Design and simulation of a UAV controller system
with high maneuverability
W.T.M.S Tennakoon, S.R. Munasinghe
Department of Electronics and Telecommunication, University of Moratuwa
salinda@ent.mrt.ac.lk, rohan@ent.mrt.ac.lk
Abstract - This paper presents non linear automatic
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control simulation with high
maneuverability and precise tracking. Major considerations
of flight performance and precise tracking have been
evaluated with software simulation by aerosonde UAV. The
autonomous control system is based on the Aerosonde UAV
with control theory previously developed and implemented
into aircraft. Major requirements for the high
maneuverability are good path following with minimum
overshoot, settling time without oscillation and low coupling
between high level commands. High maneuverability leads
to precise tracking for any kind of application. A
MATLAB® standard configuration environment and the
Aerosim® Aeronautical Simulation Block Set are utilized for
simulation studies and presented through a Flightgear®
interface.
Keywords – UAV, UCAV, FCS, SAS
I. INTRODUCTION
T he field of unmanned Aerial Vehicles is rapidly
growing due to its wide range of potential
applications. Low operating cost and risk makes
UAV a substitution for many airborne applications which
involves higher expenses and greater risks. In its recent
roadmap document the USA Defence projected that by
2020, Unmanned Combat Vehicles (UCAV) will be
undertaking a whole spectrum of exploration (Airborne
Intelligence, Surveillance, battle management, patrol) and
ground attack roles. Enabling UCAV to perform such
roles needs Advanced precise Flight Control system
(FCS).
A lot of UAV projects are not supporting for higher
maneuverability and precise path tracking. Also fixed
throttle setting used in [1] have major disadvantage of
being unable to change ground speed as required; and
higher cross coupling with speed and pitch attitude
command can be observed as in [1] which lead to poor
path tracking.
The objective of this project is therefore to develop a
flight autopilot controller for the existing UAV platform
and test it up to the level of a full non-linear simulation
with higher maneuverability and precise tracking. It was
decided that classical control techniques would be used at
the first phase to develop autopilot controller which is still
widely used today and there is a large amount of
knowledge and information related to the design of such
system for aircraft applications as in [3]. A further
advantage is that the classical control approach maintains
a clear intuitive relationship between the control system
and its physical effect on the behavior of the aircraft.
978-1-4244-2900-4/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The performance of this FCS (Flight Control System) can
be evaluated by real time flight simulation and fine tuning
can be done by the use of cost function. Software
simulation helps to minimize design development time
and cost for the overall design. The simulation
environment that will use for low-level controller
development is an aircraft dynamics simulator built by
Unmanned Dynamics called AeroSim® toolbox.
The trim settings required to maintain the flight condition
are hence consisted of the airspeed, altitude, bank angle
and Fuel mass. Therefore given a flight condition, the
trim routine is needed to be solved for a four variable
minimization problem to find the trim settings that best
maintained the aircraft in the flight condition. The
aerosonde UAV model was linearized around trimmed
straight and level flight in the 1000ft, 25m/s, 2kg of fuel
flight condition using the Matlab® linmod routine with
non linear simulink® model. Linearized state space model
was derived and used for further analysis. But this state
space model only validate for above level flight trim
condition and dynamics properties can be varied with
other main trim conditions. Aircraft speed courses more
significant change to those dynamic properties and finally
a different controller was decided to be implemented for
particular speed with fuzzy switching system [7]. But in
here we only concern about straight and level flight in the
1000ft, 25m/s, 2kg of fuel flight condition which gives
maximum performance with good safety speed margin.
The control system of an UAV contains of three levels:
Mission planning, Guidance and Control level. The
mission planning level defines the objective and guidance
levels plans trajectory according to limitation, the control
levels ensures the precise trajectory tracking. The control
level can be defined stability augmentation system (SAS)
using feedback from an aircraft’s sensors to its actuators,
having aim to improve stability and performance.
However the question that arises is what are the desired
stability characteristics of a UAV? There are well defined
requirements for manned platforms by Department of
Defense and federal aviation administration, but although
there are some initial proposals, the requirements for
UAV’s are less clearly defined.
In this project the view was taken that if the aircraft is
easy for a pilot to fly, then it is likely that it is going to be
easy for an autopilot to fly too. Therefore the stability
augmentation system was designed to make the aircraft
comply with class IV (high maneuverability) and
Category A (Nonterminal flight phase that required rapid
maneuvering and precision tracking or precise flight path
control) airplanes. These parameters were found in [4].
431 ICIAFS08
 ⎛ 0.9989 0.0463 0 0 ⎞ ⎛0 0⎞
⎜ −0.0019 0.04 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ 0 ⎟⎟
Classical control technique was used at the first phase to ⎟ D _ long = ⎜ 0
C _ long = ⎜
develop autopilot controller and there are lot of other ⎜ 0 0 1 0⎟ ⎜0 0⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
options for modern controls such as LQR, Optimal ⎝ 0 0 0 1 ⎠ ⎝0 0⎠
controller, H-infinity and μ synthesis. Optimal state ⎛ u ⎞ ⎛ V ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
feedback method was finally selected as SAS system in ⎜ w ⎟ ⎛ δ Elevator ⎞ ⎜ Δα ⎟
xlong = ulong = ⎜ ⎟ ylong =
the second phase. ⎜ q ⎟ ⎝ δ Throttle ⎠ ⎜ q ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Δ θ ⎠ ⎝ Δθ ⎠
II. CLASSICAL APPROCH Figure 2. Longitudinal state space representation

