International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems

ARTICLE

Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by

the Projection Equivalent Method
Regular Paper

Frantisek Jelenciak1*, Michael Gerke1 and Ulrich Borgolte1

1 Control System Engineering Group, M+I, Fern University in Hagen, Hagen, Germany
*Corresponding author(s) E-mail: frantisek.jelenciak@fernuni-hagen.de

Received 23 July 2015; Accepted 30 November 2015

DOI: 10.5772/62078

© 2015 Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.

Abstract 1. Introduction

This article describes the projection equivalent method
(PEM) as a specific and relatively simple approach for the
modelling of aircraft dynamics. By the PEM it is possible
to obtain a mathematic al model of the aerodynamic forces
and momentums acting on different kinds of aircraft
during flight. For the PEM, it is a characteristic of it that -
in principle - it provides an acceptable regression model
of aerodynamic forces and momentums which exhibits
reasonable and plausible behaviour from a dynamics
viewpoint. The principle of this method is based on
applying Newton's mechanics, which are then combined
with a specific form of the finite element method to cover
additional effects. The main advantage of the PEM is that
it is not necessary to carry out measurements in a wind
tunnel for the identification of the model’s parameters. The
plausible dynamical behaviour of the model can be
achieved by specific correction parameters, which can be
determined on the basis of experimental data obtained
during the flight of the aircraft. In this article, we present
the PEM as applied to an airship as well as a comparison
of the data calculated by the PEM and experimental flight
data.
Keywords Airship, Flight Mechanics, Experimental Flight
Data
One of the first methods solving the problem of calculating
airship aerodynamics is the so-called “thin body theory”
[1-3]. Expanding and extending this theory of influencing
factors like the wind impact [4] and the viscous forces
impact [5] provides more complex solutions to this prob‐
lem. Some works which solve the aerodynamics of airship
flight analytically are given in [6-9]. In principle, all actual
analytical methods are based on the complex approach of
the thin body theory with Munk’s correction factors. In
reality, the aerodynamics problem is very complex and its
solution is dependent on a variety of parameters. It is well
known that if the body's geometrical structure is more
complex, then “parasitic effects” will exist which act on the
body. These effects can be derived from airflow aerody‐
namics. Such effects (flow separation, streamlines curving)
cause smaller or larger deviations between reality and the
corresponding analytical model. Due to these reasons
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods [10, 11] have
been derived for the calculation of aerodynamic forces.
CFD methods use measured data from wind tunnels for
modelling. Using CFD methods it is possible to create
advanced models which can consider specific parasitic
effects. CFD methods are particularly advanced, but they
require laboratory experimental equipment to be set up and
a lot of computing time for calculations. This means that
detailed research into aerodynamics requires tremendous

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078 1

 efforts and many resources. Nowadays, this research can
be realized only in highly specialized companies or
research institutes.
However, in such cases where it is necessary to design a
control system for already existing flying machines which
are already optimized from constructional aspects, it is still
important to create a specific regression model of a system’s
flight mechanics which is sufficient for the design of any
on-board control systems. The key role of this specific
regression model is to provide a plausible mathematical
description of a system’s dynamic flight behaviour.
In this article, we present a specific method that allows for
the creation of this mathematical regression model so that
its structure and extent are not too complicated for online
calculation with the typical light-weight computer hard‐
ware of a small airship. This method provides a dynamic
model with specific correction parameters which can be
easily identified on the basis of measured data from
experimental flights (e.g., without wind tunnel measure‐
ment). The regression model of the flight mechanics is
derived according to the proposed PEM, which is specifi‐
cally derived to solve the aerodynamics part of the flight
mechanics. The principle of our PEM is based on a suitable
decomposition of the flight system into such components,
which can be considered as relatively homogeneous from
the aerodynamics viewpoint. In the next step, the partial
balances of the aerodynamic forces and momentums of
each component are calculated separately.
The total aerodynamic forces and momentums acting on
the flight system (e.g., an airship) are then given as the sum
of these partial aerodynamic forces and momentums. The
computation of the partial aerodynamic forces and mo‐
mentums is carried out by a combination of the standard
Newton's mechanics with a specific form of the finite
element method with respect to the body's wind side and
leeward side.
The PEM's main advantage is that it offers a regression
model which for normal flight conditions provides a
plausible approximate dynamic description of the system’s
flight behaviour. All the parasitic or disturbance effects
which occur under normal flight conditions are reflected in
specific correction parameters.
This article describes the application of our PEM for a
small airship (nine metres in length). It shows simulation
results which were obtained using a mathematical
regression model and it also presents a comparison with
airship experimental flight data. More information can be
found in [12].
This paper is structured as follows: in Chapter 2, the basic
principles of the PEM are shown. In accordance with those
PEM principles, Chapter 3 explains the airships decompo‐
sition into specific parts. Chapter 4 presents the character‐
istic parameters of these decomposed parts of the flight
system with respect of the wind side and the leeward side
2 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078
of the body parts. Chapter 5 draws conclusions from the
previous chapters and it derives the principles for aerody‐
namic force balance. The resulting balance of the aerody‐
namic forces and momentums for airship parts, along with
a short preview of the complete mathematical model of the
airship's flight mechanics, is presented in Chapter 6. In
Chapter 7, the list of the model parameters for our experi‐
mental airship can be found. Chapter 8 focuses on compar‐
isons with experimental flights of a real airship. The
conclusion and discussion of the PEM are given in Chapter
9. A literature list can be found at the end of this paper.
2. The PEM principle
The principle of the PEM can be described by the following
steps:
1. Suitable airship decomposition into the specific parts:
the airship is divided into parts which can be consid‐
ered as relatively homogeneous from an aerodynamics
viewpoint.
2. For all the specified parts, the following parameters
have to be determined: projection surface areas and
their geometrical centres with respect to the airship's
body frame (coordination system), translational
velocities for all the geometrical centres of the projec‐
tion surfaces, and the wind velocity, which is ex‐
pressed separately for every projection surface with
respect to its body frame.
3. For specific airship parts which include the centre of
rotation (in this case, the hull) it is necessary to apply
a specific form of the finite element method, as
described in the next section of this article where it is
called the “single cuts” method.
4. Using Newton's mechanics, the aerodynamic force
balances for every projection surface of the airship's
parts can be realized with respect to the wind side and
the leeward side.
5. The computed aerodynamic forces are then trans‐
formed from the projection surfaces frame to the
airship body frame.
6. Considering the position vectors to all the projection
surfaces (their geometrical centres) and their related
aerodynamic force values, which are expressed in the
airship body frame, all the forces and momentums can
be determined with respect to the airship's centre of
rotation.
The total aerodynamic forces and momentums acting on
the airship are then given as the sum of all these partial
aerodynamic forces and momentums.
3. Airship decomposition to the specific parts
During some research projects in flight robotics, the
Control Systems Engineering group of the FernUniversität
in Hagen acquired a small airship (length 8.7 m, diameter
2.38 m, volume 24 m3) for experimental purposes. This For the fixed rudder body,, we define the projection surface
airship is presented in “Fig. 1”. SyRP of the fixed rudder body which is orthogonal in the y-
axis direction, the position vector RRP for the geometric
centre of the surface SyRP and the translational velocity
VRP = (V + Ω × RRP) for the geometric centre RRP.

