You are on page 1of 200

93122-01

ACSYNT

Inner Loop Flight Control


Design Study

NASa- /37Ol
Richard

Bortins

and John A. Sorensen

Prepared
The National

Aeronautics
Ames

for:
and Space

Research

Systems

Analysis

Mountain

View,

Administration

Center
Branch
California

Under:

Contract

No. NAS

2-13701

July 1993

SEAGULL TECHNOLOGY,

INC.

1310 Hollenbeck.Sunnyvale,

CA 94087408/732-9620

Table

of Contents
1

Introduction

1.1

Background

1.2

ACSYNT

1.3

Project

1.4

Road Map to Report ..................................................................................................

Inner
2.1

2.2

2.3
3

3.2

3.3
4

Inner
4.1

Vision

.......................................................................................................

Summary

.......................................................................................................

Loop

Flight

Control

Inputs to the ILFCS

Design

Process

Requirements

.........................................................................

2.1.2

Inputs

from

the User

.....................................................................................

2.1.3

Inputs

from

ACSYNT

...................................................................................

Process

Outputs

Parameter

Functional

Default

of the ILFCS

Sets ..................................................................................

Design

......................................................................

2.2.1

Outputs

to the User

.......................................................................................

2.2.2

Outputs

to ACSYNT

.....................................................................................

Conclusion

................................................................................................................

Effector

Design

11

Effectors ....................................................................................................................

11

3.1.1

Definition

11

3.1.2

Control

3.1.3

Preliminary

Control

.....................................................................................................
Surface

Air Worthiness

3.2.2

Design

3.2.3

DATCOM

Loop

Inputs

Surface

Design

........................................................
Methodology

Constraints
Required

Decoupled

4.1.2

Coupled

4.1.3

Dynamics

Actuators

4.3

Sensors

4.4

The FCS Design

17

.............................

18

..............................................

19

.................................................................................

Methodology

for Computing

Control

Derivatives

22

.....................

Design

Dynamics

4.1.1

11

......................................

.........................................................................................................

Control

Aircraft

Considerations

...................................................................................................

3.2.1

Conclusion

Design

Control

Derivatives

4.2

4.5

Module

2.1.1

Control
3.1

...............................................................................................................

22

....... 45
47

.....................................................................................................

47

Dynamics

....................................................................................

48

........................................................................................

49

Dynamics

of Case Studies

Aircraft ...............................................................

50

...................................................................................................................

51

......................................................................................................................

54

Algorithm

4.4.1

The Linear-quadratic

4.4.2

Enumeration

4.4.3

Discussion

Conclusion

......................................................................................
Method

.......................................................................

of the Steps in the Algorithm


of Case Studies

..................................................

...........................................................................

................................................................................................................

54
55
57
58
62

Summary
5.1

5.2

and

Summary

Recommendations

63

...................................................................................................................

5.1.1

FCS Design

5.1.2

Control

5.1.3

Inner

Requirements

Effector
Loop

Recommendations
5.2.1

Immediate

5.2.2.

Intermediate

............................................................................

Design

Flight

Control

for Further
Tasks
Tasks

................................................................................
Design

Work

.................

................................................

........................................

...............................

63
63
63
64
64

...........................................................................................

64

........................................................................................

65
67

References

69

Appendix

ii

Introduction

The NASA

Ames

Research

Center

developed

the Aircraft

Synthesis

(ACSYNT)

computer

program
to synthesize
conceptual
future aircraft designs and to evaluate critical performance
metrics early in the design process before significant
resources
are committed
and cost decisions
made. ACSYNT
uses steady-state
performance
metrics, such as aircraft range, payload
and fuel
consumption,
and static performance
metrics, such as the control authority
takeoff rotation and for landing with an engine out, to evaluate conceptual
also optimize

designs

with respect

to selected

criteria

required
for the
aircraft designs. It can

and constraints.

Many modem aircraft have stability provided by the flight control system rather than by the
airframe.
This may allow the aircraft designer
to increase
combat agility, or decrease
trim drag,
for increased
range and payload. This strategy requires concurrent
design of the airframe
and the
flight control system, making trade-offs
of performance
and dynamics
during the earliest stages
of design.
ACSYNT
presently
lacks means to implement
flight control system designs but research
is being
done to add methods for predicting
rotational
degrees of freedom and control effector
performance.
A software module to compute
and analyze the dynamics
of the aircraft, and to
compute
feedback
gains and analyze closed loop dynamics
is required.
The data gained from
these analyses
can then be fed back to the aircraft design process so that the effects of the flight
control system and the airframe
on aircraft performance
can be included
as design metrics.
This report presents
results of a feasibility
study and the initial design work to add an inner loop
flight control system (ILFCS) design capability
to the stability and control module in ACSYNT.
The overall objective
is to provide a capability
for concurrent
design of the aircraft and its flight
control system, and enable concept designers
to improve performance
by exploiting
the
interrelationships
between aircraft and flight control system design parameters.
1.1

Background

The objective

of aircraft

conceptual

design

is to answer

basic

questions

of configuration

arrangement,
size and weight, cost, and performance.
1 The goal is to work through
choices available
to aircraft designers
rapidly, efficiently,
and effectively
to arrive

the major
at a

configuration
that satisfies the given requirements.
Designers
use rules of thumb, algorithms,
design guidelines,
history and projections
of the capabilities
of new technology
to determine
best to satisfy many diverse and sometimes
conflicting
requirements.
The conceptual
design

how

phase ends with specialists


in disciplines
such as aerodynamics,
structures,
propulsion
and
control systems using specialized
tools to analyze their parts of the problem.
At this point, the
design effort fragments
into specialized
disciplinary
efforts that may or may not stay in step with
each other. The conceptual
design phase is unique in that it is the only time the aircraft design
resides in a single designer's
mind or on a single computer. 2
The ACSYNT
program
uses parameter
studies, industry practices,
and important
trends to
estimate
the aerodynamic,
structural,
weight and balance, propulsion,
stability and control, and
economic
characteristics
of a conceptual
design. It provides
six ways to arrive at a final
conceptual

design: 3, 4

Converge

to the appropriate

Optimize

a specified

Compute
variables

the sensitivity

Analyze

Compute

specified

Optimize

Presently,

function

using

ACSYNT

with respect

combinations

design

for a given

when

of two design
the design

design

to specified

of one or more specified

the sensitivity

independent

fuel loading

point

constraints

functions

to one or more

design

variables

is optimized

with respect

to the remaining

variables

approximation

evaluates

techniques

longitudinal,

steady-state

flight

performance

at discrete

design

points.
1.2

ACSYNT

Vision

ACSYNT
continually
evolves to account for technology
advances, and to add precision
and
expanded
capabilities
in the aircraft disciplines
of propulsion,
aerodynamics,
structures,
and
stability and control that are required to perform and evaluate design trades between the
disciplines
at the conceptual
design level. This enables concept designers
to improve the
performance
of their designs by exploiting
the interrelationships
between design parameters
that
are in the domains of these more specialized
disciplines.
Figure

1.1 shows

currently

the software

assisting

NASA

modules

comprising

ACSYNT

and some

of the organizations

in this development.

COPE_CONMIN

ACSYNT
EXECUTIVE

WEIGHTS

3-D Modeling
(VPI)

p,

I AERODYNAMICS

II

PROPULSION

6-DOF AEROX
(Axelson)

Wing Wt. Eqs.


(UM)
r

I TRAJECTORIES
AgilityCycle
(Cal Poly)

I
STABILITY_AND

STRUCTURES
Eqv. Plate Meth.
(UW)

(Seagull)
Figure 1.1: ACSYNT

software

modules

NEPP
(VPI/Lewis)

Enhancing ACSYNT
capabilities
must avoid increasing
the number of required inputs
excessively
and adding such complexity
in the specialized
disciplines
that the tool is no longer
usable by aircraft concept designers.
The objectives
are to determine
rapidly and efficiently
the
effect on total aircraft performance
of design changes at high levels within these disciplines
and
to allow discipline
specialists
the opportunity
to understand
how their efforts affect other
disciplines.
Each discipline
has so many design parameters
and performance
metrics that only parameters
and metrics of each discipline
that have the most influence
on aircraft performance
must be
identified
and integrated
into the concept design process. This integration
should use
formulations
and approximations
that promote rapid design iterations
until more design details
can be established.
A designer
has many choices available. Adding additional
level of detail to ACSYNT
will
increase the number of choices and the difficulty
of comparing
multiple concepts
and the time
required
as more choices will have to be made without the aid of the ACSYNT
tool. To enable a
designer
to focus on the effects on performance
of specific aspects of the aircraft, initial designs
that satisfy all constraints
must be provided.
Moreover,
default constraints
must also be provided.
These defaults
and initial designs provide a point of departure
for the designer.
The data for the
defaults
atypical
1.3

and initial designs can come from historical


trends.
solutions and suggested
remedies
must be provided

Project

for convergence

had the following

Determine
control

goals:

what additional
system

design

detail

is required

in ACSYNT

to include

an inner loop flight

capability

Provide for the design of an inner loop of a flight control system (FCS) by determining
the level of modeling
fidelity and the importance
of terms in the aircraft dynamics

Evaluate

the costs and benefits

FCS control

Design

Evaluate

Determine
parameters

This report
ACSYNT
synthesis

to

Summary

This project

Finally, warnings
to the designer.

an FCS architecture
synthesis

to support

techniques

how to integrate
with ACSYNT

summarizes
must

lateral/longitudinal

rotational

dynamics

an algorithm

Aircraft

stability

Aircraft

mass properties

Flight

condition

the inner

made

Such

and control

the conceptual

design

for the FCS architecture

the progress

calculate

algorithm.

of including

coupling

in the inner

loop

design

these

operating

and performance

points

evaluation

goals.

to implement

needs,

of ACSYNT

and the design

loop FCS design

towards

mission

an inner

loop flight

control

system

as a minimum,

derivatives

such as mass,

center

data such as attitude,

velocity

of mass,

and moments

and atmospheric

of inertia

density

Aircraft
stability and control derivatives
describe non-steady-state
aerodynamics
control design. The control derivatives
characterize
force and moment generators
their size, aerodynamic
shape, and location. The mass properties
are determined

during linear
and depend on
by weight and

configurationlayout.Theflight conditionsareusedto convertdimensionlessderivativesto


dimensionedderivativesandto computeoutputquantitiessuchasangleof attack,tr., and sideslip
angle,

_.

Control surface sizing and control


and are summarized
in this report.

derivative computation
methods were found in references s. 6.
The design approach
adopted for ACSYNT
will use linearized

aircraft dynamics
at selected flight conditions
within the flight envelope.
The linear-quadratic
method was chosen as the flight control system design algorithm
because it accommodates
linearized
dynamics
with lateral/longitudinal
coupling
and because it provides
a "hands-off"
way
to compute
feedback
gains from design criteria. The linear-quadratic
method uses the dynamics
in state-space
form, and the important
stability derivatives
to form these dynamics
were
identified.
The state-space
form has the advantages
that many analytical,
design, and simulation
tools exist for dynamics
in this form. The FCS architecture
will assume that all aircraft state
variables
can be measured
perfectly and fed back through a control law to the actuators
to
guarantee
closed loop stability even when aircraft dynamics
is open loop unstable.
Case studies comprising
3 aircraft, each at 3 flight conditions,
were used to test the pole
placement
method and the linear-quadratic
method. A single set of initial control design
parameters
were found to give acceptable
results for the longitudinal
dynamics.
This provides a
good starting point for automated
control design iterations.
We also tested the method on
lateral/directional
dynamics.
A preliminary
specification
for an interface
between ACSYNT
and
an inner loop control design module has been formulated.
1.4

Road

Map

to Report

This report summarizes


work performed
to date
and plots,
Section

and notes
1 contained

the results,
for contract

and reprints

findings, conclusions
and recommendations
based on the
NAS 2-13701.
Technical
details such as MATLAB scripts

from references

the introduction,

background,

have

been

ACSYNT

assembled
vision

into the Appendices.

and project

summary.

Section 2 presents
interface
requirements
for the addition of an inner loop flight control design
module to ACSYNT.
The requirements
comprise
what is needed by such a module from other
ACSYNT
modules
and what results will be returned to the user and other ACSYNT
modules.
Section 3 discusses
control surface sizing and control derivative
computation.
This reiterates
methods found in Roskam and other references.
Section 4 discusses
flight dynamics,
presents

the

inner loop flight control design algorithm


and summarizes
the results of the case studies. The last
section summarizes
our findings and presents recommendations
for the continuing
development
of the ACSYNT
stability and control module.

Inner Loop Flight Control Module Interface Requirements

This section
level diagram

discusses

the inner loop control

of the organization

design

interface

for an inner loop control

with ACSYNT.
design

Figure

2.1 is a top

module.

Figure 2.1:

Schematic

of the inner

loop flight control

system

(ILFCS)

design

module

The elements
in the top row are inputs to the inner loop control module from ACSYNT,
default
data sets, or user input. The flight conditions,
stability derivatives,
control derivatives,
and mass
properties
are used to calculate the aircraft dynamics.
Sensor and actuator dynamics
and errors
also affect flight control system performance.
Section 4 gives a justification
for assuming,
for the
purposes
of conceptual
design, that sensor dynamics
are perfect. The methodology
chosen does
not preclude
addition of sensor models in the future. Actuators
will have f'wst-order dynamics
with time constants
loaded from the default data sets. The composite
of the aircraft and actuator
dynamics
is the main
set of feedback
gains
evaluate performance
evaluation.
Data from

input to the inner loop control design algorithm.


The algorithm
produces
a
that satisfy some design criteria. The closed loop dynamics
are used to
metrics in a simulation
or are downloaded
into a cockpit simulator
for pilot
control effector deflections
that violate design constraints
are fed back to

the aircraft design modules to provide a basis for updating


effector design
variation
in feedback
control gains over several flight conditions
indicates
complexity
of the ultimate flight controller;
a high variation
turn implies a higher cost flight control computer.

implies

parameters.
The
the potential

a complex

controller

that in

The interfacerequirementsfor theILFCSdesignmodulearediscussedin two parts.Subsection


2.1 coversthe necessaryinputsto theILFCS designprocess.Subsection2.2 discussestheoutputs
thattheILFCS designprocessprovidesto the designerandasfeedbackto the ACSYNT design
andoptimization process.
2.1

Inputs

There

to the ILFCS

are three

classes

Design

of inputs

Default

parameter

Inputs

from

Inputs

from ACSYNT

Process

to the ILFCS

design

process.

sets

the user

The default parameter


sets provide initial estimates
of flight control system parameters
to
minimize
designer
workload
when the FCS is not the primary concern. The inputs from the user
are made when the designer
has special considerations,
such as mission and flight conditions.
The user can also override any default parameter.
The inputs from ACSYNT
are the data
computed
2.1.1

by other

ACSYNT

modules

that are necessary

to define

the aircraft

dynamics.

Default Parameter Sets

The purpose
of the default flight control system design parameters
is to provide an initial design
that is a realistic point of departure
for including
the control design considerations
without
thought or effort. This is usually done early in the aircraft design process. The performance
of
this initial controller
will be reasonable
enough for initial studies. Ultimately,
the algorithm
will
converge

to a much

better

performing

controller

after starting

with this initial

The default flight control system design parameter sets are organized
MIL-F-8785C
classification
(Table 2.1) has been selected.
Table 2.1
Class

MIL-F-8785
Aircraft

C Aircraft

small

II

medium

weight

heavy

to these

and
maneuverability

maneuverability

high maneuverability

Most civilian aircraft can be mapped


report are from the last three classes.
are unique

Classification

and

low to medium
IV

The

and light

low to medium
large,

by aircraft class.

Type

III

design.

into the fil"st three


The methodology

classes. The case studies presented in this


and data bases used to derive parameters

classes.

The default design parameter


sets are the appropriate
are three classes of specifications:

control

system

design

specifications.

There

Design

objectives

Design

constraints

Fixed

design

(e.g., stability,

no oscillation)

(e.g., deflection

variables

and rate limits)

(e.g., dynamics

of sensors

and actuators)

The usual design objective


is to optimize
a particular
performance
metric while staying within
constraints
on other performance
metrics. Thus, the control design parameters
in the default
design parameter
sets are the constraints
on the metrics not optimized
and designation
of which
metric is to be optimized.
These design objectives
are the defaults rather than, say feedback
gains, because
gains depend on the particular
aircraft dynamics
while the constraints
and the
metric to optimize depends
more on the aircraft class. Useful measures
of control system
performance

are:

Percent

Rise time

Peak

control

surface

Peak

vertical

and lateral

Percent

steady-state

Closed

loop natural

Closed

loop damping

The fast

overshoot

four metrics

deflection
acceleration

error
frequencies
ratios

are transient,

time-domain

measures.

They require

a simulation

capability

to evaluate.
The steady-state
error can be evaluated
analytically
only when no nonlinearities
are
present;
otherwise
a simulation
capability
again is required.
The last two metrics directly relate to
aircraft handling qualities and can always be evaluated
analytically.
2.1.2

Inputs from the User

The designer
will select an aircraft class and an aircraft mission.
the control design criteria appropriate
for that class, as described

The selection
of a class loads
in the previous
subsection.
The

designer
can override
any of the default design parameter
values. The aircraft mission determines
the flight conditions
used to compute
the aircraft dynamics,
and the stability and control
derivatives.
The flight conditions
are made up of maneuvers
such as

Steady,

level

Steady,

level turns

Steady

climbs

Steady

rolls

High

One engine

Take-off

Approach

angle

flight

or descents

of attack

maneuvers

inoperative

at various combinations
of altitude and velocity. The fast and last three flight conditions
are
applied to all classes of aircraft. The middle two are usually applied only to fighter aircraft in
Class IV.

2.1.3

Inputs from ACSYNT

The primary

data required

Mass

Stability

Control

from ACSYNT

modules

are

properties
derivatives
derivatives

These are used to compute


the aircraft dynamics.
The mass properties
include mass, center of
mass, and the inertia matrix. The orientation
of the body axes with respect to the stability axes is
also needed if the inertias axe defined with respect to the body frame. The stability and control
derivatives
are usually divided into longitudinal
derivatives
and lateral/directional
derivatives
because

the aircraft

dynamics

decouples

(Table

Table 2.2:

Stability

2.2).
and control

Longitudinal

At some flight conditions


may be necessary.

2.2

derivatives

Lateral

CD

CLq

Cy#

Cnp

CD u

CL 8

Cy_

Cn5

CD a

Cm

Cy r

Clfl

CD 5

Cm u

Cyp

Clfl

CL

Cmct

Cy 8

Clr

CL u

Cm_t

Cnfl

Clp

CLot

Cmq

Cnlj

CL&

Cm 5

Cn r

the dynamics

are coupled,

so other

stability

and control

derivatives

Outputs of the ILFCS Design Process

Two kinds of outputs are required of the ILFCS design process. The first are the data provided
to
the user to show how well the process is converging,
how good the final controller
performs,
and
what might be done to improve performance.
The second are data provided
to ACSYNT
modules
(most likely the COPES/CONMIN
optimization
program)
to integrate
the ILFCS design process
into ACSYNT's
design optimization
and sensitivity
computation
functions.
2.2.1

Outputs to the User

The main driver for the user outputs is that they be useful to an aircraft
feedback
control expert. Four types of data will be useful:

Plots

of time responses

Performance

Design

constraint

Iteration

history

metric

values
values

designer

rather

than a

The plots of time responses


are probably of the most use to an aircraft designer.
The particular
variables
of interest
will depend on the class of aircraft, and, consequently,
the default design
parameters.
The designer
will also be able to specify other variables.
The performance
metric
values and the design constraint
values indicate how well the control system performs
and what
might be limiting
history will show
2.2.2

the performance
how the control

when a constraint
has been reached or violated.
design algorithm arrived
at its results.

The iteration

Outputs to ACSYNT

The main driver for ACSYNT


outputs is to integrate
the control design process into the
functionality
that exists in ACSYNT
for aircraft design. The primary data required
by ACSYNT
modules are

Closed loop performance metricvalues

Control system gains

Actuator and sensorrequirementsforconstraintdefinition


Locally optimized FCS parameters

Sensitivities
to stability
and controlderivatives

The goal isto establisha capabilityto use thedependencies between aircraft


and flightcontrol
design parameters to improve totalaircraft
performance. This can be done by brute force or by
localoptimizationwithin the ILFCS design module. Itisnot clearatthispoint which way is
more appropriate.
The brute force approach integrates the control design parameters and performance
metrics with
the COPES/CONMIN
design optimization
process. Integration
into the sensitivity
computations
should be around the same level of difficulty.
This integration
is conceptually
simple; the control
parameters
conceptually

and metrics are just added to the ones COPES/CONMIN


simple does not mean that it is practically
simple.

The local optimization


approach
identifies
ways to
improve control system performance.
This data can
derivative
computations
to determine
which aircraft
violation
of control effector deflection
or rate limits

already

handles.

However,

change stability and control derivatives


be fed back to the stability and control
parameters
ought to be changed.
The
is the easiest to feed back. All that is

to

required is an indication
of how much to increase the control derivative
magnitudes.
Changes in
the stability derivatives
is another matter. This is much more conceptually
difficult than the brute
force method because
it requires inverting
some complex,
difficult,
and possibly
singular
computations.
Dynamical
approximations
exist that give damping
ratios
as simple functions
of a few stability derivatives,
but these approximations
inaccurate.
2.3

and natural frequencies


can be very

Conclusion

This section presented the interface


requirements
for adding an inner loop flight control system
design module to the ACSYNT
program. Both user interface
and program
module interface
requirements
were discussed.
The next two sections give details on the functionality
required.

3 Control

Effector Design

This section outlines the procedures


to add to the ACSYNT
code to design flight control
effectors
and to compute
the associated
control derivatives.
These must be added to ACSYNT
when an ILFCS design module is added because the control derivatives
are essential
ingredients
to flight control
3.1

design.

Effectors

3.1.1

Definition

In the context

of aircraft

design,

the control

effectors

are the mechanisms

that are used to

produce forces and moments


for controlling
the roll, pitch, and yaw orientation
of the aircraft.
Conventionally,
these effectors
have consisted
simply of aileron, elevator
and rudder for roll,
pitch, and yaw control, respectively.
These effectors are classified
as "control
surfaces"
because
they are movable
surfaces
on the wing and tail; they produce
control moments
by altering the
basic lift forces and restoring
moments
produced
by the aerodynamics
of the wing and tail.
As aircraft designs have
combinations
of designs
spoilers.
However,
variations.

become more complex,


different control surface designs and
have appeared.
These include elevons, camardovators,
stabilators,

the design

principles

remain

the same for each of these

control

and

surface

For high performance


aircraft or aircraft with special mission requirements,
other force
generators
besides control surfaces have been developed.
These consist of directed thrust forces
from the propulsion
system to allow special movements
such as near vertical takeoff and hover,
yaw without

roll,

In the following,
surface effectors.
that other
3.1.2

force

control

without

the design
However,
generators

need

for a vertical

tail, etc.

outline is limited to requirements


the ACSYNT
logic development
could

be added

as design

options

for specifying
and sizing control
will be designed
to be modular
so
at a later date.

Control Surface Design Considerations

Three passes
surfaces:

are made

through

the design

1. The baseline
control surface
other design considerations,
average size and dimension
2. The control
requirements
Regulations
meet

cycle

to determine

the geometry

of the control

geometry
is selected subject to surface constraints
determined
as discussed
below. This selection is based upon historical
for similar types of aircraft.

moment provided
by the baseline design is checked
against minimum
static
that are stated as Military Specifications
(Milspecs)
or Federal Aviation
(FARs). If necessary,
the control surface area or the moment arm is increased

by

to

the requirements.

3. The control
the aircraft

moment effectiveness
with the flight control

is checked
by examining
the transient
system (FCS) in place. If the transient

meet requirements
by FCS gain adjustment
and design changes alone,
necessary
to increase
the control surface size and moment arm further
configuration

PAGE

geometry.

BLANPK NOT

FRMED

dynamic response
of
performance
can not
then it may be
or to change the

The next two subsections


first design
3.1.2.1

Geometric

control

surface

ao

Ailerons

discuss

the geometric

constraints

and historical

data used during

the

pass.
constraints.
caused

This refers to constraints

by the presence

and elevons

of other items

to the geometric
or practical

- Fig. 3.1 is a sketch of a wing

structural

planform

dimensions

of the

constraints.

with flap and aileron.

The flap

is designed
first to give the appropriate
slow speed lift characteristics
for the landing or
takeoff process. This sets the inner span boundary
Ya/for most ailerons. The exception
is for
some jet transports
where inner and outer sets of ailerons are used inside and outside of the
flaps. For this case, the flaps also set the outer span boundary
for the inner aileron. For delta
wing aircraft,
elevons are used for both roll and pitch control. The geometric
constraints
imposed
by the flaps are the same, however. The outer limit of the aileron span Yao is the
wing half-span
b. For inboard ailerons, the inner span boundary
is some reasonable
margin
from the fuselage wall.

Figure. 3.1

Sketch

The other parameters


that specify aileron size
dimension
Caa. The average chord dimension
location.
The aileron chord is often set by the
aileron surface hinges are mounted to the rear
the chord dimension.
For design practicality,
equal
bo

of wing planform.
are the surface area Sa and the average chord
is measured
at the average aileron span
location of the rear wing spar. That is, the
wind spar. Thus, there is a structural
limit to
the forward dimension
of the aileron can be set

to that of the flaps.

Rudder - The geometry


of the rudder is dictated by the geometry
horizontal
tail (in the case of a T tail), the fuselage,
and possibly

of the vertical tail, the


the presence
of a mid-tail

engine. Figure 3.2 shows examples


of vertical tails 7. The rudder would be specified
to run a
certain fraction of the span by of the tail. When the horizontal
and vertical tail geometries
and
engine locations
are specified
within the ACSYNT
design process,
logic must be added to
constrain
the inner and outer rudder spanwise dimensions
in compliance
with the geometries.
When

the basic

rudder

geometry

is computed,

it is limited

by the geometric

constraints.

Figure 3.2

Examples

of vertical

13

tail geometries

[Roskam 7]

C.

Elevator
and stabilator
- The elevator geometry is dictated
by the geometry
of the horizontal
tail. Normally,
the only constraint
is the inner span location;
this is dictated by the fuselage
wall or the vertical tail wall for T-tail design. The inner span elevator dimension
may be
limited so as to not interfere
with full rudder deflection.
For a stabilator,
the entire horizontal
tail is both the horizontal
stabilator

3.1.2.2

stabilizer

and the elevator;

designing

the stabilizer

takes

care of the

design.

Historical

trends.

For the first design

pass for aileron,

rudder,

and elevator

geometry

design, initial estimates


of span, chord or surface area can be based on trends in historical
data
for the same parameters.
The following
Tables 3.1-3.3 summarize
these parameters
for three
classes of aircraft - fighters, business jets, and jet transports.
These data are repeated
from
Roskam 5 which contains larger tables and for several other types of aircraft.
Table 8.1

Fighter

Elevator

aircraft

Data

control

Rudder

surface

parameters

Data

Aileron

Data

SelSh

fr. Ch

Sr/Sv

fr. Cv

Sa/Sw

fr. b12

fr. Cw

elevons

.20

.22/.29

.14

.18/1.0

.13/1.0

Mir. F1C

1.0

stabilator

.16

.21L35

.031

.77/1.0

.23/.25

Mir.

elevons

.16

.21/.34

.13

.19/1.0

.13/1.0

Et.

1.0

stabilator

.18

.25/.49

.053

.57/.81

.23/.27

FR A-10A

.32

.33

.28

.31L34

.094

.58/.91

.42/.40

Grum.

A6A

1.0

stabilator

.21

.28L21

Grum.

F14A

1.0

stabilator

.29

.29/.33

North.

F5E

1.0

stabilator

.15

.26/.30

.050

.76/.99

.34/.33

A7A

1.0

stabilator

.13

.21/.29

.053

.59/.90

.20/.24

McD

D F-4E

1.0

stabilator

.20

.20/.29

.040

.63/.98

.23/.28

McD

D F-15

1.0

stabilator

.25

.30/.50

.053

.60/.86

.25/.27

G DFB-111A

1.0

stabilator

.21

.25L26

GDF-16

1.0

stabilator

.25

.34/.33

.13

.30/.73

.21/.23

.25

.34/.31

.35

.37/.39

.061

.56/.91

.27/.32

.29

.26/.37

.26

.26/.41

.069

.58/.90

.24/.26

MIG-25

1.0

stabilator

.15

.24

.053

.54/.79

.22/.21

Su-7BMK

1.0

stabilator

.26

.28/.25

.11

.62/.97

.29/.35

Type
Dassault

Mir. IIIe

2000

Super

Vought

Cessna

A37B

Aermacchi

In the tables,

MB339K

the ratios

of control

surface

area to wing, horizontal,

or vertical

as SalSw, SelSh, and Sr/Sv. The corresponding


ratios of control surface
surface chord are given as fr. Cw, fr. Ch, and fr. Cv. When two numbers
this represents
the inboard and outboard
spanwise
edges are specified
as fractions

tail areas

edges of the control surface. For the aileron


of the half wing span, or fr. b/2.