The first stage of the control philosophy was to wrap Eigen values for the short period and phugodic mode
three conventional control loops around the aircraft. were identified as below
TABLE 1. LONGITUDINAL EIGEN VALUES
These were Bank (Heading), pitch (Altitude) and speed.
A block diagram of the loops and demand is included in Eigen value Damping Freq. (rad/s)
Figure 1. -1.23e-001 + 5.52e-001i 2.17E-01 5.65E-01
-1.23e-001 - 5.52e-001i 2.17E-01 5.65E-01
-4.67e+000 + 1.04e+001i 4.09E-01 1.14E+01
-4.67e+000 - 1.04e+001i 4.09E-01 1.14E+01

By observations, this aircraft is naturally stable than other

model aircrafts. But short period damping of aircraft is
very close to minimum requirement of 0.35.
TABLE 2. LONGITUDINAL DAMPING
Requirement Current
Phygodic mode damping > 0.004 0.21
Short period damping > 0.35 0.409

The classic pitch rate feedback to elevator loop was

employed to increase the damping of the short period
mode which is more critical than phgodic mode. The
proportional gain, Kq was selected with the aid of the root
locus plot. This is a plot of the elevator demand to pitch
Figure 1. Block diagram of three classical loops
rate transfer function is
This aircraft can be controlled by means of throttle, q( s) −32.62s3 − 145s 2 − 42.5s
= 4 (1)
ailerons, elevator and rudder (T, a, e, r) as shown in δ elev ( s) s + 9.59 s3 + 133.1s 2 + 34.96 s + 41.7
above Figure1. Linerised state space aircraft model can
be de-coupled into Longitudinal and Lateral models and B. Lateral augmentation
this is only valid for steady state condition. Higher cross
coupling can be occurred at abnormal maneuvering and The Lateral equations of motions for the straight and
probability of occurrence of such abnormal maneuvering level 1000m, 25m/s, 2kg of fuel flight condition are
is very low. But easy-to-analysis De-coupled longitudinal •