For the rudder flap, we define the projection surface

SyRA(K) of the rudder flap which is orthogonal to the y(K)
-axis direction, the position vector RRA for geometric centre
of the surface SyRA(K), the rudder flap angle ε , the transla‐
tional velocity VRA(K) = f ((V + Ω × RRA), ε ) for the geomet‐
ric centre RRA, and the wind velocity W(K) = f (W, ε )
Figure 1. Airship body frame (coordination system NED) and specific
expressed in the rudder flap body frame K. For simplici‐
components (1 – hull, 2 – rudder fixed body, 3 – rudder flap, 4a – left elevator ty, the rudder thickness is neglected and for the position
fixed body, 5a – left elevator flap) vector RRA it is considered that it is independent of the
rudder flap angle ε .
As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to divide the airship
into relatively homogeneous components (from an aero‐
dynamics viewpoint) as stressed in “Fig. 1”. On this basis
the airship has been divided into: the airship hull, the
rudder fixed body (without a flap) and the rudder flap
(without the fixed body), the left elevator fixed body and
the left elevator flap, and the right elevator fixed body and
the right elevator flap.

4. Characteristic parameters of the airship parts

Based on photos of the airship, a computer model of our

flight system was created (i.e., with “SolidWorks“). From
this model, all the following parameters were determined:
position vectors of the CV (centre of volume), the CG
(centre of gravity) location, the projection surface areas and
Figure 2. The fixed rudder body (left) and the rudder flap with its body frame
their geometrical centres with respect to the airship body K (right)
frame, the translational velocities for all the geometrical
centres of the projection surfaces, and the wind velocity, b. Elevators’ parameters
which is expressed separately for every projection surface
As with the rudder, we proceed as outlined in “Fig. 3”. The
with respect to its body frame. The airship hull includes the
only difference is that both elevators can be rotated in the
centre of rotation CR (CR ≡ CV). For this component, it is
airship's body frame around a constructional angle ±η (the
necessary to apply the specific method of “single cuts”,
left elevator is rotated about the +η angle and the right
which is described in a separate chapter of this article.
elevator about the − η angle). The constructional angle ±η
Before any specific parameters are determined for the
together with the left elevator flap angle μ and the right
airship components, it is necessary to define the airship's
elevator flap angle σ have to be considered for the wind
translational velocity V, the wind velocity W and the
velocity W transformation and the airship translational
airship angular velocity Ω with respect to the airship body
velocity V transformation, which it is necessary to apply
frame,
between the body frames defined for the elevators’ fixed
bodies and the elevators’ flaps and airship body frame. For
( ) ( )
T T
V = vx vy vz , W = wx wy wz , simplicity, the elevator fixed body thickness is neglected.
(1)
( )
T
Ω = wx w y wz For the constructional angle, it is considered that η + = − η −.
In the next step, it is considered that the left and right
elevator are the same size and so it is sufficient to determine
a. Rudder’s parameters
only the following parameters.
The rudder is divided into its fixed body and a flap part, as
For the fixed body of the left and right elevator, we
shown in “Fig. 2”. The fixed rudder body is balanced with
respect to the airship's body frame. Because the connected determine the projection surface SzEP(E±) of the left and right
rudder flap can be rotated, a separate body frame can be elevator fixed bodies (both surfaces are equivalent) which
defined for the rudder flap, which is nominated and are orthogonal to the z(E±) -axis direction, the position
labelled as the “K-frame” here. vectors REP+ and REP− for the geometric centres of the left

Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 3

Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method
 and right elevator fixed body surfaces SzEP(E+) and SzEP(E−),
the constructional angle for the left η + and the right η −
elevators, respectively, the translational velocities
VEP+(E+) = f ((V + Ω × REP+), η +) and
EP−( −) (( EP−) −)
V E = f V + Ω×R , η for the geometric centres REP+
and R , and the end wind velocities W(E+) = f (W, η +) and
EP−
W(E−) = f (W, η −) expressed in the body frame of the left E+
and right E− elevator fixed bodies, respectively.
Figure 3. The fixed body frames E+ and E− of the left and right elevators (left
figure), and the flap body frames E+μ and E−σ of the left and right elevators
(right figure)
For the left and right elevator flaps, we determine the
projection surface SzEA(Eμ|σ
±
) of the left and right elevator
flaps (both surfaces are equivalent) which are orthogonal
to the z(Eμ|σ
±
) -axis direction, the position vectors REA+ and
R EA−
for the geometric centres of the left and right elevator
flap surfaces SzEA(E+μ) and SzEA(E−σ ), the control angle for the
left μ and right σ elevator flaps, the translational velocities
VEA+(E+μ) = f ((V + Ω × REA+), η +, μ ) and
VEA−(E−σ) = f ((V + Ω × REA−), η −, σ ) for the geometric centres
EA+ EA−
R and R , respectively, and the end wind velocities
W(E+μ) = f (W, μ ) and W(E−σ) = f (W, σ ) expressed in the body
frame of the left E+μ and right Eσ− elevator flaps, respectively.
For simplicity, it is considered that the position vectors REA+
and REA− are independent of the left and right rudder flap
angles μ and σ .
c. Airship hull and the “single cuts” method
The airship hull includes the centre of rotation CR
(CR ≡ CV). For this reason, it is necessary to apply the
specific single cuts method as one tool of the PEM. First, the
airship's hull is split into all three orthogonal planes which
are defined in the 3D airship body frame. Every cut surface
of the airship's hull is next divided into four quadrants. For
every quadrant, specific parameters are determined, which
is the topic of this chapter. Any real airship hull can be
treated in principle as a deformed ellipsoid. Cuts of this
airship hull and their quadrants are illustrated in “Fig. 4”.
After cutting the airship hull, three orthogonal surfaces Sx,
Sy and Sz can be identified. Each surface is derived from a
cut which is an orthogonal projection of the hull body to
the relevant axis direction of the airship body frame. This
means that Sx is the projection surface which is orthogonal
4 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078
Figure 4. 3D orthogonal hull cuts with four quadrants: a) the front view,
surface Sx, b) the side view, surface Sy, and c) the view from above, surface
Sz
to the x-axis direction, Sy is a projection surface which is
orthogonal to the y-axis direction, and Sz is a projection
surface which is orthogonal to the z-axis direction. The
projection surfaces Sx (the yz plane of the airship body
frame), Sy (the xz plane of the airship body frame) and Sz
(the xy plane of the airship body frame) are divided into
four parts, labelled I, II, III and IV (see “Fig. 4”). These parts
of the surfaces Sx, Sy and Sz are also labelled as partial
surfaces SxI to SxIV, SyI to SyIV and SzI to SzIV. For these surfaces,
we can determine the corresponding sizes, the position
vectors Risx, Risy and Risz, and the translational velocities
ViSx = V + Ω × Risx, ViSy = V + Ω × Risy and ViSz = V + Ω × Risz for the
geometric centres of the partial projection surfaces
∀ i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
d. The wind side and leeward side of the body
As mentioned above, the PEM balances the body wind side
and the body leeward side. For this purpose, we first define
the surfaces Si in the body frame such that these surfaces Si
are orthogonal to the direction of one of the three axes of
the body frame. Let us define a surface Sy which is orthog‐
onal to the y-axis direction of the body frame, let its
translational velocity be assigned as V, and let the wind
velocity be assigned as W, such that
( ) = ( 0 w 0 ) and
T T
W = wx wy wz y
(2)
( v ) = (0 v 0)
T T
V = vx vy z y
In the next step, it is necessary to consider both sides of
surface Sy. One side of the surface Sy which is oriented to
the positive direction of the y-axis is indicated as Sy+ and
the second side of this surface Sy is indicated as Sy−. If the
surface Sy is in motion, then the velocities V and W are
summed or subtracted depending on the proper combina‐
tion between the wind direction and the surface movement
direction. This sum (or difference) is not equal for the Sy+
side and the Sy− side. This velocity is called the “specific
sum velocity” and it is denoted U∑ ∑ In accordance with “Fig. 5”, we can write:
y+ for the Sy+ side and Uy−
for the Sy− side. In the following step, the question is posed: 1. If the wind velocity wy is zero or negative wy ≤ 0, then
∑
How can the calculation of the specific sum velocities Uy+
and U∑
y− be carried out? The interaction between the wind
T
U åy + = æç ( wx - vx ) (w ) ( wz - vz ) ö÷ø
max = 0
- vy (a)
velocity and the airship's body motion is very complex. The è
y
(3)
PEM solves this problem under the following simplifying
( ( ) )
T