14

are given

chord to wing or tail


are given, for chord ratios,
data, the

For fighter aircraft, Table 3.1 shows that most types of aircraft use stabilators
rather than the
elevator.
Two Mirage types use elevons to combine the functions
of elevator and aileron into one
surface; these are delta wing configurations.
The rudder surface represents
about 22% of the
vertical stabilizer
surface on the average with the chord dimension
ranging
from 20% to 50% of
the total chord, depending
on the configuration.
For the fighter aircraft ailerons, the spanwise
dimension
ratio ranges from. 18 to .77 inboard and from .73 to 1.0 outboard.
The aileron surface
area averages

to about

7.6%

of the wing

Table 3.2 Business


Elevator
Type
Dassault

Falcon

10

surface
jet aircraft

Data

area for the aircraft


control

Rudder

surface

listed

in Table

3.1.

parameters

Data

Aileron

Data

Se/Sh

fr. Ch

Sr/Sv

fr. cv

Sa/Sw

fr. b/2

fr. cw

.20

.31L29

.32

..34/.49

.051

.67/.95

.27L31

Falcon

20

.22

.28/.31

.23

.25L39

.057

.62/.92

.25

Falcon

50

.23

.31/.34

.12

.21/.32

.049

.68L97

.27

Cessna

Citation

.29

.32/.23

.36

.36

.096

.55/.94

.32/.30

.078

.56/.89

.32/.30

.70/.86

.21/.17

500

Citation

II

.36

..37/.35

.34

.35L31

Citation

.34

.39/.42

.30

.37/.38

.26

.36/.26

.17

.23/.22

.050

.63L89

.25/.23

Gates

Learjet

Learjet

35A

.33

.33

.17

.26/.25

.066

.55/.79

.30/.27

Learjet

55

.32

.31/.35

.17

.26/.25

.062

.49/.71

.30

.28

.30/.31

.26

.29/.31

.033

.73/.91

.23/.26

.42

.40/.44

.30

.36/.32

.033

.68/.91

.22/.20

.25

.30/.32

.21

.33/.32

.040

.67/.95

26/.25

.25

.29/.26

.18

.34/.44

.050

.59/.90

.21L31

.48

.37/.67

.22-

.31/.37

.084

.66/1.0

.33/.46

.33

.33

.24

.28

,038

.66/.86

.24/.27

.37

.37

.25

.33/.28

.012

.86/.94

.20/.22

Canadair

Challenger

Aerospatiale
Israel

24

SN-601

Airc.Astra

Westwind
Brit. Aero.
G.A.

III

MU Diam.I

125-700

From Table 3.2 for business jets, all the designs are conventional
with elevator, rudder and
aileron surfaces.
The average elevator area is 30.8% of the horizontal
stabilizer
area. The average
rudder area is 24.0% of the vertical stabilizer
area. The average aileron area is 5.3% of the wing
area.
For jet transports,
Table 3.3 shows that this class of aircraft has a conventional
tail configuration.
The exception
is the L1011 which uses a stabilator.
The average elevator surface area is 32.4%
the horizontal
tail area. The average rudder surface area is 29.3% of the vertical tail area.

of

The roll control for jet transports


uses both inboard and outboard ailerons and spoilers. Table 3.3
presents
span and chord dimensions
for all four surfaces. Typically,
the inboard ailerons
operate
in all flight conditions,
but the outboard ailerons operate with flaps down only. Spoilers are used

15

for both lateralcontrol andas speedbrakes.Of the 17aircraft types

in Table 3.3, the nine smaller


aircraft (B737 etc.) do not have inboard ailerons. The exception
is the A310 which does not have
outboard
ailerons. All configurations
but the Fokker F-28 have inboard
spoilers. Only four of the
types have outboard
spoilers. The average aileron surface area is 3.7% of the wing surface area.
Thus, for conceptual
design of jet transports,
the roll control surface design can be primarily
by
means of inboard
spoilers and outboard
ailerons for "large" classification
aircraft with inboard
ailerons

added

for the "heavy"


Table 3.3

classification.
Jet transport

Elevator

aircraft

control

Rudder

surface

parameters

Inboard

Aileron

Se/Sh

fr. Ch

Sr/Sv

fr. Cv

SalSw

fr. b/2

fr. Cw

.25

.29/.31

.16

.29/.28

.043

.38/.46

.17/.24

737-200

.27

.30/.32

.24

.25/.22

.024

none

none

737-300

.24

.24/.34

.31

.26/.50

.021

none

none

747-200B

.24

.29

.30

.30

.04O

.38/.44

.17/.25

747SP

.21

.32/.20

.27

.31/.34

.040

.38/.44

.17/.25

757-200

.25

.29/.38

.34

.35L33

.027

none

none

767-200

.23

.30/.25

.35

.33/.36

.041

.31/.40

.23/.20

McD

.34

.39/.38

.39

.49/.46

.030

none

none

DC-9-50

.38

.41L47

.41

.45/.44

.038

none

none

DC-10-30

.22

.25/.30

.18

.35

.047

.32/.39

.20/.25

.26

.35

.30

.35/.36

.049

.29/.39

.23/.27

.26

.33/.30

.35

.33/.35

.027

.32/.40

.23/.27

1.0

stabilator

.23

.29L26

.051

.40/.49

.22/.23

.20

.34/.33

.16

.29/.31

.034

none

none

Type
Boeing

727-200

D DC-9-80

AIRBUS

A300-B4

A310
Lockheed
Fokker

L1011
F-28

BAC

111

.27

.41/.35

.28

.39/.37

.030

none

none

BAC

146-200

.39

.42/.44

.44

.29

.046

none

none

.18

.27/.25

.27

.37

.036

none

none

Tu-154

16

Continued.

Table 3.3
Outboard

Inboard

Aileron

Outboard

Spoiler

Spoiler

fT.b_

fT. Cw

.09/. 14

.48/.72

.16/.20

.40/.66

.14/.18

none

none

.23/.30

.38/.64

14

none

none

.70/.95

.11/. 17

.46/.67

.12/.16

none

none

747SP

.70/.95

.11/. 17

.46/.67

.12/.16

none

none

757-200

.76/.97

.22/.36

41/.74

.12/.13

none

none

767-200

.76/.98

.16/.13

.16/.31

.091.11

.44/.67

.12/.17

McD D

.64/.85

.31/.36

.35/.60

.10/.08

none

none

DC-9-50

78/.95

.30/35

.35/.60

.10/.08

none

none

DC-10-30

75/93

.29/.27

17/.30

05/.06

43/.72

.11/.16

.83/.99

.32/.30

.57/.79

.16/.22

none

none

none

none

.62/.83

.16/.22

none

none

.77/.98

.26/.22

.13/.39

.08/.12

.50/.74

.14/.14

.66/.91

.29/.28

none

none

none

none

Type

fT. b12

fr. Cw

fr. b/2

fT.

Boeing727-200

.76/.93

.23/.30

.14/.37

737-200

.74/.94

.20/.28

737-300

.72/.91

747-200B

DC-9-80

AIRBUS

A300-B4

A310
Lockheed
Fokker

L1011
F-28

Cw

BAC

111

.72/.92

.26

.37/.68

.06/.11

none

none

BAC

146-200

.78/1.0

.33/.31

.14/.70

.22/.27

none

none

.76/.98

34/.27

.43/.70

.14/.20

none

none

Tu-154

3.1.3

Preliminary Control Surface Design Methodology

This section

outlines

a procedure

to follow

in the ACSYNT

geometry

design

code

for

specification
of the dimensions
of the control surfaces. This begins by picking average geometry
and specifying
the constraints
if the control surface has to be changed to produce
more control
power Average
geometry
is based on fractions
of wing and tail span and chord dimensions.
These terms are maintained
within the default parameter
data base within ACSYNT.
The user
has the option

to override

these default

values

for a particular

design

configuration.

The following
is limited to three classes of aircraft - fighters, business jets, and jet transports.
can be expanded
to include other aircraft classes using the basic methodology
of this study.
3.1.3.1

Ailerons

and spoilers.

These

two surfaces

have been specified.


The flap chord dimension
extended
to define the leading edge and chord
the flap defines the outboard
dimension
of the flap defines
of the average

aileron

surface

are designed

after the wing

planform

and flap

defined by the leading edge of the flap is


of the aileron. Also, the inboard
span dimension

span dimension
limit of inboard ailerons. The outboard
the inboard span dimension
limit of outboard
ailerons.
area is used to define

17

It

the rest of the aileron

details.

span
Thus,

of

choice

a. Fighter aircraft.Assumethat fighter


aileron

surface

area to be 7.6%

1. Set the chord


2. Solve
wing
3.

Solve

dimension

for the aileron

aircraft only have outboard ailerons. Use the average


of the half wing area. Follow the following
steps:

by that of the flap surface

span to produce

the desired

chord.
surface

area, taking

into account

the

taper.
for the outboard

aileron

span dimension.

Determine

that this is within

the wing

half

span limit.
b. Business
jet aircraft. Assume that business jets only have outboard
ailerons. Use the average
aileron surface area to be 5.3% of the half wing area. Follow the same steps as for fighter
aircraft.
c. Jet transport
aircraft. Assume that large category
transports
have only outboard
ailerons and
spoilers.
Use the average aileron surface area to be 3.0% of the half wing area. Then follow
the same steps as for the fighter aircraft in designing
the aileron. For the spoilers, use the
average span and chord dimensions
from aircraft with inboard spoilers only to position and
dimension

the spoilers.

For heavy category transports,


add an additional
1.0% surface area to cover the inbound aileron
design. Then follow the same steps as for the outbound
aileron except for Step 3. Instead, assume
the inbound aileron runs from the inner flap edge inward. Solve for the inner aileron span
dimension
to produce the desired area. Determine
that this is beyond the fuselage wall distance
from the aircraft centerline.
3.1.3.2 Rudder. It is assumed that the vertical stabilizer
planform
has been previously
specified
and that any constraints
such and engine and horizontal
stabilizer
geometry
have been noted. Use
the remaining
trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer
to define the rudder span. Then use average
rudder surface areas to pick the chord dimension.
For fighter and business jet aircraft, assume that 22% of the vertical tail is used for the rudder.
For jet transports,
assume that 29% of the vertical is used for the rudder.
3.1.3.3 Elevator.
For fighter aircraft, assume a stabilator
design so that the pitch control surface
is the same as that of the horizontal
stabilizer.
For business jet and transport
aircraft, assume that
the previously
designated
trailing edge is available
for elevator design. Assume
an elevator
surface area of 30% of the horizontal
stabilizer.
Solve for the chord dimension
that will produce
this area, taking
3.2
The

Control
control

into account

the taper of the stabilizer

surface.

Derivatives
derivatives

are the parameters

in the aircraft

equations

of motion

that multiply

the

control inputs to determine


overall control effectiveness
or power. They are the terms that
multiply the control surface deflections
in Eqs. (4.1-2) and that form the B matrix of Eq. (4.7).
These terms are used along with the stability derivatives
that appear as parameters
in the
A matrix of Eq. (4.7) as primary input to the flight control system design. They are computed
as
functions

of the control

The control derivatives


for two sets of criteria.
state torque
to determine

surface

geometry

and many

other parameters

as discussed

below.

are evaluated
to determine
if they produce
adequate control effectiveness
The fn'st is to determine
if the control surfaces produce
sufficient
steady

for specific flight conditions,


if the aircraft has appropriate

as documented
responsiveness

18

in the Milspecs
during certain

or FARs. The second


dynamic maneuvers

is

whenthe actionsof

the flight control system are taken into account.


The former
constraints.
The latter is referred to as flight control performance

air worthiness

is referred
to as
requirements.
It

includes pilot handling


qualities, gust response,
wing load alleviation,
passenger
comfort,
maneuver
agility, and basic stability augmentation
performance
measures.
The choice of the
prevailing
performance
requirements
depends heavily upon the type of aircraft and its mission.
After the control surfaces are designed,
the associated
control derivatives
or control torque
effectiveness
measures
need to be checked to determine
that the air worthiness
criteria are met.
These

criteria

compute

the control

computed
3.2.1

are described

aircraft;
control.

derivatives.

the control

This is followed

Then,

derivatives

Air Worthiness

It is convenient

below.

the method

by a summary

of the input

that can be followed

data required

by ACSYNT

to

to

is summarized.

Constraints

to refer

to these

constraints

in terms

of attitude

angular

moments

required

of the

i.e., pitch moment for longitudinal


control and roll-yaw
moments
for lateral-directional
These moments
are produced
by elevator and aileron-rudder
deflections,
respectively.

3.2.1.1 Elevator produced


moments.
Roskam 6 gives a procedure
for checking
for the required
pitching moment from the elevator or combination
elevator-canard
surfaces. Raymer 1 discusses
the moment equation
for pitch with the requirement
that sufficient
rotation torque is available
for
takeoff at 80% takeoff speed with the most-forward
e.g. This is summarized
below.
The equation

that governs
Cmcg

the pitching

= CL(Xcg

-Xacw)

moment

about

- 17 S h CLh(Xach

the e.g. is

- Xcg)/S

w + other

(3.1)

terms

In Eq. (3.1), the fast and second terms account for the change in the e.g. location on the pitching
moments
caused by the wing and horizontal
tail. The second term includes the effective
tail
moment arm (Xach - Xcg) and the change in tail lift due to elevator deflection
in the term CLh.
The other terms include other moments
caused by the free wing, flap deflection
effect, fuselage,
engine thrust, and other engine rotor effects. For takeoff rotation,
additional
moment terms must
be added due to the upward force of the ground on the main landing gear (accounting
for partial
lift) and the backward
force due to rolling friction. In normal trimmed flight, Eq. 3.1 must equal
zero. For adequate
takeoff rotation torque, the moment due to added lift from full elevator
deflection
must counter the other terms.
In addition
deflection

to providing
adequate
torque, the angle of attack must
so that the total lift force is zero. This can be expressed

be adjusted
as

for a given

(3.2)

CLtotal = CLa(tX + iw) + 11Sh CLh/Sw


The process for assuring
pitching moment torque

that adequate control power is available


from the elevator to provide
while maintaining
trirnmed lift breaks down further into the following:

a. Determine
the governing
control during takeoff.
b. Tabulate

the range

elevator

regulation.

of flight

conditions

Here,

we are assuming

that may prevail

e.g. location,
flap position,
weight, altitude, temperature,
trim equations.
A typical weight-e.g,
envelope
is shown

19

it is the requirement

that must be handled.


etc. that may affect
in Fig. 3.3.

for rotation
This includes
the terms

in the

z CW.L
,,,IN.
.

43
t_
_J

I-3:
%q
ta
ow_
WE
FR.

Euu

(FS)
._ IN.

Figure 3.3 Example

of weight/c.g,

envelope

[Roskam

7]

c. With the data collected


in Step b, plot the aircraft trim diagram. An example
is shown in Fig.
3.4. The steps to generate this plot are detailed in Roskam. 7 However,
from Fig. 3.4, it is
evident
that the boundaries
shown require the zero pitching moment as a function of lift
coefficient
for the maximum
forward and aft c.g. locations
plus the lift coefficient
at
maximum
angle of attack for each of the elevator deflection
settings. This requires that the
control derivative
CL& be known; its computation
is discussed
in Section 3.2.3.
d. From the aim diagram, determine
if equilibrium
flight is possible for the flight conditions
of
interest.
Criteria for acceptance
include that the control surface deflection
is within the range
designed
into the aircraft, the angle of attack is below airplane stall, and the tail (or canard)
are not stalled within the aim-triangle.

20

Figure 3.4

Example

trim diagram

for conventional

aircraft

[Roskam]

3.2.1.2 Aileron produced


moments.
The aileron effectiveness
is established
by the requirement
roll the aircraft at a certain rate, depending
upon the aircraft mission.
For military applications,
the roll requirements
come from the Milspecs;
see Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Class

Aircraft

Light

II

Medium

10

Heavy

IV A

Fighter-attack,

IV B

Air-to-air

MIL-F-8785

B roll requirements

Type
utility,

Required
observation,

bomber,
bomber,

[Raymer 7]

cargo,
cargo,

primary

trainer

transport,

ASW,

transport

interceptor

Roll

60* in 1.3 s
recon.

45* in 1.4 s
30* in 1.5 s
90* in 1.3 s

dogfighter

90* in 1.0 s
360* in 2.8 s

IV C

Fighter

with air-to-ground

stores

21

90* in 1.7 s

to

For conceptual
design it can be assumed that roll rate can be achieved
constant
aileron deflection.
To solve for the steady rate, use

instantaneously

from

(3.3)

Here, p is the steady roll rate caused by the aileron deflection


t_a. The terms Clp and Clg_a are the
damping-due-to-roll
stability derivative
and the roll power control derivative,
respectively.
To
increase roll rate requires either increasing
the aileron deflection
or increasing
the control
derivative
by enlarging
the surface or moving it further out on the wing.
3.2.1.3 Rudder produced
moments.
The primary constraint
that must be met by the rudder is the
engine-out
case at takeoff. The rudder must produce sufficient
yawing moment to keep the
aircraft at zero angle of sideslip at takeoff speed (1.1 times stall speed) with one engine out and
at the aftmost e.g. location.
Rudder deflection
should be no more than 20* to allow additional
deflection
for control.
Another
aircraft

lateral
must

to holding

which

be able to operate

an 11.5" sideslip

This constraint
Cn

trim condition

is evaluated

should

in crosswinds

at takeoff

be checked
equal

is the crosswind

to 20% of takeoff

landing
speed,

case.

which

The

is equivalent

speed.

by examining

the equation

=N/qSwb
= CnNz tY_a+ (Cnflw + Chief, s + Cnflv)fl-

(TYp + DYp + Fp(Xcg-

(3.4)

Xp))lq Sw

where
Cnflv = CFflv (tgflv/Ofl) Ov Sv (XacvThis latter
yawing

term is the side force

moment

coefficient

caused

arm (Xacv" Xcg) and the change

by the deflected
in vertical

rudder.

It contains

tall lift due to rudder

term CFflv. To increase this force, one can increase the rudder
hinged rudder so that the maximum
deflection
can be greater.
3.2.2

(3.5)

Xcg) / Sw

chord

the

deflection

in the

or span or use a double-

Design Inputs Required

To compute
the control derivatives
requires input from several sources throughout
the ACSYNT
code. This includes
the control surface geometry
and moment arms from the "geometry"
module,
the lumped mass weights and their moment arms to compute moments
of inertia from the
"weights"
module,
and the lift curve slopes of the wing and tail surfaces with aileron, elevator,
and rudder deflections.
The computation
of control derivatives
also requires the computation
of
certain stability derivatives
first. This is depicted
in the program
flowchart
in Fig. 3.5.
3.2.3

DATCOM Methodology

The DATCOM
flight.

The

methodology

following

for Computing Control Derivatives


can be found

is a summary

in Hoak. 8 It is summarized

of computing

22

the relevant

control

in Roskam
derivatives

7 for subsonic
using

this

procedure.The complete
However,

the following

set of plots and charts for encoding


this process are not presented
is sufficient
for outlining the associated
ACSYNT
code.

WEIGHTS

SURFACE SIZES

[AERODYNAMICS

DERIVATIVES
STABILITY

3.2.3.1

3.5 Flow

AUeronlelevon

DERIVATIVES

chart

derivatives.

of input

required

to compute

The three coefficients

control

associated

flight,

the rolling

moment

coefficient

Cl& is computed

derivatives.

with aileron

Cy&, CI&, and Cn&. The side force term Cy& is normally
zero except
the vertical tail, as in the F-106. It will be assumed zero here.
For subsonic

PROPERTIES

Figure

here.

deflection

if the ailerons

using

are

are close to

the following

steps:

1. Compute the normalized


full chord coefficient
(fl CI& '/tO from the charts such as Fig. 3.6.
The entire set of these charts are found in the DATCOM
reference.
Here, the coefficient
is
given as a function of taper ratio, sweep angle, and aspect ratio. Note that the independent
axis
is the location of the inner and outer span dimensions
y of the aileron normalized
by the half
span. The coefficient
value is found by taking the difference
of the two values from the inner
and outer span dimension.
The coefficient

uses the terms


fl = (1- M2) 0-5
t = (Clo3M

The term

(Clo3M

of the wing

covered

is the lift curve

_/2]_

slope of the airfoil

by the aileron.
A_

Also,

the sweep

= tan- l(tan

23

(3.6)

Ac/4

(3.7)
at the mean
angle
I_)

geometric

term A/_ is defined

center

of the part

as

(3.8)

Reproduced

from Reference

/
(per rad )

--////
f

Z /

0
O

.2

.4

.o

AILERON LATERAL

Figure 3.5

Aileron

rolling

COORDINATE,

moment

24

parameter

.8

1.0

.mY._= T/
hi2

[DATCOM

8]

2. Denormalize
3. Determine

the coefficient

by multiplying

the effectiveness

by t and dividing

for partial-chord
Clt_a = Iott_al Cl&

ailerons

by ft.

(Ca/C < 1.0) by the equation


(3.9)

'

neFe,

a&z = [(Cld_ Ch_theory)


The

term (CI_/CIStheory)

ratio. The lift curve


the airfoil chosen.

is found

The term (Clo:)a

from Fig. 3.6 as a function

slope ratio parameter

The term Ch_ theory is found


is computed
(Cltx)a

(3.10)

Cl_ theory] /(Cltr)a


of aileron

in Fig. 3.6 is explained

chord

in Roskam;

to wing

chord

it is a function

from Fig. 3.7.


from the lift curve
= Cla/

slope

at the mean

aileron

span as

(1- M2) 0-5

4. The average aileron roll control power derivative


is then found by averaging
the derivative
computed
for the left and fight wing. The aileron deflection
used as the control input is the
average of the deflections
of the left and fight wing ailerons.

Figure 3.6

Correction

factor

for plain

25

flap lift [DATCOM8];

use for aileron

of

4
(c6) theory
(per rad_
3

/
0

.1

.2

Figure 3.7
The yawing

moment

.3

.4

Lift effectiveness

coefficient

Cn& is found

.5

of a plain

flap; use for aileron

as

Cn_a = ga CLw Cl_a


where Ka is found from Fig. 3.8. The parameters
independent
variable is the average span location
wing lift coefficient.

(3.11)

are aspect ratio and wing taper. The


of the aileron. The term CLw in Eq. 3.11 is the

k w "" .25'

i_/_

I I!,
1

-_
I

_./

1_2,

I !!f,i j
0

.2,,'

.4
Yl

%12

.6

.8

1.0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Yi

%/2

26

.2

. .4

.6

.It

1.0

.2

.4

Yi

y,

%12

bw/2

.6

.8

B 1Q

1.0

Figure 3.8

Correlation

Constant

To compute
the rolling moment coefficient
data are taken directly from DATCOM:
Supersonic
linear
wing trailing-edge
(using Fig. 3.9):

for Yawing

Moment

for when Mach

due to Aileron

number

exceeds

Deflection.
1.0, the following

theory is used to derive conical-flow


solutions for the rolling effectiveness
of
flap type control surfaces. The theory is based on the following
assumptions

/
/

f
/

\
\

rx,,

\
N

\
\

Figure

5.

3.9

Sketch

of wing flap geometrics

The leading (hinge line) and trailing


(swept ahead of the Mach lines).
The control surfaces
the outermost
Mach
The innermost
chord.

in supersonic

edges

flight.

of the control

surface

are located at the wing tip or are far enough


lines from the control surface from crossing

Mach

The root and tip chords

lines from the deflected

of the control

surfaces

control

surface

are supersonic

inboard to prevent
the wing tip.

do not cross

are streamwise.

Controls are not influenced


by the tip conical flow from the opposite
by the interaction
of the wing-root
Mach cone with the wing tip.

27

the root

wing panel

or

The supersonicrolling effectivenessof plain trailing-edgeflap-typecontrolsis given by

ln=_x--_l

_'TE1_" LnS w "2[-_w T _ 2bw J C Ln]

(3.12)

where

Cl s

is the control-surface
panel,

t_
t

based

effectiveness

on the total wing

is the theoretical
for the following
(a)

rolling

Tapered

of one control

surface

deflected

on one wing

area and span.

rolling-moment

derivative

based

on total control

area

Sf for thin wings

cases:
control

surfaces

with outboard

edge coincident

with wing

surfaces

with outboard

edge not coincident

tip

(use Fig. 3.10).


(b)

Tapered

control

with wing

tip (use Fig. 3.11).


(c)

Untapered
control
(use Fig. 3.12a).

surfaces

with outboard

edge coincident

(d)

Untapered
control surfaces
wing tip (use Fig. 3.12b).

with outboard

edge

Sf
Sw

is the ratio of the total control

area

bf
bw

is the ratio of the total control

span (both

Y.__L/ is the distance


bw

from the wing

(both

root chord

28

not coincident

sides of the wing)

sides

of wing)

to the control

with wing

with

to the total wing

to the total wing

root chord

tip

in wing

area

span.

spans.

1-C__/z)

is a thickness

C1___

correction

factor to the supersonic

4-4(M

2-1)

2(M 2_ 1)2

_b/'E

is the trailing-edge

is the ratio of specific

CI 6

is the lift-effectiveness

(per radian)

angle in radians,

heats,

measured

normal

to the control

hinge

line.

7= 1.4.

of one symmetric,

straight-sided

control.
This parameter
is obtained
from Figs.
and from Fig. 3.14 for controls located inboard
It should be noted
(with the exception

derivative.

(per radian)

(7+l)M
C2=

flat-plate

control,

based

3.13 for controls located


from the wing tip.

that in applying this method the control


of_TE) are measured
in planes parallel

deflection
angle
and perpendicular

on the area of the


at the wing

tip,

and all dimensions


to the plane of

symmetry.
The yawing
function

moment

of Clta

due to aileron

and aileron

deflection

at supersonic

span dimensions.

29

speeds

is found

from

Fig. 3.15 as a

.04
_,,.

_c)

:05

-.4

(per deg)
-.04

-.2_

\
TAN ATE

-.08

I
- TAN

'-.6
A H L

=0

/3
.2

.4

.6

.8

!.0

2kf

.08

.04

(per deg)
0

--2 \2

-.4

TAN ATE

.4 -

-.04

I
TAN AH L
.6

ts

-.08
0

.'2

.4

.6

.8

I .0

Xt

Figure 3.10 [DATCOM]

Roiling moment derivative for tapered control surfaces having


outboard edge coincident with wing tip

30

TAN

AHL

=0
.O4
------=_===.._

(per deg)
0

\
\

-.04

TAN ATE =__

-.08

if

.6

.2

1.0

.8

Xr

.16
TAN AHL
=.6

.12

(per deg)
.08,

".2

.4

-.6
-.04
0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

)'r

Figure 3.11 [DATCOM]

Roiling moment derivative


for tapered control
outboard edge not coincident
with wing tip.

31

surfaces

having

.08 _

......I.... I --1.....

flc_
(per

deg)

/_.4

.04"

flAf

I0

i
.28

INBOARD

CONTROLS

_NN

TAN ANt

__.

.24

.20

C'

fl 16
(per

deg)
.16'

\
\
k

.12

.6\
k

O"

0
2

Figure 3.12 a and b [DATCOM]

Rolling moment
having outboard
with wing tip

32

flAr

I0

derivative
for untapered
control surfaces
edge coincident
(a) and not coincident
(b)

TAN AHL
(a)

SUPERSONIC
- -0.80

tl

SPEEDS
TAN ATE

.14

/j

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

.2

.4

.6

.8

Xf

1.0

TAN AHL

(b)

---0.60

.12

(per deg)

.06

.04

0
0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Xf

Figure 3.13 [DATCOM]

Lift parameter
tip

for deflected trailing-edge

33

flaps located at the wing

TAN AHL
(g)_

0.40

.!0

TXN ATE

-.60

.08-_

_'__.._

-.40 ---(per deg)

.), \

.04 "_

.02 -

Oi

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

Xf

TAN A HL
= 0.60

(h)l

TAN A' l _.

.10"-.60

I
.08 -

--....
l

_cL 6

..40 _/'-

.06-

-.20 ----"1" _"_'_

(per deg)
.04

.02 -

I\
I

00

.2

.6

.4
Xf

Figure 3.13 (cont'd.) [DATCOM]

34

.8

.0

.32

.28

_cL_
(per deg)

.1

0
-! .0

-.8

.6

-.4

-.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

l.o

TAN ATF/fl

Figure 3.14 [DATCOM]

Lift parameters
from wing tip

for deflected

35

trailing-edge

flaps

located

inboard

w
|
..J
=

Io

_ _--_1_'_--.

m.

I
I
I

_.-_..i_',"'_---._

\
\

I
I

8.

/
/

,,

/
/

',
N \
\'_

o --

/
/

K /
/
/
/
21, /
I/
/
/_.
/
,,4 /
.'/
/
/I. /

"

\ \1 _..- _ .o

/.

o0----

/
o

/
/

<

/
r

g
i

I
I

't.,,

_"_'=-7

"-"x"_

f
%

--

.._.

= :--

I _

i
/

',,,
"\
\

\\.,
'\

/"

\ ,0
I _,X,

\,
\

j_

'X

/\
",

,
\

\
\
_l:.l

,,-,,,\

--It|

Figure 3.15 [DATCOM]

Yawing

moment

36

due to aileron

deflection

at supersonic

speeds

3.2.3.2Rudder

derivatives.

Cl& and Cn&. The

The three coefficients

side force coefficient

Cy& = CLav k' Kb (Cl8 / Clttheory)


In Eq. (3.13),
a. CLay

the terms

is found

CLay=

from

are evaluated

deflection

are Cy&,

(Sv / S)

(3.13)

expression:

+ {Aeff2/32/k

/3 = (1- M2) 0.5 or 4(M 2k

ClStheory

with rudder

as follows:

as follows:

the following

2 _cAeff/[2

associated

is computed

2 (1 + tan2Acl2/132)

+ 4} 0"5]

(3.14)

1)0-5

=CLaatM
= CLa (1 - M2) 0.5 for M < 1 or

= 4(M 2 - 1) 0.5 for M > 1.


Ac/2

is semi-chord

Aeff=

sweep

angle.

(Avfl Av) Av [1 + Kvh{ (AvhflAvf)

Av = by 2 / Sv from Fig. 3.2; these


(Avf/Av)

= ratio

(Avhf IAvf)

= ratio

Kvh = factor
b. k' accounts

with and without

for rudder

the fuselage

for relative

deflection

(3.15)

are for the effective

with and without

accounting

- 1 }]

horizontal

tail area.

from Fig. 3.16


tail from

Fig. 3.17

size of tail from Fig. 3.18.

from Fig. 3.19

c. Kb is the rudder

span factor

from Figs.

d. (ClSIClStheory)

is obtained

from Fig. 3.6 as is the case for the aileron

e. ClStheory

is obtained

f. Sv is the effective

3.20 and 3.21

from Fig. 3.7 as before.

vertical

tail area from Fig. 3.2.

37

and flaps.