and lateral state space models were used to analyze xlat = Alat xl at + Blat ulat
dynamic stability of aircraft. ylat = Clat xlat + Dlat ulat
⎛ −0.6382 1.4143 −24.959 9.81 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
A. Longitudinal SAS ⎜ −4.2032 −20.6894 9.9576 0 0⎟
The longitudinal equations of motions are as given in A _ lat = ⎜ 0.6818 −2.6837 −1.04 0 0⎟
⎜ ⎟
Figure 2. ⎜ 0 1 0.0567 0 0⎟
• ⎜ 0 0 1.0016 0 0 ⎟⎠
xlong = Along xl ong + Blong ulong ⎝
ylong = Clong xlong + Dlong ulong ⎛ −1.3638 3.481 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ −119.742 2.1545 ⎟
⎛ −0.2446 0.5269 −1.1387 −9.808 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ B _ lat = ⎜ −4.7213 −21.995 ⎟
−0.5735 −4.5712 24.364 −0.4549 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
A _ long = ⎜ ⎜ 0 0 ⎟
⎜ 0.3819 −4.4403 −4.7792 0 ⎟ ⎜
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0 0 ⎟⎠
⎝ 0 0 1 0 ⎠
⎛ 0.04 0 0 0 0 ⎞ ⎛0 0⎞
⎛ 0.3560 0⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 0 1 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜0 0⎟
−2.606 0⎟
B _ long = ⎜ C _ lat = ⎜ 0 0 1 0 0 ⎟ D _ lat = ⎜ 0 0 ⎟
⎜ −32.625 0⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 0 1 0⎟ ⎜0 0⎟
⎝ 0 0⎠ ⎜ 0
⎝ 0 0 0 1 ⎟⎠ ⎜0 0⎟
⎝ ⎠

432
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ⎛ V ⎞ ⎛ Δβ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ p ⎟ ⎛ δ Aileron ⎞ ⎜ p ⎟
xlat = ⎜ r ⎟ ulat = ⎜ y =⎜ r ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ δ Rudder ⎟⎠ lat ⎜ ⎟
⎜ Δψ ⎟ ⎜ Δψ ⎟
⎜ Δφ ⎟ ⎜ Δφ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Figure 3. Lateral state space representation

Analysis of the aileron to lateral state variable transfer

Figure 4. Altitude hold and acquire control loop
functions showed that the unaugmented lateral stability
characteristics of the airframe in this flight condition were Dual feedback loop method was used as altitude acquire
as compared in Table 3. These were compared with the and hold controller due to its higher stability margin. This
flying qualities requirement for roll, Dutch roll and spiral is because the pitch of the aircraft is disturbed either by a
modes. gust or because the aircraft is performing a turn
maneuver. Then the single loop controller, which is
TABLE 3. LATERAL DAMPING
performing its control function based only on the altitude
Requirement Current error, will not correct the pitch disturbance until it has
Spiral time constant > 12s 18.68s caused a significant altitude error and can hence be
Roll time constant > 1 0.0503s detected by the controller. However in the two loop
Dutch roll damping > 0.19 0.2141 controller, the inner loop will directly detect and correct
the pitch attitude error before it has a chance to cause a
TABLE 4. LATERAL EIGEN VALUES significant altitude error. Inner feedback loop integral ki
Eigenvalue Damping Freq. (rad/s) was selected by the education guess that the for a
0.0535 -1.00E+00 5.35E-02 continuous 1 deg pitch attitude error the elevator probably
-1.28+ 5.82i 2.14E-01 5.96E+00 wanted to trim at a rate of 0.1 deg/s to achieve this ki
-1.28- 5.82i 2.14E-01 5.96E+00 therefore needed to be -0.1
-19.9 1.00E+00 1.99E+01
The proportional gain k p was selected with the help of
Spiral and Dutch roll requirements are under satisfied
level but roll time constant is well below the the root locus of elevator demand to pitch attitude transfer
requirements. The roll rate feedback to aileron loop was function as in (3).
employed to increase the time constant of roll. The
proportional gain, Kp was selected with the aid of the root θ (s) −32.62s 2 − 145.4 s − 42.5 (3)
= 4
locus plot. Transfer function from input aileron command δ aile ( s) s + 9.595s 3 + 133.1s 2 + 34.96s + 41.7
to roll rate is
q( s) −119.7 s 3 − 242.3s 2 − 2646 s + 56.46 (2) Outer PID loop Parameters were calculated using Ziegler
= 4
δ aile ( s ) s + 22.37 s 3 + 85.08s 2 + 701.9s − 37.82 and Nichols online tuning method for the pitch attitude
demand to altitude transfer function as in (4).
The proportional gain, Kp was selected with the aid of the
aileron demand to pitch rate transfer function root locus h( s ) −2.606s 4 + 5.365s3 + 3438s 2 + 3619 (4)
= 4
plot. A Kp of 0.27 was selected which gives good θ ( s) s + 18.4s5 + 204.9s 4 + 217.9s3 + 200.5s 2 + 34
stability properties. 2) Speed Loop