assumptions: U åy - = ( w x - vx ) - vy
min = 0
( w z - vz ) (b)

1. Assumption of the body’s full “shielding”

This assumption considers that the wind flow is completely 2. If the wind velocity wy is positive wy > 0, then
interrupted by the airship's body. This means that for the
leeward sides of the body the airflow velocity is zero. T
U åy + = æç ( wx - vx ) ( -v ) ( wz - vz ) ö÷ø
max = 0
y
(a)
2. Assumption of the body’s full “transparency” è (4)
(( wx - vx ) ( wy - vy )min=0 ( wz - vz ))
T
This assumption considers that wind flow is not influenced U åy - = (b)
at all by the airship's body. This means that for leeward
sides of the body the airflow velocity remains unchanged.
where
These two simplifying cases do not consider several further
facts, namely that:
ì arg " arg Î ( 0 , ¥ )
1. The airship's body – when moving forwards – displa‐ ( arg )min =0 = ïí " arg Î ( -¥ ,0
(5)
ces a certain air volume along the body's surface, ïî 0
where it creates a specific airflow.
2. If the body of the airship is in an external airflow, then
ìï 0 " arg Î 0, ¥ )
( arg )
max = 0
the geometry of the streamlines and the airflow's =í (6)
velocity profiles are dependent on the actual body ïî arg " arg Î ( -¥ ,0 )
geometry, on the material properties of the body
surface, and on the airflow velocity itself. Equations (3) and (4) respect the assumption that the
Accepting both of these simplifying assumptions men‐ surface Sy completely impedes any wind flow (“shielding”
tioned above will cause deviations from the real body’s mode). The leeward side of the surface Sy is represented by
Accepting both of these simplifying assumptions
behaviour in airflow. These model deviations are later Sy+ if the wind mentioned above will
direction is identical to thecause
y-axis direction.
deviationsforfrom
compensated the real body’s
by correction behaviour
parameters which are The leeward
in airflow. These side
modelof the surface Syare
deviations represent
later Sy− if the
determined on the basis
compensated of experimental
for by data. The corre‐
correction parameters whichdirection of the windon
are determined flow
the is opposite
basis ofto the y-axis direc‐
sponding procedures will be explained later.
experimental data. The corresponding procedures Note that the tion. In principle, three body
ocedures will be explained later. Note that projection planes
theexist in 3D
decision about which assumption fits better can only be space. For every projection plane, a surface can be defined
decision
known on theabout which
basis of assumption
comparing fits better
the simulation resultscan only be known on the basis of comparing
which is orthogonal to the x-, y- or z-axis direction. Every
with
theexperimental
simulationdata. Let uswith
results assume that, according
experimental to Let
data. us assume
projected surfacethat, according
consists to theThis means that
of two sides.
theexperimental
experimental results, it is better to accept the full
results, it is better to accept the fullthere are six specific
“shielding” sum velocities
assumption U∑ which
for the are denoted
airship's
“shielding” assumption for the airship's flight conditions. as U ∑
, U ∑
, U ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
∑ , U , U ∑ and U . These specific sum
flight conditions. Accordingly, the specific sum velocities
x+ x− U y+ andy− Uz+y − can z−be computed on
Accordingly, the specific sum velocities U∑ ∑
y+ and Uy− can be
y+
velocities can be calculated (the assumption of full body
computed
the basison the basisfollowing
of the of the following terms.
terms. “shielding”) according to the following relations:

Figure 5. Mutual
Figure impact of the
5. Mutual surface of
impact velocity y and the wind
the vsurface velocity wy on
velocity v the Sthe
and y surface
wind withvelocity
respect to the assumption
on theof body
w full “shielding”
surface with S
y y y

respect to the assumption of body full “shielding”

“shielding”.
Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 5
In accordance with “Fig. 5”, we can write: Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method

1. If the wind velocity wy is zero or negative wy ≤ 0 , then

 1. The specific sum velocities U∑ ( )
x± V, W are given as

( )
T
U åx + ( wx £ 0 ) = ( wx - vx )
max = 0
(w y
- vy ) (w z
- vz ) (a)

( ( -v ) ( w - v ) ( w - v ))
T
U åx - ( wx £ 0 ) = x min = 0 y y z z
(b)
(7)
( ( -v ) ( w - v ) ( w - v ))
T
U xå+ ( wx > 0 ) =
max = 0
x y y z z
(c)

( wx > 0 ) = ( ( wx - vx )min =0 ( w - v ) ( w - v ))
T
U å
x- y y z z
(d)

2. ∑(
The specific sum velocities Uz± V, W) are given as

( (w - v ) (w - v ) )
T
U zå+ ( wz £ 0 ) = ( wx - vx )
max = 0
y y z z
(a)

U ( w £ 0 ) = ( ( w - v ) ( w - v ) ( -v ) )
T
å
(b) ∑
z- z x x y y z min = 0 Figure 6. The body projection surfaces and the specific sum velocity Ui±
(8)
U ( w > 0 ) = ( ( w - v ) ( w - v ) ( -v ) )
T
å max = 0
z+ z x x y y z
(c)
the body projection surfaces Sx, Sy and Sz (which are
U ( w > 0) = (( w - v ) ( w - v ) ( w - v ) )
T
å
z- z x x y y z z min = 0
(d)
orthogonal to the axes directions). Therefore, these surfaces
have to be projected towards the air flow to substitute them
In other cases, when the assumption of full body “trans‐ by virtual surfaces which are directly exposed to the wind.
parency” is appropriate, the following substitutions are These “towards wind“ projection surfaces are orthogonal
valid for equations (3) to (8) ∑
to the specific sum velocity Ui+ . This means that it is
necessary to realize projections of the surfaces Sx, Sy and Sz
( -vi )min =0 ¬ ( wi - vi )min =0 and ( - vi ) ¬ ( wi - vi )
max = 0 max = 0
(9) to the specific sum velocities’ directions U∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
x+, Ux−, Uy+Uy−, Uz+
∑
and Uz− . These projections can be expressed using the
e. The balance of aerodynamic forces direction cosine as the angle between the specific sum
∑
In the PEM we only consider Newton's equation for velocity Ui± , and the corresponding surface Si± can be
aerodynamic resistance (drag), which is defined for calculated. Thus, this angle can be determined according to
turbulent flow (although even this relation is of limited the cosine theorem
relevance only). The lift force, which is usually calculated
on the basis of Bernoulli's principle, is not considered here.
uiå± ,i
In the PEM, the “lift” effect is only treated as the result of cos(Si ± ÐU iå± ) = (11)
the Newton's equation applied with specific correction U iå±
parameters. Newton's equation is defined as
∑
where i represents the x-, y- or z-axis and ui±,i represents the
1 ∑
F= rCS^ v 2 (10) x, y or z elements of the vector Ui± . The resulting projection
2
∑
Si±⊥ of the surface Si± in the direction Ui± is given as