_'Y_

_"_%,_

Reproduced

Reference

from

A_

by == VERTICAL TAIL
CENTERLINE
2r.

== FUSELAGE

Xv == MEASURED
VERTICAL

DEPTH

.,..
_._

of vertical

rom

tail aspect

TOTH__TO_FTIIE_PANF.L IN THE

..._,._.: o,-+HEBODY
ALONE l

z/,
--

0
0

Figure 3.17

==PA.RAM.ETER
ACC_OUNTING
FOR
n_-bArtv_
I'OSITIONS
OF THE

J
-.2

HORIZONTAL

AND

-.4

Ratio of vertical tail aspect


presence
of fuselage alone

-.6

TAILS

z_/t,v

-.8

ratio in presence

38

2.,

., o.

HORiZONTAL_X_,TAIL
-

"_O
[,

Ir'_'_

I
!

FUSELAGE

.L
I

tail

e---'_

/
/

VER'rICAL

,
to that of isolated

1
.,fir

'

of fuselage

RATIO OF TIIE VERTICAL


PAN,EL
.J
ASPECT RATIO IN THE PRESENCE
OF I
THE HORIZONTAL
TAIL AND BODY
I

4-

TAIL

_/_,_--z
_

ratio in presence

Reference

_,_..,Io.2,o_o! '

^
nv_}

FUSELAGE

OF VERTICAL

f .

Reproduced

_"",.L

IN REGION

FROM

FROMTAPER
FUSELAGE
TAIL
RATIO CENTERLINE
BASED ON SURFACE-

Ratio

MEASURED

== RATIO OF THE ASPECT RATIO OF THE VERTICAL


PANEL IN THE PRESENCE
OF THE BODY TO THAT
OF THE ISOLATED
PANEL

A v

Figure 3.16

SPAN

l
_,
_

.2,

i"

il

CENTERLIN]_

-1.0

of fuselage

and horizontal

tail to that in

Reproduced

from

Reference

8 _

__

Kn y= FACTOR ACCOUNTING
. Vk SIZE OF HORIZONTAL
TAILS

_
f

Sb == HORIZONTAL

FOR RELATIV_
AND VERTICAL

TAIL AREA

SV =" VERTICAL TAIL AREA, MEASURED


FROM FUSELAGE CENTERLINE

br == VERTICAL TAIL SPAN, MEASURED


FROM FUSELAGE CENTERLINE

g_ == VERTICAL
DISTANCE
BETWEEN
HORIZONTAL
SURFACE
ROOT CHORD
AND FUSELAGE
CENTERLINE,
POSITI_
FOR SURFACE
BELOW FUSELAGE
_ENTERLINE

01

Figure 3.18

Factor

which

accounts

for relative

size of horizontal

and vertical

1.0

.6
"20

L.40

I
COPIED

I
FROI_I REF._

0
0

20

40

FLAP DEFLECTION,

Figure 3.19

Correction

factor

for nonlinear

39

60

80

6.t (dcg)

lift behavior

of plain

flaps

tail

|,0

I
!

Kb

I.

0-

Figure 3.20

Procedure

l_o

for estimating

Kb

jS

Kb

,p_

Figure 3.21

.Z

I
,4

i I
.6

.8

i.O

Effect of taper ratio and flap span on Kb.

40

To compute
the roll and yawing moments
due to rudder deflection,
use the geometry
in Fig. 3.22. Here, lv and Zv are the lever arms of the vertical tail aerodynamic
center
to the aircraft c.g.
The coefficient
coefficient

of rolling

moment

Similarly,

the yawing

coefficient)

{ (Zv cos

Cl& is a function

of the side force

moment

a-

coefficient

sin

a)

(3.16)

b } Cy&

due to rudder

deflection

Cn_r

(the rudder

control

stabilizer,

canard

(3.17)

( Iv cos a + Zv sin tx) / b

Figure 3.22
Elevator,

Iv

is
Cn& = --Cy&

3.2.3.3

deflection

Cy& as follows:
Cl&

power

due to rudder

illustrated
with respect

Geometry

for locating

and canardovator

vertical

derivatives.

tail

These

are the control

derivatives
that affect longitudinal
control. The method for computing
these terms are similar
the aileron and rudder terms in that they use the same approach
as used to determine
flap
effectiveness
on a wing section.

to

a. Stabilizer.
Deflection
of the stabilizer
from the trim point causes contributions
to drag, lift and
pitching moment;
the associated
coefficients
are CDih, CLih, and Cmih, respectively.
They are
computed
as follows:
The

drag increment

coefficient
CDih

is

= 2( CLh / lr Ah eh) (CLah)

71h

(3.18)

where

CLh

= lift coefficient

Ah

= horizontal

eh

= 0.5 for fuselage

of the horizontal

tail aspect

tail;

ratio;

mounted

tails

= 0.75 for T-tails;


CLah

= the same

formula

as Eq. (3.14)

applied

41

to the horizontal

tail

//h

= ratio

of horizontal

tail dynamic

pressure

to wing

dynamic

pressure
(3.19)

= [1 - {cos 2 (n: Zh / 2 Zw) } {2.42 (CDow) 0.5 } / (Xh/C + 0.30)]


and
Zh

= x h tan(_

ecl

= 1.62 CLw/_A

ZW

= 0.68 c {CDow (Xh / c + 0.15)} 0.5

CDow

= wing

The lift increment

+ ecl - O_w)

zero-lift

coefficient

drag coefficient
is
(3.20)

Cz,ih = Oh (Sh IS) CLub


The pitching

moment

coefficient

is
(3.21)

Cmi h = - (Xach - Xcg) (S h / S) 77h CLoth


with the lever

arm term

(Xach - Xcg) defined

I_OTE :

in Fig. 3.23.

_ref= xrer/_ E_s


a = xc_/_"
i

x_ h x=______c
h/_"

Figure 3.23
b. Elevator
presented

Definition

of geometric

Control Derivatives.
These
for the stabilizer.
That is,

terms

parameters

are computed

42

for volume
as functions

coefficient
of the terms

just

CD&

= a& CDih

(3.22)

DL&

= oc& CLih

(3.23)

Cm&

O_&

(3.24)

= o_& Cmih

= K b (ClS / ClStheory)

ClS theory (k'/CLah)

(3.25)

(a&L / a&l)

In Eq. (3.25),
Kb is the elevator
(Cl8

span factor

/ Cl8 theory) comes

ClStheory

is derived

k' is derived

from

from Figs.

3.20 - 3.21;

from Fig. 3.6 modified

for the elevator,

from Fig. 3.7;


Fig. 3.19;

CLah is the lift curve

slope

for the horizontal

(a&L / a&l) is the three-dimensional

tail; and

elevator

effectiveness

2.0

factor

1.0J

' I
|

:\

'

|._

\,ll
1.6

.4

"11

a6)C L

.6:

i td,t

from Fig. 3.24..

.2 /,
r

.N I o

.8

1.0

.3 N

|,4

lit..,

1.2

1.0
1.0 0

II

I0

A
Figure
C.

3.24

Effect

of aspect

ratio and flap-chord

Canard Control Derivatives.


These
increment coefficient
due to canard

terms are similar


deflection
is

CDic = 2( CLc / a Ac ec) (CLan)

43

71c

ratio on the 3D flap effectiveness


to those

for the stabilizer.

The drag

(3.26)

Here,
CLc

= lift coefficient

Ac

= canard

ec

= 0.5

Czo_

= the same formula

_7c

=1

The lift increment

of the canard;

aspect

ratio;

due to canard

CLi

The pitching

moment

as Eq. (3.14)

deflection

c =Tlc

due to canard

applied

to the canard

is

(Sc/S)

(3.27)

CLctc

deflection

is

Cmic= - CLac r/c OCacc


+ xcg) Sc/S
Here,

the moment

arm

(Xacc + Xcg) is defined

(3.28)

in Fig. 3.25.
III

_.'0

,_._

5;HC:_t.,,Jk)

C G

Figure 3.25
d. Canardovator.
canardovator

The drag,
are analogous

Definition

lift and pitching

of canard
moments

to that of the elevator

Eqs.

geometric
coefficients
(3.22-3.25).

parameters
due to deflection

of the

That is,

CD&

= a& CDic

(3.29)

CL&

= a& CLic

(3.30)

Cm&

= a& Cmi c

(3.31)

44

3.2.3.4Control
equations
derivatives

derivative

adjustment

subject

to constraints.

In the previous

section,

the

used to compute the control derivatives


have been defined. In most cases, these
are non-linear
functions
of the geometry
of the control surfaces,
the wing or tail

section they are a part of, the aerodynamic


of the surfaces relative to the aircraft c.g.
If the control

derivatives

characteristics

are not large enough

of those

sections,

to meet the air worthiness

and the moment

constraints

listed

arms

in

Section 3.2.1 or the performance


requirements
discussed
in Section 4, then the control surface
geometry
must be adjusted to increase
the derivative
magnitude.
This can be done by increasing
the chord and spanwise dimensions
of the surface, moving the surface further out on the wing, or
increasing
the tail volume. Each of these adjustments
would usually produce
a weight and or
drag penalty, so it is desirable
to adjust the surface effectiveness
only the amount required.
Because of the general non-linear
character of the functions
used to compute the control
derivatives,
it will be necessary
to set up some type of iterative process to change the control
surface geometry
to just meet the control derivative
magnitude
requirements.
The changes that
are taken must be subject to the geometry
constraints
mentioned
in Section 3.1.3. A series of
sizing step computations
should be determined
with the resulting
effects transmitted
to the
computations
3.3

of the aircraft

weights

and inertias.

Conclusion

This section outlined procedures


that can be used to perform a preliminary
design of a variety
aerodynamic
control surfaces. It also presented
formulae
to compute
the control derivatives
required
to derive and analyze the aircraft dynamics
and to design flight control systems.

45

of

Inner Loop Control Design

The main driver for the design of a stability and control module for ACSYNT
is the requirement
that it shall provide
a "hands-off"
or "black box" method to compute
feedback
gains for a flight
control system. This is a very difficult requirement
to meet---even
for a conceptual
aircraft m
because of the wide variety of aircraft a designer
can produce using ACSYNT.
In addition, the
dynamical
properties
of a single aircraft can change significantly
over its flight envelope.
For
example,
in the ten case studies done as a part of this work, six had unstable
longitudinal
dynamics
and one had nonminimum
phase dynamics.
For the lateral/directional
dynamics,
one
aircraft has a roll inertia that changes by a factor of three because
of different
fuel loadings for
the flight

conditions

that were analyzed.

Furthermore,
fielded flight control systems are very diverse. 9 The answers to the questions
of
what state variables
must be measured,
how to generate the required
moments
and forces, and
how the measurements
are used to form actuator commands
vary with aircraft, mission,
and
designer
experience.
In practice, flight control design is an iterative,
man-in-the-loop
process
uses several mathematical
techniques.
Qualitative
judgments
are made at every point of the

that

process.

Deflectionj
Law
Control

Setpoint

Actuator

"1

Aircraft

,._

Dynamics

"

+_

I
I

Sensor

Control

system

Measurement

Figure 4.1:

Response

elements

A flight control system comprises


four fundamental
kinds of elements:
aircraft dynamics,
actuators,
sensors,
and feedback
control laws (Figure 4.1). For the purpose of conceptual
design,
we consider
an actuator
to be an aircraft control surface or vectored
thrust, and the hydraulic
or
electric
servoactuator
that moves it. We consider
the sensor to be a measurement
of the aircraft
state variables.

The following

4.1

Dynamics

Aircraft

subsections

discuss

each of these elements

in turn.

The aircraft dynamics used for the control design algorithm


are derived by linearizing
nonlinear
equations
of motion that include forces and moments
due to aerodynamics,
propulsion
and
gravity. The linearization
is performed
at a constant flight condition,
i.e., at a constant velocity
and angular rate. The result is a set of linear, differential
equations
with the stability and control
derivatives
as coefficients.
Table 4.1 defines the standard nomenclature
used in flight dynamics
and Table 4.2 shows
that aerodynamicists

PtlONIglm

p,_f._

_.ANIK

the significant
stability
seem to prefer.

FK_iED

and control

derivatives

in the nondimensional

form

47
PAGE

.....
_Ni _.:i'_
_iOi,u__,-{ _t.AK4(

Table

4.1:

Dynamics

and control

Forces

Velocities
Perturbed

Steady

nomenclature
Distances

&

Moments

& Angles

Forward

Side

Vertical

Roll

;Pitch

Ig

Yaw

The inner loop control design algorithm


uses dimensional
stability and control derivatives
because the physical units are used for performance
metrics and constraints
and for analysis
simulation.
Table

4.2:

The

significant

stability

Longitudinal

4.1.1

Decoupled

and control

Cnp

Cm

Cy r

Clfl

CD 6

Crau

Cyp

Cll _

CL

Cm a

Cy _

Clr

CL u

Cm_

Cnfl

CIp

CL a

Cmq

C.{j

C L i_

C rna

CLq

CDu

CL 6

CD a

derivatives

Lateral
Cy#

CD

and

llr

Dynamics

Equations
4.1 and 4.2 are the longitudinal
and the lateral/directional
dynamics,
respectively,
in
state-space
form. Table 4.1 shows the definitions
of the state variables;
the tSterms are control
effector deflections.
We use the state-space
form because many computational
algorithms
and
computer
tools use this form and because it facilitates
computer
simulation
of the dynamics.

,co,/00)]lx, ]
dw=

z,, zw
M u M w
0

u0+Zq -gsin(Oo)l[ul+lzs ],
Mq
1

0
0

(4.1)

Y, Y, Y,-.o gcos(eo)gsin(Oo)

iY_A

Y4,

"v 1

L aA L aR

Pl

Np
0
0

N r

_rl,-

(4.2)

t-

I01

The derivation of Equations


4.1 and 4.2 is documented
in most standard
flight dynamics and
control references,
x. 11 The equations
used
to convert
dimensionless
stability and control
derivatives
to dimensioned
stability and control derivatives
are in Roskam 11 and in the
Appendix.
4.1.2

Coupled

Dynamics

Equations 4.1 and 4.2 are decoupled,


i.e., the state variables in one equation
do not depend on the
state vectors in the other equation.
This is the usual case because most aircraft are bilaterally
symmetric
with respect to the vertical longitudinal
plane and because most steady flight
conditions

put the relative

wind vector

in the same plane.

Cross coupling
has two causes. First, inertial cross coupling
occurs
inerfias and differences
between moments
of inertia are significant

when cross products


and the angular rates

of
are high.

For example,
consider
the moment equations,
Eq. 4.3. When a roll moment, L, is applied, a yaw
moment, N, is produced
by the roll-yaw
coupling
in the first and third equations
of Eq. 4.3 and
the nonzero cross product
of inertia, Jxz. When Ix and Iz are significantly
different
as in modern
fighter aircraft, a pitch moment, M, is also produced.
L=15 Ix-l_Jxz

+QR(Iz-ly)-P

Q Jxz
(4.3)

M =(_Iy +PR(lx-lz)+(P2-R2)Jxz
N =l_Iz-l_Jxz

+e Q(Iy-Ix)+QRJxz

Blakeloek
12 shows how to do a simplified
analysis of inertial cross coupling
for a constant
rate. He first assumes
that the steady velocities
P and U are constants
to eliminate
the roll
moment and forward
force equations.
This yields differential
equations
relating pitch rate,
rate,

side velocity

and vertical

roll
yaw

velocity:

gl+Por_=Mww

+M_

+M qq+M

_E

(Iy-Ix]
f + Poq _z

" =N v v +N rr +N p Po+N '_a_a +N _ _R


(4.4)

+Uor-w

Po=Yv v + Yrr+ Y pPo+ Y ,_a#a + Y aR_R

+v Po-Uor=Zww

+Z v_ +Z qq+Z 8Erie

Blakeloek
further simplifies
the equations
by ignoring the control surface
the aerodynamic
side and vertical forces are zero. The latter assumptions

49

terms and by assuming


are very limiting;

Eqs.4.4 can easilybeput into state-space


form andtheanalysisperformedonthatresult.Note
thatall threecontrolsurfacedeflectionsappearin Eq. 4.4,thusmaking thefeedbackcontrol
problemmorecomplex.Blakelockconcludeswith two examples.The first is an aircraft stable
for all roll ratesandthe secondis anaircraftunstablefor a rangeof roll rates.
In addition

to inertial

cross

coupling,

aerodynamic

cross

coupling

occurs

when

the aircraft

rotates

around any axis except the velocity vector, e.g., body axis roll at nonzero angles of attack. In the
derivation
of Eqs. 4.4, Blakelock
assumed that the principle
axes of the aircraft were aligned with
the stability axes. For nonzero angles of attack, the aerodynamic
moments
are caused by the
wind vector, but are expressed
in the vehicle stability axes. The body axes are inclined to the
stability axes by the steady-state
angle of attack. Hence, the moments
can depend on roll, pitch
and yaw angle, e.g., sideslip becomes angle of attack and angle of attack becomes
sideslip at a
90* roll angle. In other words, terms depending
on 4, 0, and V ought to be included
in
Equation

4-4.

The issue of cross coupling raises significant


modeling
and control questions.
Blakelock's
approach
to inertial coupling during a steady roll is a reasonable
approximation
for conceptual
design, provided
the assumptions
hold. Other maneuvers
will require new derivations.
In the case
of aerodynamic
coupling,
the usual stability and control derivatives
may not be applicable
because they are derived at equilibrium
flight conditions,
either theoretically,
or from wind
tunnel or flight data. These flight conditions
usually have the body axes fixed with respect to the
relative wind. In either case, the control design methodology
proposed
in this report applies,
given the correct data to form a linear, state-space
model.
4.1.3

Dynamics of Case Studies Aircraft

Nine examples

from

responses

possible:

Model

Learjet

Roskam

24 (cases

n were used as case studies

Power

approach

at sea level

Cruise

at 40,000

ft at maximum

Cruise

at 40,000

ft at low weight

747 (cases
approach

at sea level

o Cruise

at 40,000

ft

o Cruise

at 20,000

ft

McDonnell

Douglas

Power

Subsonic

Supersonic

of dynamical

weight

4 to 6)

o Power

the range

1 to 3)

Boeing

to determine

F-4C

approach
cruise
cruise

(cases

7 to 9)

at sea level
at 35,000

ft

at 55,000

ft

The data comprise


the geometry
and inertias, and the lateral and longitudinal
dimensionless
stability and control derivatives
for three aircraft at three flight conditions.
The data are listed
the Appendix.
MATLAB scripts were used to convert to dimensioned
stability and control
derivatives
and analyze the dynamics
at each flight condition.
Printouts
showing the poles,
natural

frequencies

and damping

ratios

for the longitudinal

50

and lateral

dynamics

and plots

in

showing
checked

the frequency
responses
in each case are in the Appendix.
The MATLAB computations
with the computations
for one flight condition
for each aircraft that Roskam presented.

Table 4.3 summarizes


the results of the dynamics
analyses.
Six of the longitudinal
dynamics and
two of the lateral dynamics
cases were unstable.
The unstable modes are indicated
by negative
numbers
in the table. A negative
(indicates
an unstable second order mode; a negative
"ror a
negative
phugoid

to indicates
an unstable first order mode. The italicized
entries in case 8 denote a
mode that splits into stable and unstable f'n'st order modes at that flight condition.
Table 4.3:

Dynamical

LONGITUDINAL
Phugoid

parameters

for the 9 case

LATERAL

DYNAMICS
Short

studies

Dutch

Period

Roll

rad/s

11

DYNAMICS
Spiral

Roll

fl

fl

i rad/s

rad/s

Sub.

CASE

rad/s

0.239

--0.0589

1.60

0.567

1.03

--0.0542

0.745

0.0296

0.0906

0.0584

2.82

0.352

1.68

0.0347

0.502

0.00119

0.0854

2.95

0.400

2.27

0.0117

2.27

0.00201

--0.132

0.773

0.617

0.752

0.0973

1.15

0.0431

0.173

1.32

0.355

1.02

0.108

0.508

--0.00536

0.101

0.170

0.0343

rad/s

from Roskam.

0.0682

--0.0272

1.24

0.468

1.05

0.119

0.940

0.0171

0.168

-0.135

0.778

0.600

1.81

0.175

1.11

0.0152

-0.0354

0.0448

2.85

0.222

i2.40

0.0482

1.34

0.0131

0.0268

-0.0740

4.86

0.039

2.46

0.0562

0.782

0.00286

The F-4C at supersonic cruise has unstable or nonminimum


phase zeros in the dynamics;
Subsection
4.4.3 discusses
the implications
of this property
for feedback
control. The fastest
mode in all the case studies is the 4.9 rad/s F-4C short period mode at supersonic
cruise; the
slowest mode is the 0.0012 rad/s Learjet roll subsidence
mode at maximum
weight cruise.
4.2

Actuators

Hydraulic solenoids
or electric motors move the control surfaces of modern aircraft. Each of
these actuators
has dynamics
that can affect control system performance.
Furthermore,
these
actuators
are constrained
to move the surfaces only within rate and deflection
limits. The control
surface limits are set to ensure that maximum
deflection
is within the stall limits of that surface.
Typical acceptability
deflection
is typically

criteria are that aileron deflections


less than 25", while double hinge

51

are less than 25 . Single hinge rudder


rudder deflection
is less than 30*.

Gain

Position limit

Rate limit

command

_I

Surface

I_J_'_b"

i_/i ii - o ,t,on

_1_

Figure 4.2

Control

Surface

surface

actuator

model

Figure 4.2 shows a model of the control actuator used to study flight control system design for a
generic fighter aircraft at NASA Dryden.14 In this model, the actuator dynamics
model is a first
order lag with rate limits and maximum
deflection
limits. Here, the first order lag is modeled
as
an integrator
in the forward loop and a gain of 20 producing
a 0.05 see time constant.
Mathematical
models of actuator dynamics can be quite complex.
actuator
model for a stabilizer with both symmetric
and differential
reports

X-29A

actuators

that have

4th order

deg

Gain

Gain

13

dynamics.
8

+15/-25

Figure 4.3 TMshows the


movement.
Also, Bosworth

Surface
dynamics + 1S/-ZS deg

H left

Gain

8Hc_

,_

24 deg/s
8Hright

Gain

8 Dcmnd_.._._+20/-20

deg

24 deg/s

Figure 4.3

Actuator

model

dS;nffa
ace

v[.._
+15/-25

I ,_,j

"- L-_

"-

_,

deg

for the stabilizer

The important
question for conceptual
design is how much faster or slower is the actuator
dynamics
than the aircraft dynamics.
If the actuator response
is faster than the aircraft response,
the actuator dynamics
can be ignored because it will have only a small effect on aircraft
performance.
For performance
evaluation
by simulation
the complexity
also depends
on the
kinds of control surfaces used, as in Figure 4.3. Consequently,
the code for modeling
the actuator
system must be flexible so that more complex models can be added later as the need arises.
Table 4.4 presents
actuator data from Johnston 9 , Bosworth 13, and Brumbaugh.14
Johnston
presents
an uneven accumulation
of block diagrams
of flight control systems for some recent
aircraft. The figures are derived from a variety of sources and present data ranging from names
of hardware
items to transfer functions.
The slowest actuator is the C-5A aileron with a 0.250 s
time constant.
This converts to a 4.0 rad/s bandwidth
which is slower than the F-4C phugoid
mode, but about three times faster than any of the 747 modes. Most of the actuator bandwidths
reported
by Johnston
and Bosworth
are between
10 and 20 rad/s.

52

Exampleactuator

Table 4.4

model

Deflection

Time
Rate Limit

Constant
Aircraft

Type

0.05

F-4

0.10

F-105

0.07

B-52

0.027

C-5A

0.25

KC-135

0.05

B747
Table

4.5 summarizes

the extreme

values

references.
It shows that the case studies
slowest actuators
we found.
Table 4.5:

Extreme

Elevator

Rudder

+ deg

+ deg

+ deg

20.

30

+15/-25

10

7.5

2.2

30.

17.5

30.

30

37.

20.

25

+17/-23

24.

X-29

values

of airframe
have

and actuator

dynamics

of airframe

and actuator
Slowest
Actuator

Dynamics

Dynamics

rad/s

rad/s

Fighter

4.86

6.0

Transport

1.24

4.0

Sources

Roskam

Johnston

Bosworth

Bosworth

Class

dynamics

at least 20 percent

Fastest
Airframe

Aircraft

Limits

Aileron

deg/s

Gen. Fighter

parameters

found
slower

in these
than the

dynamics

Consequently,
the performance
results for the case studies reported
in this document
were
derived under the assumption
that the dynamics
of the actuators
was sufficiently
faster than the
dynamics
of the airframe
that it could be ignored.
The overall actuator lag should be included
as a design variable because actuator
speed
influences
cost, weight, and power; the control design methodology
we propose can easily
accommodate
different
actuator models by including
additional
actuator state variables
to the
aircraft dynamics.
For flight control system (FCS) conceptual
design, the simple actuator model
depicted
in Figure 4.2 is probably
adequate.
The linear ftrst order lag model can be used in the
gain computations.
Rate and deflection
limits on effectors
are also important
because they, along with position
and
area, determine
the effectiveness
(authority)
of the control surfaces. The effect of rate and
deflection
limits on performance
usually is determined
during simulation
analysis rather than the

53

designanalysis.If the control law


specified
performance,
is one of the simplest
4.3

requires rates or deflections


greater than the limits to achieve a
or to maintain
stability, the control effector sizing must be changed.
This
ways to feed effects on dynamical
performance
back to the aircraft design.

Sensors

The sensors that measure


aircraft state variables
have dynamics,
generate noise, show biases and
bias drift, and suffer from scale factor errors and drift. These characteristics
of sensors are major
concerns
during the detailed design and analysis of flight control systems. Equation
4.5 shows a
general measurement
model, in which b and bd are the bias and bias drift, Ksf is the scale factor, f
andfd are the scale factor error and drift, v is the noise and the rational polynomial
is the transfer
function of the sensor dynamics.

Xmeasurea=K #(1 +f +f a)Xtru e 1+nls+...+nM


1+d 1s+...+dN

sM
sly +b +ba+v

(4.5)

The dynamics
may cause a lag between the measurement
and the aircraft state variable
measured.
Also, very fast (or very slow) changes in the state variables
may not be measurable.
Noise is a random variation
added to the state variable measured.
This can be reduced by adding
a filter, and, consequently,
more dynamics,
to the signal path. Bias is a constant offset from the
measured
state variable and the associated
drift is a slow change in the bias. A feedback
control
system will follow the bias because it assumes that the sensor is correct. The scale factor error
changes
the gain of the sensor, and the associated
drift is a slow change in this error.
All of these characteristics,
while important
during detailed control system design, can be
ignored when designing
inner loop control systems for aircraft conceptual
designs. First, most
sensors and noise filters have a wider bandwidth,
i.e., are faster, than aircraft dynamics.
Second,
noise can and is typically filtered; an excessively
noisy sensor will not be used, or it will be
augmented
with other sensors. A good estimate of a state variable from several sensors can be
obtained
using methods such as Kalman filtering.
Next, the effect on a feedback
system of bias is
so predictable
that modeling
the bias for a design concept is unnecessary.
Bias drifts depend on
the instrument,
the environment
and on age. The effect of bias can be reduced
by implementing
a
bias estimator
in an extended
Kalman filter. Finally, the scale factor error is usually a fraction of
a percent. The effect on the loop gain is negligible.
The results for the case studies
this report were obtained by assuming
the flight sensors are perfect.
4.4

The

FCS

Design

presented

in

Algorithm

The inner loop control design concept developed


and demonstrated
as a part of this work uses the
linear-quadratic
(LQ) control design methodology
to compute
the feedback
gains. The gains
from this technique
depend on the aircraft dynamics
and design parameters
that can be set by the
designer
or loaded from defaults. After the initial design choices are made, the software then
iteratively
modifies
the design parameters
based on the control system performance
to converge
toward performance
specifications
and satisfy constraints
that, again, are set by the designer
or
loaded from defaults. If the control design does not converge,
possible remedies
are fed back to
the aircraft

design.

54

TheLQ

approach

is used for three reasons.

It is a "hands-off"

Stability

Performance

It is a "hands-off"

gain computation.

is guaranteed.
is traceable
method

to the design

for computing

parameters.

feedback

gains

once

the control

design

parameters

are

set. Default sets can be provided


to start the control design process. The stability of the closed
loop system is guaranteed
when the dynamics
is "controllable"
and "observable."
Controllability
and observability
are mathematical
conditions
that are easy to verify. The stability ensures that
performance
metrics can be evaluated
at each design iteration to provide a basis to change the
control design parameters
for the next iteration.
The effect of changes in design parameters
is
clearly traceable
to closed loop performance
in the time domain. This means that the control
design

process

will converge.

The theoretical
foundations
of the linear-quadratic
method are well documented
in standard
references
such and Kwakernaak
15, and Boyd. 16 The next subsection
gives a brief outline of the
relevant
4.4.1

points.
The Linear-quadratic

Method

The objective is to find a feedback


controller
that minimizes
the integral of a quadratic
cost
function that penalizes
large or long-term
deviations
in the state variables
and the control effort.
Mathematically,
the problem is to minimize
the cost functional
(4.6)

subject

to the constraints

=A x +B u
y =Cx +D u

(4.7)

The aircraft dynamics, Eqs. 4.1 and 4.2, are already in the form
depends
on the stability derivatives
and the flight conditions;
the
derivatives.
The vectors x, u, and y are the state variables,
control
respectively.
If the state variables
are the outputs of interest, the
and the D matrix is the zero matrix. If other outputs such'a angle
sideslip angle, and lateral acceleration,
the C and D matrices
are
derivatives,
and instrument
scale factors.

of Eqs. 4.7. The matrix A


matrix B depends
on the control
variables,
and output variables,
C matrix is the identity matrix
of attack, vertical acceleration,
made up of stability and control

Designers
pick the elements of the weighting
matrices
Q and R to achieve the relative deviations
of the state variables
and the control effort that they want; this is an iterative process that uses the
computations
necessary
to solve the optimization
problem
defined by Eqs. 4.6 and 4.7, and a
simulation
of the resulting
feedback
control system. In actuality,
the exact value of the integral
Eq. 4.6 is irrelevant;
what are important
loop frequencies
and damping ratios.
The optimization
on the solution,

are the time responses

of the simulation

and the closed

problem
is solved by using Eq. 4.8 to compute
a gain matrix,
S, of the algebraic
matrix Riccati equation,
Eq. 4.9.