The speed acquires and hold controller was implemented

B. Control philosophy with three loops
1) Pitch attitude loop
Pitch altitude and speed control loops were considered as
major control loops in Longitudinal dynamics, the outputs
(V-speed, h-height) are influenced by (dT, de) with
relevant coupling. The longitudinal dynamics PID
controller is used to maintain the UAV at the desired
altitude. The controller is made up of two separate PID
controllers; the first controller adjusts the pitch angle
based on the error value between the measured altitude
and the desired altitude, while the second controller
adjusts the elevator position based on the error value
between the measured pitch angle and the pitch angle
calculated by the first PID controller (Figure 4). The
elevator roll compensator feed forward path is introduced
to improve the reaction speed of the controller when the
aircraft performs a turn maneuver.
using the single feedback PI loop controller. The
controller minimized the speed error by appropriately
altering the engine’s throttle setting. The saturation limit
pair was included to prevent the demanded throttle from
passing outside sensible tolerances for the engine. The
throttle used for the control task was calculated by using
measured air speed error. Suitable values for Kvtp and
Kvti were found by performing online tuning in the full
non-linear simulation. A Kvtp value of 1.8 and a Kvti of
0.8 were found to give minimum coupling between pith
loops with good setting time.
3) Heading Loop
Simple PI controller was implemented because lateral
mode is naturally very stable and hence no need of D
component. Kp value was found using root locus plot for
the aileron to bank angle transfer function

433
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 φ ( s) −120 s 2 − 229.9s + 2648 (5)
= 4
δ aile ( s ) s + 22.37 s 3 + 85.08s 2 + 701.9 s − 37.82

III. PROPOSED MODERN CONTROLLER

Heading command gives less controllability to guidance

level with compare to turn rate command and finally turn
rate command was used rather than bank (heading)
command which can give maximum controllability to
guidance level for archiving precise tracking. Most of the
UAV systems are using fixed throttle position which
unable to give separate individual controllability over
speed and pitch commands. But here, separate two loops
were introduced to maintain individual control to achieve
precise control without any problem. Some of saturation
values were obtained using online tuning method and
based on trimmed values.
A. Longitudinal Dynamics PID Controller
Poor pole placement capabilities were clearly identified
with classical control approach and decided to use state
feedback modern control approach to improve
longitudinal dynamic stability with good performance by
proper selection of both damping and natural frequencies.
State feedback gains were calculated using Base-Gura
method to improve the stability characteristics of UAV
that lack good flying qualities. The eigenvalues of system
can be changed by following formula
_
k = [(VW )T ]−1[a − a]
Where V is the controllability matrix, W is a
transformation matrix, and a and a are vectors made up
of the coefficients of the characteristics equation of the
T
augmented or closed-loop system ( A − B k ) and the
characteristics equation of the open-loop plant matrix A.
Pitch acquires and hold loop can be identified as below
with state feedback matrix k with inner pitch PID
controller. Other control parameters were mainly based
on values found at classical approach and those
parameters were carefully online tuned to minimize the
cross coupling between each loops with desired
performance and stability.
aT = 8.9600 40.8640 21.5040 5.7600
T
a = 9.5950 133.0547 34.9604 41.6959
kT = -0.0129 0.1148 0.0102 -0.0792
Speed to throttle control loop (Figure 5) was set up by
simple PI controller and as with all the other PID
controllers, anti-wind up switch was used to prevent
integral saturation and higher cross coupling betweens
pith and speed loops. Pitch attitude to elevator control
loop was set up by simple PID controller based on value
found at classical approach.
Figure 5. Speed control loop
B. Lateral Dynamics PID Controller
The lateral position of the UAV (Heading) is controlled
using coordinate turn with help of both the rudder and
ailerons with PID controller to keep the UAV along the
desired track, the PID controller is actually composed of
two coupled PID controllers(Figure 6); one driving the
aileron position and the other driving the rudder position .
Figure 6. Turn rate control loop
Sum of the calculated error at saturation blocks was used
(6) to minimize the total steady state error in each loop to
drive an anti-windup switch. The anti-windup switch
prevents the integrator from creating instability within the
system resulting from saturated and unstable feedback
from the output values. The deflection commands of
rudder and aileron also feed through saturation blocks to
keep there value within stable values. The ailerons are
limited to a max deflection of 0.2 rad and rudder is
limited to a max deflection of 0.4 rad.
IV. SIMULINK SIMULATION RESULTS WITH FLIGHT
SIMULATOR
The simulation environment that will use for low-level
controller development is an aircraft dynamics simulator
built by Unmanned Dynamics called AeroSim® toolbox.
This AeroSim simulation environment facilitates a
complete nonlinear aircraft model with all the earth and
atmospheric models and models for propulsion, actuators,
and sensors sub models. Furthermore, it features a von
Karman wind turbulence model already built into the
aircraft model. Also, there are model parameters for the
Aerosonde UAV already built for the user. Due to the
easy access to the Aerosonde model, the controllers in
this section will be developed and tested with respect to
this model.
Now, with a rapid simulation environment, controllers
can be designed and tested at a much faster rate than
normal rate. The current autopilot has three major control
loops for both the longitudinal and lateral dynamics of the
aircraft. Longitudinal dynamics consist of the airspeed,

