This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

May 29 2009

Aerodynamic Performance and

Stability Simulation of Diﬀerent

Flying Wing Model Airplane

Conﬁgurations

Author:

Flavio Gohl

Supervisor:

Stefan Leutenegger

Dario Schafroth

Professor:

Prof. Dr. Roland Siegwart

Abstract

In ﬂying wing design, the stability criteria often decrease the aircraft’s

performance and vice versa. Therefore a pitch unstable wing can have a

higher performance. The question to be answered in this thesis is, how

much performance can be won by a pitch unstable wing, stabilised with

a PID controller.

An application is implemented for studying ﬂying wing dynamic and

stability behaviour. The simulation is based on a vortex lattice method

integrated in a rigid body simulation. The vortex lattice method is mod-

elled with singularity elements in chord and spanwise direction on a three-

dimensional wing. With this method, three-dimensional wing geometries,

asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection and asymmetrical inﬂow can be simulated.

The application is qualitatively evaluated with real ﬂight tests of a ﬂying

wing with measurements of the period time of a phygoid oscillation.

Three diﬀerent wings, amongst them a pitch unstable wing with high

performance, are analysed in their dynamic stability behaviour and per-

formance. The pitch unstable wing has a slightly higher performance than

the optimised stable wing.

i

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those who have contributed,

directly or indirectly, to this Bachelor’s thesis in form of technical or other

support. I give my special thanks to Stefan Leutenegger and Dario Schafroth,

Michael Möller, Jens Walther and Philippe Chatelain and Ursina Gysi.

ii

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Work structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 State of the Art 3

2.1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation . . . . . . . 3

2.2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation 5

3.1 Vortex Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1.1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods . . . . . . . . 7

3.1.2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1.3 Lifting Line Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1.5 Vortex Lattice Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 Implementation of a Suitable Method 18

4.1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1.1 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1.2 Mesh Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1.3 Sideslip Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1.4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1.5 Initial Guess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1.6 Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information . . . 22

4.1.7 Force and Moment Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.1.8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method . . . . 23

4.2 Vortex Lattice Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2.1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2.2 Mesh Generating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2.3 Sideslip Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2.4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.2.5 Flap deﬂections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.2.6 Force and Moment Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.2.7 Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2.8 Evaluation of the Vortex Lattice Method . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3 Integrating the Methods in the Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Evaluation of the Simulation 36

5.1 Flight Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.2 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6 Results of the Simulation 39

6.1 Flying Wing, FG-WingX-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6.1.1 Stability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6.2 Optimised Stable Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6.2.1 Stability Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.3 Dutch Roll Mode (germ. Taumelschwingung) and Spiral Mode . 47

6.4 Unstable Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

iii

6.4.1 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.4.2 Static Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.4.3 Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.4.4 Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7 Discussion 55

8 Conclusion 56

9 Future Work 57

iv

1 Introduction

An everlasting problem in aircraft design, especially in ﬂying wing design is the

requirement of stability in pitch roll and yaw axis which is strongly coupled with

the aircraft performance and the manoeuvrability. The stability is coupled with

a loss of the aircraft’s performance and vice versa. A demonstrative example

is the elevator of a classic aircraft conﬁguration, it produces a negative lift

(excluded canard conﬁgurations).

An aircraft with an optimal performance and optimal stability is a require-

ment, which probably is never reached, it is always the challenge to ﬁnd an

optimum. A main step to improve the aircraft performance is, to integrate the

ﬁn, elevator and fuselage in one wing. No fuselage, elevator and ﬁn would be

needed, therefore weight can be saved and drag reduced. Even the civil avia-

tion recognises, that such ﬂying wing combinations are forward looking, due to

integrating the big fuselage in the wing and transforming it into a lift creating

element.

Due to this trade-oﬀ between the stability and the performance, the question

is: What happens with the performance and the stability if the wing is unstable

and a controller garantees the stability? With a close look at ﬂying wing model

airplanes combined with a controller, the question can be advanced to: How

good is the ﬂight performance of a pitch unstable ﬂying wing without taking

regard on pitch stability? Is it possible to reach better glide ratios and sink

rates if the unstable wing is guided by a pitch controller?

In order to optimise the power consumption of a new prototype of conven-

tional solar UAV airplane in higher altitude, it might be advantageous to switch

to a ﬂying wing if a signiﬁcant diﬀerence in performance is found.

To answer this question, a fast dynamic simulation application is built for

studying aircraft stability and performance. The simulation is based on a com-

plex aerodynamic model for complex, three-dimensional wing conﬁgurations

with twist, tapering, sweep and dihedral integrated in a six degree of freedom

rigid body motion simulation. Inﬂuences, such as ﬂap deﬂections, sideslip angle

and angular rates are considered in the calculation of the aerodynamic forces

and moments. The aerodynamic force calculation method is a Vortex Lattice

method, modiﬁed for short computing time. For each time step the method

calculates a force distribution in spanwise and chordwise direction, for a three

dimensional wing.

To answer the question about the unstable wing’s gain of performance, a

pitch unstable wing is designed and compared with self stable ﬂying wings.

For testing the ﬂight characteristics and the dynamic stability, the ﬂying wings

are simulated in the dynamic simulation. The unstable wing is stabilised by a

controller.

