AIAA 2009-6138

AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference
10 - 13 August 2009, Chicago, Illinois

Simulation and Flight Control of a Tilt Duct UAV
Ozan Tekinalp1, Tugba Unlu2, and Ilkay Yavrucuk3
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 06531

Tilt duct VTOL UAV concept is presented. The equations of motion are given and, trim
and simulation code is described. Trim flight conditions are given for hover, cruise and
forward flight cases. A two loop SDRE control is proposed and explained. The blended
inverse control allocation algorithm is used for allocating controllers during the transition
flight phase, where there are redundant controls. Simulation results during transition phase
are presented, and the success of the controller as well as the allocation algorithm is
demonstrated.

Nomenclature
I ij

= mass moments of inertias

In
= n dimensional unit matrix
M A , N A , LA = aerodynamic moments
p, q, r
= body angular velocities
u, v, w
= translational velocities in the body fixed frame
X A , YA , Z A = aerodynamic forces
X A , YA , Z A = forces due to engine thrust
X A , YA , Z A = moments due to engine thrust
φ , θ , ψ = Euler angles
η
= main engine tilt angle
µ
= exit guide vane angle of the aft propeller

I. Introduction

T

here has been an increased interest in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for performing flights where the use

of manned flight vehicles is not appropriate or feasible for missions like delivery or supply, reconnaissance, target
acquisition or designation, data acquisition. Present improvements are mainly on three types of UAV configurations;
fixed-wing configuration, helicopter type configuration and tilt thrust type configurations. The latter two offers
VTOL capabilities, removing the need for long runways, and permit operation in constrained areas. Among the tilt
thrust configurations, the most feasible solutions are probably the tilt-rotor and tilt-duct concepts.
Tilt-rotor or tilt-duct type UAVs, provide translational flight, as well as vertical take-off and landing
capabilities. Their ability to take-off and land vertically, combined with their ability to hover for extended periods
of time over a point and operate in confined areas off steep slopes, make them ideally suited for real time tactical
reconnaissance, target acquisition, surveillance, and ordnance delivery missions for front line tactical units. The
rotors on these UAV’s are designed to provide the thrust necessary for both vertical and translational flights.
Aircraft vertical motion of the UAV is provided by maintaining the vehicle fuselage substantially horizontal so that
the thrust (downwash) of the rotors provides the necessary lift for the aircraft.

1

Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Member.
Graduate Student, Aerospace Engineering Department.
3
Faculty Member, Aerospace Engineering Department, Member.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2

Copyright © 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

robust. Reduced blade loading alleviate compressibility problems. The flight control system is given next. Tilt duct UAV in forward flight. They offer more thrust during vertical flight as well as forward flight. Figure 2. cavitation and noise generation1. Then the control allocation is explained. mainly because it is locally asymptotically stable and is expected to have similar robustness properties as the linear quadratic regulators3. recently developed is used5. and simple controllers.Ducted propellers have many advantages over tilt rotors1. It is followed by the description of the simulation program and trimmer. avoiding saturation in the controls6. In this manuscript we propose to use State Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE) control. The advantage of blended inverse is that it can not only provide the necessary controls. they are mechanically easy to construct since they do not require a swash plate mechanisms needed for helicopter or tilt rotor configurations. In the next section. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . after a brief description of the tilt duct UAV concept. It was shown that the system is over-actuated with redundant controls and it is unstable in transition mode2. and ducted fans at the end of the wings also have the end plate effect. A conceptual design of a tilt-duct UAV was presented previously1. makes it a real challenge to come up with stable. Since during transition the system is over actuated. The purpose of this study is to examine the flight control of the tilt-duct UAV further. the equations of motion are given. Finally. the ‘blended inverse’ control allocation algorithm. In the inner loop the translational and rotational velocities. One main issue with the SDRE control is the fact that although the system is controllable. a double loop control is used5. but also allocate them to the actuators properly. They are much more efficient in side winds. To alleviate the controllability problem. attitudes are controlled. Linear controllers were also designed2. The trim results during different flight phases and simulation results during the transition period are presented and discussed. Finally conclusions are given. it may become uncontrollable due to the choice of state factorization used4. The tilt-duct UAV is a highly nonlinear system. First the SDRE controller and its implementation for the tilt duct UAV is described. in the outer loops. Figure 1. Tilt duct UAV during vertical takeoff.