Kr, that depends

55

in

Kr=-R-1BT

O=SA +A TS-SBR-1BTS
This yields

a linear,

full-state

feedback

(4.8)
(4.9)

+Q

law of the form

u=K,.x
For example,

in the case of pitch control

(4.10)

of the longitudinal

dynamics,

Equation

4.10 becomes
(4.11)

_E = k lu +k 2w +k 3q + k 40 + k 5_ O
where the last term in Equation
4.11 is an integral
error and where d_Eis the elevator deflection.

feedback

term added

to reduce

steady-state

Figure 4.4 is a SIMULAB block diagram of an inner loop control architecture


implementing
kind of feedback
law. The Idux block combines
4 scalar setpoints into a 4-vector;
the vector
measurements
of state variables
from the Aircraft block is subracted
from the setpoint vector
form an error vector. The DeMux block splits the vector into 4 scalars that are multiplied
by
appropriate
gains. The pitch error is integrated
and multiplied
by its gain. The results
multiplications
are summed to form the elevator command
for the Aircraft block.

Mux

cnstantl'_L._

Error

nou,,,,

this
of
to
their

of the

K_..

.......

==l x' = Ax+Bu

_B

State Error _

- [y

0.1 rad Step

_.._

in Pitch

ql_Gain

Elevator" I y = Cx+Du F
Command

Aircraft

Pitch
Pitch Gain

Sum
Integrator

Figure 4.4:

Inner

loop control

architecture

Integral Gain

implementing

a linear,

full-state

feedback

law

The solution of problems


such as the optimization
problem of Equations
4.6 and 4.7 and the
algebraic
matrix Riccati equation,
Eq. 4.9, is possible using standard, commercially-available
software
tools such as MATLAB and MATRIXx. Software
that performs
the same functions
may
be available

in NASA's

COSMIC library.

56

4.4.2

Enumeration of the Steps in the Algorithm

0. The inputs from ACSYNT


modules are flight conditions,
stability derivatives,
control
derivatives,
actuator dynamics
and mass properties.
The input from the designer
is the
selection
of a default set of control system performance
metrics to optimize
or constrain
the constraints
or, optionally,
overrides
to some or all of the default set.
1. The ACSYNT
inputs are used to compute
state-space
form. An analysis is performed
frequencies,

damping

The designer

inputs

and R matrices

ratios,

the aircraft longitudinal


to report the stability,

time constants,

are used to initialize

and numerator

the control

in Eq. 4.6) and start the control

design

design

zeros

and lateral
eigenvalues,

dynamics
natural

and
in

of the dynamics.

parameters

(the elements

of the Q

process.

For example,
the default longitudinal
pitch controller
has a pitch integral
state to reduce
steady-state
error. Consequently,
Q is a 5 by 5 matrix, and R is a scalar because the elevator is
the only control. The gains are computed
by using weightings
(elements
of the Q matrix) of 1
on the pitch rate, pitch angle and pitch integral, i.e.,
00000
00000
Q = O01

O0

(4.12)

00010
00001
and a weighting

(design

parameter)

on the elevator

R =Z _+M

deflection

of

2/_

(4.13)

This particular
set of design parameters
have proven to be a reliable starting point for control
design iterations
for the nine case studies from Roskam 11 reported here and for an example
from McRuer. 10
2. Gains are computed
using LQ methods and the designated
or default performance
metrics
evaluated
using a fast simulation.
Seven metrics are important
for inner loop flight control

are

design:

percent

rise time

percent

peak

control

surface

peak

vertical

and lateral

closed

loop natural

closed

loop damping

Figure

overshoot

steady-state

4.5 shows

error
deflection
acceleration

frequencies
ratios

the standard

definitions

for the fwst three

metrics

on results

for one of the

study cases. These results use the default longitudinal


pitch controller
design parameters
described
earlier. The response
is to a step change in pitch of 5.7* at 10 s, the standard
test for
the longitudinal

case studies.

57

Boeinl_747

LO Controller

for Power

Approach

42i .............................
t
_ _................i................_
._ ove.il,,,o4_
il................ i................i................_.................i
i_
!i
i
i ................i...............
s_._s.+,,._

0_
0

[ __i
10

Figure 4.5:

.:_

120

30

Standard

3. If a constraint
is violated
used to determine
which

definitions

i ...........
i................
i................
i.................
i...............
i...............

40

50
Time (s)

for overshoot,

or if an optimum
design parameters

60

70

__
80

rise time and steady-state

90

100

error.

is not yet achieved,


a perturbation
procedure
is
cause the most change in the affected metrics. The

procedure
is to perturb each weight twice (e.g., multiply and divide by 100) and compare
sensitivity.
The program
picks the greatest sensitivity
to satisfy constraints
first, and to
improve the performance
second.

the

4. The program
meets or exceeds the required change by taking a large step in the design
weights and backing off a little. After the new weights are computed,
the optimization
process
continues
with step 2. The iteration history is stored and reported to the designer.
4.4.3

Discussion of Case Studies

Controllers
were designed using the LQ approach for the nine case studies from Roskam 11
described
in Subsection
4.1 and for one example from McRuer 1. The performance
of the pitch
controllers
designed
using the initial design parameters
is summarized
in Figure 4.6 and detailed
results

are presented

in the Appendix.

Figure 4.6 shows bar graphs for the pitch overshoot,


rise time, peak vertical acceleration,
and
peak elevator deflection
metrics. Each graph plots the performance
of pitch controllers
for eight
of the longitudinal
case studies. The feedback
gains for each of the controllers
were computed
using the initial design parameters
in Eqs. 4.12 and 4.13. The cases are numbered
as in
Subsection
4.1. The results show that the initial design parameters
are a reasonable
choice to
start a design iteration because the resulting controllers
are stable and their performance
is
reasonable
for a wide range of aircraft and flight conditions.

58

40

--

30

-1-

, i

I
i

I
10

0
0

Case

0.8

r---!

*P'4

0.6
J

0.4

"_

0.2

t_.
_

7o0

[]

10

Results

I0

Case

Case

Figure 4.6:

4
o

<

10

Case

=0

V-

of the longitudinal

pitch control

case studies

with the initial

choice

of design

parameters
The convergence

of the method

was tested

by determining

the sensitivity

of the controller

performance
to changes in the design parameters---the
dements
of the Q and R matrices.
Figure 4.7 shows the effect on four performance
metrics of changing
only the pitch angle weight.
The aircraft is the F-89 example
from McRuer. 1 Both the pitch overshoot
and the rise time
decrease
as the penalty on pitch angle increases.
To achieve this decrease,
both the peak vertical
acceleration
and the peak elevator deflection
must increase. If there were constraints
on vertical
acceleration
or elevator deflection,
graphs such as Figure 4.7 can show the achievable
minimum
overshoot
and rise time. If the minima were not acceptable,
either the constraints
must be
changed,
or the aircraft must be changed.
The graphs indicate
how much
constraints
and how much to increase
the control surface effectiveness.

59

to change

the

20

6l

15

10

Pitch Angle
_

1.4

1.2

500

500

1000

Pitch Angle

Weight
o

Weight

2.5

=o
<
"_

I000

2
1.5

O.8

.p,,q

>
[]

o.6
I

o.40

1000

500
Pitch Angle

Figuro 4.7:

Pitch

control

0.5
0

1000

Pitch Angle

Weight

performance

500

convergence

as functions

of pitch

Weight

angle

weight

Figure 4.6 shows the results for eight of the case studies from Roskam. Case 9, the F-4 at
supersonic
cruise, is not shown because the controller
performance
for the initial design
parameters
was sufficiently
worse than the first eight cases that the performance
metric values
for case 9 would have been off scale. The dynamics
of the F-4 at this flight condition
are called
nonminimum
phase dynamics
because at least one zero of the transfer function has a positive real
part. The existence
of such a zero limits the magnitude
of the feedback
gains. This is a limit
common
to all control design methods, including
classical,
modern and linear-quadratic
approaches.
The LQ method still yields a stable controller;
however,
the performance
is difficult
to improve

without

modifying

the method.

The classical solution to such a problem is to add a compensation


filter that has poles and zeros
with negative real parts to the control loop. The limit on the magnitude of the feedback gains can
be increased by choosing
suitable filter poles and zeros. The LQ approach can be modified by
adding the compensation
filter to the aircraft dynamics in much the same way that the pitch
integral state was added to obtain the controllers
for the case studies.

60

......._.

AileronGains--..__"_

IL
+ I

Aileron
_

Error

Aileron

DeMux

Command r._.._.._
m
I Command

Difference _

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft

3 dps[_
Zero

Mux
Rudder Gains

_+
Rudder
DeMux

Figure 4.8

Lateral/directional

inner

loop flight

control

Rudder
Command

system

for the Learjet

Model

24

Figure 4.8 shows a SIMULAB block diagram of an inner loop flight control system implementing
an LQ feedback
law for the lateral/directional
dynamics
of the Learjet Model 24. The Mux block
combines
5 scalar setpoints
into a 5-vector;
the vector of measurements
of state variables
from
the Aircraft block is subracted
from the setpoint vector to form an error vector. Each element of
the error vector is multiplied
by two feedback
gains--one
for the aileron, and one for the
rudder--to
form two 5-vectors.
The DeMux blocks split the 5-vectors
into two sets of 5 scalars
each. Each set of scalars is summed;
one sum forms the aileron deflection
command
and the
other sum forms the rudder deflection
command.
Both scalar commands
are combined
into a
2-vector

by a Mux block

and sent to the Aircraft block.

Figure 4.9 shows the performance


results for a Learjet Model 24 turn. The objective is to perform
a 3 deg/s turn with a zero sideslip angle. Figure 4.8 shows a 3 deg/s step in the yaw rate setpoint.
This occurs at 5 s in Figure 4.9. The yaw rate shows a 0.5* steady-state
error and the sideslip
angle is 2.5*. Roskam 6 says that a sideslip angle of less that 5* is "acceptable."
The design
parameters
chosen give a reasonable
error. Adding integral control would

compromise
between sideslip and steady-state
yaw rate
decrease the steady-state
errors to much smaller values.

To achieve these results, only the lateral velocity and the yaw rate state variables
had nonzero
elements
in the Q matrix, and all elements of the R matrix were nonzero.
Specifically,
["

R=BTB=

"

" 2

Y6A'_+L6A,

'2

+N6A,

Y ,_,_Y,_ +L a,L ,_ +N ,_AN'_R


and

61

(4.14)

0.10

00

00000
0

O_

010500

(4.15)

00000
00000

Le_

turn

0
Ix0

a_

:=

-2

t_

..=q

-3

==....-.---.d.

50

__

100

50

Time (s)

100

Time (s)
0

4
D

-5

=o

-10

0
*_

"O

-15

.."4

<

-20
0

50

_
0

100

50

Time (s)

Fi0ure ,1.9
Detailed
includes
responses
4.5

3 deg/s

Time

turn performance

results

for the Learjet

results of the longitudinal


and lateral/directional
open loop frequency
responses,
Simulab block
of state variables,
control surface deflections,

Model

100
(s)

24 at flight

condition

3.

case studies are in the Appendix.


This
diagrams,
Matlab scripts, and time
and performance
metrics.

Conclusion

This section

discussed

how aircraft

data such as flight

conditions,

stability

and control

derivatives,
and mass properties
are used to compute equations
describing
the aircraft dynamics.
Longitudinal,
lateral/directional,
and coupled dynamics
were covered. The section also presented
a method for computing
inner loop flight control system feedback
gains and an algorithm
for
improving
the control system performance.
Finally, the results of applying
this methodology
on
several case studies were discussed.

62

Summary

5.1

Summary

The effort

and Recommendations

summarized

in this report

has specified

the overall

process

to include

the inner

loop

flight control system design module in aircraft conceptual


design using the ACSYNT
program.
It has specified
the methodology
to design the inner loop FCS and to compute
associated
closed
loop response
and dynamic performance
of the controlled
aircraft. It has also pointed out how
shortcomings
of control performance
are accounted
for by modifying
other components
of the
aircraft--particularly
5.1.1
Section
control
module

the geometry

of the control

surfaces.

FCS Design Requirements


2 of this report presented the interface
system design module to the ACSYNT
interface requirements
were discussed.

The user interface

will use default

control

requirements
for adding an inner loop flight
program. Both user interface
and program

design

parameters,

classified

by type of aircraft,

to

promote
rapid design iterations
and to allow aircraft designers
to focus on improving
total
aircraft performance.
A capability
for overriding
any default value can be used to determine
sensitive
the aircraft design is to flight control design parameters.

how

Flight control design requires a mathematical


model of the aircraft dynamics.
ACSYNT
software
modules
must provide
the mass properties,
stability and control derivatives,
and the flight
conditions
used to compute
such models. The control design module must provide ways to
influence
the aircraft design. Two methods for implementing
this are discussed.
Control effector
deflections,
evaluated
performance
metrics, the feedback
gains, and the closed loop dynamics
are
output quantities
5.1.2

that will be of use in either

method.

Control Effector Design

Section 3 of this report outlined the process whereby the ACSYNT


program
could compute
the
geometries
of the control surfaces and the resulting
control derivatives.
The control derivatives
are necessary
inputs to the FCS design process discussed
in Section 4. The control surface
geometry
is necessary
input to computation
of the control derivatives.
Also, this geometry
has to
have certain flexibility
in layout to enable the aircraft to meet air worthiness
and flight control
performance

specifications.

First, considerations
of geometric
constraints
of the wing and tail on aileron, rudder,
design were discussed.
The historic trends in ratios of control surface to wing or tail
areas, chord and span dimension
fractions
are presented
for fighter, business jet, and
transport
aircraft. This is followed
by an outline of the logical procedure
that can be
ACSYNT
to design the control surface geometries.

and elevator
surface
commercial
followed
in

Next, the process required


to compute
the control derivatives,
as based on the DATCOM
method, are summarized
for roll, pitch, and yaw actuation.
It is important
to understand

this

process so that the method used first to design control surface geometries
is set up to produce the
required
inputs for the control derivative
computations.
The air worthiness
constraints
that must
be met in pitch, roll, and yaw control moments
are given as minimums
to be met by the control
derivative
values. This is followed
by a summary
of the DATCOM
process to generate
control

63

derivativesdueto (a) aileronor elevon,(b) rudder,and(c) stabilizer,elevator,canard


canardovator
5.1.3

deflections.

Both

subsonic

and supersonic

computation

steps

or

are given.

Inner Loop Flight Control Design

Section

4 of this report

discussed

the aircraft

dynamics

as the primary

ingredient

in the control

design process,
feedback
gain computation
using linear-quadratic
methods,
a design
incorporating
an LQ method, and the results of a wide variety of case studies.
The dynamics

required

is a composite

of the airframe

dynamics

at the flight

algorithm

condition

of interest,

actuator dynamics
and sensor dynamics.
The section presented
a summary
of actuator time
constants
found in the open literature,
a discussion
of the bounds on the dynamics
of these
actuators
and on the dynamics
of the aircraft used in the case studies and conclusions
on the
relevance
of these bounds to concept design. These results lead to the conclusion
that simple
order dynamical
models for actuators
will suffice for aircraft conceptual
design.
gave a justification
for assuming that the flight sensors are ideal for the purpose

This section
of conceptual

first
also

design.
Next,

control

gain computations

using

linear-quadratic

methods

were described.

These

methods

provide a "hands-off"
or "black box" approach
to the qualitative,
man-in-the-loop
decisions
that
often have to be made during flight control design. The design parameters
in the LQ method-the elements
of the Q and R penalty matrices----can
be related easily to time domain performance
metrics. A design algorithm
that uses this relationship
was outlined.
Finally, this section
presented
the results of some case studies that indicate
that the algorithm
will be effective.
5.2

Recommendations

5.2.1

Work

Immediate Tasks

The next efforts


following
1.

for Further

three

that are required

to implement

an FCS design

module

within

ACSYNT

are the

tasks:

Prototype
the LQ design process for generating
the closed inner loop FCS design. This task
would use a commercial
software program
MATLAB for control system synthesis
off-line
and external to ACSYNT.
The goal is to create a semi-automatic
"black box" procedure
based on the previous
work. The design process would be perfected
added internal to ACSYNT
as a later task. This task would include
a. Develop

and document

the input

scripts

longitudinal
and lateral FCS. These
metrics to drive the design iteration.
produce

the necessary

and templates

before it is permanently
the following
steps:

for designing

inner

loop

make use of the desired closed loop performance


This assumes that ACSYNT
will be modified
to

input variables

and parameters

to drive

the FCS design

b. Use example
stability and control derivatives,
inertias, control actuator
FCS performance
metrics for transport,
business jet and fighter aircraft

dynamics,
and
types to test the

input scripts. Use the FCS design output to test the closed loop performance
aircraft. Develop
the design iteration process to produce the desired control

64

process.

of the
performance.

c. Develop
the logic to direct the FCS design process to account for different
aircraft
dynamics
properties,
mission requirements,
maneuvers,
and user-specified
output
choices. Include the method of specifying
need to change the control authority
(control
surface area, moment arms, etc.), if the closed loop design does not produce adequate
performance.
d. Specify the logic and code for ACSYNT
modification
to compute the control laws and
gains to replace the MATLAB tool and the prototyping process used in steps a-c above.
This would consider use of public domain software modules,
such as those available
from
COSMIC, as appropriate.
e

Develop the algorithms


for computing
the control surface geometry, the control actuator
models, and the interface with the ACSYNT
process for computing
stability and control
derivatives.
Include output logic to produce the necessary
parameters
for input to the FCS
design process developed
in Task 1. These algorithms
would be documented
in data flow
diagram,
hierarchical
diagram,
and pseudocode
form ready for ACSYNT
coding.

Develop the algorithms


for implementing
the FCS design based on the requirements
specified
in Task 1.d. These algorithms
would be documented
in data flow diagram,
hierarchical
diagram,
and pseudocode
form. Where practical,
specific modules available
to
duplicate
the LQ FCS design process would be developed
or delivered
in C/C++ code form.

5.2.2
After

Intermediate Tasks
the above

FCS design
1.

tasks

are complete,

implementation.

These

there are additional


include

tasks

that are required

to complete

the

the following:

Complete
the design of a flight control system performance
metric module (PMM) to test the
output of the FCS design against some desired aircraft dynamic performance
standards.
This
would require providing
the facility to integrate
aircraft equations
of motion, including
action
of the FCS, in response
to selected aircraft guidance
functions.
The output of this module
would be used to verify the FCS works as predicted
by the design process, to judge the
aircraft performance
relative to given criteria, and to determine if design changes are needed
for performance

improvement.

2.

Develop
the technique
within
individual
mission maneuvers

the PMM for designing


optimal trajectories
to conduct
using the ACSYNT-designed
aircraft with the FCS.

3.

Add

to regulate

feedback

from the PMM

aircraft

design

changes

to meet

performance

requirements.
4.

Specify requirements
a cockpit simulator

5.

Expand

the ACSYNT

and performance

for taking the ACSYNT


design including
for man-in-the-loop
testing of the conceptual
reference

criteria

manual

in the aircraft

to describe
conceptual

65

the FCS and PMM


design.

the methodology
design

process.

to include

output

FCS effects

to

References
Raymer, Daniel P., 1989, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach,
American
Aeronautics
and Astronautics,
Inc., Washington,
D.C., ISBN 0-930403-51-7.
Hill, G.C.,

1992, "Improving

Designer

Producu "vi ty, " NASA

Moore, M., and Samuels,


J., 1990, "ACSYNT-Aircraft
Research
Center, Advanced
Aircraft Group, Systems

Gwarmey,
J.D., Hunter, C.G., and Sorensen,
J.A., 1992, "Comparison
Methods
Employed
by ACSYNT
and TASP," Report No. 92121-01,
Incorporated,
1310 Hollenbeck
Ave., Sunnyvale,
CA 94087.

Roskam,

J., 1988, Airplane

Performance
Engineering

and Power
USA.

10 McRuer,

11 Roskam.,

Aviation
12 Blakelock,

Airplane
14 Brumbaugh,

Control

and

Roskam

Aviation

and

Flight Control
revised.

University

I., and Graham,

Press,

Princeton,

D., 1973, Aircraft


N.J., ISBN

Dynamics

Ottawa,

Thrust
Kansas,

Division,

D.E., 1975, "Flight Control Systems Properties


and Problems,
Volume
Compendium,"
NASA CR-2501,
February
1975, Contract NAS 4-1881.

Air

II--Block

and Automatic

Control,

0-691-08083-6.

J., 1979, Airplane


Flight Dynamics
and Automatic
Flight
and Engineering
Corporation,
Ottawa, Kansas, USA.

John H., 1991, Automatic


Control of Aircraft
and Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-50651-6.

13 Bosworth,

Design and
Corporation,

of Stability,

et al., 1978, "USAF Stability and Control Datcom,"


Dynamics
Laboratory,
WPAFB,
Ohio, 45433-0000,

D., Ashekenas,

Princeton

Ames

Design, Part VI: Preliminary


Calculation
of Aerodynamic,
Roskam Aviation
and Engineering
Corporation,
Ottawa,

Characteristics,

Hoak, D.E.,
Force Flight
Johnston,
Diagram

Part VII: Determination

NASA

of Design and Analysis


Seagull Technology,

Configuration
and Engineering

Characteristics:
FAR and Military Requirements,
Corporation,
Ottawa, Kansas, USA.
J., 1987, Airplane

Roskam,

Wiley

Design,

of

TM-103929.

Synthesis
Program,"
Analysis
Branch.

Roskam, J., 1989, Airplane Design, Part H: Preliminary


Integration
of the Propulsion
System, Roskam Aviation
Kansas, USA.

Institute

Controls,

and Missiles,

J.T., 1992, "Linearized


Aerodynamic
and Control Law
and Comparison
with Flight Data," NASA TM-4356.

second

Models

Part I, Roskam

edition,

John

of the X-29A

Randal W., 1991, "An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge,"
AIAA Paper No. 91-2631,
AIAA Guidance,
Navigation
and Control Conference,
12 August
1991, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Also, NASA Contractor
Report 186019, Contract
NAS 2-12722.

15Kwakemaak,H., andSivan,R., 1972,Linear

Optimal

Control

Systems,

John Wiley

Inc.
16 Boyd, S.P., and Barratt, C.H., 1991, Linear
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, ISBN

Control Design:
0-13-538687-X.

Limits

of Performance,

and Sons,

Appendix
This Appendix
contains
the data, MATLAB scripts, and the results of the nine case studies
performed
as a part of this work. The data and some flight dynamics
equations
are presented
the form of photocopies
subsequent
computations.
1. Flight
2.

dynamics

Conversions

3. Dynamical
4.

Boeing

5.

McDonnell

6. Learjet

from Roskam. 1 This is done to establish


a uniform
The following
are the contents of the Appendix.

nomenclature

equations

from

dimensionless

parameter

computation

to dimensioned
and frequency

stability
response

and control

derivatives

scripts

747
Douglas

Model

7. Linear-quadratic
Some of the explanatory
independent.

F-4C

24
control

results

text in Sections

3, 4, and 5 is repeated

69

to make

those

sections

in

for the

more

A.1

Flight

Dynamics

Equations

71
I:_qBGB_qI_I6 PAGE

BLANK

NOT

FILMED

Table

6.4

g0cos81

= -

Development
Derivatives

+ Xu

of the Lonsitudlnal
and Matrix
Format

u +

- Ulq

= - gGsinO

= MuU

+ M T u + M_

--X
Tuu +

I + ZuU

+ MT

Small

Perturbation

Equations

X a + X_E_ E

Zeu

in Dimensional

a)

Z'_u + Zqq

_ + M-_a + Mqq

of Motion

b)

Z_E_ E

(6.72)

c)

+ M_E_ E

Equations

(6.72)

after

taking

(s- xu - xT) u(s)

the

Laplace

Transform:

-x=(s)

g cosele(S)

X_E_E(S)

- ZuU(S)

{s(U1 - z_) - z }_(s)

- (Mu+M T)u(s)

- {M.=s+M_+M

T }_(s)

Equations

{-(Zq

+ Ul)S

gsinel}O(s)

(S 2 - MqS)e (s)

in Matrix

Format

Z_E6E(S)

M6E_E(S)

(1

(6.73)

(6.73)

:
m

mm

u(s)
(s-x

-x T )

-x

LL_

g cos81

_E(S)

-Z

{s(U 1-

- (Mu+ _)

zs) - z )

-{M.s_,+M=+_
u

. =(s)
{-(Zq

+ Ul)S

+ g sing I}

e(s)
6E(S)

(s 2 - MqS)

C_
m

(6.74)
v_

6E(S)
M

v_

Table

6.9

+ Ulr

Development
Dimenslonal

= gcSSl

of the Lateral-Directional
SmallPerturbationEquations
Derivatives
andMatrix
Format

+ Y88

+ YpP

+ Yrr

+ Y_A6A

ofMotion

in

a)

+ Y6R_ R
I
xz

-Alr

LB8

Lpp

+ Lrr

L_A_ A

AI = _

L6R_ R

b)

(6.141)

xx

I
XZ

BIP

= N88

Equations

NT8

(6.91)

after

(sU1 - YS)S(s)

- LsS(s)

-(N 8 + NTs)8(s)
Equations
TsU I - YS)

8 +

(6.92)

N r +
r
N6A6A

taking

the

Laplace

B1 = y---

N6R_R
Transform:

+ S(Ul - Yr)_(s)

+ (s2 - LpS)(s)

- (s2A 1 + SLr)_(s )

- (s2B 1 + NpS)(s)

Matrix

c)

zz

-(SYp + gcosel)(s)

in

-(SYp

Npp

(6.142)

(s2 - SNr)_(s)

Format:

+ gcos8 I)

s(U I - Yr )

(s___l)
B
a(s)

Y6
J

-L 8

s2 - LPs

-(s2A 1 +

SLr)

:.,

L6
I

!
.I>
.L-0%

- N 8- NT8
Note:

-(s2B 1 + NpS)

6:_ A for

aileron

_=_R

rudder

for

response
response

(s 2 -

SNr)

calculations
calculations

a(s)

N6"

(6.143)

A.2

Conversions
Derivatives

PAG_E _,ANK

from

_T

Dimensionless

to Dimensioned

FI__ME_
?5

Stability

and Control

Table

6.3

Longitudinal

Dimensional

- ql s(cDu + 2CDI)
=
u
mU 1

Stability

Derivatives

(sec -I)

IS(Cz + 2Cz )
Xu
XT

Xl

(X

(sec-l)

mU1

Iyy
m

-qlS(CDa

(ft

qlSCCmT

- CLI)
X(x

(sec -2)

sec -2)

MT

(sec -2)
I
YY

- qlSCD_E
Xg E

sec -2

(ft

ft

or

sec-2deg

-1)
qlS_2Cm

qlS(CLu

Mo

2CLI)

.
a

(sec-l)

(sec -I)

2IyyU 1

(sec -I)
mU I

ql S(CLa
Z

qlS_2C m

CDI)
(ft

sec -2)

21yyU I

qlSCL, c
o

(ft

_--.

r_

sec -I)
qlSCCm_E

2mU I
M_E

lyy

(sec -2

or

sec-2deg-l)

qlSCL
Z

qlSCL_E
Z6 E

m
m

sec -I)

(ft

sec -2

ft

or

sec-2deg

-I)

qlSC(Cmu
M

(ft

2mU I

2Cml)

(ft -I

sec -I)

lyyU I

_isc(Cmzu+ 2cmzl)
(ft -I
NTu

sec -I)

IyyUI

CHAPTER

413

Table

6.8

Lateral-Directional

Dimensional

Stability

qlSbC

qlSCy B
Y8

Derivatives

_A

(ft

sec -2)

L6A

(sec-2-2 or
sec
deg -I)

xx
qlSbCyp
Yp

2mUl

(ft

qlSbC6R

sec -I)

-2
(sec

L6 R

xx

sec

(sec-2)

or

-2

deg -1)

qlSbCy r
(ft sec -I)
Yr

2mU 1
N8
ql SC

qlSbCn
I

zz

-2
Y6A

(ft

sec

or

ft

sec

deg -I)

qlSbCn
Y6 A

T8
NT

= ql Sc

-2
-2
Y6 R

Y6 R =

(ft sec
ft

sec -2

or
qlSb2Cn

deg -I)
N

=
P

qlSbC
I

LS=

(sec -2)
Izz

(sec -I)

(sec-l)

21zzU I

(sec-2)
qlSb2Cn

xx
N

21zzUl

qlSb2C
L

=
P

(sec -I)

21xxU 1

qlSbCn6A

-2
(sec

N6A

I
ZZ

qlSb2C
Lr =

21xxUl r

sec

or

-2

deg -I)

(sec-l)
qlSbCn_R
N_R

CHAPTER

-2
(sec

I
zz

see

or
-2

deg -I)

445

A.3

Dynamical

Parameter

Computation

and Frequency

Response

Scripts

The contents of this subsection


of the Appendix
are MATLAB scripts to compute
natural frequencies,
damping ratios and frequency
responses
of aircraft for
longitudinal

dynamics

lateral/directional
The variables
used in
A.6. The eigenvalues
the poles of the system
imaginary,
the scripts
the eigenvalue
is less
eigenvalue.

dynamics
these scripts are created by the scripts listed in Subsections
A.4, A.5, and
of the dynamics
are also called the roots of the characteristic
polynomial
or
transfer function. When the eigenvalues
are real, rather than complex or
return a damping ratio of-1 if the eigenvalue
is greater than zero and +1 if
than zero, and a natural frequency
that is the absolute value of the

The numerical
print outs and the graphs
Subsections
A.4, A.5, and A.6.

