See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348254161

Design, Modeling and Hybrid Control of a QuadPlane

Conference Paper · January 2021

DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-0374

CITATIONS READS
0 357

2 authors:

Akshay Mathur Ella M Atkins

University of Michigan University of Michigan
4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    308 PUBLICATIONS   8,229 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An Autonomous Innovator to Enhance Long-Duration Mission Success View project

A Continuum Deformation Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Traffic Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akshay Mathur on 09 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design, Modeling and Hybrid Control of a QuadPlane

Akshay Mathur∗ and Ella M. Atkins†

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109

This paper describes the design, initial testing, modeling, and control of a hybrid quadrotor-
fixed-wing unmanned aircraft system (UAS) prototype targeting future urban air mobility
(UAM) applications. The prototype has a traditional aircraft wing, tail, and puller motor
along with four vertical thrust motors supporting a quadrotor flight mode. Vehicle dynamics
are defined for hover, cruise and transition flight. Control laws are defined for the differ-
ent modes of operation to achieve smooth reference trajectory tracking. A hybrid systems
model is defined. Step responses, mode transition and full-envelope flight sequences analyze
"QuadPlane" performance in Matlab simulation.

I. Nomenclature

𝐶 𝐿 , 𝐶𝐷 , 𝐶 𝑀 = coefficients of Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment for a given airfoil

𝑐, 𝑆 = chord length and planform area for a given surface
𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = maximum thrust capacity of the motor-propeller
𝐹𝑥 , 𝐹𝑦 , 𝐹𝑧 = vehicle force along body axes (𝑥 𝑏 , 𝑦 𝑏 , 𝑧 𝑏 )
𝑔 = gravitational constant
𝐽 𝑥 , 𝐽 𝑦 , 𝐽𝑧 = principal moments of inertia of the vehicle about body axes
𝐽 𝑥 𝑦 , 𝐽 𝑦𝑧 , 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 = cross moments of inertia of the vehicle about body axes
𝐿𝑄 = arm length for the quadrotor square
𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑛 = vehicle moments along body axes (𝑥 𝑏 , 𝑦 𝑏 , 𝑧 𝑏 )
𝑀 = mass of the vehicle
𝑚 1 , 𝑚 2 .𝑚 3 , 𝑚 4 = front-right (FR), rear-right (RR), rear-left (RL) and front-left (FL) motor thrust
𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟 = vehicle angular velocity about body axes (𝑥 𝑏 , 𝑦 𝑏 , 𝑧 𝑏 )
𝑅 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑/𝑏 𝑓 = rotation matrix from wind to body frame
𝑅 𝑤 𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑/𝑏 𝑓 = rotation matrix from world (inertial) to body frame
𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤 = vehicle velocity about body axes (𝑥 𝑏 , 𝑦 𝑏 , 𝑧 𝑏 )
𝑢𝑃 = "Plane" control vector
𝑢𝑄 = "Quad" control vector
𝑉𝑎 = magnitude of wind velocity relative to the vehicle
𝑣 𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 = stall speed
𝑋 = vehicle state vector
𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 = north (𝑥), east (𝑦) and down (𝑧) positions of the vehicle in inertial frame
(𝑥 𝑏 , 𝑦 𝑏 , 𝑧 𝑏 ) = front (𝑥 𝑏 ), right (𝑦 𝑏 ) and down (𝑧 𝑏 ) body axes
𝛼 = angle of attack
𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = range of over which aerodynamic data is available for a given airfoil
𝛽 = sideslip angle
𝛿 𝑎 , 𝛿 𝑒 , 𝛿𝑟 = angular deflections for ailerons, elevator and rudder
𝛿𝑡 ℎ𝑟 = forward thrust force
Γ = 𝐽 𝑥 𝐽𝑧 − 𝐽 𝑥𝑧
2 , a constant for the vehicle

𝛾𝑚𝑜𝑡 = p-factor rolling moment coefficient of motor thrust force

𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜓 = Euler angles for the body frame using Z-Y-X convention
𝜌 = density of air

∗ PhD Candidate, Robotics Institute, University of Michigan, AIAA Student Member

† Professor,Aerospace Engineering and Robotics, University of Michigan, AIAA Fellow

1
 Fig. 1 QuadPlane CAD Schematic (left) and Balsa/Composite Prototype (right).

II. Introduction
rban Air Mobility (UAM) [1] anticipates new aircraft with Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capability
U plus efficient aerodynamics for forward flight [2]. Maneuverable multicopter small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) enable a host of new missions [3–5]. Multicopter optimization has been studied [6], but range is limited by
battery energy density and inefficiency in forward flight, even with configurations such the tail-sitter [7]. Conventional
fixed-wing aircraft offer efficient forward flight but require a runway for take-off and landing.
This paper proposes an energy-efficient design for "QuadPlane", which is an electric VTOL (eVTOL) vehicle
combining the merits of multicopters and conventional aircraft. Hybrid concepts such as the QuadPlane can be scaled to
support passenger-carrying UAM [8] as well as cargo transport. Aerodynamics of a similar concept has been analyzed
in [9] and some preliminary control design was carried out in a separate study [10].
The primary challenge of hybrid QuadPlane designs is ensuring safe operations in all modes including transitions
between forward and hovering flight. The proposed QuadPlane acts as a quadrotor during taking-off, hover and landing
(Quad mode), a fixed-wing aircraft during cruise (Plane mode), and a hybrid of the two during transitions between
Quad and Plane modes. During transitions, the vehicle smoothly accelerates or decelerates with constant heading.
Distinct dynamics govern Quad versus Plane modes specified by steady flight states about which dynamics are linearized.
Control laws are defined for each mode, but vehicle dynamics are simulated in Matlab using the full nonlinear equations
of motion. A hybrid system manages control mode switching and a full pattern flight simulation is carried out.
Below, Section III presents the QuadPlane design and initial flight test data. Vehicle dynamics and control strategies
are described in Section IV. Results from Matlab simulations for dynamics and control over different flight regimes are
summarized in Section V, followed by concluding remarks in Section VI.