434
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 pitch, and altitude of the aircraft. Lateral dynamics Classical control system failed to satisfy dynamic
consist of the roll, yaw, and turn rate of the aircraft. stability properties for precise tracking. That’s mainly
because of Classical approach is not good as we expected
A. Conventional three loops
due to the limitation of changing poles and high cross
Conventional three control methods are implemented and coupling between individual loops. Integrator saturation
tested it with non linear software simulation as shown in also added some instability to UAV control system. This
Figure 7. Flightgear interface was used to pass necessary can be identified under extreme simulation conditions as
parameters to view aircraft in virtual flight simulator. in figures 10.
Pitch
8
Real
6 Demand

Pitch(deg)
4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time(s)
Speed
28
Real
Demand

Speed(m/s)
26

24

22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time(s)
Figure 7. Complete Simulink simulation setup with classical approach
Speed
Real
30

Speed(m/s)
Demand
Simulations were carried out to test the behavior of the 25

controller. Some sample maneuvers were analyzed 20

starting from level flight with 25m/s air speed. 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time(s)
300 350 400 450
Pitch Real
Pitch
Pitch & Bank(deg)
Pitch & Bank Pitch Demand
4 10
Real Bank
3 Demand
0
Pitch(deg)

2
-10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
1
Time(s)
0 Bank
0 50 100 150 200 250 10 Bank
Time(s)
Bank(deg)

Bank Demand
Speed
27 0
Real
26 Demand
-10
Speed(m/s)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

25
Time(s)
24
Figure 10. All three classical control loops
23
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time(s)

Figure 8. Response to step commands on pitch and speed command B. Proposed Modern controller
during level flight
Modern control was implemented with the knowledge
Figure 8 contains a simulation of the aircraft flying with
that gains from the classical system with some more extra
no wind while trying to maintain pitch command (blue).
works. Poles were fixed into position that desired by
In that Figure slight cross coupling between speed and
using Base-Gura method and Major problem that faced
pitch can be identified. The steady state error is
during classical system was cleared out. Integration
considerably high, but without any overshoot.
saturation instability was also removed by adding some
anti wind up loops.
Figure 9 contains a simulation of the aircraft flying with
no wind while trying to maintain bank command (blue).
The steady state error is considerably high with minimum
overshoot; and cross coupling also can be identified.
Speed
25.02
Real
25 Demand
Speed(m/s)

24.98

24.96

24.94
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time(s)
Pitch & Bank
10
Pitch Real
Pitch & Bank(deg)

5 Pitch Demand
Bank
0

-5

-10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time(s)

Figure 9. Response to step commands on bank angle command during

level flight; the outputs are the bank (Roll and aileron deflection Figure 11. Proposed Modern Controller