where F is the aerodynamic resistance (drag), ρ is the fluid

density (air), C is the resistance coefficient (drag coeffi‐ uiå± ,i
Si ± ^ = Si ± cos(Si ± ÐU iå± ) = Si ± (12)
cient), S⊥ is the orthogonal surface to the air streamlines U iå±
direction, and v is the fluid (air) velocity.
In a further step, we modify Newton's equation (10) Because Si+ = Si− = Si , it is possible to substitute (12) into
towards the PEM form. Let there be a given body frame equation (10) and to rewrite
which is oriented in the same way as the typical frame
system NED (north–east–down). All three body projection
∑ 1 uå 2 1
surfaces Sx, Sy and Sz and a specific sum velocity Ui± are Fi ± = rCi ±Si i ±å,i U iå± = rCi ±Siuiå± ,i U iå± (13)
included in this body frame, as shown in “Fig. 6”. 2 Ui ± 2

Because equation (10) includes surface S⊥ which is orthog‐

onal to the direction of the fluid streamlines (in this case, where Ci± represents the correction parameter which
streamlines of air), it is necessary to derive surface S⊥ from includes the resistance coefficient (the drag coefficient).

6 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078

This correction parameter corresponds with surface Si± and exposed to airflow. In this example, the “drag” and “lift”
also considers the deviation of real flight behaviour from effects are defined in frame system A and both are deter‐
the model predictions (which is caused by accepting some mined by the transformation of the specific force F y− from
of the simplifying assumptions mentioned above). frame system B (related to the plate surface) to frame
system A (related to airflow). For any specific force balance
Here, it is necessary to explain how, in the PEM sense, F i±
of the surface Si , it is possible to state that F i = F i+ + F i−, which
represents the specific aerodynamic force from which the
means
“drag” and “lift” effects can be derived. The “drag” and
“lift” effects can be calculated by a specific aerodynamic
force transformation (between two coordinate frame Fi =
1 1 1
rC S uå U å + rC S uå U å = rS C uå U å + Ci -uiå- ,i U iå-
2 i + i i + ,i i + 2 i - i i - ,i i - 2 i i + i + ,i i +
( ) (14)
systems). Let F i± be the aerodynamic force with respect to
the projection surface Si±⊥ which is orthogonal to the
where
direction of the streamlines. Let the direction of the specific
force F i± (from which the “drag” and “lift” effects can be
(u ) + (u ) + (u ) (u ) + (u ) + (u )
2 2 2 2 2 2
obtained by transformation) be orthogonal to the real U iå+ = å
i + ,x
å
i+,y
å
i + ,z
and U iå- = å
i - ,x
å
i - ,y
å
i - ,z

surface direction Si±, as shown in “Fig. 7”. Based on these

relations, it is possible to create a regression model for
The vector of the specific aerodynamic force F which acts
aerodynamic forces with “drag” and “lift” effects. “Fig. 7”
on the body is given as (15)
presents an example of a plate of the flight system which is

æ æ öö
(u ) + (u ) + (u ) (u ) + (u ) + (u )
2 2 2 2 2 2
ç Sx ç C x +ux + ,x
å å å å
x + ,x x + ,y x + ,z
+ C x -uxå- ,x å
x - ,x
å
x - ,y ÷÷
å
x - ,z
ç è ø÷
1 ç æ 2 ö÷
(u ) + (u ) + (u ) (u ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2
F = r ç Sy ç C y +uyå+ ,y å
y + ,x
å
y + ,y
å
y + ,z
+ C y -uyå- ,y å
y - ,x
+ uyå- ,y + uyå- ,z ÷ ÷ (15)
2 ç è ø÷
ç ÷
ç S æ C uå 2 ö
(u ) + (u ) + (u ) (u ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2

ç z ç z + z + ,z
å
z + ,x
å
z + ,y
å
z + ,z
+ C z -uzå- ,z å
z - ,x
+ uzå- ,y + uzå- ,z ÷ ÷÷
è è øø

Figure 7. The projection surfaces S y−⊥ and S y+⊥ and force F y− for a plate (e.g., a flap)

pM
If equation (15) is substituted by the air density ρ = RT
where p is the atmospheric pressure, M is the air molecular
weight, R is the universal gas constant and T is the air
temperature, then it can be rewritten as
f. Correction parameters
As mentioned above, the PEM uses simplified equations
which in general do not correspond exactly with the real
airflow processes. The above-mentioned deviations of the
dynamical model derived by the PEM can be successfully
compensated for by use of the correction parameters Ci±.

(
æ S C uå U å + C uå U å
ç x x + x + ,x x + x - x - ,x x- ) ö÷ æ F ö x
These correction parameters include the resistance coeffi‐
cients and also respect the deviation of the specific sum
F=
1 pM ç
S C u (
å

2 RT ç y y + y + ,y y +
U + C y -uy - ,y U åy -
å å
) ÷÷ = ççç F ÷÷÷
y (16) ∑
velocity Ui± from the real state of the system caused by all
ç ÷
(
ç Sz C z +uzå+ ,z U zå+ + C z -uzå- ,z U åz -
è ) ÷ø è F ø z the simplifying assumptions that have been made [12].
Under the assumption that

Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 7

Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method
 U iå± ( real ) = k1i ± U iå± and Fi ± ( real ) = k2 i ± Fi ±
∑(
where Ui± real) is the real sum velocity and F i±(real) is the
real aerodynamic force, and if k1i± and k2i± are constant, then
the correction parameter Ci± is given by
All the adjustment parameters mentioned above (such as
Ci± and lx, ly and lz) can be determined for each airship part
on the basis of experimental measurements during a real
airship flight.
5. The balance of aerodynamic forces and the
momentums for airship parts

a. Rudder balance
Ci ± = k2 i ± ci ± k12±
Let us consider the rudder parameters first. Here, it is
possible to obtain a rudder balance with respect to the
where ci± is a resistance coefficient corresponding to foregoing considerations. For the fixed body of the rudder,
equation (10). it is given that

Consequently, it is possible to define the correctional

parameters lx, ly and lz, by which it becomes possible to
æ 0 ö
consider any small discrepancies caused by any assump‐ 1 pM ç RP RP RP å RP å ÷
tion about the orientation of a specific aerodynamic force
AN
F
RP
=
2 RT ç y y
(
ç S C uy + ,y U y + + uyRP- ,yå U RP
y-
å
) ÷
÷
(17)
F i± (see “Fig. 7”). The original aerodynamic force F can be ç 0 ÷
è ø
determined by equation (16), and so it is feasible to adjust
this force by the following equations,
RP RP
It can be considered that Cy+ = Cy− = CyRP. On the basis of

( ) ö÷
∑
æ equations (3) and (4), the specific sum velocities URP
y+ and
æ lx ö ç Sx C x +ux + ,x U x + + C x -ux - ,x U x -
å å å å
æ lx ö
ç ÷ 1 pM ç ÷ ç URP∑ RP∑ ( RP )
G = ç ly ÷ × F = çl ÷× S C u
å
(
2 RT ç y ÷ ç y y + y + ,y y +
U å + C y -uyå- ,y U åy - ) ÷÷ y− can be rewritten as Uy± = f V , W and the momen‐

tum of the specific aerodynamic force FAN

ç ÷ ç ÷ RP is then given by
è lz ø
è (
è lz ø ç Sz C z +uzå+ ,z U åz + + C z -uzå- ,z U åz - ) ÷ø QAN RP AN
RP = R × FRP .