The aft propeller provides the pitch moment. As the speed increases. downward thrust force is vectored to the right or to the left. elevator. The aircraft has two main and one aft propeller. causing a gradual increase in forward speed.β & α q (δ elev ) = CD 0 (δ elev ) + CD (δ elev )α CM = CM WBT & (δ elev ) + (CL q + C L α ) δ ail δ elev δ rud (9) & α q (δ rud ) + (CY (α ) p + CY r ) (δ ail ) + CL c V (10) b 2V (11) & (δ elev ) + (CM q + CM α ) p δ rud r (δ rud ) + (CL (α ) p + CL (α ) r ) p r 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics b 2V (12) .II. The Tilt Duct UAV Concept Various views of the tilt duct UAV. The necessary coefficients are estimated from semi-empirical formulas available in the literature7. in vertical takeoff and forward flight condition are shown in figures 1 and 2. During transition main propellers are tilted gradually in the forward direction. the control surfaces become more effective. CL = CL WBT (α ) + C L CD = CL δ elev WBT CD δ elev CY = CY CL = CL β + CY WBT (α ) + CL (α ) + CD δ elev c V (7) (δ elev ) (8) α (α ) + CM WBT . For these purpose conventional control surfaces. they control the roll attitude. rudder and ailerons are used. During cruise aft propeller is turned of and only conventional control surfaces are used. The main propellers are vertical during takeoff. Following stability derivative are estimated and used in the calculation of the aerodynamic forces and moments. The pitch moment is generated by the direct downwash of the propeller. Thus. Through differential thrust. III. The inlet and exit of the aft propeller is closed by vanes to provide a smooth fairing. and eventually replace the main controls. Equations of Motion Translational and rotational equations of the tilt duct UAV in the body fixed frame may be given as: & mu + wq − vr + g sin θ = X A + X T (1) & mv + ur − wp − g cos θ sin φ = YA + YT (2) & mw + vp − uq − g cos θ cos φ = Z A + Z T (3) & & I xx p − I xz r + I xz pq + ( I zz − I yy )rq = LA + LT (4) & I yy q + ( I xx − I zz ) pr + I xz ( p 2 − r 2 ) = M A + M T (5) & & I zz r − I xz p + ( I yy − I xx ) pq + I xz rq = N A + NT (6) Aerodynamic forces and moments are calculated in a component buildup fashion. while yaw moment is created with the exit guide vanes acting on the aft propeller output. as well as yaw moment needed during takeoff and transition phases of the flight.

. and stability axis coordinates to calculate aerodynamic forces and moments. main left and right Limits 0 ~ 100% ( max 640 N ) Throttle aft aileron vertical 0 ~ 100% ( max 196. However. symmetric pull up.).CN = CN WBT .2 N ) Throttle aft aileron lateral ±100% ( max 196. Trim code uses the Matlab function ‘linmod’ to linearized the nonlinear Simulink model.e. percent thrust is used in feedback control. The iteration is stopped until the derivatives are sufficiently close to zero. δ ail ) + CN δ rud (α . Simulation. Power plant models are also included. Trim and Linearization Simulation model is constructed in the Matlab-Simulink environment. The following is sought for in all cases: & & & & & & p=q=r =u =v=w=0 (20) Additional conditions are imposed depending on the trim flight condition requested (i. Table 1. The trim conditions considered assume horizontal flight. and written in the body fixed coordinate frame: X T = (TMainL + TMainR ) cos(µ ) (14) YT = (TAft )cos(η ) (15) ZT = (TMainL + TMainR ) sin(µ ) + (TAft )sin(η ) (16) LT = Lycg Thm (TMainL + TMainR )sin( µ ) (17) M T = Lxcg (TMainL + TMainR )sin( µ ) − Lxcg Tha (TAft )sin(η ) (18) NT = Lxcg (TMainL + TMainR ) cos( µ ) + Lxcg Thm (TAft ) cos(η ) (19) Thm Tha The upper and lower limits on the controls are listed in Table 1. 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Three different coordinate systems are used: body fixed coordinates for aircraft dynamics. gravity model. coordinated turn etc. steady wings level flight. β β + CN δ ail (α . next candidate trim states and inputs are found. Using the linearized model. and wind-gust model are also included. Other models such as standard atmosphere model. The linearized equations are obtained at the new candidate point and iteration repeated. Each part such as dynamics and forces acting on the aircraft are modeled in separate blocks and resultant forces and moments are calculated. δ rud ) + (CN (α ) p + CN (α )r ) p r b 2V (13) Components of the thrust forces and moments are carried to the center of mass. Limits and units used for the controls Control Throttle.2 N ) Elevator −20o ~ +20o Aileron −15o ~ +10o Rudder −25o ~ +25o IV. The general structure of the simulation tool is shown in Figure 3. Earth fixed coordinates for navigation.