III. Design and Initial Flight Tests

The proposed vehicle was sized small enough to initially test in M-Air ∗ but carry off-the-shelf avionics, battery, and
electric propulsion modules. A conventional quadrotor layout was superimposed on a single-tail fixed-wing airframe
for simplicity. We reused avionics and software from other projects to minimize development overhead [11, 12]. A
modified version of the open-source rc_pilot † software was adapted.
The QuadPlane was designed using SolidWorks as shown in Fig. 1. A combination of composite and natural wood
materials were selected based on structural strength, ease of manufacturing, and cost. An initial lumped mass weight
estimate was computed to support aerodynamic, structural and propulsion system designs. A vehicle prototype was then
constructed, shown in Fig. 1.
Table 1 lists design parameters for the QuadPlane. Based on the lumped mass estimate, wing and tail airfoils and
sizes were selected to provide the required lift, stability, and moments at cruise speed. Wing span was constrained by
ease of storage and flight considerations in M-Air. An aspect ratio of eight was chosen to support a reasonable glide
ratio. Stall speed was calculated as a hard lower bound for operating the QuadPlane in "Plane" mode. The motors and
propellers were chosen to provide sufficient thrust and control authority in "Quad" mode with a maximum thrust to
weight ratio of approximately 1.75 : 1. Maximum thrust generated by the motor was also sufficient for Plane mode, so
∗ University of Michigan’s outdoor netted flight testing facility - https://robotics.umich.edu/about/mair/
† StrawsonDesign - Multirotor Flight Controller https://github.com/StrawsonDesign/rc_pilot

2
 Value Value
Parameters Parameters
Imperial SI Units Imperial SI Units
Wing Control Surfaces
Span (𝑏 𝑤 ) 48 𝑖𝑛 1.2192 𝑚 Aileron span (𝑏 𝑎 ) 12 𝑖𝑛 0.3048 𝑚
Chord (𝑐 𝑤 ) 6 𝑖𝑛 0.1524 𝑚 Aileron chord (𝑐 𝑎 ) 1.5 𝑖𝑛 0.0381 𝑚
Incidence angle (𝛼𝑖 ) 5° 0.0873 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Elevator span (𝑏 𝑒 ) 15 𝑖𝑛 0.3810 𝑚
Dihedral angle (Γ𝑤 ) 0° 0 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Elevator chord (𝑐 𝑒 ) 1.5 𝑖𝑛 0.0381 𝑚
Stall speed (𝑣 𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) 29.39 𝑓 𝑡/𝑠 8.9566 𝑚/𝑠 Rudder span (𝑏𝑟 ) 7 𝑖𝑛 0.1778 𝑚
Stall angle (𝛼𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) 15.07° 0.2631 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Rudder chord (𝑐𝑟 ) 1.5 𝑖𝑛 0.0381 𝑚
Airfoil NACA4415 Airfoil NACA 0015
𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝛼 ∈ [−8.75, 19.25] 𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝛼 ∈ [−13.75, 13.75]
Stabilizers - Horizontal (hs) and Vertical (vs) Miscellaneous
Span (𝑏 ℎ𝑠 ) 15 𝑖𝑛 0.3810 𝑚 Quadrotor Arm-length (𝐿 𝑄 ) 19 𝑖𝑛 0.4826 𝑚
Chord (𝑐 ℎ𝑠 ) 4 𝑖𝑛 0.1016 𝑚 Propeller diameter 9.5 𝑖𝑛 0.2413 𝑚
Span (𝑏 𝑣 𝑠 ) 7 𝑖𝑛 0.1778 𝑚 Propeller pitch 4.5 𝑖𝑛 0.1143 𝑚
Base chord (𝑐 𝑏𝑣𝑠 ) 4 𝑖𝑛 0.1016 𝑚 Maximum Thrust(𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) 1.28 𝑙𝑏 𝑓 5.6776 𝑁
Tip chord (𝑐 𝑡𝑣 𝑠 ) 2.5 𝑖𝑛 0.1778 𝑚 Vehicle Mass (𝑀) 2.925 𝑙𝑏 1.327 𝑘𝑔
Airfoil NACA 0006 Battery 4𝑆 LiPo, 5200 𝑚 𝐴ℎ
𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝛼 ∈ [−9.5, 9.5] p-Factor Coefficient (𝛾𝑚𝑜𝑡 ) 0.0134

Table 1 Key Vehicle Parameters

the same motor was used for the single forward thrust propulsion unit. Quadrotor motor separation distances were
selected to manage the relatively large QuadPlane moments of inertia [13]. The estimated aerodynamic center of
the wing and vehicle center of mass were aligned along the vertical axis. The wing-plane was kept lower than the
quadrotor-plane to reduce obstruction of upstream airflow over the wing during cruise flight, where the quadrotor motors
are inactive.