For the rudder flap (the rudder thickness is neglected), the

where G is the corrected aerodynamic force, which is fine- balance conditions are similar as for the rudder fixed body.
tuned by the correction parameters lx, ly and lz considering First, let us define the specific aerodynamic forces in the
the case that | G | = | F | . rudder flap body frame K as

æ 0 ö æ 0 ö
1 pM ç RA ÷ ç AN ÷
F AN
RA
ç
RA RA å
(
( K ) = 2 RT ç Sy ( K ) Cy uy + ,y ( K ) U y + ( K ) + uyRA- ,yå ( K ) URA
RA å
y- ( )
å
K ) ÷ = ç FRA ( K ) y ÷
÷ ç ÷
(18)
ç 0 ÷ ç 0 ÷
è ø è ø

RA RA
Here, it is considered that Cy+ = Cy− = CyRA, and the AN
RA∑ RA∑
QRA = R RA ´ FRA
AN
(20)
specific sum velocities Uy+ (K) and Uy− (K) are given on
the basis of equations (3) and (4) where
URA K = f (VRA(K), W(K)). Here, a specific force FAN
∑( ) ( ) b. Elevators’ balance – left and right elevators’ fixed body
y± RA K
transformation from the rudder flap body frame K to the (without a flap)
airship body frame is necessary, which is governed by The elevators’ balance is calculated separately for the left
the following equation, elevator’s fixed body and flap and for the right elevator’s
fixed body and flap.

On the basis of the parameters for the left and right

elevators’ fixed body (the elevators’ fixed body thickness is
( K )y ( - sin e 0)
AN AN T
F RA
=F RA
cos e (19)
neglected), it is possible to provide the left and right
elevators’ fixed body balance with respect to the foregoing
considerations. First, we define a specific aerodynamic
The momentum of the specific aerodynamic force FAN
RA is force in left and right elevators’ fixed body frames E+ and
then given as E− as (21) and (22)

8 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078

 æ ö æ ö
ç 0 ÷ ç 0 ÷
1 pM ç
FAN
EP + (E )+
=
2 RT ç
0 ÷=ç
÷ ç
0 ÷
÷
(21)

è z z ( )
z + ,z z+( ( ) z - ,z ( )
çç SEP E ± C EP uEP å E + U EP å E + + uEP å E + U EP å E +
z- ( ) ( )) ø è
EP +( )
÷÷ ç F AN E + ÷
zø

æ ö æ ö
ç 0 ÷ ç 0 ÷
1 pM ç
AN
FEP -
E-( ) =
2 RT ç
0 ÷=ç
÷ ç
0 ÷
÷
(22)

è z z ( )
z + ,z z+( ( ) z - ,z ( )
çç SEP E ± C EP uEP å E - U EP å E - + uEP å E - U EP å E -
z- ( ) ( )) ø è
EP - ( )
÷÷ ç F AN E - ÷
zø

where it is considered that Cz+EP = Cz−EP = CzEP. For specific sum AN

The momentums of the specific aerodynamic forces FEP+
∑( +) EP∑( +) ∑( −) EP∑( −) AN
and FEP− are then given by
velocities UEP
z+ E , Uz− E and UEP
z+ E , Uz− E derived
on the basis of equations (8), it can be summarized that
∑( +)
UEP
z± E = f (VEP+(E+), W(E+)) and AN
QEP = R EP + ´ FEP
AN
and
+ +
∑( −) (24)
UEP
z± E = f (VEP−(E−), W(E−)). AN
QEP -
= R EP - ´ FEP
AN
-

AN ( +) AN ( −)
Next, the specific forces FEP+ E and FEP− E have to be
transformed from the left and right elevators’ fixed body c. Elevators’ balance – left and right elevators’ flap
(without a fixed body)
frame E+ and E− to the airship body frame by the following
equations, On the basis of the parameters for the left and right
elevators’ flap (the elevator flap thickness is neglected), it
is possible to provide the left and right elevators’ flap
( ) ( 0 - sinh cosh ) and
T
AN
FEP +
AN
= FEP +
E+ + +
balance with respect to the foregoing considerations. First,
z
(23) a specific aerodynamic force is defined in the left and right
= F ( E ) ( 0 - sinh cosh )
T
AN AN
FEP - EP -
- - -
elevator flaps’ body frames E+μ and Eσ− as (25) and (26)
z

æ ö æ ö
ç 0 ÷ ç 0 ÷
1 pM ç
AN
FEA
μ +
E+ ( ) =
2 RT ç
0 ÷=ç
÷ ç
0 ÷
÷
(25)

è zμ| zs (
z ,z +μ )
z +μ( z ,z -μ( )z ( )
çç SEA E ± C EA uEA å E + U EA å E + + uEA å E + U EA å E +
-μ ( ) ( )) μ
EA + ( )
÷÷ ç F AN E +
ø è
÷
zø

æ ö æ ö
ç 0 ÷ ç 0 ÷
1 pM ç
FAN
σ -
EA (E )-
=
2 RT ç
0 ÷=ç
÷ ç
0 ÷
÷
(26)
çç S E
EA
è zμ|
±
zs ( ) ( ( ) ( )
Cz ,z u +σ Ez U +σ å E - z ,z+ uEA-σ å Ez- U EA-σ å E -
EA EA å - EA
( ) ( )) ÷÷ ç F
ø è
AN
σ -
EA ( )
E- ÷
zø

z+ (Eμ), Uz− (Eμ) and EA+( Eμ ) and FEA−( Eσ ) are now trans‐
∑ + EA∑ + This specific forces FAN + AN −
For the specific sum velocities UEA
formed from the left and right elevators’ flap body frames
z+ (Eσ), Uz− (Eσ) deduced on the basis of equation (8), it
∑ − EA∑ −
UEA
E+μ and Eσ− to the airship's body frame by the following
z± (Eμ) = f (V (Eμ), W(E+μ))
∑ +
is given that UEA EA+ +
and
equation
UEA
z±
∑ (E−σ) = f (VEA−(E−σ), W(E−σ)).