and R ( x ) > 0 . One important issue is to make sure that the system matrices factorized as shown is fully controllable. Then the system equations becomes. and affine in input represented as3: & x = f (x) + B(x) u.V. Provided that the factorized plant is fully controllable. autonomous. x(0) = x0 (21) The state x may be factored as: f (x) = A(x) x . A1 ( x) . x(0) = x 0 (22) This is called extended linearization3. The controller is a nonlinear controller which does not require the linearization of the system matrices. In the inner loop. & x = A(x) x + B(x) u. nonlinear in state. u = u (t ) . The state and input vector of the inner loop are: x1 = [ u v u1 =  Fx  Fy w Fz p q r] T Mx My (25) Mz  T (26) Then the inner loop state dependent system matrix. Q (x) ≥ 0 . translational and rotational velocities are considered. Note that this factorization is not unique. To avoid uncontrollable circumstances. B1 (x ) are: Xu    Yu − q / 2  Z +q/2 u A1 ( x) =   I1 Lu + I 2 N u  Mu    I5 Nu + I 2 Lu r/2 Yv −p/ 2 I1 Lv + I 2 Nv 0 I5 N v + I 2 Lv Xq − w / 2   p / 2 Yp + w / 2 −u / 2 0   Zw −v / 2 Zq + u / 2 0  0 I4q / 2 ( I3r + I 4 p) / 2 I 3q / 2   M w I 7 p + I8 r Mq I 7 p − I8 r   0 I6q / 2 (I6 p − I4r ) / 2 −I4 q / 2  w/2 r/2 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics v/2 (27) . u = −K (x) x = −R −1 (x) BT (x) P (x) x . The control of this equation may be sought by freezing the state instantaneously and posing the following infinite horizon quadratic performance index: J= ∞ 1 {xT Q(x) x + uT R(x) u}dt 2∫ 0 (23) where. Flight Control System Design A. that is full state-observable. the equations of motion are treated as inner and outer loop states and inputs. and input matrix. x = x(t ) . the feedback control may be given as. The above system may be controlled in a similar fashion as the LQR control. where P (x) is the solution of the following Algebraic State Dependent Riccati Equation: P(x) A(x) + AT (x) P(x) − P (x) B(x) R −1 (x) BT (x) P(x) + Q (x) = 0 (24) This approach is expected to have the usual robustness and asymptotic stability properties of the classical LQR. A physically controllable system may become uncontrollable from time to time due to the choice of factorization carried out5. SDRE Control Given a system.

I 6 = ( I xx − I yy ) I xx + I xz / I num (29) I 7 = ( Izz − Ixx ) / Iyy . I 2 = I xz / I num . Hence. I8 = Ixz / Iyy The outer loop only uses the Euler angle kinematics relations. Block diagram of the flight control system 0 0 1 / m  0 1/ m 0   0 0 1/ m B1 ( x ) =  0 0  0  0 0 0  0 0  0  0 0 0 0 0  0  I2  0  I5   0 0 0 0 I1 0 1/ Iyy I2 0 (28) where. ( ) 2 2 I num = I xx I zz − I xz . In addition integral states are also added to avoid steady state error. I5 = I xx / I num .ψ I ] . I 3 = ( I yy − I zz ) I zz − I xz / I num ( ( ) ) 2 I 4 = ( I xx − I yy + I zz ) I xz / I num .ψ .Figure 5. q. θ I . r ] T T 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (30) . φI . x 2 = [φ . θ . I1 = I zz / I num . u 2 = [ p.