P_

eigenvalues,

PAGE i_.ANK

NOT

of the frequency

FMJVIED
79

responses

for each

aircraft

are in

OPEN

LOOP

%Print

ANALYSIS

eigenvalues

%natural
%and

OF

("ev

frequencies

damping

evfcl=eig
[Wnfcl,

AIRCRAFT
flight

("Wn

ratios

LONGITUDINAL

("Z

conditions

flight

flight

DYNAMICS
i,

conditions

2,
i,

conditions

i,

and
2,

2,

3"),

and

and

3"),
3").

(Afcl)
Zfcl

evfc2=eig

] =damp

(Afcl)

(Afc2)

[Wnfc2,Zfc2]=damp(Afc2);
evfc3=eig(Afc3)
[Wnfc3,Zfc3]=damp(Afc3);
temp='NATURAL
temp
[Wnfcl

FREQUENCIES';

Wnfc2

Wnfc3]

temp='DAMPING

RATIOS';

temp
[Zfcl

Zfc2

Zfc3]

%Compute
and plot
%The
input
matrix,
%minus

signs

%directly

so

to

aircraft
Bfc?,
that

the

longitudinal
and the
direct
phase

angles

frequency
response.
term
matrix,
Dfc?,
can

be

have

compared

MA&G.

om=logspace(-4,2,512);
iu=l;
[mgfcl,phfcl]

BODE(Afcl,-Bfcl,Cfcl,-Dfcl,iu,

[mgfc2,phfc2]

BODE(Afc2,-Bfc2,Cfc2,-Dfc2,iu,om);

om);

[mgfc3,phfc3]

BODE(Afc3,-Bfc3,Cfc3,-Dfc3,iu,

om);

clg;subplot(211);
for
io=1:4,
loglog(om,

[mgfcl(:,io),mgfc2(:,io),mgfc3(:,io)]);

xlabel('Frequency

(tad/s)');

ylabel('Magnitude');
if io==l,
title('Longitudinal
Pitch
else

Angle'),
if io==2,

to Angle
else
if

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

to

title('Longitudinal

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Elevator

of Attack'),
io==3,
title('Longitudinal

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Elevator

Frequency

Response:

Elevator

to Forward
Speed'),
else
title('Longitudinal

Aircraft

Vertical
Acceleration'),
end;end;end;
semilogx

Elevator

(om,

[phfcl

xlabel('Frequency
ylabel('Phase

( :, io) ,phfc2
(rad/s)

(deg)

( :, io) ,phfc3

( :, io) ] ) ;

') ;

') ;

pause;
end;

i i- _ _

80

to

OPENLOOP
%Print

ANALYSIS

OF

eigenvalues

%natural
%and

("ev

frequencies

damping

AIRCRAFT
flight

("Wn

ratios

("Z

LATERAL
conditions

flight

flight

DYNAMICS
I,

conditions
conditions

2,
i,

I,

and
2,

2,

3"),

and

and

3"),

3").

evfcl=eig(Afcl)
[Wnfcl,Zfcl]=damp(Afcl);
evfc2=eig(Afc2)
[Wnfc2,Zfc2]=damp(Afc2);
evfc3=eig(Afc3)
[Wnfc3,Zfc3]=damp(Afc3);
temp='NATURAL
temp
[Wnfcl

FREQUENCIES';

Wnfc2

Wnfc3]

temp='DAMPING
temp
[Zfcl

RATIOS';

Zfc2

%Compute

Zfc3]

format

and
short

plot

aircraft

longitudinal

frequency

response.

om=logspace(-4,2,512);
for

iu=l:2,

[mgfcl,phfcl]

BODE(Afcl,Bfcl,Cfcl,Dfcl,iu,

om);

[mgfc2,phfc2]

BODE(Afc2,Bfc2,Cfc2,Dfc2,iu,

om);

[mgfc3,phfc3]

BODE(Afc3,Bfc3,Cfc3,Dfc3,iu,

om);

clg;subplot(211);
for

io=1:4,

loglog(om,

[mgfcl(:,io),mgfc2(:,io),mgfc3(:,io)]);

xlabel('Frequency

(rad/s)');

ylabel('Magnitude');
if

io==l,
if
iu==l,
title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Aileron

else,
title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Rudder

title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Aileron

else,
title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Rudder

if iu==l,
title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Aileron

else,
title('Lateral

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Rudder

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Aileron

Aircraft

Frequency

Response:

Rudder

to
to

Sideslip'),
Sideslip'),

end;
else
if

if

io==2,

iu==l,
to
to

Roll
Roll

Angle'),
Angle'),

end;
else

if

io==3,
to
to

Yaw
Yaw

Angle'),
Angle'),

end;
else,
if
iu==l,
title('Lateral

to

Lateral

Acceleration'),
else,
title('Lateral
Acceleration'),

81

to

Lateral

end;
end;end;end;
semilogx(om,
xlabel('Frequency
ylabel('Phase

[phfcl(:,io),phfc2(:,io),phfc3(:,io)]);
(rad/s)');
(deg)');

pause;
end;end;

82

A.4

Boeing

The contents

747
of this section

Stability

and control

MATLAB

script

MATLAB

eigenvalue,

of the Appendix

are:

data

to form longitudinal
natural

dynamics

frequency

and damping

print out from

script

for longitudinal

print

script

for lateral

dynamics
Frequency
MATLAB

responses
script

of longitudinal

to form

lateral

MATLAB eigenvalue,
dynamics

natural

Frequency

of lateral

responses

dynamics

dynamics
frequency

and damping

out from

dynamics

The stability and control data are photocopies


from Roskam.1
The data were entered into
MATLAB scripts to form the state-space
differential
equations
for the longitudinal
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
scripts, one for longitudinal
dynamics
and one for lateral dynamics,
were written to compute eigenvalues,
natural frequencies,
damping
ratios, and frequency
responses
for the dynamics.
These scripts are listed in Section A.3.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
stability and control derivatives
were done
three at a time by first making each parameter,
stability derivative
and control derivative
a
3-vector-----one
element
for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
using vector arithmetic.
The state-space
matrices
were formed from the appropriate
elements
of each vector.

E.2=Ax +Bu
y=Cx+Du

(A-l)

Equation
A-1 is an intermediate
form for the state-space
equation
that was formed because some
stability derivatives
depend on the derivatives
of the state variables
in the case of the longitudinal
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw
coupling in moment equations
in the case of the lateral
dynamics.
The final form is obtained by multiplying
the first equation of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
The line styles

response
graphs show three traces----one
for each of the three
for the Boeing 747 cases denote the following:

Solid:

power

approach

at sea level

Dashes:

cruise

at 40,000

ft

Points:

cruise

at 20,000

ft

83

flight

conditions.

C6

DATA

FOR AIRPLANE

Figure
C6 shows a three-view
representative
of large wide-body
and control
derivatives
for this

for Airplane
jet-transport
airplane
are

F.
This airplane
is
airplanes.
Stability
presented
in Table C6.

.25_
ES.1339.9

MGC
B.L.491

50'

I00'

ES.3OZ9
ES. li39.9

FRL
W.L. 199.8

_
"C,L-;

Cl

_
2.5

W.L.II6
TL

l'C,;-C_O0 O0

Figure

C6

Three-View

APPENDIX

of

Airplane

634

Table

Flight

Stability

and

Control

(ft)

Density

(slugs/ft

Speed

(fps)

Center

of

Initial

Gravity

Attitude

Geometry

and

(Xcg)

(ft 2)

Wing

Span

(ft)

Wing

Mean

Geometric

Power

Cruise

Approach

(High)

Cruise
(Low)

Sealevel

40,000

20,000

002389

000588

001268

221

871

673

.25

.25

.25

5,500

Chord

2.4

2.5

5,500

5,500

(ft)

196

196

196

27.3

27.3

27.3
636,636

636,636

564,000

(ibs)

(slug

Airplane

Inertias

Area

Ixx B

for

8.5

(deg)

Wing

Weight

3)

Deirvatives

Condition

Altitude
Air

C6

13.7

106

18.2

106

18.2

106

30.5

x 106

33.1

x 106

33.1

x 106

43.1

106

49.7

106

49.7

x 106

.83 x

10 6

.97 x

10 6

ft 2)

Iyy B (slug

ft 2)

(slug

ft 2)

(slug

ft 2)

zz B
I

10 6

.97 x

xz B
Steady

State

Coefficients
.52

.40

.263

045

.025

.263

.045

025

1.76
CL I
CD I
CT
C XI

mI
C
mT I

APPENDIX

635

Table

C6

Stability

Longitudinal

and

Control

Derivatives

Derivatives

for

Airplane

(Cont.)

2
- .09

071

3
+.013

m
u

-1.45

-I. 60

-i.00

-9.0

-4.0

-25.5

-20.5

-33

m.

-21.4

C
m

q
C

-.23

+.13

5.5

4.4

8.0

7.0

7.8

6.6

mT
u

mT
-.22

CL
u

5.67

CL

--6.7

CL .

5.65

CL
q

1.13

CD

.22

CD

.20

.50
0

0
CTx
u

.36

30

.32

CLUE
0
CD6E
C

0
_J

-1.40

-i. 20

0
-i. 30

m6 E

APPENDIX

636

Table

C6

Stability

Lateral-Directional

and

Control

Derivatives

Derivatives

for

Airplane

(Cont.)

-.281

-.095

-.160

-.502

-.320

-.340

C_ B
C_
P
C_

.195

.200

.130

.053

.014

.013

.005

.008

.210

.160

C_A
0
C_6R
C
nB
C

.184
-.222

+.020

-.026

-.36

-.33

-.28

+.0083

-.0028

+.0018

n6 A
C

-.113

-.095

-.i00

-.90

-.90

P
C
n r

n6 R

-1.08

C
YB
C

Yp
C
Yr

Y6 A

.179

.060

.120

Y6 R

APPENDIX

637

%LONGITUDINAL
%Boeing

DYNAMICS

747,

sea

level--power

40,000

ft--high

20,000

ft--low

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

<--fcl
cruise

altitude

<--fc2

cruise

<--fc3

1979,

Flight

I,

approach
altitude

pp.

Dynamics

and

Automatic

Flight

Controls,

616-642

format

short

%Enter

flight

condition,

geometry,

g=32.2;

mass

and

MOI

%gravity

parameters.

(ft/s^2)

theta0=[8.5
rho=[.002389

2.4
2.5]*pi/180;
.000588
.001268];

%equilibriumpitch

Uo=[221

673];

%equilibrium

871

%density

mass=[564000
Ixx=[13.7e6

636636
18.2e6

636636]/g;
18.2e6];

%weight

Iyy=[30.5e6
Izz=[43.1e6

33.1e6
49.7e6

33.1e6];
49.7e6];

%pitch

Ixz=[.83e6

.97e6

S=[5500
b=[196

5500
196

cbar=[27.3
%Enter

%wing

27.3];

steady-state
.52
.045

CTxi=[.263

-.09

product

of

area

(ft^2)

%wing

span

(ft)

%mean

geometric

Cmad=[-3.3

-9.0

Cmq=[-21.4
0

CmTa=[0

control

derivatives

-20.5];

0];
0];

CLu=[-.22

-.23

CLa=[+5.67
CLad=[6.7

+5.5
+4.4];
8.0
7.0];

CLq=[5.65

7.8

6.6];

CDa=[I.13

.50

.20];

CDu=[0

.22

CTxu=[0

0];

CLde=[.36
CDde=[0

.30
0];

+.13];

0];

Cmde=[-l.40

.32];

-1.20
0

derivatives.

-i.00];

0];
0];

-1.30];

%No

numbers

in

Roskam

%No

numbers

in

Roskam

dimensioned

stability

and

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;

88

ft^2)
ft^2)

inertia

chord

control

-4.0];

-25.5

CmTu=[0

and

+.013];

-1.60

%Compute

(slug

.025];

Cma=[-l.45

inertia

ft^2)

(slug

.025];

stability

(ft/s)

(slug

inertia

0];

Cmu=[.071

CDq=[0

inertia

coefficients.

dimensionless

CDad=[0

speed

0];
0

(deg)

(ibs)

.40];

.045

CmTI=[0

%cross

196];

CDI=[.263

%Enter

.97e6];

27.3

%yaw

5500];

CLI=[1.76

Cml=[0

%roll

angle

(slug/ft^3)

(ft)

(slug

ft^2)

Xu

=-qbar.*S.*

XTu=
Xa

(CDu+2*CDI)

. / (mass.*Uo)

qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)

Zu

*S. * (CDa-CLI)
r. So *CDde./mass
---qbar. S.* (CLu+2*CLI)

Za

=-qbar.

---qbar.

./mass;
;

Xde=-qba

S.*

Zq

. / (mass.*Uo)

(CLa+CDI)

./mass;

S.*CLad.*cbar.

Zad=-qbar.

./(mass.*Uo);

/ (2*mass.*Uo)

=-qbar.

S. *CLq. *cbar.
/ (2*mass.*Uo)
Zde=-qba
r. S. *CLde./mass;
Mu = qbar. *S.*cbar.*(Cmu+2*Cml)./(Iyy.*Uo);
MTu =

qbar.*S.*cbar.*(CmTu+2*CmTl)./(lyy.*Uo);

Ma

qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cma./Iyy;

MTa=

qbar.*S.*cbar.*CmTa./Iyy;

Mad=

qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo);

Mq
=
Mde=

qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmq./(2*Iyy.*Uo);

qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cmde./Iyy;

%Compute
Afcl=

dynamics

for

[
Xu(1)+XTu(1)

-g'cos

(theta0
(theta0

Efcl=

[
1
0

Za (i)/Uo

(i) ; Zde

(I)

Ma (I)/Uo
0

(i)

Uo (I) +Zq

(I) ;Mde

(i) +MTa

form.

(I)

i];

(1) /Uo

(I)/Uo

(I)

Mq(1)
1

(i) ; 0] ;

l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)
-Mad

state-space

in

(i))

0
];
[Xde

(i))

Mu (i) +MTu

Bfcl=

condition

Xa(1)/Uo(1)

Zu(1)
-g'sin

flight

(1)

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfcl=[

i/Uo(1)

Afcl(2,:)-[0

0 Uo (i)

0]

];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1);
%Compute

dynamics

for

flight

condition

Afc2=[

89

in

state-space

form.

Xu (2) +XTu

Xa (2)/Uo

(2)

-g'cos

(theta0
Zu (2)

-g'sin

(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)

0
];
Bfc2=

[Xde

Efc2=

(2)

(2))

(2) ; Zde

Za (2) /Uo (2)

Uo (2) +Zq

Ma(2)/Uo(2)+MTa(2)/Uo(2)
0

Mq(2)
1

(2) ;Mde

(2)

(2) ; 0] ;

l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)

0
0

-Mad(2)/Uo(2)

1
0

0
1

];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[
0

i/Uo(2)

Afc2(2,

:)-[0

0]

0 Uo(2)

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=

dynamics

for

flight

condition

in

state-space

form.

[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)

-g'cos

(theta0

Zu(3)
-g'sin

Za (3)/Uo

(theta0
(3))
Mu (3) +MTu (3)

0
];
Bfc3

= [Xde

Efc3=

[
1
0
0

(3) ; Zde

(3)

Uo (3) +Zq

Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)
0

(3) ;Mde

(3) ; 0] ;

l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)
-Mad(3)/Uo(3)

0
1

0
0

0 0
];

Xa(3)/Uo(3)

(3))

0 1

Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;

9O

Mq(3)
1

(3)

0
0

%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc3=[
0

0
1

I/Uo(3)
0

0
0

0
0

Afc3(2,:)-[0

0 Uo(3)

0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,1)=Bfc3(2,1);

91

%LONGITUDINAL
%Boeing

DYNAMICS

747,

sea

RESULTS

level--power

40,000

ft--high

20,000

ft--iow

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

E I GENVALUE

evfcl

<--fcl
cruise

altitude

cruise

Dynamics

and

Automatic

616-642

-4.7750e-01+

6.0834e-01i

-4.7750e-01-

6.0834e-01i

2.2462e-02+

1.6854e-01i

2.2462e-02-

1.6854e-01i

evfc2

-4.6988e-01+

1.2370e+00i

-4.6988e-01-

1.2370e+00i

-5.9712e-03+

3.3808e-02i

-5.9712e-03-

3.3808e-02i

evfc3
=
-5.8206e-01+

1.0971e+00i

-5.8206e-01-

1.0971e+00i

1.8563e-03+

6.8193e-02i

1.8563e-03-

6.8193e-02i

NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
7.7336e-01
1.3232e+00

1.2420e+00

7.7336e-01

1.3232e+00

1.2420e+00

1.7003e-01

3.4331e-02

6.8218e-02

1.7003e-01

3.4331e-02

6.8218e-02

6.1744e-01

3.5510e-01

4.6866e-01

6.1744e-01

3.5510e-01

4.6866e-01

-1.3210e-01

1.7393e-01

-2.7211e-02

-1.3210e-01

1.7393e-01

-2.7211e-02

DAMPING

<--fc2
<--fc3

1979,

Flight

I,

approach
altitude

RATIOS

92

Flight

Controls,

:0[
III

[0[
I

IIII

tO[

o0[
I

III

i|

vO[

l i |

[OI
|

Ill

_0(
l

00_--

",

- OOI_,

,__---------._....''":

.................

Ct_

.......

- OOI
Ox_

Ill

,,,,, , , , ,

os!mD opm!llV

.....

,,i,.,.,..,..,....."

00_
OOE

,,,"

""'

' ' ' '

""'

' ' ' '

""'

' ' '

A_Oq pug q_!H ptm 'q:3_o.tdd V _oh_Od :Lt'L _u!oo_

'

(s/p._) ,_ouonboz_I
_OI

[0[

oOI

t-OI

r-O[

vO[

t,-O[

:-OI
......

.............................

......................

.....'"

""

_OI _

--

m
u

4111

alfred

IIIl

qol!d ol

III

aOlehOl.'q

:osuodso}l

IIII

_:_uonbo.t_I

IIII

1J_.I:).I.IV

III

FuTPmTguo'-I

---

t,O[

Longitudinal

101

10 o

Aircraft, Frequency

,,,,,,,,,
,
...........................

Response: E!evator to ,An_g!e,of Attack

,,,.,,,,,
__..-..-...:
......'i
i ..'

"-

,,
"""

,,,,,_

---'-'---==''",,.

-:

..<.

<<-,

10-1_

";c.

-=
<;..
%',
%%.

10_2_

%'_"

10-3 ==
B

10-4
10-4

till

IIII

10-3

10-2

IIII

10-1

Frequency
200

IIII

IIII

10 0

Ill

101

10 2

(rad/s)

Boe!ng 747: Power Apprga, ch,, ,,a_,dH!gt}, ,_,d,,Lgw Alt{tu@, C,,ruise,


4

100

II

.,

em

0
"%

o_

I p

"-:,

,,

-100 -200
10 4

"''_

".._.x
N.

IIII

10-3

IIII

10-2

IIIII

10-1

Frequency

IIIII

10 o

(rad/s)

...;"

Illl

101

III

10 2

zOI

tOI

III

IIII

III

z-O[
,,,,,,,

t-OI

oOI
I

IIII

, ,

c-OI
,,,,,,,

, ,

_-OI
00_;- OOI-

''',..

........................

-0

-'"

Cx.

- OOI

III

Jill

IIII

as[.ruD aPm!llV

IIII

IIII

III

00_;

V _a_Od :L_L g_ao_[

_o"I ptre tl_!H ptre 'q_o:tdd

(s/pe:O _ouonbo_[
:OI

tO[

III

oOI

IIII

III

_-0[
I

:-0[

IIII

1,-0I
_-OI

c-OI

IIII

III

z-OI
=
--

',4 ;_.
_:_,

ca.
t_
_

-:fi

,,..-

II

III

paad S pxe,_..[o d ol IOll_AO[.q

II

:ostIodsa_/[3uanbaa

................

III

d ljeioi[.V

III

l-eu[.png._uo'-I

=
=

_,OI
LOI

(s/pea)

zOI
III

IIII

t-OI

o0[

[OI
I

III

ouonboId

IIII

z-O[
I

IIII

_-0[
I

III

%
%
%
%

-oo:-

......

.............

.....

-0

,.
"'..

''...
III

IIII

os!mD

opnl!lIV

fill

_oq

...................
I

pn_

q_!H

(s/p_)
zOI

tOI

o0[

,,,,,
III

,,,,,,

IIIII

pn_

'qogo_dd

Illl

V .lO_Od

IIII

'

:L_L _u!ool_I

00_

ouonbo_d
t-OI

....

."
I

z-OI

,,,,,,

o ,

c-OI

,,,,,,

,,,,,,

l,-OI
,

-,Z;-Ut
-

...

.-

o..

..'

-'..-..
.

......

....

.'

--

_0[

/"

...

".%

_s

.s_"

s 't

uo!l_.tOlOOOV IVOmOA ol .I0113A0[_ :OSUO

. UO"I

l,O[

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%Boeing
%

747,

sea
level--power
40,000
ft--high

20,000

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

altitude

cruise

short

%Enter

flight

Dynamics

and

Automatic

Flight

condition,

2.4

rho=[.002389
871

geometry,

mass

and

%density

.001268];

636636
18.2e6

18.2e6];

%roll

Izz=[43.1e6

49.7e6

49.7e6];

%yaw

.97e6

196

196];

cbar=[27.3

27.3

%Transform

relevant

for

ifc=l

27.3];
inertias

from

speed

inertia

(slug

product

of

%wing

area

(ft^2)

%wing

span

(ft)

%mean

geometric
frame

to

Tba2sa--

(ifc)

(ang)

^2

sin

(ang)

^2

-sin

(2*ang)

sin

(ang)

^2

cos

(ang)

^2

sin

(2*ang)

sin

(2*ang)

cos

(2*ang)

/2

-sin

(2*ang)

/2

];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx

[Ixx

(ifc)=Isa
(ifc)

; Izz (ifc)

; Ixz (ifc)

] ;

(i) ;

Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz

(ifc)
;

=Isa

(3) ;

end;
%Enter

steady-state

CLI=[1.76

.52

CDI=[.263

.045

CTxi=[.263
Cml=[0

CmTI=[0
%Enter

.40];
.025];
.025];

0];
0

0];

dimensionless

Clb=[-.281
Cip=[-.502
Cir=[.195

-.095

Cldr=[0
Cnb=[.184
Cnp=[-.222

stability

and

control

-.160];

-.320
-.340];
.200
.130];

Clda=[.053

Cnr=[-.36

coefficients.

.045

.014
.005

.013];

.008];

.210
.020
-.33

.160];
-.026];
-.28];

97

inertia

stability

[
cos

ft^2)
ft^2)

chord

:3,

ang=theta0

(ft/s)

(slug

inertia

body

(deg)

(ibs)

%cross

.97e6];

5500];

angle

(slug/ft^3)

%weight

636636]/g;

Ixx=[13.7e6

5500

parameters.

%equilibrium

673];

Ixz=[.83e6

MOI

%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibriumpitch

2.5]*pi/180;

.000588

mass=J564000

b=[196

Controls,

g=32.2;
theta0=[8.5

S=[5500

<--fc3

616-642

format

Uo=[221

ft--low

<--fcl
<--fc2

cruise

1979,

Flight

I,

approach
altitude

derivatives.

(slug

(ft)
frame.

ft^2)

Cnda=[.0083
Cndr=[-.ll3

-.0028
-.095

Cyb=[-l.08

-.90

Cyp=[0

0 0];

Cyr=[0

Cyda=[0

0];

Cydr=[.179

.060
0

%Compute

-.90];

0];
0

CnTb=[0

.0018];
-.i00];

0];

.120];
%No

numbers

dimensioned

in

Roskam

stability

and

derivatives

control

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;
Yb

qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;

Yp

qbar.*S.*b.*Cyp./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yr

qbar.*S.*b.*Cyr./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yda=

qbar.*S.*Cyda./mass;

Ydr=

qbar.*S.*Cydr./mass;

Lb

qbar.*S.*b.*Clb./Ixx;

Lp

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clp./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lr

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clr./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lda=

qbar.*S.*b.*Clda./Ixx;

Ldr=

qbar.*S.*b.*Cldr./Ixx;

Nb

qbar.*S.*b.*Cnb./Izz;

NTb =

qbar.*S.*b.*CnTb./Izz;

Np

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);

Nr

qbar.*S.*(b.^2)

.*Cnr./(2*Izz.*Uo);

Nda =

qbar.*S.*b.*Cnda./Izz;

Ndr=

qbar.*S.*b.*Cndr./Izz;

%Compute

dynamics

Afcl=

g'sin

(theta0
(i))
Lb(1)/Uo(1)

for

flight

Yb(1)/Uo(1)

(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)
0

0
];

condition

Yp(1)

Yr(1)-Uo(1)

Lp(1)

Lr(1)

Np(1)
1

Nr(1)
0

Bfcl=[
Yda(1)

Ydr(1)

Lda(1)

Ldr(1)

Nda(1)

Ndr(1)

0*ones(2,2)

];
Efcl=

[
1

0
0
0

-Ixz(1)/Izz(1)
0
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)

];

98

in

state-space

g'cos

(theta0

form.

(i))

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

angle

angle

matrix

Cfcl=

and

direct

input

matrix.

I/Uo(1)

AfcI(I,

:)+[0

0 UO(1)

-g

0]

];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl

(4, : ) =Bfcl

%Compute

(i, : ) ;

dynamics

for

flight

condition

Afc2=

[
(2)

Yp(2)

Yr(2)-Uo(2)

g'sin

(theta0
(2))
Lb (2)/Uo
(2)

Lp(2)

Lr(2)

Np(2)
1

Nr(2)
0

Yb(2)/Uo

(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0

0
];
Bfc2=

[
Yda(2)

Ydr(2)

Lda

(2)

Ldr

(2)

Nda

(2)

Ndr

(2)

0*ones

(2,2)

];
Efc2=[
1

0
0
];

0
0

1 0
0 1

-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)

-Ixz(2)/Izz(2)

0
0

Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)

99

in

state-space

form.

g*cos(theta0(2))

Afc2(l,

0 Uo (2)

:)+[0

-g

0]

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2
Dfc2

(4, : ) =Bfc2

%Compute
Afc3-g'sin

(i, : ) ;
for

dynamics

[
Yb(3)/Uo
(theta0

flight

(3)

Yp(3)

Yr (3)-Uo

(3)

(Nb (3) +NTb

(3))/Uo

(3)

0
0
];

Lp(3)

Lr(3)

Np(3)
1

Nr(3)
0

(3)

Lda(3)
Nda (3)

0*ones

Ydr

(3)

Ldr(3)
Ndr (3)
(2,2)

];
Efc3=

[
1

0
-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)

0 -Ixz(3)/Izz(3)

];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc3=[
I/Uo(3)

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

Afc3(l,

:)+[0

0 Uo(3)

-g 0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,

(3)

state-space

g'cos

0
0
0
o

[
Yda

in

(3))

Lb(3)/Uo

Bfc3=

condition

:)=Bfc3(l,:);

tO0

(theta0

form.

(3))

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%Boeing

747,

RESULTS

sea

level--power

40,000

ft--high

20,000

ft--low

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

E I GENVALUE

evfcl

<--fcl
cruise

altitude

cruise

Dynamics

and

Automatic

Flight

616-642

=
0

-i.1493e+00
-7.3124e-02+

7.4809e-01i

-7.3124e-02-

7.4809e-01i

-4.3081e-02
evfc2

=
0

-5.0778e-01
5.3563e-03
-i.0998e-01+

1.0144e+00i

-I.0998e-01-

1.0144e+00i

evfc3

=
0

-9.3977e-01
-1.7097e-02
-1.2491e-01+

i0437e+00i

-1.2491e-01-

1.0437e+00i

NATURAL

FREQUENCIES
0

1.1493e+00

5.0778e-01

9.3977e-01

7.5165e-01

5.3563e-03

1.7097e-02

7.5165e-01

1.0204e+00

1.0511e+00

4.3081e-02

1.0204e+00

1.0511e+00

DAMPING

RATIOS
NaN

1.0000e+00
9.7284e-02

<--fc2
<--fc3

1979,

Flight

I,

approach
altitude

NaN
1.0000e+00
-l.0000e+00

NaN
1.0000e+00
1.0000e+00

9.7284e-02

1.0778e-01

1.1883e-01

1.0000e+00

1.0778e-01

1.1883e-01

101

Controls,

10 2

II

II

Later_

Aircraft
I

Frequency,

IIII

Response

i Aileron
I

II1!

i IIII

to Sideslip
I

IIII

IIIII

II_

i III

10 -1
--__.--.

10 -4
m

10-7

10 -4

I IIII

I IIII

10-3

I IIII

10-2

Boeing

"1 ...............

747: Power
I

L-L-.I.,L_

..

Ap,proach,
I

"_-"_"'%

101

and H!gt_, ,ar_,dLow Altitude

IIII

........

..

10 2

(rad/s)

. .

C,,ruise,

Ill

I
"'",

10 0

-100 -

10-1

Frequency
0

-200 -300 -

""'",.o..

'''''''......

-400
10-4

I IIlll

10-3

Itlll

10-2

I I Iill

10-1

Frequency

IIIII

10 0

(rad/s)

........................

IIIll

101

I Ill

10 2

10 4

Response:
_!e , , ,,,,,,__
, , ,,,,Lateral,Aircraft
,,,,,,, Frequency
, , , .,,,,,
, , Ai!erontoRol!,An,
,

101

10 .2

IIIll

Illll

10-3

I Illl

10-2

Boeing 747: Power Aooroach,


1

" " I -'1

" I " I "1' i 'l'

.L._..

IIIII

Illll

10 0

I I Ill

101

10 2

(rad/s)

and High and Low Altitude Cruise


II

ill

III

_..............
s...

150 l-

10-4

-100

-200

10-1
Frequency

,_

_'_'_

""..._

..s-

,:_
i

I11111

10-3

II1

10-2

,,llll

111111

10 o

10-1

Frequency

(rad/s)

I11

101

III

10 2

(s/p_a) 3uonbo:td
[0[

zO[
ill

[[]

.............................................

I1[

...