Fig. 2 QuadPlane in M-Air Flight.

Fuselage length was determined based on wing and quadrotor design to assure sufficient clearance between the
wing, propellers and tail and to provide sufficient tail pitch and yaw moments. Natural wood wings and tail were coated
with a lightweight plastic shrink wrap film. Square hollow carbon fiber tubes minimized fuselage and wing spar weights
and offered sufficient structural rigidity in bending and torsion. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) 3D printed parts

3
connected airframe components and served as avionics mounts; care was taken to print each part such that strength
was maximized in the direction of maximum applied force. Off-the-shelf quadrotor landing gear was used to provide
clearance between the propellers and the ground.
The QuadPlane prototype was tested in M-Air as shown in Fig.2. Hover tests were conducted first without mounting
the wings onto the vehicle to minimize damage risk. Next, the wings were mounted and hover tests were successfully
repeated. Subsequent M-Air flights tested manually-piloted transition from "Quad" to "Plane" mode, though the M-Air
facility is too small to support full forward flight. However, short accelerated forward flight test sequences provided
proof of concept and initial transition datasets.

Fig. 3 Forward Maneuver Flight Test Data.

Fig. 3 shows capture data collected from an eight-second test flight segment in which the QuadPlane transitioned from
hover to forward flight and back to hover using the forward thruster and only the quadrotor motors for attitude control.‡
Ailerons, elevator and rudder were set to neutral trim positions. Motor thrusts were calibrated from dynamometer lab
tests, and an onboard IMU (inertial measurement unit) hosted on the BeagleBone Blue processor provided attitude data.
M-Air’s Qualisys motion capture system provided inertial position, velocity, and attitude data. Per Fig. 3, as the front
propeller spun up, the vehicle pitched down (forward) increasing forward velocity. A pitch up (back) command was
provided to control forward velocity. As the vehicle pitched further up, forward velocity decreased to zero as forces
re-balance in hover. Motor commands indicate a marked difference during this transition maneuver. Spinning the front
motor (counter-clockwise about the +𝑥 𝑏 axis), causes a (p-factor) increase in rolling moment. The FL motor command
drops in response. The downstream rotating flow from the forward propeller causes relative upward flow on the right
and downward flow on the left. As a result, the RL motor spins faster, while the RR spins slower. The front motors (FR
‡ Additional flight data plots are shown in Appendix B.

4
and FL) spin relatively slower than the rear motors (RR and RL), even while the vehicle pitches up. This effect is likely
due to a combination of flow interference and the forward motor thrust line being lower than the QuadPlane center of
gravity. Additional experiments in M-Air are planned to further investigate transition flight and test flights will also be
performed at local model aircraft fields in the long term with University of Michigan IASC approval§ .

IV. System Modelling and Control

The QuadPlane was developed to operate in three modes: (i) Quad mode treating the vehicle as a quadrotor, (ii)
Plane mode treating the vehicle as a fixed wing aircraft with quad motors off, and (iii) Short-term transition modes
Q2P (Quad to Plane) and P2Q (Plane to Quad). A four state hybrid automaton [14] governs vehicle controller behavior
per Fig. 4. Transitions are initiated by setting Q2P or P2Q flags while in Quad or Plane mode, respectively. In Quad
mode, the vehicle operates at hover and slow airspeeds allowing aircraft aerodynamic effects to be neglected. In Plane
mode, vertical thrust motors are turned off, thus neglected. During Q2P and P2Q transitions, both Quad and Plane mode
control effectors are used per Section IV.C.

Fig. 4 QuadPlane Hybrid System Controller Model.

Nonlinear, six degree of freedom, body axes equations [15] model QuadPlane dynamics in all modes:

𝑋¤ = 𝑓 (𝑋, 𝑢 𝑃 , 𝑢 𝑄 ) (1)
h i𝑇 h i𝑇 h i𝑇
where 𝑋 = 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝑢 𝑣 𝑤 𝜙 𝜃 𝜓 𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 , 𝑢 𝑃 = 𝛿 𝑎 𝛿𝑒 𝛿𝑟 𝛿𝑡 ℎ𝑟 and 𝑢 𝑄 = 𝑚 1 𝑚 2 𝑚 3 𝑚 4 . Coor-
dinate frames and aerodynamic angle conventions were adopted from [15]. The nonlinear function 𝑓 (.) in Eq. (1)
contains the following:
1) Navigation Equations describe dynamics of the position vector in the inertial (world) frame:

𝑥¤  𝑢  𝑐𝜃𝑐𝜓 −𝑐𝜙𝑠𝜓 + 𝑠𝜙𝑠𝜃𝑐𝜓 𝑠𝜙𝑠𝜓 + 𝑐𝜙𝑠𝜃𝑐𝜓 

    
 𝑦¤  = 𝑅𝑏 𝑓 /𝑤 𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 ∗  𝑣  ; =  𝑐𝜃𝑠𝜓 𝑐𝜙𝑐𝜓 + 𝑠𝜙𝑠𝜃𝑠𝜓 −𝑠𝜙𝑐𝜓 + 𝑐𝜙𝑠𝜃𝑠𝜓 
     
𝑅𝑏 𝑓 /𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 (2)
     