æ cosh + sin m ö æ cosh - sin s ö

ç ÷ ç ÷
AN
FEA +
AN
= FEA + ( )
E +m ç - sinh + ÷ and FEA
z
AN
-
AN
= FEA -
Es- ( ) z
ç - sinh
-
÷ (27)
çç ÷÷ çç ÷÷
è cosh cos m ø h s
+
è cos -
cos ø

Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 9

Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method
 The momentums of the specific aerodynamic forces FAN
EA+
sponding with a particular quadrant) of the Sx, Sy or Sz
and FAN are then given as projection surface be assigned with the symbol i. In the case
EA−
of the Sx, Sy and Sz surfaces, it is consistent that Sxi , Syi and
AN Szi are the partial surfaces which are defined in the i -th
QEA +
= R EA + ´ FEA
AN
+
and
AN
(28) quadrant, Cx+i , Cx−i , Cy+
i i
, Cy− and Cz+i , Cz−i are the correctional
QEA -
= R EA - ´ FEA
AN
-
parameters of the partial surfaces, Uix+∑, Uix−∑, Uiy+∑, Uiy−∑ and

d. Airship hull balance
The total hull balance of the airship consists of partial
balances for the Sx, Sy and Sz surfaces. On the basis of the
measured parameters for Sx, Sy and Sz, the hull as balanced
for these surfaces can be estimated with respect to the
foregoing considerations. Let every surface part (corre‐
Uiz+∑, Uiz−∑ are the specific sum velocities of the partial
surfaces, Risx, Risy and Risz are the position vectors towards
i i
the geometrical centres of the partial surfaces, and VSx, VSy
i
and VSz are the translational velocities of the geometrical
centres. Specific aerodynamic forces for the airship's hull
are then given as

æ IV i i i å
ç i =I
(
ç å Sx C x +ux + ,x U x + + C x -ux - ,x U x -
iå i iå iå
) ö÷÷ æ IV i ö
ç å Fx ÷
ç i =I ÷
1 pM ç IV i i i å ÷ ç IV i ÷
FHAN = ç åS C u (
U i å + C yi -uyi å- ,y U iyå-
2 RT ç i = I y y + y + ,y y +
) ÷ = ç å Fy ÷
÷ ç i =I ÷
(29)
ç IV i i i å ÷ ç IV i ÷
è i =I
(
ç å Sz C z +uz + ,z U z + + C z -uz - ,z U z -
iå i iå iå
) ÷ ç å Fz ÷
ø è i =I ø

where the specific sum velocities Uix+∑, Uix−∑, Uiy+∑, Uiy−∑, Uiz+∑ and 13-19]. The aerodynamics part of this model corresponding
with terms (32) and (33). The complete mathematical model
Uiz−∑ are derived on the basis of equations (3 to 8)
of the airship flight mechanics is then given by

( )
U ixå± = f VSxi , W and U iyå± = f VSy
i
, W and ( ) (30)
æ M11 M12 ö æ V& ö æ F D ö æ FG + F B + FT + FT + FAN ö
÷ çç & ÷÷ = çç D ÷÷ + çç G
DHP R
ç ÷ (34)
( )
U izå± = f VSzi , W " i = I, II, III, IV è M21 M22 øè Ω ø è Q ø è Q + Q + QDHP + QR + Q ø
B T T AN ÷

The momentums of the specific aerodynamic force FAN The meaning of these variables corresponds to [19] and [20].
H are
The matrices M11, M12, M21 and M22 are components of the
calculated as
mass matrix, V = (vx vy vz)T is the translational velocity
T vector, Ω = (ωx ωy ωz)T is the angular velocity vector, FD
æ IV IV IV
ö
Q AN
H (
= ç å R isx ´ Fxi ) å (R i
sy
´F i
y ) å( i
R ´F ÷
sz z
i
) (31) and QD are dynamic vector components, FG is the gravita‐
è i =I i =I i =I ø
tion force vector, and FB is the buoyancy force vector. FTDHP
represents the dynamic thrust force vector of the main
6. Complete mathematical model of the airship flight airship drive unit, FRT is the thrust force vector of the rudder
mechanics
auxiliary propeller, and FAN is the aerodynamic force vector
If the total aerodynamic force of the airship is designated which is determined on the basis of the PEM (Terms 32 and
as FAN and the total aerodynamic momentum of the airship 33) where QG, QB = (0 0 0)T, QTDHP, QTR and QAN are the
as QAN, then we can summarize as follows, momentums corresponding with these forces.

FAN = FHAN + FRP

AN AN
+ FRA AN
+ FEP AN
+ FEP AN
+ FEA AN
+ FEA (32) 7. Model parameters
+ - + -

The parameters of the airship model (34) were determined

on different tracks: the weight of the airship's construction‐
QAN = QHAN + QRP
AN AN
+ QRA AN
+ QEP AN
+ QEP AN
+ QEA AN
+ QEA (33)
+ - + - al parts, the geometrical model obtained by airship photos
and by 3D-CAD tools (here, “SolidWorks“), other experi‐
The mathematical model of the airship flight mechanics is mental research such as Munk’s correction factors [3], and
obtained through Newton's mechanics, which are specifi‐ identification from experimental airship flights. All the
cally adapted for this flight system (airship) and then following values of the model parameters are valid only for
combined with the balances of all the specific forces [2, 3, a “nominal airship installation”. By a “nominal airship