-0[

z-O[

[-0[

o0[

III

]1][

III

- 00_5- a
t_

-0
%%
%

iltt

IIII

oszn.E)

III

opnlt.lIV

IIIII

IIIIII

q_!H pLm 'q:)_oIdd

h_o"I peg

IIII

V .Ioh_o(:[ :L_'L

OOZ;

_u!ool]

_,-0[
[-0[
zO[
_0[
..
.,_
::1:1

II

o[_W ,_X

Ill

It

ol uo.ml!V :asuodsa/t

II

II

_:_uanba_tt g_a_a!V I_alwI

- sO[

(s/p_s) ._3uonbo:[_[
_0[
III

oOI

tO[
I

IIII

III

IIII

vO[

vO[

t-O[
I

IIII

III

''''''',.,%

00[t_

0
__

....

_Dw

00[
.-...

.....
.......

Ill

flit

IIII

llll

It

ost.mD opmt.llV A_O'I ptm q_t.H ptre 'q3go;tdd

I I

. ..........
I

,_.,
I

..........
III

00_

V ;toa_od :Lt'L _m.oofl

(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo:td
[0[

_0[
Ill

IIII

o0[
I

IIII

t-O[
I

IIII

:-0[
I

IIII

_-0[
I

IIII

:-0[

_
-_-III

-.
I

till

UOI.lglO[O::)::) v

IIIII

[I_IOlW" I O1 lIOIO[.I v

IIII

:OSIIOdSO_[

IIIII

,_3uo[lbo.I_

_glOa.t

Ilill

|glOlW"

--

1,0[

(s/p_)

zO[
Ill

_OI
I

llll

_ouonbo_d

o0[
I

III

t-O[
I

IIII

z-OI
I

IIII

_-0[
I

III

- OOI0
- 00[
"'-...
"''''.

III

IIIII

IIIII

IIIII

lilll

osz.ruDopm!lIV _oq pu_ q_z.H pu-e 'q_oIdd

.........................

IIIII

00_;

.zo,_Od :L_L _u!ooE[

(s/peI) _uonboI:I
zOI
III

tOI
I

IIII

oOI
I

III

_-OI
I

IIII

z-O[
I

IIII

_-0[
I

III

z-OI _.
-

.....

TII

fill

IIII

llll

=:.:.'_ .........................................................

IIII

IIII

Ct!lsoP!S ol aoppn_I :osuodso8 13uonboa_I 1Jeaoa.tV l_aOl_'I

I_,
t_

tOI

10 6

II

Lateral

Ill

Aircraft

I III

Fre,quencT, Response:

Rudder
I

III

to Rol! ,An,_!e

I.L

10 3
_-ka

"_

10
10-3

10-6

illl

10-4

10-3

IIII

I III

, ,Boe!ng 747: Power

10-1

10-2

Frequency
200

IIII

10 o

III

I II

101

10 2

(rad/s)

Approach,,,,a_, d H!gh, ,aI_,d,Low Alt!m, de C,,ruise,


I

I I I

100

#.

0
-100
-200
10-4

III

10-3

IIIII

10-2

IIIII

10-1
Frequency

IIIII

10 o
(rad/s)

IIIII

101

III

10 2

(s/puz) ouonbo_I
III

Ill

o0[

[0[

_0[
I

IIII

llli

III

[-0[
I

IIII

IIII

OSTmDopm!_IV _o"I pu_ _!H

zO[

[0[

o0[

III

IIII

pu_

z-O[
I

IIII

'qo_o.[dd

[-0[

IIII

IIII

[-0[
I

III

.[oA_Od:L_L _u!oo_[

z-O[

I I I

t,-0[

IIII

00_7--

00[

[-0[

III

t-O[
_-0[
I

z-O[

tO[ _.
1,0[
_,,,,,

,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,,,
, ,
,,,,,, i , ,
'""''
o[_uV ,_,sA ol zoppn_[ :osuodso_[ Aouonbo_[ U_:[o.-,TVI_:[o_._"I

'

'

= z.O[

tO[
III

o0[

IIII

[-OI

Jill

:-0[

IIII

_-0[

IIII

II1|

- 00E- 00E:L

.i.i.i.iiiiiiii
ill

IIII

as.truD

III

apnlt.l[V

"

"

"

O'Q

- 00I-

I.

A_o"I ptm q_t.H ptm 'q::moldd V IaA_Od :L17L _u[.ooI]

(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo&I
_:0[
II

[0[
I

III

o0[
I

III

[-0[
I

I|1

vO[
I

III

t,-OI
o0[

_-0[
I

III

[0[
_

"_..----77

--

-_-I

"._
t."
L ',1."

IIII

uo.qeaoiooo

III

:0[

_--

V ieaoJ, w-I o) aoppn'_I

III

:osuodso_I

till

Aouonboa_I

1jeao_V

III

I_aoJ,e"I

_0[

A.5

McDonnell

The contents
Stability

Douglas

F-4C

of this section
and control

MATLAB

script

MATLAB

eigenvalue,

of the Appendix

are:

data

to form longitudinal
natural

dynamics

frequency

and damping

print out from

script

for longitudinal

print out from

script

for lateral

dynamics
Frequency
MATLAB

responses
script

of longitudinal

to form

lateral

dynamics

MATLAB eigenvalue,
dynamics

natural

Frequency

of lateral

responses

dynamics

frequency

and damping

dynamics

The stability and control data are photocopies


from Roskam.1 The data were entered into
MATLAB scripts to form the state-space
differential
equations
for the longitudinal
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
scripts, one for longitudinal
dynamics
and one for lateral dynamics,
were written to compute
eigenvalues,
natural frequencies,
damping ratios, and frequency
responses
for the dynamics.
These scripts are listed in Section A.3.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
stability and control derivatives
were done
three at a time by fh'st making each parameter,
stability derivative
and control derivative
a
3-vector----one
element for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
using vector arithmetic.
The state-space
matrices
were formed from the appropriate
elements
of each vector.

E.Cc=,Ax +Bu
y =Cx +D u

(A-l)

Equation
A-1 is an intermediate
form for the state-space
equation
that was formed because some
stability derivatives
depend on the derivatives
of the state variables
in the case of the longitudinal
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw coupling
in moment equations
in the case of the lateral
dynamics.
The final form is obtained by multiplying
the fh-st equation
of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
response
graphs show three traces----one
The line styles for the F-4C cases denote the following:
Solid:

power

Dashes:

subsonic

approach

Points:

supersonic

cruise
cruise

at sea level
at 35,000
at 55,000

ft
ft

111

for each of the three

flight conditions.

C5

DATA

FOR

AIRPLANE

Figure
C5
presents
a three-vlew
for Airplane
E.
This airplane
is representative
of a supersonic
fighter-bomber
airplane.
Stability
and control
derivatives
for this airplane
are given
in Table C5.
.25_
ES. 509. 2

MGC
B.L. 88.4

5'

I0'

20'

ES.178.3
_

F_,z22 \
w.L.s,.4
"_ \

W.L.67.6

F.s.3ogz
I

._-

,._
71

Zero W.L.
1"4

5.25

I=t

Figure

C5

Three-View

APPENDIX

of Airplane

625

Table

Flight

C5

Stability

and

Control

Derivatives

Condition

Air

(ft)

Density

Speed

(slugs/ft

3)

Supersonic
Cruise

Sealevel

35,000

55,000

002378

000739

Initial

Gravity

Attitude

Geometry

and

(Xcg)
(deg)

876

1742

.29

29

.29

11.7

2.6

3.3

530

530

53O

Inertias

Wing

Area

(ft 2)

Wing

Span

(ft)

Wing

Mean

Geometric

Weight

.000287

230
o

of

Approach

(fps)

Center

Subsonic
Cruise

Power

Altitude

for Airplane

Chord

38.7

387

38.7

16.0

160

16.0

33,200

39,000

39,000

23,700

25,000

25,000

(ft)

(ibs)

Ixx B

(slug

ft2) -

(slug

ft 2)

117,500

122,200

122,200

(slug

ft 2)

133,700

139,800

139,800

(slug

ft 2)

YYB
I
zz B
I

1,600

2,200

2,200

xz B
Steady

State

Coefficients
1.0

.26

.17

.2

.03

048

.2

.03

048

CL I
CD I
CT
C XI

mI
C

APPENDIX

626

Table

C5

Stability

Longitudinal

and

Control

Derivatives

Derivatives

for Airplane

(Cont.)

-.117

+. 054

-.40

-.78

m
u

-. 098

-.95

-.25

-1.3

m.

-2.7

-2.0

-2.0

q
0

+.27

-.18

2.8

3.75

2.8

mT
u

CL
u

CL

.555

.3

.4

+.027

-. 054

CL.
CL
q
CD
CD
u

.24

.40

.25

CT X
u

CLiH
CDiH
C

-.14

-.i0

-.15

-.322

-.58

-.38

mi H

(Note:

longitudinal

control

through

APPENDIX

stabilizer

only)

627

Table

C5

Stability

Lateral-Directional

and

Control

Derivatives

Derivatives

for Airplane

(Cont.)

-.156

-.080

-.025

-.272

-.240

-.200

C_ B
C_
P
.205

.070

.040

.057

.042

.015

.0009

.0060

.0030

.199

.125

.090

.013

-.036

-.320

-.270

-.260

+.0041

-.0010

-.0009

-.072

-.066

-.025

-.655

-.68

-.70

Yp
C
Yr

-.0355

-. 016

-.010

.124

.095

.050

C_
r

C_A
C_R
C
nB
C
n

P
C
n

C
n6 A
C
n6 R "
C
YB.

YgA
C
Y_R

APPENDIX

628

%LONGITUDINAL

DYNAMICS

%McDonnell
%

Douglas

F-4C,

%
format

short

%Enter

flight

power
approach
subsonic
cruise

<--fcl
<--fc2

Supersonic

<--fc3

cruise

e
condition,

geometry,

mass

and

MOI

%gravity

g=32.2;
theta0=[ll.7

2.6

rho=[.002378

.000739

Uo=[230
876
mass=[33200

S=[530

2200
530
38.7

cbar=[16

16

%Enter

25000];

CLI=[I.0

2200];
38.7];

CTxl=[.2
0

CmTI=[0

span
(ft)
geometric

chord

0];

Cmu=[0

-.117

-.40

Cmad=[-.95

-1.3

Cmq =[-2.0

-2.7
0
0

control

derivatives.

-.78];
-.25];
-2.0];

-.18];
+3.75

and

0];
0];

+.27

CLa=[+2.8

stability

+.054];

Cma=[-.098

CLq=[0

%wing
%mean

+2.8];

0];
0];

CDa=[+.555
+.3
+.4];
CDu=[0
+.027
-.054];
CTxu=[0

0];

CLde=[+.24

+.40

+.25];

CDde=[-.14

-.i0

-.15];

Cmde=[-.322
CDad=[0

-.58
0

CDq=[0

%Compute

0];
0];

-.38];
%No

numbers

in

Roskam

%No

numbers

in

Roskam

dimensioned

stability

and

control

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;
Xu
=-qbar.*S.*(CDu+2*CDl)./(mass.*Uo);
XTu=

qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)./(mass.*Uo);

116

ft^2)

ft^2)
inertia

(ft^2)

.048];

dimensionless

CLad=[0

area

coefficients.

%Enter

CLu=[0

%wing

0];
0

CmTu=[0
CmTa=[0

(slug
of

.048];

.03

Cml=[0

ft^2)

(slug

.17];

.03

(deg)

(ft/s)

(slug

inertia

%yaw
inertia
%cross
product

16];

.26

CDI=[.2

%pitch

122200];
139800];

steady-state

speed

%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia

530];

b=[38.7

angle

(slug/ft^3)

%equilibrium

122200
139800

Ixz=[1600

%density

.000287];

39000]/g;

25000

Iyy=[l17500
Izz=[133700

(ft/s^2)

%equilibriumpitch

3.3]*pi/180;

1742];
39000

Ixx=[23700

parameters.

derivatives

(ft)

(slug

ft^2)

Xa

* (CDa-CLI)

---qbar.*S.

Zu

*S. *CDde./mass
* (CLu+2*CLI)
=-qbar.*S.

Za

=-qbar.*S.

./mass;
;

Xde=-qbar.

*S. *CLad.

Zad=-qbar.
Zq

./(mass.*Uo)

* (CLa+CDI)

./mass;

*cbar.

/ (2*mass.

*Uo)

=-qbar.*S.

*CLq. *cbar.
/ (2*mass.*Uo)
;
;
Zde=-qbar.
*S. *CLde./mass
*cbar.
* (Cmu+2*Cml)
. / (Iyy.*Uo)
Mu
= qbar.*S.
MTu=
Ma

(CmTu+2*CmTI)

*cbar.

-- qbar.*S

. / (Iyy.*Uo)

*Cma./Iyy;

*CmTa.
/Iyy;
qbar. *S *cbar.
qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo);

MTa=
Mad=
Mq

*cbar.*

qbar.*S.

qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2).*Cmq./(2*Iyy.*Uo);

Mde=

qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cmde./Iyy;

%Compute
Afcl=

dynamics

for

flight

condition

in

state-space

form.

[
Xu(1)+XTu(1)

Xa(1)/Uo(1)

-g'cos

(theta0
Zu (i)

-g'sin

(theta0
(i))
Mu(1)+MTu(1)
0

(I))
Za (I)/Uo

(I)

Uo (I) +Zq(1)

Ma(1)/Uo(1)+MTa(1)/Uo(1)
0

Mq(1)
1

];
Bfcl=

[Xde

(i) ; Zde

(i) ;Mde

(I) ; 0] ;

Efcl=[
1

l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)

I];

0
0

-Mad

(1) /Uo

(1)

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfcl=[

0
0

0
i/uo(i)

Afcl(2,

:)-[0

0 Uo (i)

0]

];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1);
%Compute
Afc2

dynamics

= [
Xu (2) +XTu

-g'cos

(theta0

for

(2)

flight

Xa (2)/Uo

condition

(2)

(2))

117

in

state-space

form.

Zu(2)
-g'sin

Za(2)/Uo(2)

(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)

Ma (2)/Uo
0

0
];
Bfc2=

[Xde

Efc2--

[
1

(2) ; Zde

(2) ;Mde

Uo (2) +Zq
(2) +MTa

(2)/Uo

(2)

(2)

Mq(2)
1

(2) ; 0] ;

0 0

l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)

-Mad(2)/Uo(2)

0 0
];

0 1

Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute
%

pitch
angle

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

angle
of attack

matrix

speed
acceleration
and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[

0
1

i/Uo(2)
0

0]

0 UO (2)

Afc2(2,:)-[0

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=

dynamics

for

flight

condition

in

state-space

form.

[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)

-g'cos

(theta0

-g'sin

Xa(3)/Uo(3)

(3))

Zu (3)

Za (3)/Uo

(theta0
(3))
Mu(3)+MTu(3)

(3)

Uo (3) +Zq

Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)

Mq(3)

];
Bfc3

= [Xde

Efc3=

(3) ; Zde (3) ;Mde

(3) ; 0] ;

l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)

-Mad(3)/Uo(3)

0 0
];

0 1

Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

attack

118

(3)

%
%

forward
vertical

%output
Cfc3

matrix

speed
acceleration
and

direct

input

matrix.

= [
0

0
1

i/Uo
0

Afc3(2,

(3)
:)-[0

0
0

0
0

0 Uo(3)

0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3

(4, I) =Bfc3

(2, I) ;

119

%LONGITUDINAL

DYNAMICS

%McDonnell
%

Douglas

RESULTS

F-4C,

sea level-power
35,000
ft-subsonic
55,000

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

ft-supersonic

Dynamics

and

Automatic

616-642

EIGENVALUES
evfcl

-4.6662e-01+

6.2290e-01i

-4.6662e-01-

6.2290e-01i

2.2873e-02+

1.6668e-01i

2.2873e-02-

1.6668e-01i

evfc2

-6.3372e-01+

2.7832e+00i

-6.3372e-01-

2.7832e+00i

4.4867e-02
-3.5424e-02

evfc3

-3.1093e-01+
-3.1093e-01-

4.8536e+00i
4.8536e+00i

1.9914e-03+

2.6812e-02i

1.9914e-03-

2.6812e-02i

NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
7.7830e-01
2.8544e+00
7.7830e-01

2.8544e+00

4.8636e+00
4.8636e+00

1.6824e-01

4.4867e-02

2.6886e-02

1.6824e-01

3.5424e-02

2.6886e-02

5.9954e-01

2.2201e-01

5.9954e-01

6.3930e-02
6.3930e-02

-1.3595e-01

2.2201e-01
-l.0000e+00

-7.4070e-02

-1.3595e-01

1.0000e+00

-7.4070e-02

DAMPING

cruise

<--fcl
<--fc2
<--fc3

1979,

Flight

I,

approach
cruise

RATIOS

120

Flight

Controls,

(s/p_J) fiouonb_.Id
tO[

zO[
III

IIII

o0[
I

I1|

t-O[
I

IlJl

_-0[
I

IIII

....

c-O[
I

III

00_

-'.%

.,oo.
;%

.,-'""
.

...................

......

"" ' ' ' '


""' S '1_u_' 'os!ruD o!uosqns
os.mJDo!uosJodn

'rio _ oadav Jo_ Od :D17_I


- s_ I_ n OClli o uuo(I o IN

(s/p_s) ,ouonbo_I
:0[
,i,,

[0[
i ,

,,,,,

o0[
I i

i,,,,

[-0[
, ,

,,,,,

:-0[
, ,

,,,,,

_-0[
i i

,li,,

1-0[
i ,

lr'O[
i

t-O[

..............................

(s/puJ) fi_uonbaJ_I
:OI
III

tO[
I

oOI

IIII

III

vOI

t-OI

IIII

IIII

vOI
,,,,, , , , ,

_-OI
OOZ;-

-.

""

.........

_llllllll,,,,,

,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,,,

,,,,..,, _

00_

os!m D :3!uosJodn S ptm 'os!m D :_!uosqn S 'q:3_o:IddV JoA_Od :D_-d S_l:_no(I IIOtmo(I:_IAT

(s/p_) 3uonbo_,_4
:OI

tOI

oOI

IIII

III

t-OI

IIII

:-OI

IIII

vOI

III

--

c-OI

=
%%

i
-_

_-OI _.

_
.....

"".,,
-:,

5
_
_

t I
I _

=
...
.............................................................

_
,-

oOI

_,.< ....
_:3mlV jo oI

t-OI

. uol

tOI

(s/pea) ,(3uonbo.k4
o0[

_0[

:0[
III

III

III

III

_-0[
,,,,, , , , ,

z-O[

[-0[
I

IIII

-0[
OOZ;-

.o,,"

-oo[}
I "

%%

I
I
I
I

I
:1
-I
III

I ....

1/111

........................
I

III

IIII

asinE) _!uosaodnS ptm 'osin.[D _!uosqn S 'q:)go:[dd

III

III

_[o_od :_)lz-z[s_I_noQ

00[

[[ouuo(]olAI

(s/p_a) ,_ouonboa_I
zO[

[0[
Illl

--"

o0[
I

%,%
o..._

..

Illl

_-0[
I

Illl

z-O[
I

IIll

vOI
I

Illl

......

--

_._,,..

_e

"'.

4-1

"" _" - -..

IIII

IIII

IIII

-22222 ...................................

=': 7.'-'L'-'-

pood S pxeA_oz[ o) .zo)EAa[.'_ :osuodso_[ DuonbolzI

IIII

IIII

)J'e.to.t.rV [utq.pn]t._uo'-[

"=

/.0[

(s/pea) houonlooa,.q
zO[
Ill

tOI
I

IIII

oOI
I

III

t-O[
I

IIII

z-O[
I

IIII

c-OI
I

IIII

- ooz-

0
'..

os!m D

3[uosIodn

rOI
,,,, , , , ,

pu_ 'ost.m D o!uosqn S

tO[
,,,,, , , , ,

o01
,,,,, , , , ,

'q:_oldd

_oA_Od:Dlr-d s _n

t-OI
,,,,, , , , ,

_-0I
,,,,, , , , ,

Ilotmo(IOlAI

c-OI
,,,,, , , , ,

OOE

1,-0I
z-O[

tOI

1,0I

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%McDonnell
%

Douglas

F-4C,

%
%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

short

%Enter

flight

.000739

876

Automatic

geometry,

Ixx=[23700
Izz=[133700

2200
530

%Transform

inertias

from

product

of

area

(ft^2)

%wing

span

(ft)

%mean

geometric
axis

to

(ifc)

(ang)

^2

sin

(ang)

^2

-sin

(2*ang)

sin

(ang)

^2

cos

(ang)

^2

sin

(2*ang)

sin

(2*ang)

cos

(2*ang)

/2

-sin

(2*ang)

/2

];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx

(ifc)

[Ixx
=Isa

(ifc)

(ifc)

; Ixz (ifc)

];

(I) ;

Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz

; Izz

(ifc)=Isa

(3) ;

end;
%Enter

steady-state

CLI=[I.0

.26

CDI=[.2
CTxI=[.2

.048];

.03

Cml=[0

CmTI=[0

.048];

0];
0

%Enter

coefficients.

.17];

.03

0];

dimensionless

Clb=[-.156
Cip=[-.272
Cir=[.205
Clda=[.057
Cldr=[.0009

-.080

stability

control

-.025];

-.240
-.200];
.070
.040];
.042

.015];

.0060

.0030];

Cnb=[.199

.125

.090];

Cnp=[.013

-.036

0];

Cnr=[-.320

and

-.270

-.260];

125

inertia

stability

= [
cos

ft^2)

chord

: 3,

ang=theta0

ft^2)

(slug

%wing

body

(ft/s)

(slug

inertia

%cross

16];

speed

inertia

%yaw

(deg)

angle

(ibs)

%roll

2200];

relevant

ifc=l

parameters.

(slug/ft^3)

%weight

38.7];

16

MOI

%equilibrium
39000]/g;

530];

38.7

and

%density

.000287];

25000
25000];
139800
139800];

cbar=[16

Controls,

%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibriumpitch

3.3]*pi/180;

39000

Ixz=[1600

Flight

mass

1742];

mass=[33200

Tba2sa

and

condition,

rho=[.002378

for

cruise

2.6

S=[530

<--fc3

Dynamics

g=32.2;
theta0=[ll.7

b=[38.7

Supersonic

616-642

format

Uo=[230

<--fcl
<--fc2

1979,

Flight

I,

power
approach
subsonic
cruise

derivatives.

(ft)
axis.

(slug

ft^2)

Cnda=[.0041
Cndr=[-.072

-.0010
-.066

Cyb=[-.655

-.68

Cyp=[0

0];

Cyr=[0

0];

Cyda=[-.0355

-.70];

-.016

Cydr=[.124
CnTb=[0

-.0009];
-.025];

.095
0

%Compute

0];

-.010];

.050];
%No

numbers

dimensioned

in

Roskam

stability

and

control

derivatives

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;
Yb = qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;
yp

qbar.*S.*b.*Cyp./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yr

qbar.*S.*b.*Cyr./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yda =

qbar.*S.*Cyda./mass;

Ydr =

qbar.*S.*Cydr./mass;

Lb

qbar.*S.*b.*Clb./Ixx;

Lp

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clp./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lr

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clr./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lda=

qbar.*S.*b.*Clda./Ixx;

Ldr=

qbar.*S.*b.*Cldr./Ixx;
=

qbar.

*S.*b.*Cnb./Izz;

NTb =

qbar.

*S.*b.*CnTb./Izz;

Np

qbar.

Nr

qbar.

*S.*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);
*S.*(b.^2).*Cnr.'/(2*Izz.*Uo);

Nda =
Ndr =

qbar.
qbar.

*S.*b.*Cnda./Izz;
*S.*b.*Cndr./Izz;

Nb

%Compute
Afcl=
g'sin

dynamics

for

flight

[
Yb(1)/Uo(1)
(theta0

Yp(1)

0
0
0
o

(i))
Lp(1)

Lr(1)

Np(1)
1

Nr(1)
0

[
Yda

(i)

Ydr

(i)

Lda

(i)

Ldr

(I)

0*ones

Ndr(1)
(2,2)

];
Efcl=

[
1

0
0
0

-Ixz(1)/Izz(1)
0
0

state-space

g'cos

(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)
0

Nda(1)

in

Yr(1)-Uo(1)

Lb(1)/Uo(1)

0
];
Bfcl=

condition

1
0

0
1

0
0

-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)

];

126

(theta0

form.

(I))

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute
%

sideslip
angle
roll
angle

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfcl=[

I/Uo(1)
0
0
Afcl(l,

0
0

0
0

:)+[0

0
1

0
0

0 Uo(1)

-g

0]

];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,:)=Bfcl(l,:);
%Compute
Afc2=
g'sin

dynamics

[
Yb(2)/Uo

for

flight

(2)

(theta0
(2))
Lb(2)/Uo(2)
(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0

0
];
Bfc2=

[
Yda(2)

Ydr(2)

Lda(2)

Ldr(2)

Nda(2)
0*ones

condition

Yp(2)

Yr(2)-Uo(2)

Lp(2)

Lr(2)

Np(2)
1

Nr(2)
0

[
1

Ndr(2)
(2,2)

-Ixz

0
0

-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)
(2) /Izz

(2)

];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)

state-space

form.

g*cos(theta0(2))

o
o
0
o

];
Efc2=

in

127

Afc2(l,

:)+[0

0 Uo (2)

-g

0]

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2
Dfc2

(4, : ) =Bfc2

%Compute
Afc3=

(i, : ) ;

dynamics

flight

condition

(3)

(theta0
(3))
Lb(3)/Uo(3)

Yp (3)

Yr (3)-Uo

Lp(3)

Lr(3)

(Nb(3)+NTb(3))/Uo(3)
0

Np(3)
1

Nr(3)
0

[
Yda(3)
Lda

Ydr(3)

(3)

Nda(3)

Ldr

(3)

Ndr(3)

0*ones

(2,2)

];
Efc3=

state-space

[
1

0
0

-Ixz(3)/Izz(3)
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)

];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc3=[
i/Uo(3)

0
0

0
0

0
0

Afc3

(i, :)+[0

0 Uo (3)

-g

(3)

g'cos

0
0
0
o

];
Bfc3=

in

form.

[
Yb (3)/Uo

g'sin

for

0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,:)=Bfc3(l,:);

128

(theta0

(3))

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%McDonnell
%

RESULTS

Douglas

F-4C,

%
%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

E I GENVALUE

evfcl

<--fcl
<--fc2

(solid)
(dashed)

Supersonic

<--fc3

(dotted)

cruise

1979,

Flight

I,

power
approach
subsonic
cruise

Dynamics

and

Automatic

Flight

616-642

=
0

-i. I098e+00
-1.5240e-02
-3.1618e-01+

io7808e+00i

-3.1618e-01-

1.7808e+00i

evfc2

=
0

-1.3391e+00
-1.3123e-02
-i.1565e-01+

2.3946e+00i

-I.1565e-01-

2.3946e+00i

evfc3

=
0

-7.8175e-01
-2.8623e-03
-1.3838e-01+

2.4603e+00i

-1.3838e-01-

24603e+00i

NATURAL

FREQUENCIES
0

i.i098e+00

1.3391e+00

7.8175e-01

1.5240e-02
1.8086e+00

1.3123e-02
2.3974e+00

2.8623e-03
2.4642e+00

1.8086e+00

2.3974e+00

2.4642e+00

DAMPING

RATIOS
NaN

NaN

NaN

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

1.7482e-01

4.8239e-02

5.6158e-02

1.7482e-01

4.8239e-02

5.6158e-02

129

Controls,

(slp_:O
X3uonbo_d
:0[

t0[

Jill

oOI

Ilil

Ill

t-OI
I

vOI

lilll

-0[

Illl

Ill

- OOZ;-Og[-

oo 0_;t

..,.
....
..

i "a'"r"t

....

I .......

ost.m D o[.uosJodn S ptm 'ost.m D o[.uosqn S 'q::)Eo.Idd v .IOA_Oc[


:_)17-_ S_l:_noG IlOUUOGOIN

(s/pg_) X_uonbo:[_
:OI

[OI

III

oOI

llll

Ill

[-OI
l

llll

c-O[

:-0[
l

llll

III

_-0[
I

_-OI

..

_: '_..
_,,,
"_..

--

:-OI

"_kk"

'""

-""

"_'I

Ill

....
-.'27-

"L'-':.-._.,.
.......
.".-..-.-.
- 7.7.- - 7.- .".
.............
i_

Illll

d[.Isopt.S o1 uoJoI.tV :osuodso_I

Illl

IIIII

._3uonbo:[c[ 1jE:to_.V I_olw'I

Ill

--

tOI

_.

(s/p_:O _ouonbo_d
tO[
,,, , , , ,
-

tO[
,,,,, , , , ,

_/

o0[
,,,,, , , , ,

t-O[
,,,,, , , , ,

z-O[
,,,,, , , , ,

_-OI
,,,,, , , , ,

..... ...
li'_,

t,-OI
OOZ;-!

- >_,,,.....

o t-

''o

tl

"'"..

II

"'.....

O0[0_;-

....;.....
III

Jill

os!ru D o[uos.todn

IIIII

S pun 'osim D otuosqn

IJlll

S 'qogozdd V ZOA_Od :Dlz-,_qs_I_no(I

I't"'*

.....

t .......

flotmo(IoIAI

(s/pua) _ouonboz_I
tO[
i,ll

tOI
, ,

,i,,l

o0[
, i

,J,,1

t-O[
, ,

z-O[

,,,,l

, ,

vOI

,,,,i

, ,

,i,l,

t,-OI
,

t'-Ut

= _-OI
[mde

---

...........

_....

: zO[

.--..-- .--. -- -- _
--

",.,..
.........................................

6.

oI

oad gea_ ..qV Ie_Ole"I

_0[

(s/pg_)

:OI
,,,, , , , ,

rOI
,,,,, , , , ,

oOI
,,,,, , , , ,

Aouonbo_

t-OI
,,,,, , , , ,

vOI
,,,,, , , , ,

c-OI
,,,,, , , , ,

_-0[
0017- OOEga

- OOEt_
(m

00I-

Ill

IIII

os!ru D omosaodn
S.