 𝑧¤  𝑤   −𝑠𝜃 𝑠𝜙𝑐𝜃 𝑐𝜙𝑐𝜃 
     
§ https://research.umich.edu/unmanned-aircraft-systems

5
 where 𝑅𝑏 𝑓 /𝑤 𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 is the inverse of 𝑅 𝑤 𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑/𝑏 𝑓 , which is obtained by right-handed rotations about 𝑧 𝑏 axis by 𝜓
(positive yaw), about 𝑦 𝑏 axis by 𝜃 (positive pitch), and then about 𝑥 𝑏 axis by 𝜙 (positive roll) [15].
2) Force Equations describe dynamics of the vehicle velocity vector in the body frame:

𝑢¤ = 𝑟𝑣 − 𝑞𝑤 − 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 + 𝐹𝑥 /𝑀
𝑣¤ = −𝑟𝑢 + 𝑝𝑤 + 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 + 𝐹𝑦 /𝑀 (3)
𝑤¤ = 𝑞𝑢 − 𝑝𝑣 + 𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 + 𝐹𝑧 /𝑀

3) Euler angle kinematics are given by:

𝜙¤ = 𝑝 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 (𝑞𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 + 𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙)
𝜃¤ = (𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙 − 𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙) (4)
𝜓¤ = (𝑞𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙 + 𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙)/𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
4) Moment Equations describe angular rate derivatives in the body frame:

1 2
𝑝¤ = [𝐽 𝑥𝑧 [𝐽 𝑥 − 𝐽 𝑦 + 𝐽 𝑧 ] 𝑝𝑞 − [𝐽 𝑧 (𝐽 𝑧 − 𝐽 𝑦 ) + 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 ]𝑞𝑟 + 𝐽 𝑧 𝑙 + 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 𝑛]
Γ
1
𝑞¤ = [(𝐽 𝑧 − 𝐽 𝑥 ) 𝑝𝑟 − 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 ( 𝑝 2 − 𝑟 2 ) + 𝑚 (5)
𝐽𝑦
1 2
𝑟¤ = [[(𝐽 𝑥 − 𝐽 𝑦 )𝐽 𝑥 + 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 ] 𝑝𝑞 − 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 [𝐽 𝑥 − 𝐽 𝑦 + 𝐽 𝑧 ]𝑞𝑟 + 𝐽 𝑥𝑧 𝑙 + 𝐽 𝑥 𝑛]
Γ
Equations (2) through (5) are linearized about equilibrium points uniquely identified for each mode.

A. Plane Model
Plane model considers the QuadPlane as a conventional aircraft with forward thrust and aerodynamic surface forces
and moments; quad control inputs 𝑢 𝑄 = 04×1 . Airspeed is constrained (Fig. 4) to be higher than wing stall speed per
Table 1.
To calculate the aerodynamic lift, drag and moment at a given angle of attack for the wing, raw data for aerodynamic
coefficients of the wing airfoil (NACA 4415) was taken from the NACA airfoil database ¶ . The raw data was then used
to obtain a least squares fit for 𝐶 𝐿 ,𝐶𝐷 and 𝐶 𝑀 for any arbitrary value of 𝛼, within 𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 . A linear, quadratic and cubic
polynomial fit was considered for deriving the estimates for 𝐶 𝐿 , 𝐶𝐷 and 𝐶 𝑀 respectively, by dividing the range of 𝛼
values from the available raw data into different sections to get reasonable estimates. A cubic spline was then used
to remove discontinuities at each boundary. This fit data was then used to create a function to get the aerodynamic
coefficients for the wing surface at any given angle of attack, within the range of available data. This process was
repeated for NACA 0006 and NACA 0015 for the two stabilizers, ailerons, elevator and rudder. The aircraft constrains 𝛼
to within bounds 𝛼𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 for each surface (Table 1). The angle of attack and corresponding aerodynamic coefficients for
each aerodynamic surface were determined at each time step.
Lift, drag and pitching moment on each surface are given by [16]:
1 2 1 2 1 2
𝐿𝑖 𝑓 𝑡 = 𝜌𝑉 𝑆𝐶 𝐿 ; 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝜌𝑉 𝑆𝐶𝐷 ; 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝜌𝑉 𝑐𝑆𝐶 𝑀 (6)
2 𝑎 2 𝑎 2 𝑎
Aerodynamic forces were calculated in the wind frame then transformed into the body frame:
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽
 −𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽 −𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼
𝐴|𝑏 𝑓 = 𝑅 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑/𝑏 𝑓 𝐴| 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 ; =  𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽
 
𝑅 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑/𝑏 𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽 0  (7)
 
 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽
 −𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 

where 𝐴|𝑏 𝑓 denotes force or moment vector in the body frame and 𝐴| 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 denotes the vector resolved in the wind frame.
Forces and moments acting on each surface were summed with forward motor thrust and torque to compute total forces
and moments. Eqs. 2 to 5 are used to update system state.
The Plane controller is based on dynamics linearization to obtain equilibrium or trim conditions. Trim conditions
are denoted by states 𝑋 ∗ and input commands 𝑢 ∗𝑃 . Eq.1 then becomes 𝑓 (𝑋 ∗ , 𝑢 ∗𝑃 ) = 0.
¶ http://airfoiltools.com/search/index