q = diag ( qi exp(δ i _ error )) (36) δ i _ error = ( δ i − δ i _ desired ) / δ i _ desired (37) where q is a diagonal matrix dynamically changed according to the error between the desired and actual controls. the blending coefficient may be increased exponentially as the controls wander away from their desire values. . duct angle etc. For example. The block diagram of the controller is shown in Figure 3. one way to invert it is to use Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse (MPinverse). right main engine thrust. uses eigenvalue assignment.&  φ  0  &   θ  0  ψ  0  &  & =  φI   1 &  θ  0  I  ψ I  0 &  0 0 0 0 0  φ  0 0 0 0 0  θ    0 0 0 0 0  ψ  1  + 0 0 0 0 0  φI  cos θ 1 0 0 0 0  θ I    0 1 0 0 0 ψ I  cos θ  0   0   0  0   0 sin θ sin φ cos θ cos φ sin φ 0 0 0 sin θ cos φ  − cos θ sin φ    p cos φ     q 0 r    0  0  & x 2 = A 2 x 2 + B 2 ( x 2 ) u2 (31) (32) The inner loop feedback gain is computed by solving the SDRE equation. on the other hand. −1 MP = FT FF T  u1   (34) δ However. 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . elevator. This difference is multiplied by SDRE gain calculated online. left main engine thrust. δ =  qI n + F T F   q    δ −1 BI desired + FT u1   (35) δ Here. The only control allocation routine. inner loop Riccati equation solver block is shown. Those two loops are observable from this figure. while controlling the physical inputs. that gives the desired output. B. To help controls stay in the neighborhood of the trim values. The inputs to the inner loop are the differences with the reference and current states. which finds the minimum norm solution of the vector. (26) controls are defined in terms of forces and moments. usually taken as a scalar. q is the blending coefficient. In this manuscript the desired controls are taken as trim values at the given flight condition. making the system over actuated when all the controls are turned on. and prevent them from saturating. The outer loop. rudder. u1 . In total there are eight physical controls as opposed to three forces and three moments of u1 . In addition. with MP-inverse the allocation is not controllable. is the Blended inverse (B-inverse)6. exit guide vane angle. aft engine thrust. They are related to the actual inputs such as aileron. The relation between the forces and moments and actual physical controls may be written as: δ u1 = F (33) Since the matrix F is a rectangular matrix. Control Allocation In Eq.