435
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Pitch heading
5
Real
400
Real
Demand
200
Pitch(deg) 0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
speed
-5 28
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Real
Time(s) 26
Demand
Speed
26 24
Real 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Demand pitch & heading
Speed(m/s)

25.5 20

0 Pitch Real
25
Bank
-20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
24.5 turn rate
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time(s) 0.1
Tern rate
0
Heading
Headinh(deg)

400 -0.1
Real 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(s) Figure 14. heading rate control loop
Speed
Speed(m/s)

26 Heading Real

Headinh(deg)
25 Real 200
Demand
24 Demand
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 100
Time(s)
Turn rate(rad/s) Pitch & Bank(deg)

0
Pitch & Heading 0 50 100 150 200 250
20 Time(s)
0 Pitch Real Real
Speed

Speed(m/s)
-20 Bank 26 Demand
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
25
Time(s)
24
Turn rate 0 50 100 150 200 250
0.1 Time(s)

Turn rate(rad/s) Pitch & Bank(deg)

Turn rate Pitch Real
0 Pitch & Heading Bank
20
-0.1 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(s) -20
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time(s)
Figure 12. All three modern control loops
Turn rate Turn rate
0.1
Above diagrams were plotted (Figure 12) for the 1 unit 0

change in response. Below figures shows analyzing -0.1

0 50 100 150 200 250
performance over extreme conditions, such as changing Time(s)

speed by 5 units and turn rate by 0.1rad/s. Fig13 shows

Figure 15. Heading command with PID heading control loop
that simulation is working better than expected with no
oscillations at all for most cases. Proper selection of
control parameters with anti wind up gives good high V. CONCLUSION
precise path followed with high dynamic stability.
Another one major problem was figured out trough this High precision tracking with good maneuverability and
simulation, which increases UAV speed when decreasing performance are the key factors in any UAV used in any
pith to negative value with a high rate. But in actual case kind of application, and classical loop and modern control
this problem can avoid at guidance level or control level implementation were discussed in this paper. These kinds
by adding some software components (speed plot within of UAV control systems design with better stability and
60-80 time intervals). performance with high maneuverability are essential for
Pitch the enhancement of aeronautical industry and expected to
serve for future requirements.
10
Real
Demand
Pitch(deg)

0
REFERENCES
[1] Fei-Bin Hsiao, Yu-Hsu Chien, Tsung-Liang Liu, Mong-Tse Lee,
-5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Wen-Ying Chang, Siang-Yi Han and Yi-Hsuan Wang, 2005, “ A
Time(s)
Speed
Novel Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System with Autonomous Flight
30 and Auto-Lockup Capability” AIAA 43rd AIAA Aerospace
Real
28 Demand Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 10 - 13 Jan 2005, Reno, Nevada
Speed(m/s)

paper no. AIAA 2005-1050

26
[2] Gopinadh Sirigineedi “Flight Controller Design for an
24 Autonomous MAV” Department of Aerospace Engineering, IIT
22 Bombay, Mumbai. June 2005.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time(s) [3] Richard, L., “Formation Flight Autopilot Design for the GAF
Jindivik Mk 4A UAV,” MSc thesis, College of Aeronautics,
Figure 13. speed and pitch control loops
Cranfield University, September 2004.
[4] Robert C Nelson, Flight Stability and Automatic Control, 2nd
Figure 14 shows that heading and other parameter Edition, New Delhi
changes for turn rate command with its maximum [5] Pio Fitzgrald, M V Coock “Flight control system design for
demand. Another simulation was also carried out autonomous uav carrier landing”, Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield
University, School of Engineering 18-Apr-2005
with sinusoidal heading command with aid of
[6] Unmanned dynamics, LLC. Aerosim Blockset User’s Guide.
simple heading PID controller to test lateral Version 1.2.
controller at its maximum capabilities and Figure 15 [7] Andrew Charles Vaughn, “Path planning and control of unmanned
shows that controller working properly with aerial vehicles in the presence of the wind”, M.Sc. thesis
University of California at Berkeley, Urbana-Champaign 2002
minimum time delay.

Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on October 29,2023 at 10:00:58 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply. 436