6
 Aircraft trim state is defined by airspeed (𝑉𝑎∗ ), flight path angle (𝛾 ∗ ) and coordinated turn radius (𝑅 ∗ ). In this paper a
reference trim state was calculated for constant airspeed (𝑉𝑎∗ = 11𝑚/𝑠), zero climb rate (𝛾 ∗ = 0) along a straight path
(𝑅 ∗ = ∞), using methods from [15], [17] and [18] with results shown in Appendix A.
Eq.(2)-(5) were linearized with Taylor series perturbations about this trim state with states 𝑋¯ = 𝑋 − 𝑋 ∗ and inputs
𝑢¯ 𝑃 = 𝑢 𝑃 − 𝑢 ∗𝑃 . The linearized equations are split into longitudinal and lateral equations given by:

𝑋¤ 𝑙𝑎𝑡 = 𝐴𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑋𝑙𝑎𝑡 + 𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑡 𝑢 𝑙𝑎𝑡

(8)
𝑋¤ 𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑋𝑙𝑜𝑛 + 𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑢 𝑙𝑜𝑛
h i𝑇 h i𝑇 h i𝑇 h i𝑇
where 𝑋𝑙𝑎𝑡 = 𝑣¯ 𝑝¯ 𝑟¯ 𝜙¯ 𝜓¯ , 𝑢 𝑙𝑎𝑡 = 𝛿¯𝑎 𝛿¯𝑟 , 𝑋𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 𝑢¯ 𝑤¯ 𝑞¯ 𝜃¯ 𝑧¯ , 𝑢 𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 𝛿¯𝑒 𝛿¯𝑡 ℎ𝑟 . Values for
𝐴𝑙𝑎𝑡 , 𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑡 , 𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑛 and 𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑛 are given in Appendix A.
The Plane mode feedback controller must track the commanded airspeed 𝑉𝑎𝑐 , altitude ℎ 𝑐 = −𝑧 𝑐 and heading angle
𝜓 while maintaining zero sideslip 𝛽 𝑐 = 0 in the absence of ambient wind. Successive loop closure [17] is applied over
𝑐

the linearized dynamics. For lateral dynamics, a Roll Attitude Hold (RAH) loop tracks a reference roll command 𝜙 𝑐
with a Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller over 𝛿¯𝑎 . A PI Course Hold loop tracks commanded heading
angle 𝜓 𝑐 as input and generates commanded roll angle 𝜙 𝑐 which then feeds into the RAH loop. A PI Sideslip Hold loop
over 𝛿¯𝑟 is defined.
To control longitudinal dynamics, Pitch Attitude Hold (PAH) loop is used to track a reference pitch command (𝜃 𝑐 )
using a PD controller and providing perturbed elevator deflection 𝛿¯𝑒 as an output. The Altitude Hold loop assumes that
the airspeed is held fairly constant and altitude can be adjusted by commanding a perturbed reference pitch angle 𝜃¯𝑐 . To
get the actual pitch command, the trim pitch value is added to this value, i.e. 𝜃 𝑐 = 𝜃¯𝑐 + 𝜃 ∗ . The Altitude Hold loop uses
a PI controller to ensure that no steady state error propagates through the inner PAH loop. Airspeed Hold loop is a
standalone PI control loop which controls the vehicle’s airspeed. The loop takes commanded airspeed 𝑉𝑎𝑐 as an input
and generates the required perturbed throttle command 𝛿¯𝑒 as an output. Equations for all six control loops are given by:
𝑘 𝑖𝜓 𝑘 𝑖𝑧 𝑐
𝜙 𝑐 = 𝑘 𝑝 𝜓 (𝜓 𝑐 − 𝜓) + (𝜓 𝑐 − 𝜓) 𝜃¯𝑐 = 𝑘 𝑝𝑧 (𝑧 𝑐 − 𝑧) + (𝑧 − 𝑧)
𝑠 𝑠
𝑘 𝑖𝜙
𝛿¯𝑎 = 𝑘 𝑝 𝜙 (𝜙 𝑐 − 𝜙) + (𝜙 𝑐 − 𝜙) − 𝑘 𝑑 𝜙 𝑝¯ 𝛿¯𝑒 = 𝑘 𝑝 𝜃 (𝜃 𝑐 − 𝜃) − 𝑘 𝑑 𝜃 𝑞¯ (9)
𝑠
𝑘 𝑖𝛽 𝑘 𝑖𝑉 𝑐
𝛿¯𝑟 = 𝑘 𝑝𝛽 (𝛽 𝑐 − 𝛽) + (𝛽 𝑐 − 𝛽) 𝛿¯𝑡 ℎ𝑟 = 𝑘 𝑝𝑉 (𝑉𝑎𝑐 − 𝑉𝑎 ) + (𝑉𝑎 − 𝑉𝑎 )
𝑠 𝑠
where 𝑝¯ and 𝑞¯ denote perturbed roll and pitch rates, respectively. Actual Plane control inputs, 𝑢 𝑃 , are obtained by
adding trim input commands to perturbed inputs , i.e. 𝑢 𝑃 = 𝑢¯ 𝑃 + 𝑢 ∗𝑃 , and nonlinear dynamics are used to simulate the
system. To prevent control input saturation, proportional gains in RAH and PAH loops are tuned such that a maximum
error of 5° in roll or pitch causes maximum aileron or elevator deflection. The 5° value was selected after observing
system response to varied angular error values. Table 2 shows control gains for all Plane control loops.