eigenvalue assignment is done. they return back to their nominal values as soon as the disturbance is alleviated. At the same time. In Figure 7 this trim condition is given presented. while other states are all zero. The necessary controls during this transition flight are given in Figure 10. Only the longitudinal velocity is increase with time. and was not useful.3 12. it should be remembered that these forces and moments are the result of the actual physical controls allocated according to the requirements of the control system. The elevator brought into play around 10 m/s. The states of the simulation that are input and realized are given in Figure 9. flight simulation and control of a tilt-duct UAV is presented. a disturbance is also added to the simulation.VI.3 0.1] The eigenvalues assigned to the outer loop are listed below: = [ −2 −12 −0. cruise speed. It is large up to a certain velocity and goes to zero in a very steep fashion. It may be observed from this figure that although the controls are slightly disturbed during the disturbance inputs.3] (39) With these parameters. Another approach in programming the transition phase would be to change the duct angle and speed such that at every transition speed. Hence 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . In each case. Thus. it is also observable that aft engine is gradually and set to zero closed between 10 to 20 m/s. The transition is completed at three different velocities: Best range speed. the need for horizontal thrust is increased. As the speed is increased. Corresponding main and aft thrust values are plotted in a separate figure. We tested two allocation methods: MP-inverse and B-inverse. The gains of the cost function are selected constant throughout the flight.98% . as soon as the gust input ended the controls returned to their nominal trim values. These matrices are: Q = diagonal [12. It is shown that the control system successfully controlled the tilt-duct UAV during transition. In the mean while. the transition phase simulation is carried out.5 5 0. the pitch attitude during this transition phase trim was zero. This causes the aft throttle to drop sharply. Results and Discussion A. while resisting nose wind input. The reference inputs to all other translational and rotational velocities as well as Euler angles are set to zero. A two loop control algorithm is proposed. It may be observed from this figure that the duct angle now changes in a nonlinear fashion with the airspeed. the duct tilt angle is linearly driven to zero. It may be observed from Figure 9. In this figure. Trim Code Results For this aircraft three basic trim modes are present: hover. The reversibility of the B-inverse control allocation algorithm was also demonstrated previously in the context of control moment gyros3.001 0. the wings start generating more lift force. λ VII. The MP-inverse always saturated one of the controls. as the aircraft gains speed. the main and aft throttles also drops. the elevator is brought into play and becomes more and more effective as the forward velocity increases. µ = 90o . This shows that the B-inverse algorithm is reversible. The controls generated by the flight control system under the effect of these disturbances are also given in Figure 10. η = 90o . However. During transition.5 −9 −0.1 −0. transition. B. the ducted fans shall be tilted forward.68% . pitch angle is zero. the physical controls are moved from their trim values to counteract the gust.001] (38) R = 10−6 diagonal [6 4 25 4.3 12. The inner loop uses SDRE control where in the outer loop. Careful examination shows that the nominal plant controls follows the trim values closely. the desired controls are selected as the trim values shown in Figure 7. the tilt angle is changed linearly with the speed. The results of the allocation are observable in Figure 11. and maximum speed. that the longitudinal velocity follows the reference very closely. the forward speed of the tilt duct UAV is increased towards the cruise speed. Beside the nominal transition flight. The hover trim conditions for the tilt duct UAV are: δTmain = 67. However.001 0. Two separate horizontal winds of reaching 10 m/s is added. To obtain this condition. while the need for vertical thrust is decreased. Flight Control Results The inner loop of the flight control system uses SDRE control while in the outer loop eigenvalues are assigned. To use B-inverse. δ Taft = 71. Thus. The profiles of these disturbance inputs are given in Figure 8. Conclusion Modeling. When the longitudinal gust disturbance is added. This trim condition is also sought for. and trim conditions shown in Figure 6 are obtained. and forward flight. Two separate simulations are also carried out with these disturbances. The angle of attack is also plotted as a function of airspeed in this figures. The trim flight conditions while the UAV goes from hover to forward flight are calculated and presented.

V. 2005. C. Acknowledgments This work is supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey..D.SDRE control is very effective in controlling this nonlinear tilt-duct UAV. 767-773. Yavuzoglu. pp. pp. 41. 2. D.. Lawrence. Kansas. Vol. J. D. pp. Vol.” The International Federation of Automatic Control.5. It also may be concluded that the Binverse control allocation algorithm realizes the flight stability without saturating the controls and it is reversible. Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance. 7 Lan. 2001. 9.E. 3 Tayfun Cimen “State-Dependent Ricatti Equation (SDRE) Control : A Survey. AIAA-2002-3466. AIAA-01-5929. 2004. Hybrid Bank-to-Turn / Skid-to-Turn Missile Autopilot Design. 1988.. U. Kavsaoglu.” Aerospace Science and Technology..” 1st International Conference on Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles.” AIAA Journal of Aircraft.. 5 Coultier..” Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics. Stansbery. and Ridgley. 626-634. Project No: 107M346. C-T. Roskam. 21. References 1 Armutcuoglu.. 3761 . 9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . E.S. “Controllability issues in Nonlinear State-Dependent Ricatti Equation Control. O.B. Tekinalp “ilt Duct Vertical Takeoff and Landing Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Concept Design Study. May 2002. “Nonlinear. M.. of Kansas. 6 Tekinalp.. No. O. Hall. M. 1998. 4 Hammet.D. O. pp..T. and Kavsaoglu.K.. No. J. 2 Okan.R.. Tekinalp. and O. “A New Steering Law for Redundant Control Moment Gyroscope Clusters. A. “Flight Control of a Tilt-Duct UAV.” AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control Conference.3775. 2008. 215-223.

