raptor 50 V2 Simulation Results vs. Flight Data and CIFER
A number of flight tests were carried out to collect the helicopters response to
remote pilot input. The primary forms of the pilot input for these tests were either pure
sinusoidal or frequency sweeps. This data was generated for system identification using
CIFER. A frequency sweep is a type of sinusoidal excitation of the helicopter, the sweep
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
12
going from low frequencies with small amplitudes to high frequencies with higher
amplitudes within the frequency range of interest. In some of the flights, a doublet input
was also used.
The remote pilot input extracted from the flight data was used to stimulate the 6
DoF dynamic model of the Raptor. The same data was used to extract the transfer
function (TF) model for the single input single output case and the statespace model for
the multiple input multiple output case using CIFER. The TF models obtained were both
in pole zero form and simple gain and time delay form. For the purpose of this
discussion, simple gain and delay models were used. The results of the 6DoF simulation
were then compared with flight data and later with the response obtained from the CIFER
model. The comparisons are shown in the following figures.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0
20
40
u
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
10
5
0
w
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
1
0
1
q
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
1
0
1
time (s)
t
h
e
t
a
(
r
a
d
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0
20
40
v
(
f
t
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0.5
0
0.5
p
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0.5
0
0.5
p
h
i
(
r
a
d
)
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
0.5
0
0.5
time (s)
r
(
r
a
d
/
s
e
c
)
Simulation
Flight Data
Figure 6: 6DoF Simulation vs. Flight Data for a Pitch Sweep
Figures 6 and 7 show the comparison between the flight data and the simulation
results for the pitch and roll sweeps respectively. The simulations shown are for a
moderately short period of time. When the simulations are run for a longer period, the
responses are found to show an increasing error. A research effort is currently underway
to mitigate this problem. It can be seen from these figures that the correlation between the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
13
simulation results and the flight data is very good, with some exceptions for offaxis
responses. Though there has been improvement in the offaxis responses after the
incorporation of rotor wake effects, it is felt that more work has to be done in this area.
When compared to the 3DoF longitudinal model, it is noticed that the velocities and
angular rates are in better agreement with the flight data. It is noteworthy to mention
here that stabilizer bar dynamics have not been included within the model. The stabilizer
bar has a pronounced effect on controllability, and on the pitch and roll damping of the
helicopter
20
. Further improvement in the simulation response will be seen once the bar
dynamics are included.
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
50
0
50
u
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
20
0
20
w
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
0.5
0
0.5
q
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
0.5
0
0.5
time (s)
t
h
e
t
a
(
r
a
d
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
0
20
40
v
(
f
t
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
1
0
1
p
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
0.5
0
0.5
p
h
i
(
r
a
d
)
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
1
0
1
time (s)
r
(
r
a
d
/
s
e
c
)
Simulation
Flight Data
Figure 7: 6DoF Simulation vs. Flight Data for a Roll Sweep
In Figure 8, a comparison between the flight data, the CIFER model response, and
the 6DoF model response is shown for pitch rate. Similarly, Figure 9 shows a
comparison for roll rate. It is obvious from these figures that there is a high degree of
correlation between the flight data and the CIFER model response, while the 6DoF
model response is seen to follow the trend closely. However, the CIFER models obtained
so far are SISO models for the pitch, roll, and yaw rates. Some MIMO models from
CIFER have also been extracted, but this work is still in the development phase. The
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
14
SISO models are transfer function models, while the MIMO models are obtained in state
space form. The pitch rate to longitudinal cyclic and the roll rate to lateral cyclic transfer
functions are described in equations 15 and 16, respectively.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
P
i
t
c
h
R
a
t
e
(
d
e
g
/
s
)
Time(s)
Simulation
Flight Data
CIFER
Figure 8: Pitch Rate Comparison Between 6DoF Simulation, Flight Data
and CIFER for a Pitch Sweep
s
e
s B
s Q
0020 . 0
1
) (
) (
= (15)
s
e
s A
s R
0037 . 0
1
) (
) (
= (16)
The characteristics of the above transfer functions, such as the gains and biases,
are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. The characteristics listed are the time
constant, cost function, gain, and bias. The time constants and the cost functions were
obtained from CIFER, while the gains and biases were selected on a trial and evaluation
basis.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
15
Table 3: Longitudinal SISO Transfer Function Properties
SISO Longitudinal Transfer Function
Time constant 0.0020 sec Phaseshift 
Cost Function 0.18 Gain 17
Bias 30 deg/sec Eigenvalue 
Table 4: Lateral SISO Transfer Function Properties
SISO Lateral Transfer Function
Time constant 0.0037 sec Phaseshift 
Cost Function 0.166 Gain 15
Bias 22 deg/sec Eigenvalue 
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
R
o
l
l
R
a
t
e
(
d
e
g
/
s
)
Time(s)
Simulation
Flight Data
CIFER
Figure 9: Roll Rate Comparison Between 6DoF Simulation, Flight Data
and CIFER for a Roll Sweep
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
16
VI. Conclusions and Future Work
The results obtained from the 6DoF dynamic model are encouraging. There has
been a significant improvement in the simulation response after the incorporation of the
coupling and rotor wake effects. Still, there is some discrepancy between the flight data
and the simulation results. It is hoped that this discrepancy will disappear, to a large
extent, after the incorporation of stabilizer bar dynamics into the model. As mentioned
earlier, the development of the dynamic model is being done on a stepbystep basis, and
the work will continue until a model good enough to be used for control system design is
obtained. The CIFER transfer functions provide a good match to the flight data. It is felt
that both 6DoF and CIFER models need further improvement. Efforts are underway to
accomplish these improvements. An improved data acquisition package is being installed
in the UAVs. There is a concentrated effort to increase the fidelity of the 6DoF model.