Plane Control Loops 𝑘𝑝 𝑘𝑖 𝑘𝑑

Quad Control Loops 𝑘𝑝 𝑘𝑖 𝑘𝑑
Course Hold (𝜓) 1.3417 0.0050 0
Airspeed Hold (𝑉𝑎 ) -0.0869 2.35𝑒 −4 0
Roll Attitude Hold (𝜙) 0.8000 5.00𝑒 −4 0.1444
Roll Hold (𝜙) 0.5570 5.72𝑒 −5 0.3990
Sideslip Hold (𝛽) -1.1000 -0.0038 0
Pitch Hold (𝜃) 0.6110 0.0040 2.0319
Altitude Hold (𝑧) -0.6833 -0.0015 0
Yaw Hold (𝜓) 26.7300 0.0113 15.7500
Pitch Attitude Hold (𝜃) 1.4000 0 0.2238
Altitude Hold (𝑧) 0.2162 0 1.2740
Airspeed Hold (𝑉𝑎 ) 3.9252 0.0210 0

Table 2 Gain values for Plane and Quad mode controllers

7
B. Quad Model
The Quad model considers the QuadPlane purely as a quadrotor and assumes that the wing/tail aerodynamic forces
and moments are negligible. To support this assumption, vehicle airspeed is constrained (Fig. 4) to be low such that
aerodynamic surface effects are negligible. Plane mode control inputs are set to 𝑢 𝑃 = 04×1 . The forces and moments
acting on the vehicle in Quad mode originate from the quad motors only and are given by:
𝐹𝑥   0   𝑙   𝐿 𝑄 /2 ∗ (−𝑚 1 − 𝑚 2 + 𝑚 3 + 𝑚 4 ) 
       
 𝐹𝑦  =  𝑚  =  𝐿 𝑄 /2 ∗ (𝑚 1 − 𝑚 2 − 𝑚 3 + 𝑚 4 ) 
       
0 ; (10)
       
 𝐹𝑧  −(𝑚 1 + 𝑚 2 + 𝑚 3 + 𝑚 4 )   𝑛   𝛾𝑚𝑜𝑡 ∗ (𝑚 1 − 𝑚 2 + 𝑚 3 − 𝑚 4 ) 
       

where 𝛾𝑚𝑜𝑡 was found experimentally. To simulate Quad dynamics, rc_pilot ‖ inner loop control logic was reused.
h i𝑇
Reference outer loop states, 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 = 𝑧𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 𝜙𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 𝜃 𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 𝜓𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 , were input directly into the dynamics function, altering
Eq. (1) to Eq.(11) for this mode using Eq.(12) to compute commanded motor forces from 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 within function 𝑔():

𝑋¤ = 𝑔(𝑋, 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 ) (11)
𝑢 𝑄 = 𝑀𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑑 ∗ 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 (12)

where 𝑀𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑑 is the mixing matrix for the QuadPlane in Quad mode, given in Appendix A. To ensure that quad motors
are not saturated with a large 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 input value, the system in Eq.(11) is linearized about equilibrium point (𝑋 ∗ ,𝑢 ∗𝑄𝑜 ) and
linearized as:

𝑋¤̄ = 𝐴𝑄 𝑋¯ + 𝐵𝑄 𝑢¯ 𝑄𝑜 (13)

where 𝐴𝑄 and 𝐵𝑄 are linearized system model matrices; 𝑋¯ and 𝑢¯ 𝑄𝑜 are the perturbed state and control inputs.
PID controllers computed reference outer loop state such that motor commands are not saturated. Another PID loop
tracked reference airspeed which output commanded pitch angle. PID control is given by:
𝑘 𝑖𝑠𝑡
𝑠𝑡¯ 𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 = (𝑘 𝑃𝑠𝑡 + − 𝑠𝑘 𝐷𝑠𝑡 ) (𝑠𝑡 𝑐 − 𝑠𝑡) (14)
𝑠
where 𝑠𝑡 𝑐 represents commanded state value, 𝑠𝑡𝑟 𝑒 𝑓 is the corresponding element of 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 and 𝑠𝑡 represents actual value
of the state being tracked. Gain values used for Quad mode control loops are given in Table 2. A separate PID loop
tracks reference (𝑥, 𝑦) position with roll and pitch command outputs, using which the desired landing coordinates can
be tracked to execute precise landing maneuvers.

C. Transition Model
The transition model combines Quad and Plane dynamics and controllers. The QuadPlane must execute Quad-to-
Plane (Q2P) and Plane-to-Quad (P2Q) transitions over a range of airspeeds (0𝑚/𝑠 ≤ 𝑉𝑎 ≤ 13𝑚/𝑠) that are controllable
in either Quad and Plane modes with constraints defined in Fig. 4. Q2P mode smoothly transitions from hover to the
aircraft trim state, which was defined in Section IV.A. P2Q mode smoothly transitions from the aircraft trim state back
to Quad mode.
In Q2P mode, an airspeed higher the trim velocity (𝑉𝑎𝑐 = 𝑉𝑎∗ + 2𝑚/𝑠) is tracked using the Quad mode controller with
aircraft control surfaces at their trim values and the forward motor ramping up to its trim state. This prevents quad
motor dropping to zero thrust, which otherwise occurs as the vehicle approaches trim airspeed and can cause the vehicle
to de-stabilize. Once an airspeed threshold is reached, 11.2𝑚/𝑠 for this analysis, the vehicle switches to the Plane mode
controller and tracks the trim state, while quad motors ramp down to zero.
For P2Q transition, the commanded airspeed (𝑉𝑎𝑐 ) ramps down from aircraft trim value (𝑉𝑎∗ ) to 1𝑚/𝑠 which is within
the Quad mode flight envelope. The strategy adopted is to use the vertical motors and elevator to pitch up, reducing
forward airspeed, while maintaining level altitude. At each time step, the Quad airspeed controller calculates 𝜃 𝑐 , which
is tracked using the Plane PAH controller. Lateral Plane controllers and the generated 𝜙 𝑐 are used in 𝑢 𝑄𝑜 . 𝜃 𝑐 then feeds
into the Quad controller. Once airspeed drops below 1𝑚/𝑠, the hybrid automaton switches to Quad mode.
‖ StrawsonDesign - Multirotor Flight Controller https://github.com/StrawsonDesign/rc_pilot