up to Best Range Speed Trans. 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .Theta (deg) 50 Elevator vs Speed Alpha .Main Duct vs Speed Main-Aft Thrust vs Speed 90 80 Trans. Tilt angle is linearly changed with speed. up to Cuise Speed Trans. up to Max Speed Main duct µ (deg) 70 70 Main-Aft Thrust (%Throttle) 80 60 50 40 30 60 50 40 main thr up to Best Range Speed aft thr up to Best Range Speed main thr up to Cruise Speed aft thr up to Cruise Speed main thr up to Max Speed aft thr up to Max Speed 30 20 10 20 10 0 0 -10 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 Airspeed (m/s) 60 70 80 90 1 20 Best Range Speed Cruise Speed Max Speed 0 Best Range Speed Cruise Speed Max Speed -1 Elevator (deg) Alpha . Trim flight conditions during transition flight.Theta vs Speed 15 40 Airspeed (m/s) 10 5 -2 -3 0 -5 -4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Airspeed (m/s) 60 70 80 90 -5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Airspeed (m/s) Figure 6.

Theta vs Speed 0 10 50 1 Alpha . Pitch attitude is fixed. Trim flight conditions during transition flight.Theta (deg) Elevator (deg) 20 80 0 10 20 30 Airspeed (m/s) 40 50 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 20 30 Airspeed (m/s) 40 Figure 7.Main-Aft Thrust vs Speed Main duct µ (deg) 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 Airspeed (m/s) Elevator vs Speed 40 50 Main-Aft Thrust (%Throttle) Main duct vs Speed 100 15 10 5 0 main throttle (%) aft throttle (%) 60 40 20 0 -20 0 10 20 30 40 Airspeed (m/s) Alpha . 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 50 .

12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Characteristic of the gust applied.Horizontal Wind [m/s] 10 gust horizontal -10 m/s gust horizontal 10 m/s 5 0 -5 -10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 time[sec] Figure 8. Pitch attitude is fixed.

5 200 305 300 295 290 285 0 0 20 40 time[sec] -1 60 20 0 20 40 time[sec] 280 60 1 20 40 time[sec] 60 0 20 60 1 0. 13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics .θinput[deg] θ [deg] 20 θoutput[deg] 10 0 -10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 time[sec] u [m/s] 60 40 uinput[m/s] 20 0 uoutput[m/s] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 time[sec] winput[m/s] 10 w [m/s] woutput[m/s] 0 -10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 time[sec] 1000 1 320 315 800 600 400 310 Altitude [m] Y Distance [m] X Distance [m] 0.5 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.5 -80 -100 0 20 40 time[sec] 60 -1 0 20 40 60 -1 time[sec] 40 time[sec] Figure 9.5 0 -40 ψ [deg] φ [deg] γ [deg] -20 0 0 -60 -0. States during feedback controlled transition flight phase.

40 1 -1000 -400 30 time[sec] 0 -3000 20 40 50 0 -1 0 10 20 30 time[sec] Control forces and moments during transition flight.. 14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Simulation results with nominal and horizontal gust. .1000 Fy [N] Fx [N] 500 0 -500 no gust hor gust 10 m/s hor gust -10 m/s 1 0 10 20 30 40 0 -1 50 0 10 time[sec] Mx [Nm] Fz [N] -2000 0 10 20 30 40 -1 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 40 50 time[sec] 1 Mz [Nm] 200 My [Nm] 50 0 time[sec] 0 -200 0 10 20 30 time[sec] Figure 10.

…… 15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics . Nominal and horizontal gust acted upon. 50 50 time[sec] -1 40 100 50 -1 30 time[sec] 100 0 20 20 30 time[sec] Allocated physical controls during transition phase of the flight.100 δ ThMR δ ThML 100 50 0 no gust gust 10m/s gust -10 m/s 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 0 10 time[sec] δ ThAlon δ µ [deg] 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 10 δ elev [deg] δ ThAlat 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 δ rud [deg] δ ail [deg] 40 50 40 50 40 50 0 -20 0 10 0 20 30 20 30 time[sec] 1 10 30 20 time[sec] 0 20 time[sec] 1 40 50 1 0 -1 0 10 time[sec] Figure 11.