10 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078

installation” is meant that the airship is considered to be
well balanced (from the centre of rotation CR), including
all necessary electronic components and auxiliary equip‐
ment (e.g., a video camera, specific sensors, etc.), and that
it is ready for flight.
a. Constant airship parameters
1. Propulsion: The maximal static thrust of the main
airship propulsion unit from which it is possible
to determine the dynamical thrust FTDHP, the
position vector RT of the main propulsion unit for
which balanced thrust occurs, the maximal thrust
FRT of the rudder auxiliary propeller, and the
position vector RR of the rudder auxiliary propel‐
ler for balanced thrust.
2. Rudder: The projection surface SyRP of the fixed
rudder body, the position vector RRP for the
geometrical centre of the fixed rudder body
projection surface, the projection surface SyRA(K)
of the rudder flap, the position vector RRA for the
geometrical centre of the rudder flap projection
surface, the maximum range for the rudder flap
angle εmax.
3. Elevators: The projection surface SzEP(E±) of the left
and right elevators’ fixed body, the position
vectors REP+ and REP− for the geometrical centre of
the left and right elevators’ fixed body projection
surfaces, the fixed constructional angle for the left
and right elevators η + and η −, the projection
surfaces SzEA(Eμ|σ
±
) of the left and right elevators’
flap, the position vectors REA+ and REA− for the
geometrical centres of the left and right elevators’
flap projection surfaces, the maximum range for
the left and right elevators’ flap angles μmax and
σmax.
4. Airship hull: The partial projection surfaces Sxi , Syi
and Szi , the position vectors for the airship hull’s
geometrical centres Risx, Risy, and Risz
∀ i = I, II, III, IV, and Munk’s correctional
factors f 1, f 2, f ′ [3].
b. Airship parameters valid for the “nominal airship
installation”
Here belongs the centre of gravity RCG, the airship weight
without helium mL, the helium weight mHe and the momen‐
tum of inertia matrix J.
c. Aerodynamic correctional parameters
The aerodynamic correctional parameters were deter‐
mined by means of experimental airship flights. The first
experimental flights had already been realized with closed-
loop control. Different controllers were designed on the
Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method
basis of the nominal mathematical model. Supported by
additional experimental flights, the aerodynamic correc‐
tional parameters and the more advanced parameters for
closed-loop control were determined. From this, more
precise aerodynamic parameters were derived, which are
considered in our fine-tuned mathematical model (34). All
these aerodynamic parameters were determined under
usual flight conditions, given as: wind of up to 1.5 m.s-1,
gusts of wind of up to 3.5 m.s-1, the static thrust of the
airship's main propulsion unit between 27.5 and 33.5 N,
and the airship’s cruise velocity between 4 and 10 m.s-1.
The identification of the aerodynamic correction parame‐
ters was realized by the identification method “RMOCI”
[21, 22], which was developed in our research group. This
identification method can be characterized as a specific
modification of the LDDIF (a form of least square method)
method [23, 24] with respect to nonlinear state space
models and based on nonlinear state space transformation
[25]. Of course, the aerodynamic parameters can also be
identified by several other identification methods, such as
[20]. As such, the aerodynamic correction parameters are:
RP RP
for the fixed rudder body Cy+ = Cy− = CyRP, for the rudder
RA RA
flap Cy+ = Cy− = CyRA, for the left and right elevators’ fixed
body Cz+EP = Cz−EP = CzEP, for the left and right elevators’ flap
EA EA
Cz+ = Cz− = CzEA, and for the airship hull Cx+
i i
= Cx− i
, Cy+ i
= Cy−
and Cz+i = Cz−i ∀ i = I,II,III,IV.
On the basis of the results derived from simulations and
experimental airship flights (see Chapter IX – Experimental
comparisons), it becomes clear that is not necessary make
use of the additional adaption parameters lx, ly and lz (see
Chapter IV/F – Correction parameters), which makes the
identification process easier. Therefore, in our case, these
parameters can be set as equal to 1.
8. Experimental comparisons
The experimental comparisons were carried out under
usual flight conditions for an air temperature of 14 oC, for
an air pressure of 102,250 Pa, and for the nominal airship
setup with the static thrust of the airship drive unit as 33.5
N. In order to compare the experimental flights with our
simulation results, we divided the experiments into two
parts:
1. In the first part of the experimental flight, the airship
control was adjusted to a constant flight altitude with
changes in the flight direction only. The variable
controller output for the airship flight direction is the
rudder flap angle ε . During this part of our experi‐
mental flights, we analysed the following details: the
form of the flight trajectory – “Fig. 8”, the airship flight
direction – “Fig. 9” and the airship forwards velocity,
see “Fig. 10”.
2. In the second part of the experimental flight, the
airship flight controller already commands changes in
Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 11
 the flight direction and the flight altitude at the same
time. The controller outputs for this type of airship's
experimental flight are the rudder flap angle ε and the
elevators’ flap angles μ and σ (the latter are controlled
so that μ = σ holds at all times). During this part of the
experimental flights, we compared the airship flight
altitude – “Fig. 11”, the Euler angles – “Fig. 12” and the
“Fig. 13”, airship translational velocity in the naviga‐
tion frame (coordination system NED) – “Fig. 14”.

The general problem for all the comparisons between the

simulations and the experimental flights comprised
unknown disturbances caused by gusts of wind. This Figure 8. Airship trajectory for the first part of the experimental flight
problem lies in the fact that the direction of the gusts of
wind which acted on the airship during the experimental
flights could not be measured exactly, and so their impact
could not be considered in comparing the simulations. For
the simulation we accept the wind trends (as a replacement
for gusts of wind).

From this, in the simulation, the impact of gusts of wind

was neglected and so it was not possible to compare all the
state space values (such as for angular velocities), whereby
the gusts of wind caused strong additional oscillations. It
is due to this fact that it was possible to compare the Euler
angles only. For all the simulations, the following wind
trend was accepted (measured on the Earth’s basis). Figure 9. Airship flight direction γM for the first part of the experimental
flight

Time interval for the first part of the flight, s Wind (N E D)T, m.s-1

<0-100) (-2.2 -1.2 0)

<100-168> (-2 2 0)

Time interval for the second part of the flight, s Wind (N E D)T, m.s-1

Entire flight time, s (-0.75 -1.8 0)

Table 1. The wind trend corresponding to the first and second parts of the
experimental flight

Simulations were carried out with the wind trend calcula‐

tion only. Larger differences occur in the presented cases of
the flight trajectory - “Fig. 8”, the airship forwards velocity Figure 10. Airship forward velocity VF for the first part of the experimental
- “Fig. 10” and the airship translational velocities – “Fig. flight
14”. The obvious reason for the larger difference in the case
of the airship flight trajectory is the fact that any compari‐
son of the 3D trajectories constitutes an extremely strong
criterion. In the case considered here, small differences
between the simulation and the experimental flight cause
a continuous systematic growth of trajectory differences
over time. The same applies for the airship forwards
velocity, which is very sensitive to the wind trends and
gusts of wind. Of course, the ideal conditions for compari‐
son between the simulation and the experimental flight are
given when the wind is calm. However, at our experimental
site (located in the western part of Germany) it was
necessary to accept windy flight conditions during our
experimental comparisons. The results achieved are Figure 11. Airship flight altitude for the second part of the experimental
flight
present in what follows.