8
 V. Results
This section presents a series of MATLAB simulation results from step input, transition and full-envelope flight
sequences using nonlinear simulation dynamics and the linearized trim and transition controllers described above. Fig. 5
shows an airspeed step response indicating effective rejection of short and long period phugoid modes, smooth airspeed,
heading, and altitude tracking. Control inputs are within operating limits, and steady state values for 𝛿𝑒 , 𝑢, 𝑤, 𝜃 and
forward thrust correspond to a new commanded airspeed trim state. Other pertinent states are shown in Appendix B.

Fig. 5 Plane Mode - Command Tracking (left) and Control Inputs (right).

Fig. 6 Quad Mode - Command Tracking (left) and Control Inputs (right).

In Quad mode, the vehicle was subjected to simultaneous step inputs in airspeed and altitude with results shown in
Fig. 6. Commanded pitch drops initially to gain forward airspeed, then levels off as desired airspeed is approached.
Smooth tracking is observed overall, and motors never saturate.

9
 Fig. 7 shows command tracking through Q2P transition. A small disturbance is observed when the controller switch
occurs that is quickly compensated. The vehicle climbs to 0.15𝑚 with the quad controller in hybrid mode. Vertical
thrust from quad motors reduces as airspeed increases, and ramps down to zero when the airspeed threshold is reached.

Fig. 7 Q2P Transition - Command Tracking and Control Inputs.

Fig. 8 P2Q Transition - Command Tracking and Control Inputs.

Fig. 8 shows command tracking through P2Q transition. The vehicle initially gains 0.5𝑚 of altitude when the quad
motors start spinning then returns smoothly to the reference value. Fig. 8 also plots vertical thrust and control surface
deflections for stabilizing vehicle attitude during the transition. Quad motors ramp up to their equilibrium values as
forward thrust ramps down and airspeed decreases to maintain level altitude. Additional state evolution plots for both
Q2P and P2Q transitions are shown in Appendix B.

10
Fig. 9 Full-Envelope Flight Trajectory: Take-off from (0,0,0); Transitions and Pattern Flight at 100 𝑚 Altitude;
and Landing at (0,0,0).

Fig. 9 shows a sample full-envelope pattern flight simulated with the hybrid system controller in Fig. 4. The flight
sequence was given by: (i) Take-off and climb in Quad mode; (ii) Q2P transition; (iii) Right pattern cruise flight in Plane
mode; (iv) P2Q transition; and (v) Descent and landing in Quad mode. The vehicle takes off and climbs 2 𝑚/𝑠 vertically
to an altitude of 100 𝑚 in Quad mode as shown in blue. Then, a Q2P transition (shown in red) is commanded while
heading North. After the Q2P transition is complete, a racetrack pattern is followed while cruising at constant altitude
in Plane mode (shown in yellow). After turning to "final approach", a P2Q transition (shown in purple) is initiated,
after which the vehicle descends to land at the take-off location in Quad mode (shown in green). The vehicle requires
distances of 450 𝑚 and 210 𝑚 to execute smooth Q2P and P2Q transitions, respectively.

Fig. 10 Full-Envelope Flight: Pertinent States and Control Inputs - Longitudinal (left) and Lateral (right).

11
 Fig. 10 plots lateral and longitudinal states and control inputs for the simulated full pattern flight. The vehicle
cruises at a safe altitude of 100 𝑚, with deviations of less than 0.5 𝑚 during both transitions and cruise. A turn rate of
8°/𝑠 is achieved by rolling the QuadPlane to a maximum of 10° from the equilibrium state while maintaining control
authority in cruise to follow the racetrack pattern. Vertical thrust from the four motors, shown in Fig. 11 remains within
feasible bounds throughout the flight, and drops to zero when the vehicle is in Plane mode. Note the state and control
input oscillations observed while transitioning between modes during full pattern flight are similar to those observed
previously in Figs. 7 and 8.

Fig. 11 Full-Envelope Flight - Vertical Thrust

VI. Conclusion
This paper has presented the design, prototyping, modelling and control of a QuadPlane capable of hover, efficient
cruise flight, and smooth transitions between them. Flight tests show proof of concept, and a hybrid automaton control
strategy with four control modes enables the vehicle to accurately track commanded flight trajectories in simulation.
In future work, static tests will be conducted with the QuadPlane mounted on a load cell followed by tests inside the
University of Michigan’s 5’x 7’ wind tunnel to improve our aerodynamic models in all flight modes. Line-of-sight
outdoor flight tests over the suite of hybrid automaton modes are planned to further validate dynamics models and the
hybrid control strategy. We will investigate different quad motor placements to improve forward flight [19] efficiency
and will incorporate wind models in simulation dynamics and flight control.