III

IIII

IIII

III

ptm 'ost.m D o!uosqn S 'qo_oadd v aoA_Od:D17-,_q


S_l_no(I lIOtmo(IOIAI

(s/pga) Abuonbo&q
:0I
I/I

tOI
I

IIII

o0I
I

III

t-OI
I

IIII

_-0I
I

IIII

c-OI
I

III

_-OI
_-OI
vOI
tOI

_'"

........................

""'_

vOI
fl)

=1:111

IIIII

IIII

O[_Lr V A_13_ O) uo.lo[I.V:osuodso_[

I111

_:)uaIlba_

IIIII

III

lJl_.I3.q.
V [l_OllV I

LOI

_-__

o[OI

(s/p_)

[0[

:0[
III

Illl

_3uanbal_I

o0[
I

III

t-O[
I

III

z-O[
I

III

[-0[
I

III

- 00[-

t
t
I
t
I

%%

-0

.,..

|
%|
".t

00[
%%
,., ..:.._',_

.....
".,,..

III

as.re.E)

IIII

3[.uosiodrt

S peg

III

'osI.rLE)

3[.uosqns

IIII

'qo_o.zdd

Ia_o

IIII

IIII

d :_)_-z:[ s_[_noo

00_

[[otItIo(]olA[

(s/puz) _:_uonbozzI

zO[
Ill

[0[
I

IIII

oOI
I

Illl

[-0[
I

Illl

z-OI
I

Illl

[-0[
I

Illl

oOI
_

.;=

-_

......
"_-

[OI _.

:. .....
'-.

zO[

,.
-,

m
.,.,

"

UOI.Ig10[033

_I

a;; UOlO[l v.

:asuodso_[

_3uaflbal_

......................................

l_I_13_r[,v

[_Io)_'-[

= _0[

,_ouonb_ d

(siPs1)

tOI

_0[
III

III

o0[
I

III

t-O[
I

III

:-OI

-01

liil

III

/
-

_oot

""_'_'"_'"

::" '" """:: ' ' :: L'_.".............

00I

II

........
I

Ill

III

IIII

os!ru D :)!uos.mdnS ptm 'os!ru D :3!uosqn S

IIII

III

.[O,_Od :_)]z-.,-Isl3[_rlo(]

'qO13o.ldd v

[[ouuo(IolA [

OOZ;

(s/pea) ,_ouonbo:td
z0[
II

tOI
I

III

oOI
I

III

t OI
I

III

eOI

z-OI

III

III

-0I
vOI
t-OI _

..,..'
....."

...-.

.,,,_.: .........

_.._.._...._"_

o0[

=
_.
."
(.'t

i.t
I

Ill

d.qsop.[g

III

ol Ioppn_l

III

IIII

:osuodso_l ,_ouanbaI_I IJEZ::)_.V l'eaoll;"[

III

tO[

Lateral Ai?c,r,a,ft,,
Fre,quency, Response:

10 4

--

Ill

--"..........................

101

_-

10-2

10-5

'" _ _" .........

IIIII

IlllL

"-'"--.-.7. 7.- - -

IIIII

10-3

10-4

Rudder to,Rol! ,An,,


_!e

IIII

10-2

IIIII

10-1

200 McDo,nr_e,l!,Douglas F:4Ci,Power

IIIII

10 o

IIII

101

10 2

Frequency

(rad/s)

Approach,

Subsonic, C,ruise,, and,Su,p,ersonic C,m,ise

100
........................

.........o.....

N-'..'.>.,

0
r_

-100

-200
10-4

III

103

IIII

10-2

IIII

10-1
Frequency

III

100
(rad/s)

IIII

101

III

102

101o

Lateral

Aircraft
I

I1|

Frequency
l

Response:

II

IIII

Rudder

to Yaw, ,An_!e

III

IlJ_

10 7
10 4

101

"

...,.

o-

. .7......

'- .-........_

10-2
D
I

IIII

IIIII

10-3

IIIII

10-2

UU'r

Douglas
i

,,Ill

F-4C: Power Approach,


I

III

10-1

Frequency
1... McDonnell

III

Ill

IIIll

10 o

101

III

10 2

(rad/s)
Subsonic
I

-300 -

Cruise,
i

III

and Supersonic
I

_,.

Frequency

(rad/s)

III

C ,ruise
I

(s/p_s)

tOI

zOI
II

I$1

o01
I

,_ouonba:t d

z-O[

I{I

t-O[
I

III

vO[

IIII

IIII

fl)

O_

00[%

''.
,,.

*,..
,

III

os[.ru_)

IIII

o[.uos.todn

S ptm

IIII

'os.[ru

II

,,..,..,.

_"------_L,-IJ-i"_'I";I:._.I...

D o!uosqn

S 'q::)Eo.xdd

V .IOA_Od :Dtr-...q s'eI_no(]

I[otmo(]olAI

(s/pea) L:)uonbo.L.q
zOI
II

tOI
I

III

o01
I

III

t-OI
I

III

z-O[
I

I|1

vOI
I

III

B
D
J

tOt

K
lidtl

.j

_.

......

.............................

22__._

I :'l
1 fl
w

-Fill

IIII

uo!lE_oIoooV

III

IeaOle'-I ol lappn_I

IIII

:osuodso_l

IIII

AouonboI_I _;o_.V

III

IElOl_"l

- _OI

A.6

Learjet

The contents
Stability

Model

24

of this section
and control

MATLAB

script

MATLAB

eigenvalue,

of the Appendix

are:

data

to form longitudinal
natural

dynamics

frequency

and damping

print out from

script

for longitudinal

print out from

script

for lateral

dynamics
Frequency

responses

MATLAB

script

MATLAB

eigenvalue,

of longitudinal

to form

lateral

natural

dynamics

dynamics
frequency

and damping

dynamics
Frequency

responses

of lateral dynamics

The stability and control data are photocopies


from Roskam. 1 The data were entered into
MATLAB scripts to form the state-space
differential
equations
for the longitudinal
and lateral
dynamics.
Two additional
scripts, one for longitudinal
dynamics
and one for lateral dynamics,
were written to compute
eigenvalues,
natural frequencies,
damping
ratios, and frequency
responses for the dynamics.
These scripts are listed in Section A.3.
The conversions
from dimensionless
to dimensioned
stability and control derivatives
were done
three at a time by first making each parameter,
stability derivative
and control derivative
a
3-vector--one
element for each flight condition.
The conversion
computations
are then
performed
using vector arithmetic.
The state-space
matrices
were formed from the appropriate
elements
of each vector.
E._=,Ax +Bu
y =Cx +D u

(A-l)

Equation
A-1 is an intermediate
form for the state-space
equation
that was formed because some
stability derivatives
depend on the derivatives
of the state variables
in the case of the longitudinal
dynamics
and because of the roll/yaw
coupling in moment equations
in the case of the lateral
dynamics.
The final form is obtained by multiplying
the first equation of the pair by the inverse
of E.
The frequency
The line styles

response
graphs show three traces----one
for each of the three
for the Learjet Model 24 cases denote the following:

Solid:

power

approach

Dashes:

Cruise

at 40,000

ft at maximum

Points:

Cruise

at 40,000

ft at low weight

IIL/gr4K NOT

conditions.

at sea level

139
PAGE

flight

FILMED

weight

LJ_

C4

DATA
A

FOR

AIRPLANE

three-view

airplane
business
presented

for

D
Airplane

is representative
jet.
Stability
in Table

is presented

in

Figure

C4.

of a medium
sized high performance
and control
derivatives
for Airplane

This
D are

C4.

nn n

Fisure

C4

nn

Three-View

APPENDIX

of

Airplane

616

Table

Flight

C4

Stability

and

Control

Derivatives

Condition

Air

(ft)

Density

Speed

(slugs/ft

3)

Airplane

Approach

Cruise
Max. Wht.

Cruise
Low Wht.

Sealevel

40,000

40,000

002378

000588

000588

170

(fps)

677

(M = .7)
Center

of

Initial

Gravity

Attitude

Geometry

and

Area

(ft 2)

Wing

Span

(ft)

Wing

Mean

Geometric

I
I

.32

677
(M = .7)
.32

(aft)

.32
(aft)

(aft)

1.8

2.7

1.5

230

230

230

34

34

34

(Xcg)

(deg)

Inertias

Wing

Weight

Power

Altitude

for

Chord

(ft)

(ibs)

13,000

13,000

9,000

(slug

ft 2)

28,000

28,000

6,000

(slug

ft 2)

17,800

18,800

17,800

(slug

ft 2)

47,000

47,000

25,000

(slug

ft 2)

1,300

1,300

1,400

1.64

.41

.28

.0335

.0279

.0335

.0279

YYB
I
zz B
I
xz B
Steady

State

Coefficients

CL I
.256
CD I
CT

.256
X1

m1
C
mT 1

APPENDIX

617

Table

C4

Stability

Longitudinal

and

Control

Derivatives

Derivatives

for

Airplane

(Cont.)

-.01

.05

.O7

-.66

-.64

- .64

C
m

-5.0

-6.7

-6.7

-13.5

-15.5

-15.5

m.

C
m

q
.0O6

C
u

-. 003

-. 003

mT
.04

CL

.28

.40

CL
CL.

5.04

5.84

5.84

1.6

2.2

2.2

4.1

4.7

4.7

CL
q
CD
CD

1.06

.30

.22

.104

.104

CT X
u

.46

.40

.46

CL_, E
0
CD_E
C

-.98

0
-i. 24

0
-i. 24

m_ E

APPENDIX

618

Table

C4

Stability

Lateral-Directlonal

and

Control

Derivatives

for

Airplane

(Cont.)

- .173

- .ii0

- .i00

-.39

-.45

- .45

Derivatives

C_ B
C_
P
.45

.16

.14

.149

.178

.178

.014

.019

.021

.150

.127

.124

C
r

C_6A

Cg_R
C
n8
C

-.13

-. 008

-.022

-.26

-.20

-.20

-.05

-.02

-.02

-.074

-.074

-.074

n6 R
C

-.73

-.73

-.73

C
Yp
C
Yr

P
C
n
r

C
n6 A

YB

.4

Y6 A
.140

.4

.4

.140

.140

Y6 R

APPENDIX

619

%LONGITUDINDAL

DYNAMICS

%Learjet
%

24,

Model

%
%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

short

%Enter

flight

cruise

<--fc3

Flight

Controls,

Dynamics

2.7
677

Ixx=[28000
Iyy=[17800
Izz=[47000

geometry,

230

17800];
25000];

%yaw

steady-state

.0335

CTxi=[.256

speed

inertia

(slug

product

%wing

area

%wing
%mean

span
(ft)
geometric

of

dimensionless

0];
0 0];

Cmu=[-.01

.05

Cma=[-.66

-.64

stability

Cmq=[-13.5

-15.5

-15.5];

CmTu=[.006

-.003

-.003];

CLu=[.04

.40

CLad=[l.6

2.2

4.7];

.30
.104
0

0];

0];

Cmde=[-.98

.22];

.104];
.46

CDde=[0

.46];

-1.24

CDad=[0

0
0

derivatives

5.84];
2.2];

4.7

CDa=[I.06

CLde=[.40

control

.28];

5.84

CTxu=[0

-6.7];

0];

CLa=[5.04
CLq=[4.1

derivatives.

-.64];

-6.7

control

.07];

Cmad=[-5.0

CmTa=[0

and

0];
0];

-1.24];
%No

numbers

in

Roskam

%No

numbers

in

Roskam

dimensioned

stability

and

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;

144

inertia

chord

.0279];

%Enter

ft^2)
ft^2)

(ft^2)

.0279];

ft^2)

(slug

.28];

Cml=[0
CmTI=[0

(deg)

(ft/s)

(slug

coefficients.

.0335

angle

(slug/ft^3)

inertia

%cross

7];

.41

%Compute

%pitch

230];

CDI=[.256

parameters.

%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia

1400];

CLI=[1.64

MOI

%density

.000588];

34];
7

and

%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibrium
pitch

6000];

1300

cbar=[7

CDq=[0

mass

%equilibrium

18800
47000

CDu=[0

Automatic

9000]/g;

28000

34

and

677];
13000

Ixz=[1300

ft-low

1.5]*pi/180;

.000588

mass=[13000

%Enter

weight

condition,

rho=[.002378

S=[230

40,000

g=32.2;
theta0=[l.8

b=[34

<--fcl
<--fc2

616-642

format

Uo=[170

approach
weight
cruise

1979,

Flight

I,

sea
level-power
40,000
ft-max

(ft)

(slug

ft^2)

XU

=-qbar.*S.

XTu =
Xa

* (CDu+2*CDI)

. / (mass.*Uo)

qbar.*S.*(CTxu+2*CTxl)

=-qbar.*S.

* (CDa-CLI)

Xde=-qbar.

*S. *CDde./mass

Zu

=-qbar.

*S. * (CLu+2*CLI)

Za

=-qbar.*S.

;
./ (mass.*Uo)

Ma

*cbar.

/ (2*mass.
/ (2*mass.

./(Iyy.*Uo)

qbar.*S.*cbar.*Cma./Iyy;

MTa =

qbar.*S.*cbar.*CmTa./Iyy;

Mad=

qbar.*S.*(cbar.^2)

Mq

*Uo) ;
*Uo) ;

/ (Iyy.*Uo)

qbar.*S.*cbar.*(CmTu+2*CmTl)
=

./mass;

Zde=-qbar.
*S. *CLde./mass;
Mu
= qbar.*S.
*cbar.*
(Cmu+2*Cml)
MTu=

./mass;

* (CLa+CDI)

Zad=-qbar.
*S. *CLad.
Zq =-qbar.*S.*CLq.*cbar.

./(mass.*Uo)

Mde=

qbar.*S.*
qbar.

%Compute
Afcl=

.*Cmad./(2*Iyy.*Uo)

(cbar.

*S. *cbar.

^2) .*Cmq.

/ (2*Iyy.

;
*Uo)

*Cmde./Iyy;

dynamics

for

flight

condition

1 in

state-space

form.

Xu (I)+XTu (I)
-g'cos

(theta0

zu(1)
-g'sin

Xa (I)/Uo

Za (i)/Uo

(theta0
(I))
Mu (I) +MTu (I)

[Xde

(i) ; Zde

(i)

Uo (I) +Zq

Ma(1)/UO(1)+MTa(1)/UO(1)
0

0
];
Bfcl=

(i)

(I))

(i) ;Mde

(i)

Mq(1)
1

0
0

(i) ; 0] ;

Efcl=[
1

l-Zad(1)/Uo(1)

i];

0
0

-Mad

(1) /Uo

(1)

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;

%Compute
%

pitch
angle

angle
of attack

forward

vertical

%output
Cfcl=

matrix

speed
acceleration
and

direct

input

matrix.

0
0

0
i/uo (i)

0
0

1
0

Afcl(2,

:)-[0

0 Uo(1)

0]

];
Dfcl=0*Cfcl*Bfcl
Dfcl(4,1)=Bfcl(2,1)
%Compute

dynamics

;
;
for

flight

condition

Afc2=[

145

in

state-space

form.

Xu (2) +XTu

(2)

-g'cos

(theta0
Zu (2)

-g'sin

(theta0
(2))
Mu (2) +MTu (2)

[Xde

Efc2--

(2)

Za (2)/Uo

(2)

Uo (2) +Zq

Ma(2)/Uo(2)+MTa(2)/Uo(2)
0

0
];
Bfc2=

Xa(2)/Uo

(2))

(2) ; Zde

(2) ;Mde

Mq(2)
1

(2) ; 0] ;

10
0
0

(2)

00
l-Zad(2)/Uo(2)
-Mad(2)/Uo(2)

00
10

00

01

];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[
0

0
1

i/Uo(2)
0

0
0

0
0

Afc2(2,:)-[00

0]

Uo(2)

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2*Bfc2;
Dfc2(4,1)=Bfc2(2,1);
%Compute
Afc3=

dynamics

for

-g'sin

condition

in

state-space

[
Xu(3)+XTu(3)

-g'cos

flight

Xa(3)/Uo(3)

Zu (3)

za (3)/Uo (3)

Uo (3)+zq (3)

(theta0
(3))
Mu(3)+MTu(3)
0

Ma(3)/Uo(3)+MTa(3)/Uo(3)
0

Mq(3)
1

(theta0

(3))

];
Bfc3=

[Xde

Efc3--

[
10

(3) ; Zde

(3) ;Mde

(3) ; 0] ;

00

l-Zad(3)/Uo(3)

00

-Mad(3)/Uo(3)

10

00

01

];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;

146

form.

%Compute

pitch

angle

angle

of

%
%

forward
vertical

%output

matrix

attack
speed
acceleration

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc3=[
0

0
1

I/Uo(3)
0

0
0

0
0

Afc3(2,:)-[0

0 Uo(3)

0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3(4,1)=Bfc3(2,1);

147

% LONGITUDINAL
%Learjet
%

DYNAMICS

Model

24,

%
%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

I,

approach
weight
cruise

<--fcl
<--fc2

40,000

weight

<--fc3

ft--low

Dynamics

and

Automatic

616-642

E IGENVALUES
evfcl
=
-9.0759e-01+

1.3200e+00i

-9.0759e-011.4080e-02+

1.3200e+00i
2.3850e-01i

1.4080e-02-

2.3850e-01i

evfc2

-9.9457e-01+
-9.9457e-01-5.2956e-03+
-5.2956e-03-

evfc3

2.6413e+00i
2.6413e+00i
9.0481e-02i
9.0481e-02i

-i.1777e+00+

2.7009e+00i

-l.1777e+00-

2.7009e+00i

-8.6035e-03+

1.0032e-01i

-8.6035e-03-

1.0032e-01i

NATURAL
FREQUENCIES
1.6019e+00
2.8223e+00

2.9465e+00

1.6019e+00

2.8223e+00

2.9465e+00

2.3891e-01

9.0636e-02

1.0069e-01

2.3891e-01

9.0636e-02

1.0069e-01

5.6657e-01

3.5239e-01

3.9971e-01

5.6657e-01

3.5239e-01

3.9971e-01

-5.8933e-02

5.8427e-02

8.5446e-02

-5.8933e-02

5.8427e-02

8.5446e-02

DAMPING

cruise

1979,

Flight
pp.

sea
level--power
40,000
ft--max

RATIOS

148

Flight

Controls,

(s/p_)
:0[

_0[
III

ll

3uonbo_d

o0[
I

III

vOI

[-0[
I

illl

[-0[

IIII

III

- 00[-

%,
,_.;_.;..._.;.;;_;_:_"_

--'..
.t
.|

"!

".$

....

.:.'._

- 00[

- OOZ;
II

IIII

lq_t.OA__o'I pu_ x_IAI 1_ os!ruD pu_


(s/p_)
_0[
III

[01
I

IIII

o0(
I

'q;:)l_o.Idd

III

OOE

lO_Od :_E IopoIa[ lo[_o_I

gouonbo_I
[-0(

IIIII

r-O[

IIIII

IIII

_-0[
I

IIIII

[-OI
_e
--

_._ _

--

--

_", _..--..-........

.......',_.

--

"'.

-'_. :"_"'_* "--" "--" :

.9

_0[
m

II

o[_uv

till

III

qog.d Ol .IOll_AOIH :OSuOdSO_[

llll

_ouonboJtI

till

1ll_.Io.I.l_

Ill

l-em.pmt._uo'-[

--

_OI

(s/p_I)

zO[
Ill

_0[
I

oOI

Illl

Illl

_3uonbo._ d

vOI
,,,,,,,

t-OI
I

Illl

, ,

g-OI
,,,,,,,

_-OI
OOZ;-

, ,

- OOI
lit

till

lq_!o3A

Illll

IIIII

IIIII

Ill

OOZ:

A_o'-[ ptm x_iA [ lu os!m D ptm 'qouozdd V zoA_o d :_Z IopoIA[ lo[_a"I

(s/p_a) ,_ouonboad
zOI
1 I

tOI
I

III

t-O[
,,,,,,,

oOI
I

III

, ,

z-OI
,,,,,,,

, ,

c-OI
,,,,,,,

, ,

_-OI
_ _-0I

.),_.....
.-|
.,.

.,. _ ,_.'-'_"

.-.-...._.._...........

E-

OI

oOI

. _: _" ............................................

:1

..._1
_ll

)P_llV

IIII

IIIII

IIIII

jo oi_u V ol ZOI_AO[_I :osuodso}I

,_ouonboa:I

IIII

1J_:to_V

IIIII

l_m.pm!_uo"I

--"

_0[

(s/p_a)
:0[

tO[

III

_{ouonbo_I

oOI

IIIII

III

_-0[

L-OI
I

IIII

IIII

c-O[
I

III

t-OI
00_-

, ,

- OOI-0

c_
O_

"I

OOI

".t
"|
",I
-|

III

Jill

lq_!oA_ _oq

lilt

IIII

ptm x_ N 1_ os!ruD ptm 'q_o_dd

IIII

lilt

'

V aoA_Od :_

IOpOlAIlo[_moq

:-OI

c-OI

00_

(s/p_a) ,_ouonbo_d
tOI

:OI
III

IIII

t-O[

oOI
I

III

IIII

IIII

Ill

_0[
_-0[

_-OI
_OI _.
i
_

._..,.

,,_

"
_1

"'"?'"

aol_^oI_t :osuo

IIII

llil

oa_ 1._ao..qV I_mpnl!_uoq

'

'

_0[
/.OI

(s/p_:O Xouonbo;_I
:0I
Ill

oOI

tO[
I

Ill

II

:-0[

_-0[

lii

_-OI

till

Ill

"'..%
,.%

oo:-

"%**
_'_*_'_,_._._._

.....

_w_

'.%
Lt

t_
LI

......

.....

L.t

___"

........'"'

Ill

I|I

Ill

llf

III

ill

lq_!oA_ A_O"Iptm x_ N 1_ os!mD ptm 'qo_o_dd V _OA_Od:17_;IopoIA[ lo!_mo"I


(s/p_z) Louonbo_I

'

00_

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%Learjet
%

Model

24,

%
%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

pp.

<--fcl
<--fc2

40,000

weight

cruise

<--fc3

Flight

Controls,

short

%Enter

flight

Dynamics

condition,

2.7

rho=[.002378
677

geometry,

6000];

47000

25000];

34

%wing

area

(ft^2)
(ft)

%wing

span

7];

%mean

geometric

relevant

inertias

from

body

axis

to

(ifc)

stability

cos

(ang)

sin
sin

(ang) ^2
(2*ang)
/2

^2

sin

(ang)

cos
-sin

^2

-sin

(2*ang)

sin

(2*ang)

cos

(2*ang)

(ang) ^2
(2*ang)
/2

];
Isa=Tba2sa*
Ixx

(ifc)

[Ixx
=Isa

(ifc)

(ifc)

(ifc)

; Ixz (ifc)

];

(i) ;

Izz(ifc)=Isa(2)
Ixz

; Izz

=Isa

(3) ;

end;
%Enter

steady-state

CLI=[1.64

.41

CDI=[.256

.0335

CTxi=[.256
Cml=[0

CmTl=[0
%Enter

coefficients.

.28];
.0279];

.0335

.0279];

0];
0

0];

dimensionless

Cib=[-.173
Clp=[-.39
Clr=[.45

stability

-.ii0
-.45
.16

and

control

-.I00];
-.45];

.14];

Clda=[.149

.178

.178];

Cldr=[.014

.019

.021];

Cnb=[.150

.127

.124];

Cnp=[-.13
Cnr=[-.26

-.008
-.20

-.022];
-.20];

153

ft^2)
ft^2)
inertia

chord

: 3,

ang=theta0
Tba2sa=
[

(deg)

(ft/s)

(slug
(slug
of

34];
7

ifc=l

speed

%yaw
inertia
%cross
product

1400];

angle

(slug/ft^3)

%weight
(ibs)
%roll
inertia

230];

%Transform
for

parameters.

%equilibrium

28000

cbar=[7

MOI

%density

9000]/g;

Izz=[47000

1300

and

%gravity
(ft/s^2)
%equilibrium
pitch

.000588];

Ixx=[28000

b=[34

mass

677];
13000

230

Automatic

1.5]*pi/180;

.000588

mass=[13000

S=[230

and

g=32.2;
theta0=[l.8

Ixz=[1300

ft-low

616-642

format

Uo=[170

approach
weight
cruise

1979,

Flight

I,

sea
level-power
40,000
ft-max

derivatives.

(ft)
axis.

(slug

ft^2)

Cnda=[-.05

-.02

Cndr=[-.074
Cyb=[-.73

-.73

Cyp=[0

-.02];

-.074

-.074];

-.73];

0 0];

Cyr=[.4

.4

Cyda=[0

.4];
0];

Cydr=[.140
CnTb=[0

.140
0

%Compute

0];

.140];
%No

numbers

dimensioned

in

Roskam

stability

and

control

derivatives

qbar=0.5*rho.*Uo.^2;
Yb
Yp

=
=

qbar.*S.*Cyb./mass;
qbar.*S.*b.*Cyp./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yr

qbar.*S.*b.*Cyr./(2*mass.*Uo);

Yda =

qbar.*S.*Cyda./mass;

Ydr=

qbar.*S.*Cydr./mass;

Lb

qbar.*S.*b.*Clb./Ixx;

Lp

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clp./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lr

qbar.*S.*(b.^2).*Clr./(2*Ixx.*Uo);

Lda=

qbar.*S.*b.*Clda./Ixx;

Ldr=

qbar.*S.*b.*Cldr./Ixx;
=

qbar.*S.

*b.*Cnb./Izz;

NTb =

qbar.*S.

*b.*CnTb./Izz;

Np

qbar.*S.

Nr

qbar.*S.

*(b.^2).*Cnp./(2*Izz.*Uo);
*(b.^2).*Cnr./(2*Izz.*Uo);

Nda=

qbar.*S.

*b.*Cnda./Izz;

Ndr=

qbar.*S.

*b.*Cndr./Izz;

Nb

%Compute
Afcl

dynamics

for

flight

(theta0
(i))
Lb (I)/Uo
(i)
(Nb(1)+NTb(1))/Uo(1)

0
0
];
Bfcl=

1 in

Yp(1)

Yr(1)-Uo(1)

Lp(1)

Lr(1)

Np(1)

Nr(1)

1
0

0
1

[
Yda(1)

Ydr(1)

Lda(1)

Ldr(1)

Nda(1)

Ndr(1)

0*ones

(2,2)

];
Efcl=

state-space

form.

= [
Yb(1)/Uo(1)

g'sin

condition

[
1

-Ixz

0
0

1 0

-Ixz(1)/Ixx(1)
(I)/Izz

(I)

];

154

g'cos

(theta0

(i))

Afcl=Efcl\Afcl;
Bfcl=Efcl\Bfcl;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

angle

angle

matrix

and

direct

matrix.

input

Cfcl=[
I/Uo(1)
0
0
Afcl(l,

0
0

0
0

:)+[0

0
1

0
0

1
-g

0 Uo(1)

0]

];
DfcI=0*CfcI*Bfcl;
Dfcl(4,:)=Bfcl(l,:);
%Compute

dynamics

for

flight

condition

Afc2=

[
Yb(2)/Uo(2)

Yp(2)

g'sin

(theta0
(2))
Lb(2)/Uo(2)

Yr(2)-Uo(2)

Lp(2)

Lr(2)

(Nb(2)+NTb(2))/Uo(2)
0

Np(2)
1

Nr(2)
0

];
Bfc2=

[
Yda(2)
Lda(2)
Nda(2)
0*ones

Ydr(2)
Ldr(2)
Ndr(2)
(2,2)

];
Efc2=

[
1

0
0

-Ixz
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

-Ixz(2)/Ixx(2)
(2) /Izz

(2)

];
Afc2=Efc2\Afc2;
Bfc2=Efc2\Bfc2;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

Cfc2=[
i/Uo(2)
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

0
0

155

in

state-space

g'cos

(theta0

form.

(2))

Afc2(l,

:)+[0

0 UO(2)

-g

0]

];
Dfc2=0*Cfc2
Dfc2(4,

*Bfc2

:) ;

dynamics

for

%Compute
Afc3

:)=Bfc2(l,

flight

condition

Yb(3)/Uo

Yp(3)

(3)

(theta0
(3))
Lb(3)/Uo(3)
(Nb(3)+NTb(3))/Uo(3)
0

0
];
Bfc3=

Yr(3)-Uo(3)

Lp(3)

Lr(3)

Np(3)
1

Nr(3)
0

[
Yda(3)

Ydr(3)

Lda

Ldr

(3)

Nda(3)

(3)

Ndr(3)

0*ones

(2,2)

];
Efc3=[
1

0
-Ixz(3)/Ixx(3)

0 -Ixz(3)/Izz(3)
0
0

1
0

0
1

0
0

];
Afc3=Efc3\Afc3;
Bfc3=Efc3\Bfc3;
%Compute

sideslip

roll

%
%

yaw
angle
lateral
acceleration

%output

matrix

angle

angle

and

direct

input

matrix.

= [
i/Uo

(3)

Afc3(l,

:)+[0

0 Uo(3)

-g

0]

];
Dfc3=0*Cfc3*Bfc3;
Dfc3

state-space

form.

= [

g'sin

Cfc3

in

(4, : ) =Bfc3

(i, : ) ;

156

g*cos(theta0(3))

%LATERAL

DYNAMICS

%Learjet

Model

24,

sea

level-power

approach

<--fcl

40,000

ft-max

weight

cruise

<--fc2

40,000

ft-low

weight

cruise

<--fc3

Flight

Controls,

%Roskam,

J.,

%Airplane
%Part

1979,

Flight

I,

pp.