It is hoped that there will continue to be rapid progress made in the data acquisition and
parameter identification processes, as well as in the 6DoF dynamic modeling effort.
References
1. E. Johnson and S. Kannan, Adaptive Flight Control for an Autonomous Unmanned
Helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
Monterey, California, Aug. 58, 2002.
2. Mettler and Kanade, System Identification Modeling of a ModelScale Helicopter,
Carnegie Mellon University, April 2004.
<http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pubs/pub_3328.html>.
3. Gavrilets, Mettler, and Feron, NonLinear Model for a SmallSize Aerobatic
Helicopter. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit,
Montreal, Canada, Aug. 69, 2001.
4. V. Gavrilets, I. Martinos, B. Mettler and E. Feron, Control Logic for Automated
Aerobatic Flight of a Miniature Helicopter, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California, Aug. 58, 2002.
5. Johnson, Wayne, Helicopter Theory, New York, Dover Publications, 1980.
6. Bramwell, Balman, and Done, Bramwells Helicopter Dynamics. Washington DC:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2001.
7. Stevens, Brian L. , and Lewis, Frank L. , Aircraft Control and Simulation, John Wiley
& Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2003.
8. Kowalchuk, Scott, UAV Longitudinal Dynamics Model and Flight Testing of a
Raptor 50 V2 Helicopter, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS, May 2004.
9. Kowalchuk, Holly, Lederbogen, and Colgren, UAV Dynamic Modeling and Flight
Testing using a Raptor 50 V2 Helicopter, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island, Aug. 1619, 2004.
10. Prouty, Raymond W., Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control, Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, 1995.
11. CIFERComprehensive Identification FrEquency Responses, Army/NASA Flight
Control and Cockpit Integration Branch, January 25, 2004.
<http://caffeine.arc.nasa.gov/cifer/>.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
17
12. Lederbogen, Philipp, Flight Test Evaluation and Modeling of a Raptor 50 V2 UAV
using CIFER, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, December 2004.
13. Lederbogen, Kowalchuk, Holly, and Colgren, Flight Testing of a Raptor 50 V2
Helicopter for Parameter Identification, 35
th
Annual Society of Flight Test Engineers
Symposium, 2004.
14. Roskam, Jan, Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Lawrence,
Kansas, DAR Corporation, 1998.
15. Ogata, Katsuhiko, Modern Control Engineering 3
rd
Edition, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1997.
16. Curtiss, H. C., Aerodynamic Models and the OffAxis Response, American Helicopter
Society, 55
th
Annual Forum Proceedings, Volume 2, Montreal, Canada, May 1999.
17. Keller, J. D., An Investigation of Helicopter Dynamic Coupling Using an Analytical
Model, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, Volume 41, October 1996.
18. Keller, J. D., and Curtiss, H. C., The Effect of Inflow on the Dynamic Response of
Helicopters, American Helicopter Society, 52
nd
Annual Forum Proceedings,
Washington D. C., June 1996.
19. Padfield, Gareth, Helicopter Flight Dynamics: The Theory and Application of Flying
Qualities and Simulation Modeling, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Washington D.C., 1996.
20. Mettler, Bernard, Identification Modeling and Characteristics of Miniature
Rotorcraft, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2003.