12
 Appendix A
Trim Conditions for the vehicle in Plane Mode for straight level flight at airspeed 𝑉𝑎∗ = 11 m/s:
h i𝑇 h i𝑇
𝑋 ∗ = 01×3 10.9995 0 − 0.1086 0 − 0.0099 01×4 𝑢 ∗𝑃 = −0.002 0.0188 −4.12 × 10−5 0.4059

with angles in radians and 𝛿𝑡 ℎ𝑟 in Newtons.

Model Matrices for the Linearized Plane model:

−0.7752 −0.1086 −10.999 9.8095 0  0 −4.16 
 
−1.6809  55.24 −11.41
   
0 0 0 0
   
𝐴𝑙𝑎𝑡 =  3.9631 0 0 0 0 𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑡 = −0.50 24.19 
−0.0099
   
 0 1 0 0  0 0 
   
 0 0 1.0000 0 0  0 0 
 
−0.0656 0.7685 0.1086 −9.095 0  0.19 0.75
  
−1.8559 −7.3181 10.9994 0.0968 0
   
 13.10 0 
   
𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑛 = −0.1779 −18.0226 0 0 0 𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑛 = 119.66 0 
   
 0 0 1.0000 0 0  0 0 
   
 0.0099
 1.0000 0 −11.00 0  0
 0 

Mixing Matrix for the Quad model:

−1 −0.5 0.5 0.5 


−1 −0.5 −0.5 −0.5
=

𝑀𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑑 
−1 0.5 −0.5 0.5 

−1 0.5 0.5 −0.5


13
 Appendix B

Fig. 12 Flight test data - Evolution of Linear and Angular States.

Fig. 13 Plane Mode - Evolution of Pertinent States.

14
Fig. 14 Q2P Transition - Linear and Angular States.

Fig. 15 P2Q Transition - Linear and Angular States.

15
 References
[1] Holden, J., and Goel, N., “Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban Air Transportation,” Tech. rep., Uber Elevate,
2016. URL https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf.

[2] Silva, C., Johnson, W. R., Solis, E., Patterson, M. D., and Antcliff, K. R., “VTOL Urban Air Mobility Concept Vehicles
for Technology Development,” 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-3847.

[3] Rossi, G., Tanteri, L., Tofani, V., Vannocci, P., Moretti, S., and Casagli, N., “Brief Communication: Use of multicopter drone
optical images for landslide mapping and characterization,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Disc., 2017, pp. 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2017-46.

[4] Chen, J., Scircle, A., Black, O., Cizdziel, J., Watson, N., Wevill, D., and Zhou, Y., “On the use of multicopters for sampling and
analysis of volatile organic compounds in the air by adsorption/thermal desorption GC-MS,” Air Quality, Atmosphere Health,
Vol. 11, 2018, pp. 835–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0588-y.

[5] Bizin, I., Vlasov, V., Demidov, A., and Kanatnikov, N., “The Use of Multicopters for Traffic Monitoring in Dense Urban Areas,”
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729104.2729124.

[6] Hua, M.-D., Hamel, T., Morin, P., and Samson, C., “Control of VTOL vehicles with thrust-tilting augmentation,” Automatica,
Vol. 52, 2015, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2014.10.129.

[7] Swarnkar, S., Parwana, H., Kothari, M., and Abhishek, A., “Biplane-Quadrotor Tail-Sitter UAV: Flight Dynamics and Control,”
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2018, pp. 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003201.

[8] Antcliff, K., Whiteside, S., Kohlman, L. W., and Silva, C., “Baseline Assumptions and Future Research Areas for Urban Air
Mobility Vehicles,” AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-0528.

[9] Czyba, R., Lemanowicz, M., Gorol, Z., and Kudala, T., “Construction Prototyping, Flight Dynamics Modeling, and
Aerodynamic Analysis of Hybrid VTOL Unmanned Aircraft,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2018, 2018, pp. 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7040531.

[10] Guclu, A., Kurtulus, D. F., and Arikan, K. B., “Attitude and Altitude Stabilization of Fixed Wing VTOL Unmanned Air Vehicle,”
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3378.

[11] Romano, M., Kuevor, P., Lukacs, D., Marshall, O., Stevens, M., Rastgoftar, H., Cutler, J., and Atkins, E., “Experimental
Evaluation of Continuum Deformation with a Five Quadrotor Team,” 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.2019.8815266.

[12] Donato, P. F. D., Gaskell, P. E., and Atkins, E. M., “Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Project-Based Engineering Education,”
AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-1377.

[13] Quan, Q., Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control, Springer, Singapore, 2017.

[14] Frazzoli, E., Dahleh, M. A., and Feron, E., “Maneuver-based motion planning for nonlinear systems with symmetries,” IEEE
Trans. on Robotics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1077–1091. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2005.852260.

[15] Stevens, B. L., Lewis, F. L., and Johnson, E. N., Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous
Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

[16] Anderson, J. D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill Education, 5th Edition, 2010.

[17] Beard, R. W., and McLain, T. W., Small Unmanned Aircraft:Theory and Practice, Princeton University Press, 2012.

[18] De Marco, A., Duke, E., and Berndt, J., “A General Solution to the Aircraft Trim Problem,” Modeling and Sim. Technologies
Conference, AIAA, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-6703.

[19] Sharma, P., and Atkins, E., “Experimental Investigation of Tractor and Pusher Hexacopter Performance,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 56, No. 5, 2019, pp. 1920–1934. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035319.

16

View publication stats