12 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078


Figure 12. Euler angle yaw Ψ (azimuth) for the second part of the experi‐
mental flight
Figure 13. Euler angle roll φ for the second part of the experimental flight
Figure 14. Airship translational velocity vN in the N-axis of the NED
navigation frame for the second part of the experimental flight
The difference between the simulation and the experimen‐
tal trajectories can be characterized by the average trajec‐
tory difference | ΔL¯ | =43.8 m and by the corresponding
average acceleration bias error ā = 0.34 mg, which is really
a small difference (see “Fig. 8”). The difference between the
flight directions can be characterized by an average flight
direction difference | Δγ̄ M | = 8.3o (see “Fig. 9”). The
difference between the airship forwards velocities can be
characterized by an average airship forwards velocity
difference | ΔV̄ F | = 0.7 m.s-1 (see “Fig. 10”). Another
difference between the simulation and the experimental
flight courses can be described by the average flight altitude
difference | Δh̄ | = 0.5 m (see “Fig. 11”). Another deviation
between the simulation and the actual experimental course
Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method
is given by the average yaw angle (azimuth) difference
| Δψ̄ | = 10.6o (see “Fig. 12”). With respect to the “roll
motion”, any deviation of values is considered by the
average roll angle difference | Δφ̄ | = 2o (see “Fig. 13”). For
the “pitch motion”, the situation is the same as for the “roll
motion” - any difference between the courses (simulation/
experiment) can be nominated by the average pitch angle
difference | Δθ̄ | = 1.1o. Another difference between flight
courses can be designated by the average translational
velocity difference | Δv̄ N | = 1 m.s-1 (see “Fig. 14”). For the
translational velocity in the eastern direction, the situation
is the same as for the translational velocity in the northern
direction, and the difference between the flight courses can
be characterized by the average translational velocity
difference | Δv̄ E | = 0.9 m.s-1.
9. Conclusion
In this article, the PEM is presented in general and applied
specifically to an airship. With respect to the fact that
airships are especially sensitive to airflow (e.g., wind), it is
possible to prove the validity of this method by simulation
and experimental flights under untoward conditions. On
the basis of the results presented in this paper, it is shown
that our PEM method can be applied for the computation
of aerodynamic forces and momentums. The mathematical
model obtained by the PEM proves the plausibility and
reasonable dynamical behaviour of the flight system under
consideration.
The main advantage of our PEM is that it provides a valid
mathematical model framework with specific correction
parameters which can be identified easily by measured
data from experimental flights without complex or expen‐
sive experimental setups (e.g., wind tunnel measurement).
The second advantage of the PEM is that its mathematical
regression model, its internal structure and its descriptive
extent are not too complicated for online applications on
typical computer hardware, which can be carried by small
flight systems. Its incorporated mathematical model is not
demanding in terms of extensive CPU time, and so it is
possible to apply this method in cases where it is necessary
to calculate a continuous system state identification (e.g., to
implement an adaptive control or a model predictive
control, respectively).
On the basis of this mathematical model (presented in Eq.
34), we also designed an airship control system which
allows us to compensate for airship oscillations about the x
and y axes (roll and pitch, respectively) of the airship body
frame. This compensation is a major advantage in many
practical applications (such as on-board photography and
video purposes). Some videos presenting the quality of the
airship's dynamic flight behaviour in control mode are
available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgIFKCPRpII
http://www.youtube.com/user/fernuniairship?fea‐
tures=results_main
Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 13
 Generally, the PEM may be applied to other UAVs as well
(i.e., not only to airships) if it is possible to divide the UAV
into specific constructional parts which can be considered
to be relatively homogeneous from the aerodynamics
viewpoint. Modelling methods comparable with the PEM
are described in detail in [19] (an enhanced half-empirical
airship model with force and momentum analyses of
specific airship parts, such as the hull, the rudders and the
elevators, and also a comparison with thin body theory) or
in [26], which discusses the problem of small UAVs in
wind.
10. References
[1] Jones R. Acceleration derivatives in the case of a
body moving in an ideal fluid.ARC R&M; 1918: 748.
[2] Munk M. M. The aerodynamic forces on airship
hulls. NACA TR; 1924: 184.
[3] Munk M. M. Some tables of the factor of apparent
additional mass. National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics - Technical Notes; 1924: 197.
[4] Kelly H. R. The estimation of normal-force, drag,
and pitching-moment coefficients for blunt-based
bodies of revolution at large angles of attack.
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences; 1954; 21(8):
549-555.
[5] Calligeros J. M. and McDavitt P. W. Response and
loads on airships due to discrete and random gusts.
Aeroelastic and Structures Research Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Technical
Report; 1958: 72-1.
[6] Putman W. F., Maughmer M., Curtiss H. C. and
Traybar J. J. Aerodynamics and hovering control of
LTA vehicles. Department of Aerospace and
Mechanical Sciences, AMS-TR-1339; 1977: 1339.
[7] Jones S. P. Aerodynamics of a new aerostat design
with inverted-y fins. In: AIAA NO. 85–0867, editor.
6th Lighter-than-air Systems Conference; Norfolk;
1985. pp. 44-52.
[8] Jones S. P. Nonlinear dynamic simulation of a
moored aerostat. In: AIAA NO. 87–2505, editor. 7th
Lighter-than-air Systems Conference; Monterey,
CA; 1987. pp. 72-77.
[9] Badesha S. and Jones S. P.. Aerodynamics of the
TCOM 71M aerostat. AIAA Paper; 1993;
AIAA-93-4036-CP: 36-42.
[10] Lutz Th., Schmidt E. and Wagner S. Berechnung der
Umströmung von Luftschiffrümpfen. 2. DGLR
Luftschiffkolloquium, Lübbenau Spreewald; 1994
(in German).
[11] Lutz Th., Funk P., Jakobi A. and Wagner S. Aero‐
dynamic investigations on inclined airship bodies.
In: Proceeding of the International Airship Conven‐
tion; Bedford; 1998. pp. 26-28.
[12] Jelenciak F. Mathematische Modellierung der
Flugmechanik eines Luftschiffs sowie Regelung der
14 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:195 | doi: 10.5772/62078
grundlegenden Fluggrößen zur Navigation [disser‐
tation]. Prozesssteuerung und Regelungstechnik,
FernUniversität in Hagen: Shaker Verlag, Aachen;
2014. p. 324 (in German).
[13] Gomes S. B. V. An investigation of the flight
dynamics of airships with application to the
YEZ-2A [dissertation]. Cranfield Institute of
Technology: College of Aeronautics; 1990.
[14] Kämpf B. G. and Well K. H. Dynamics and control
of a small airship. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Airship Conference; Friedrichshafen;
1996.
[15] Wimmer D. Flugmechanische Modellierung und
Simulation eines Schwerlastluftschiffes in verschie‐
denen Windfeldern [thesis]. Institut für Flugmecha‐
nik und Flugregelung, Universität Stuttgart; 1997
(in German).
[16] Kämpf B. Kräfte auf Rotationsellipsoide in statio‐
närer Potentialströmung, beschrieben in Abhängig‐
keit flugmechanischer Bewegungskomponenten.
Institut für Flugmechanik und Flugregelung, IFR
TR-98-002, Universität Stuttgart; 1998 (in German).
[17] Kämpf B. Kräfte auf Rotationsellipsoide in statio‐
närer Potentialströmung, beschrieben in Abhängig‐
keit flugmechanischer Bewegungskomponenten.
Institut für Flugmechanik und Flugregelung, IFR
TR-00-001, Universität Stuttgart; 2000 (in German).
[18] Khoury G. A. and Gillett J. D. Airship Technology.
Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0521607531):;
1999/2004.
[19] Kämpf B. G. Flugmechanik und Flugregelung von
Luftschiften. Herbert Utz Verlag (ISBN
3831604320); 2004 (in German).
[20] Kornienko A. System identification approach for
determining flight dynamical characteristic of an
airship from flight data [thesis]. Stuttgart: Fakultät
für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik und Geodäsie der
Universität Stuttgard; 2006.
[21] Jelenciak F. and Mikles J. Process identification:
Nonlinear systems. In: IEEE, editor. Proceeding of
the 13th Int. Conference Process Control '01; Strbske
Pleso; 2001: pp. 80-86.
[22] Jelenciak F., Tapak P. and Huba M. Mathematical
modeling and identification of thermal plant. In:
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Process Control; Strbske Pleso; 2009: pp. 219-225.
[23] Kulhavý R. and Kárný M. Tracking of slowly
varying parameters by directional forgetting. In: 9th
IFAC World Congress; Budapest; 1984: pp. 79-83.
[24] Bittanti S., Bolzern P. and Campi M. Exponential
convergence of a modified directional forgetting
identification algorithm. Systems and Control
Letters; 1990; 14(2): 131-137.
[25] Sommer S. and Korn U. Modelling a class of
nonlinear plants as LPV-systems via nonlinear state
transformation. In: IMACS Symposium on Mathe‐
matical Modeling; Vienna University of Technolo‐
gy; 2000: pp. 795-798.
[26] Osborne J. and Rysdyk R. Waypoint guidance for
small UAVs in wind. In: AIAA NO. 2005-6951,
Infotek@Aerospace; Arlington, Virginia; 2005.

Frantisek Jelenciak, Michael Gerke and Ulrich Borgolte: 15

Modelling of Airship Flight Mechanics by the Projection Equivalent Method