Dynamics

and

Automatic

616-642

EIGENVALUES
evfcl

=
0

5.5832e-02+

1.0288e+00i

5.5832e-02-

1.0288e+00i

-7.4454e-01
2.9636e-02
evfc2

=
0

-5.0232e-01
-I.1878e-03
-5.8493e-02+

1.6836e+00i

-5.8493e-02-

1.6836e+00i

evfc3

=
0

-2.2733e+00
-2.6623e-02+

2.2741e+00i

-2.6623e-02-

2.2741e+00i

-2.0106e-03
NATURAL

FREQUENCIES
0

1.0303e+00

5.0232e-01

2.2733e+00

1.0303e+00

1.1878e-03

2.2743e+00

7.4454e-01

1.6846e+00

2.2743e+00

2.9636e-02

1.6846e+00

2.0106e-03

DAMPING

RATIOS
NaN

NaN

NaN

-5.4190e-02

1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00

-5.4190e-02
1.0000e+00

1.0000e+00
3.4722e-02

1.1706e-02
1.1706e-02

-l.0000e+00

3.4722e-02

1.0000e+00

157

(s/p_a) 3uonboa_I
oOI
ill

IIII

III

t-OI

III

:-0[
I

IIII

g-OI
I

III

**...o.
o,..
"OO,o,,
..

I
I
I
I
"

I
,o_

/
III

IIIII

IIII

IIII

lq_!oAk _o_I pLrex_lA[ 1_os!rUD pLre'q:)_o_dd

IIII

IIIII

00_

_a_o d :17E[aPIA_la!_rea_I

(s/p_a) _uonboa_I
:OI

tOI

t-OI

oOI

IIII

--

",%

IIII

_:-OI
I

IIII

_,-OI
_-OI

_-OI
I

IIII

:-0[

%%
m

--

..:;

..
-I-I

IIII

_"

_OI

III

IIII

IIII

III

- _0[

(s/p_J)

fiouonboJzI

:0[
III

00[-

:_,g IOpOlAIlo[_ol
(s/pua) ,_uonboa,.q
_0[

zO[
I

III

oOI
I

III

z-O[

t-O[
I

III

Illl

vO[
I

Illl

'.,,

t-OI
zOI _.
t_
=

_0[

D
B
B

:1:11

llll

Olgtrv

III

IIII

IIO_I ol uo:tol].V :osuodso_I

llll

Aouonboa_I ll_aa .a3V N_ol_q

III

sO[

(s/p_)
zO[

o0[

_0[

j j j
III

IIII

....

gouonbo_I

t-OI
I

j j I

z-Of
J

J]

| J

c-O|
J

_-Ol

JJJJ | J J J

009-

...
",.,,.
"'.,,.

OOE0

Ill

l
I,

IIII

ltI_!OA_ _ol

OOE
IIII

till

Illl

Ill

0017

ptm X_lAI1_ osImD ptm 'qo_osdd v _O_Od :_'E IOpOlAI1_!_I

(s/p_)
zOI
,,,, , , ,

tO[
,,,,, , , ,

o0[
,,,,, , , , ,

._ouonboa,_4
vO[
,,,,, , , ,

z-O[
,,,,, , , ,

c-O[
,,,,, , , ,

_,-0[
_;-0[
z-O[

_,0I
_OI
--,
::gill

Itll

IIIII

Itll

lilt

IIIIt

Olgtrv A_ X ol uoaolt.V :osuodsoH Aouonbo_q g_aoa.t V I_Olw-I

otO[

(s/pua) ,_ouonboa_
zO[
Ill

[0[
I

II|l

o01
I

III

[-0[
I

Illl

z-O[
I

IIll

vOI
I

Illl

",,,.,
'''"....

0
!
I

OOZ
(m

001_
III

IIII

III

lq_.tOA, k A_o"I ptm x'uiA [ 1_ os!ruD

IIII

ptm 'qo_o_dd

IIII

III

009

V _oA_o d :_E IopoIAI lo!_mo"I

(s/p_a) Abuonboa_I
zOI
Ill

tO[
I

"_

"

_" _

_' _. ,_.._.
'...

Illl

oOI
I

Illl

[-0[
I

Illl

vO[
I

Illl

c-OI
I

Illl

_. ,..

o0[
_

'%

...................

"_ .--, .--..-.,_..--....:.._...:...,,:,.

Inl_o

_0[
m

uo!luzoIoooV

[_zolu"I ol uoaolV V :osuo

oz.q 1jezo ._qV [uao_u"I

90I

zO[

_0[

II

o0[

IIII

III

"

"

I
|

-0[

z-Of

t-O[
Ilil

illl

III

- OOI-

I
I
I

.,._

r_

OOI

""?.?.?...
"'__

..... _

- 00_;

ill!

Ill

lq_[.oAk _o"I

III

III

ptm X'_lA[ le aS!haD ptre 'qoeoadd

III

III

OOE

V ao_o d :17E [opolAI lo[XeO"l

(s/pea) ._ouonboa.q
zOI
I I

oOI

[OI
I

li

III

[-OI
I

z-OI

IIII

IIII

_-OI
I

III

--

"_'1

II
tl

.:
."

--

IIII

d[.[sop.[ S ol

Ill

ill

aoppn_I :osuodso_[ ,_uonbold

IIII

1jeao.arV'I_amwI

IIII

:0[

tO[

Ill

IIII

t-O[

o0[
I

Ill

IIII

vO[
I

IIII

[-0[
I

III

_OI
I

00_-

".o..

00[0

oo[
00_;
III

t.

III1|

Illl

IIIII

tllll

IIII

00[

lq_t.OA_ A_oq ptm x_IAI 1_ ost.mD ptm 'qo_o_tdd V IoA_Od :lTE;IopoIAI lo!_mo"I

zOI

tO[
I

IIII

oOI
I

III

I I

z-O[

t-O[
I

IIII

Illl

vOI
I

Illl

.-..--.

z-OI
tOI

_.

Oi

m
m

"'"

(s/puz)

t0[

z0I
Ill

o0[

IIIII

,_uonbo_d

_-0[

IIIII

z-0[

IIIII

[-0[

IIIII

_0[

IIII

00_7--

- 00g-

t
I
I
I
I

00Z-

I
....

'_* p,_
.
_._...
%-

00[(m

LIII

, ,

lqgIoM

,,,,, ' ' ' '

""'

' ' '

'

""'

,_o"I ptm X_lN 1_ osIruD ptm 'q_o:[dd

V zO_Od

:17_ IopoI_

lo!_ol

001

(s/pea) ,_ouonboId
z0I

[0I

o0I

[-0[

z-0I

_-0I

_-0I
_-0[
z-0I
[0I
_0[

___

z0I
:
:Till

IIII

III

oI_UV ,,_A ol zoppn'tl

IIII

:osuodso_l

IIII

A_uonbo_zI g_za ..qV I_Ol_'I

III

"
----

o_0I

(s/p_i) ,_3uonbaad
o0[

tO[
III

IIII

t-O[

lilt

vO[

z-O[

IIII

Illl

Illl

,=,_%
l

- OOE-

I
t
i
I
I

- OOZ:-

":.:k ....

_..

oo[-

"'":"-.-...:.:.:.,.._..,.
_'__

Ill

IIII

III

lq_IO3A A_O"Iptm x_IAI 1_ osImD

III

ptm 'q_o_dd

IIII

III

._m

00[

V aoA_Od :_Z; [opoIAI lo!_mo"I

(s/p_a) Louonboa4
zO[
III

tO[
I

Illl

o0[
I

IIll

t-OI
I

IIII

z-O[
I

Illl

c-O[
I

Illl

_-0[
o0[
tO[

',.,,,"

"--....

...

".:/,:

::

--

uop,uaoIoaoV l_aOlw] ol zoppn_t :osuo

oa_ _Iuz_..qV l_ZOlw]

cO[

_.

t,O[

A.7

Linear-quadratic

The contents

Control

of this subsection

Results

of the Appendix

MATLAB script to compute

are:

linear quadratic

controller

for longitudinal

pitch control

controller

for lateral/directional

Simulab block diagrams


Frequency domain analysis
Performance simulation
Graphs of performance

results

Boeing 747
McDonnell

Douglas F-4C

Learjet Model 24
MATLAB script to compute linear quadratic

control

SIMULAB block diagrams


Frequency domain analysis
Performance simulation
Graphs of performance results
Learjet Model 24, flight condition

Both the analyses and simulations use SIMULAB block diagrams. The block diagrams
automatically use the dynamics parameters and the feedback gain that are computed in MATLAB.
The open loop transfer function evaluation is performed by linearizing a SIMULAB block diagram
with the appropriate feedback path cut. For these case studies, the path is either the elevator, the
aileron, or the rudder.

rA_

BLANK NOT FILMED


167

%LINEAR

QUADRATIC

%Augment
%for

aircraft

zero

format

REGULATOR
dynamics

steady-state

short

Aaug=[Alo,

SOLUTION
with

TO

an

AIRCRAFT

integral

PITCH

CONTROL

state

error.

0*ones(4,1);[0

0 0

0]]

Baug=[Blo;0]
Caug=[Clo(l,
Daug=Dlo

:)

0]

(i, : )

evaug=eig

(Aaug)

%Compute
feedback
%the
steady-state
%Weight

only

%states

so

the

pitch

that

%weighting
if

gains
for the
augmented
solution
for the
linear,

in

the
the

rate,

gains

pitch

on

the

workspace

angle
speed

(a.k.a.)

aircraft
quadratic
and

pitch

states
stack,

dynamics
using
regulator.
integral

are
if

small.

they

Use

exist.

exist('Qaug')*exist('Raug')~=l,
Qaug=diag([0

i])

Raug=Baug'*Baug
end;
%Compute

feedback

gains

%selected

error

and

[Kr, S ] =lqr
Kr

(Aaug,

Baug,

evcl=eig

for

control
Qaug,

the

augmented

weightings
Raug)

dynamics
using

and

the

MATLAB

the
function

(Aaug-Baug*Kr)

%Compute
and
plot
open
%Note
that
Col
and
Dol
%evaluates

GH

rather

loop
have

than

frequency
response.
minus
signs
so that
-GH

(see

block

"bode"

diagram).

[Aol,Bol,Col,Dol]=linmod('RegulatorOL');
[mgol,phol]=bode(Aol,Bol,-Col,-Dol,

l,om);

clg;
subplot
if

(211)

exist
loglog

elseif

( 'mgollast'
(om,

) *exist

[mgol,mgollast

mgol0]

) ==I,
);

exist('mgollast')==l,

loglog(om,
else

[mgol,mgollast]);

loglog(om,
end;

mgol);

title('Open

Loop

Linear

xlabel('Frequency
if

( 'mgol0'

Quadratic

Regulator

Frequency

(rad/s)');ylabel('Magnitude');

exist('phollast')*exist('phol0')==l,
semilogx(om,

elseif

[phol,phollast

phol0]);

exist('phollast')==l,

semilogx(om,
else
semilogx(om,
end;
xlabel('Frequency

[phol,phollast]);
phol);
(rad/s)');ylabel('Phase

(deg)');

168

Response');

"lqr".

"I
C

Difference
Mux

r _.

state Erro

"" _;_
r_
Pitch

Integrator
OPEN

LOOP

ANALYSIS

OF A LINEAR-QUADRATIC

=j

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft

vl
in

ECI
eVma
tad

Integral Gain

REGULATOR

Sum

FOR AIRCRAFT

LONGITUDINAL

DYNAMIC

Constant

DeMux _

w Gain

To Workspace3

/
0.1 rad Step |

State
sp

error

Erro
14_

_
_._

To Workspace4
_
Clock

- _

To Workspace2_

To Workspace

L._..I _
Error Scope

,_qGain

_mJ

_
Elevator

I Y = Cx+Du

Command

Aircraft

__...._

Pitch
Reg States

Pitch Gain
_(b,i

t/=

I_.__

''_"

+
I
Sum

Integrator

SIMULATION

OF

LINEAR-QUADRATIC

x' = Ax+Bo

REGULATOR

Integral

FOR

Gain

AIRCRAFT

states

To Workspacel

LONGITUDINAL

DYNAMIC

Linear

quadratic

28

1993:

May

Ruu=

747

"s"

(Qxx)
0

at
"d"

4.0817e+01

diag

controller

Boeing

3. 4183e+02

flight

conditions
-p6.3480e+02

=
0

Mr =
-i. 1353e-03

I. 9992e-03

-8. 3901e-01

-9. 1237e-01

-i. 5652e-01

-6. 5992e-05

5.2964e-04

-I. 4940e-01

-5. 4586e-01

-5. 4087e-02

-i. 6488e-04

3.5187e-04

-i .2544e-01

-3.2152e-01

-3. 9690e-02

evcll=
-4.7744e-01+

6. 1289e-01i

-4. 7744e-01-

6. 1289e-01i

-2. 7794e-02
-1.2530e-01+

I. 9079e-01i

-1.2530e-01-

I. 9079e-01i

evcl2=
-4. 7196e-01+

1.2373e+00i

-4. 7196e-01-

1.2373e+00i

-I. 5814e-02
-8. 1573e-02+

8. 3750e-02i

-8. 1573e-02-

8. 3750e-02i

evcl3=
-5. 8381e-01+

i. 0976e+00i

-5. 8381e-01-

I. 0976e+00i

-5.2319e-03
-9. 5320e-02+

i. i139e-01i

-9. 5320e-02-

I. I139e-01i

171

(s) ore!
OOI

06
!

08
!

OL

09

O_

017

O_

0/;

OI
T

0
t_

-.

J.

1.

gI'O

(s) oug.,L
OOI

06

08

OL

09

0_;

017
I

0_;

0_;

OI
I

_0"0

suo!l!puoD

lq_!kI

_ aoj SaOllOalUOD 03

Lt, L _lm..oo_I

I'O

(s) ore!

(s) om!
OOI

OOI

05

05

._.

"'

-5I

Z;

-OI-

t'
oxl
I

saoIIOalUOD0"I L_L _u!ooff

9
(s) om!
OOI

00[

05

0
0

>
-OI
ot
O'Q

Z;'O

5I

(s) om!,L
OOI

Og

00[

o
_0"0

IO'O
4
4

EO'O
,_._,,_. _

" "_

" ".........
_.

['0

l ;"

- EO'O
,

g['O

s-tollo-tluoD Or'[ L17L_u!ao_t

(s) ore!&

(s) ore!
OOI

OOI

Og
J

/I
II

,'"

.."

170"0

_,

Og
,

Og_-

O_
.......

..'
.," ..""

,'.."|

<

|';I
II
I I
II

II

o17

O9

10 6

--

,,Op,en Loop Linear

I III

Quadrat!c

III

Regulator
I

Frequency

Ill

Response

III

I I

10 3
-.o.

%
,%

'.

10 o

10-3

IIIII

IIII

10-3

10-4

IIII

10-2

III

IIII

IIII

10 o

101

II

10 2

(rad/s)

7,4,7 LQ Contro!!ersfor

Boein8

10-1

Frequency
300

3 ,Fli ght,Conditions,,,,

Ill

200
100
i

.'''''"

.,llr

-100
-200 i
10-4

III

10-3

! I

II

10-2

IIII

10-1

Frequency

IIII

10 o

(rad/s)

IIII

10 a

III

10 2

Linear

quadratic

28

1993:

May

Ruu=

controller

McDonnell

Douglas

"s"

"d"

8.2823e+01

2.7471e+03

diag

(Qxx)

F-4C

at

flight

conditions

,,p,,
3.2182e+03

Mr =
-3.1177e-04

7.4538e-04

-3.9478e-01

-4.5979e-01

-i.0988e-01

1.2293e-04

2.4100e-04

-1.9405e-02

-2.2510e-01

-1.9079e-02

1.1595e-03

2.7233e-05

-6.5360e-03

-4.8405e-02

1.7628e-02

evcll

-3.2772e-01+

4.8526e+00i

-3.2772e-01-

4.8526e+00i

-2.8641e-02+

3.9603e-02i

-2.8641e-02-

3.9603e-02i

-1.2046e-02
evcl2=
-6.4453e-01+
-6.4453e-01-

2.7815e+00i
2.7815e+00i

-3.5108e-03
-8.8100e-02+

7.5306e-02i

-8.8100e-02-

7.5306e-02i

evlc3=
-4.7276e-01+

6.5055e-01i

-4.7276e-01-

6.5055e-01i

-4.1305e-02
-2.3426e-01+

2.0184e-01i

-2.3426e-01-

2.0184e-01i

176

(s) otu!
00[

06

08

OL

09

1'

O_

017
,

OE
_

O_
_

O[
,

_0"00

__.A

J.

m-'

_['0

(s) otu!,L
O0[

06

08

OL
i

0_;

09

017
I

Og
I

OZ;

O[

0
ffO'O-

.....

.-..-...-..-:.-..-...-..-..-...................................

*,

."" _

-|

"t

'

'
suo!l!puoD _

'
'
E .tog s.mllOalUOD 0i

D_,-_IG_

'

-t'o
'

!;['O

0
001

O,g

.........

_-----'--"

O01

Og

09_

.
/ !

' .. i

O[
s:taIIO 1

'......

Z:

D 0"I _)lz-d Ol_


(s) ota!

(s) ou_.
OOI

OOI

Og

g'O-

-9"0-

O!;

<

_.

""w"--

iI

_--

_'l. I

II
II
--

i I

i,,,

-VO-

>

o*

II I

_1
I
--

.'**
;

EO-

_"

.t
."

-I

m
.
.
..,.,"
,.,,.o"
,..o,,.

Z;'O

,
"%.

60

200

..o..oOO.....

100

40
3

o
" _'_ _ ......

.....

>

20

..
.

-100

|:

,,
s

",

,'

,,,, _

._ S'_

.o, _"

11

II
II
II
IIII
Illl
I s_
.."
I'".
_._"

o_,,q

............

""

s "
., s

"'

_s
s S
I "

--

j
_. _. "
--

-200

-20

-300

50

100

50

100

Time (s)

Time (s)
0.15

0.08

MD F-4C LQ Controllers

_"
0.06
r_
0.04
0.02
f

0
0
,..

-0.02
0

50
Time (s)

)0

100
Time (s)

(s/puJ)

Ill

_ouonboJ,_q

0
00[
OOE

II

0017

(s/pg:O ,(ouonboa_l
_OI

tO[

1'l.l..l

IIII

oOI
I

IIII

t-O[
I

IIII

vOI
I

IIII

c-O[
I

III

.... _K ........

o0[
_o

-Trll

|III

IIII

osuodso_l _uonbo_I

IIII

IIII

aOl_ln_O_l _!l_p_n_) _ou!q

III

dooq uod 0

Linear

quadratic

28

1993:

May

Ruu=

controller

Learjet

Model

24

"s"

"d"

7.0040e+01

1.4479e+03

diag

(Qxx)
0

at

flight

conditions

,,p,,
2. 8194e+03

Kr =
-8.9272e-04

1.5410e-03

-1.4820e-01

-4.4474e-01

-i.1949e-01

-1.5093e-04

2.1149e-04

-1.9179e-02

-1.6567e-01

-2.6280e-02

-1.4555e-04

1.4727e-04

-1.6057e-02

-1.2080e-01

-1.8833e-02

evcll

-9.3324e-01+

1.3187e+00i

-9.3324e-01-

1.3187e+00i

-3.7861e-02
-1.5995e-01+

2.6089e-01i

-1.5995e-01-

2.6089e-01i

evcl2 =
-i.0154e+00+

2.6362e+00i

-l.0154e+00-1.4053e-02

2.6362e+00i

-i. I070e-01+

1.3727e-01i

-I.I070e-01-

1.3727e-01i

evcl3=
-I.1882e+00+

2.6982e+00i

-l.1882e+00-

2.6982e+00i

-1.7549e-02
-i.0674e-01+

1.4303e-01i

-I.0674e-01-

1.4303e-01i

181

(s) om!,L
00[

06

08

OL

09

O_

017
T

O_

0_;

OI

1'

e-'"

t_

gO'O

_I'O

L__

(s) om!,L
OOI

06
I

08
!

OL

09
I

OK

017

OE

O[
I

_.,t.

o
=,

".._
.._
-._
.._
u

i
suo!l.tpuoD

lq_!H

I
t_Iaoj SaOllOalUO
D 0II

I
17EIopoIAI
lo !_

'I

_0"0 _"

I'O

(s) ore!A,
0

OOI

O_

OOI

_-

_
<

_.

t,_'J_'_

-o_-

SaOllO.nUOD0I l_Z[opoIAI lo!_o"I

9
(s) ore!

(s) ore!
00[

OOI

O_

05

<
II
II
II
II

-5

.II

J
--

................

- ........ _...... =._,,.,

__/_

>

I"
.r i
I

1 ^I
_

_"

_'0-

o
O'Q

_'0

0_;

00[

OOI

0
0

Z;O'O

-] gO'O

['0

'
17EIopOIAIlo!_ol

SaOllOnUOD0I

N.._.

1,o"o

_"

90"0
80"0

_;['0

(s) oua!,L
OOI

00[

Og

OOZl-

,"r]
.o''
...'"

.... "
....

""
s

.."'"

S j
S

.ff

s
f

,..''"'
....,'""

"',,

l\".i

,.

"i
::i

-o[

_.

- 0?;

<

-0E

I"1
II
II
W

00[-,

"..%

l--to
"..._

- 0"_
0_;

<
o

(s/pua) ,_3uonboa_I
_0[
Ill

IIII

[-OI

o0[

tOI
i

ill

i I

lilt

z-OI
I

till

00[-

_...a_TX.
-t

_
r_

00[
00_;
III

h_o'I p[m x_IAI1_ os!ruD ptm 'qo_o_dd V _aA_Od :t'i_ IoPIAIla.Lma'-I_ Ioj s_aIIO_lUOD
I

III

I I

lit

t i

IIII

(s/p_)

IIII

Ill

,_ouonboa_I

oOI

Ill

IIIll

Illl

lilt

osuodso_l A_uonbo_I _ol_In_O_l _!l_p_nO

Ilil

_ou!q

II;I

doo"I uodo

_0[

%LINEAR

QUADRATIC

%Copy

aircraft

format

short

REGULATOR

SOLUTION

TO

AIRCRAFT

TURN

CONTROL

dynamics
e

Aaug=Ala;
Baug=Bla;
Caug=Cla

(2 : 3, : ) ;

Daug=Dla

(2:3,

:) ;

evaug=eig

(Aaug)

%Compute

feedback

%the
%weight

only

%weightings
if

gains

steady-state

exist

the
in

( ' Qaug'

Raug=diag([l
end;

[vcl,

evcl]

evcl=diag
[Wncl,

yaw

rate

(a.k.a.

( 'Raug'

dynamics

linear,

using

quadratic

states.
stack),

regulator.

Use
if

they

) ~=I,

0])

gains
for
and control

(Aaug,
=eig

Baug,

Qaug,

the
augmented
weightings,

Raug)

(Aaug-Baug*Kr)

dynamics
using
the

and
the
function

(evcl)

Zcl] =damp

(evcl)

[Wncl, Zcl]
abs (vcl)
%Compute
and
plot
open
loop
frequency
response.
%Note
that
Col
and
Dol
have
minus
signs
so that
"bode"
%evaluates
GH
rather
than
-GH
(see block
diagram).
%The
%and

loop
once

is
at

broken
twice:
once
the
rudder
command.

at

the

aileron

[Aol,Bol,Col,Dol]=linmod('RollyawOLa');
[mgola,phola]=bode(Aol,Bol,-Col,-Dol,

l,om);

clg;
subplot(221);
if exist('mgolalast')*exist('mgola0')
loglog(om,
elseif

[mgola,mgolalast

==I,
mgola0]);

exist('mgolalast')==l,

loglog(om,
else

[mgola,mgolalast]);

loglog(om,
end;

mgola);

title('Open

Loop

xlabel('Frequency

LQR

FR:

Aileron');

(rad/s)');ylabel('Magnitude');

subplot(223);
if exist('pholalast')*exist('phola0')
semilogx(om,
elseif

exist.

i]) ;

feedback
error

[Kr, S] =lqr
Kr

aircraft
the

and

workspace

) *exist
0

the
for

sideslip

the

Qaug=diag([l

%Compute
%selected

for

solution

[phola,pholalast

==I,
phola0]);

exist('pholalast')==l,

semilogx(om,
else

[phola,pholalast]);

186

command

_lqr".

semilogx
end;

(om, phola)

xlabel('Frequency
[Aol, Bol,
[mgolr,

pholr

subplot
if

(om,

') ;ylabel('Phase
( 'RollyawOLr'

(Aol, Bol,

(deg)

') ;

);

-Co i, -Do i, 1, om) ;

('mgolrlast')

loglog
elseif

Dol ] =linmod
] =bode

(222)

exist

(rad/s)

Col,

*exist

[mgolr,

( 'mgolr0'

mgolrlast

mgolr0

) ==i,
]) ;

exist('mgolrlast')==l,

loglog
else

(om,

loglog

[mgolr,mgolrlast]

(om, mgolr)

);

end;
title

( 'Open

Loop

LQR

xlabel('Frequency
subplot
if

(224)

exist

Rudder'

);

') ;ylabel('Magnitude')

( 'pholrlast'

semilogx(om,
elseif

FR:

(rad/s)

) *exist

( 'pholr0'

[pholr,pholrlast

) ==i,

pholr0])

exist('pholrlast')--=l,

semilogx
else
semilogx

(om,

[pholr,

(om, pholr)

pholrlast]

);

end;
xlabel('Frequency

(rad/s)

') ;ylabel('Phase

187

(deg)

') ;

Learjet

Model

24

deg/s

Open
loop
-2.7189e-02+

eigenvalues
2.2741e+00i

-2.7189e-02-

2.2741e+00i

turn

in

flight

condition

-2.2733e+00
-8.5389e-04
-5.0717e-20

_diag(Qaug)'=
1.0000e-01

Raug
=
1.0001e+03

1.0256e+02

1.0256e+02

2.6065e+03

Feedback
Kr =

1.0000e+05

gains

6.4222e-03

8.6736e-02

1.8039e-03

4.1943e-02

Closed
loop
-1.8701e+01

2.7898e-01

1.0996e+00

7.1804e-02

-6.1807e+00

7.3053e-03
1.8803e-03

eigenvalues

-1.3476e+00+

1.5102e+00i

-1.3476e+00-

1.5102e+00i

-2.6708e+00
-I.1946e-ii
Closed
loop
1.8701e+01
2.0240e+00

natural
frequencies
1.0000e+00

damping

ratios

6.6579e-01

2.0240e+00

6.6579e-01

2.6708e+00

1.0000e+00

1.1946e-ii

1.0000e+00

Closed
loop
9.9837e-01

and

eigenvectors
9.9044e-01

9.9044e-01

9.7748e-01

4.1873e-Ii

4.7360e-02

1.2365e-01

1.2365e-01

1.9765e-01

3.1258e-13

3.1748e-02

4.8493e-04

4.8493e-04

6.5683e-05

1.1942e-ii

2.5325e-03

6.1092e-02

6.1092e-02

7.4003e-02

2.6177e-02

1.6977e-03

2.3958e-04

2.3958e-04

2.4593e-05

9.9966e-01

188

Jb.
v

DeMux

*i

+_

Outport

Aileron Gains

"_ +

m
I

Aileron
DeMux

Error

Aileron J=
x' = Ax+Bul

Mux m
v

Constan

Command_.M.._

Differen,

_e

Command
Mux

Mux
v

==,,=
v

4-

4-

4-

y = Cx+Du
Aircraft

Rudder Gains

Rudder
DeMux
OPEN LOOP ANALYSIS

OF A LINEAR,

QUADRATIC

Rudder
Command
REGULATOR

FOR AIRCRAFT

LATERAL

DYNAMIC

_)eMuxl

+1

+1

+1 m

+;

Aileron Gains

m
m

Aileron
DeMux

Error

Aileron
Command

Mux
Constan

Differen_

_e

y
Cx+Du
Aircraft

Mux

x' = Ax+Bu 1
v

Inport
w.-
m

DeMux

Outport

Rudder Gains
v

4-

Rudder
DeMux
OPEN

LOOP

ANALYSIS

OF

A LINEAR,

QUADRATIC

Rudder
Command
REGULATOR

FOR

AIRCRAFT

LATERAL

DYNAMIC

_rro_I----1"--_
I .rror
_ i__l__xl_

To Workspace2

Error
Mux

_+
DeMux
.

.
_

Error
DeMux

[__--

_x
m

Error

Constant

I[_

Differen

aux

Zl,ro

Aileron
Command

',e

' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Aircraft

Command
Mux

State Scope

DeMux

To Workspace3

Workspacel

Aileron
DeMux

=._
v
+

sp

delta

states

14-

To Workspace
Rudder Gains
time
Clock

To Workspace4
v

Rudder
DeMux

SIMULATION

OF

LINEAR-QUADRATIC

REGULATOR

Rudder
Command

FOR

AIRCRAFT

LATERAL

DYNAMICS

(s) otu!
00[

OOI

Og

>

O_

t_
0
m

.J
OQ

17

0
(s) _mt.
OOI

00[

Og
T

I,..a,

=L
m

O_
t_
m

(s)OmLL
OOI

O_

OOI

0
m

o_

._
O_
I

O_

OgT
OOI
00_

O_

Og_
(s) ore!

(s) om!,L
OOI

Og
!

0_'

t_
O'Q

OOI
0

O_
I

0
0[i--O
I

i-o_
I

, - OZ
t_

- 0_;
I

uam s_op lo!_o"I

017

X)
0

t_

Learjet

0.2

3 deg/s turn

t_

0.1

_o

-1

<

._,,q

-0.1-

-2

o
ra_

-0.2

50

50

100

100

Time (s)

Time (s)
250

0_

200

o
o

o
O
o

>

150
100

5O
-40

50
Time (s)

100

50
Time (s)

100

(s/p_a) ._uonbo.k4

(s/p_a) ._ouonbo.IH
I

_...,.'=--_

[-0[

_0[

t-O[

_0[

II

-oo[-

00[

- 00_

O'Q

J
II

II

'

OOg

t-OI
II

(s/pe.O ._:3uonbo.k4

(s/p_a) 2(ouonboad
_0[

_0[

t,-OI
t-OI

_-0[
I

II

_-OI
_:-01

t-O[
o0I

K
o0[

_0[

_
m
m

II

aoppn_I :_.4 _lOq

doo"I

uodo

= _OI

:::I i

II

uoaoI!V :R_q_lOq doo'-I uo cto

:0[

_.