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this work are:

• Literature review about existing software solutions

• Establishing a Matlab/Simulink nonlinear dynamic model in order to sim-

ulate the dynamic behaviour of diﬀerent ﬂying wing model airplane con-

ﬁgurations

• Veriﬁcation of the model with ﬂight experiments using an existing RC

ﬂying wing model

• Simulation of diﬀerent ﬂying wing model airplane solutions

– Self stable ﬂying wing with high ﬂight performance

– Low-sweep pitch unstable wing with high performance pitch sta-

bilised by a controller.

• Comparison of the performances

1.2 Work structure

This thesis is structured in three parts. In the ﬁrst part, a theoretical back-

ground in vortex methods is given. The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and

the Vortex Lattice Method are described in more details. Information about

existing software solutions are given. A list of existing simulations and their

capacities is provided.

The second part describes how the methods are implemented and what as-

sumptions with regard to a dynamic simulation are made.

In the third part results of the evaluation are presented and results are shown

and discussed in the section results of the simulation.

In the Appendix some important code fragments, a manual of the code and

the most important information about designing ﬂying wings are shown.

2

2 STATE OF THE ART

2 State of the Art

In the section 2.1 it is presented what methods are commonly used for aerody-

namic force calculation. In the section 2.2 diﬀerent existing simulators, which

try to integrate an aerodynamical model, are presented.

2.1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation

Today high order panel codes are commonly used. For dynamical simulation,

an unsteady Kutta-Joukovsky boundary condition is made, as well as unsteady

wake arrangements by modelling the wake with taking regard to the ﬂight state

of earlier simulated time steps. First panel codes were developed in 1962. The

strongest eﬀorts in these codes were made in pre- and post-processing and also

in the automatical coupling of proﬁle information, where inner viscous eﬀects

are separately analysed. With vortex methods, eﬀects of propulsion and internal

ﬂows trough turbines etc. can be modelled. In addition ﬂow separation can be

modelled with vortex methods and give the wing a nonlinear behaviour. There

are even methods which can couple the inner viscous eﬀects in the boundary

layer with the potential ﬂow, so that also turbulent boundary layers can be

modelled. Detailed information can be found in [18, 8, 12, 22]

For real time simulations many simpliﬁcations are commonly made ore huge

look up tables are generated from measurement or calculations. See in the

section ’Simulation of the dynamic’.

2.2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators

There are various aircraft simulators which try to simulate the behaviour of

aircrafts. A simulation of aircraft with a suﬃciently complex aerodynamic force

calculator for 3D wings was not found. Most simulators are interested in best

graphical visualisation, but not in physical aircraft behaviour. Some simulators

which try to include a more complex integration of aerodynamic forces are listed

below. A very advanced simulator is X-plane. Not only is the graphical engine

outstanding, but also the aerodynamic forces calculation is at a high level.

JSBSim An Open Source project. It calculates aerodynamic forces from look

up tables. Polar data are included for a range of angles from 0...180°.

Propulsion and ground eﬀects are implemented as well, and even a con-

troller for auto piloting is included. All stability derivates are modelled

linearly. [2]

Flight Gear An Open Source project. The ﬂight gear uses ﬂight dynamic

models from JSBsim. [15]

X-Plane A well known simulator. The user can deﬁne his own airplane and let

it ﬂy in X-plane. X-plane tries to approximate the wing as a ﬁnite wing.

Eﬀects as aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing are inﬂuencing

the aerodynamics. Even compressible eﬀects are implemented. A 2D

airfoil polar maker is included. [14]

André Noth The simulator simulates an inﬁnite wing and neglects the eﬀects

of a ﬁnite wing on the lift distribution. For induced drag simple approx-

imations are done to integrate the eﬀects of taper ratio and aspect ratio.

3

2 STATE OF THE ART

Xfoil is generating 2D proﬁle coeﬃcients which are integrated over the

wingspan. A dynamic of six degrees of freedom is implemented in mat-

lab simulink. The simulator is made for controller design.

The simulators listed above are not suited to analyse diﬀerent wing geometries

and to study stability and performance behaviour of ﬂying wings. For this

reason a simulator is established and will be introduced in this thesis.

4

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation

The aim is, to design an algorithm which can calculate the aerodynamic forces

introduced by the wing. Then these forces are given into the dynamic simulation

and must be calculated at each time step.

There are many methods to calculate the forces over a wing. The program

should in principle calculate the forces for a ﬂying wing conﬁguration.

The speciﬁcations for an implementation with regard to a dynamic simula-

tion are:

• very short calculation time for real time simulation

• no elevator and ﬁn

• complex wing (dihedral, winglets, swept wings , etc.)

• asymmetrical incident ﬂow

• rotation speed of the wing which must be regarded for damping the move-

ment about pitch, roll and yaw axis

• asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection

• sideslip angle which must be regarded

• uncomplicated implementation

• consideration of the proﬁle information

Methods which achieve these speciﬁcations:

• lifting line method (described in section 3.1.3)

• nonlinear lifting line method (described in section 3.1.4 )

• lifting surface method or even more complex panel methods (described in

section 3.1.5 )

5

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1 Vortex Methods

Inner eﬀects Inner eﬀects are eﬀects which are acting in the boundary layer

due to viscous motion. The boundary layer is extremely small in comparison

with other dimensions. The results shown in Table 3.1 give an impression of the

boundary layer’s dimensions.

Table 1: Boundary layer, laminar and turbulent [19]

These inner eﬀects can not be neglected, they comprise the information

about the viscous drag. This problem can be split up and separately be calcu-

lated, because its inﬂuence on the outer boundary is small. So the calculation

of the viscous drag is carried out separately. However, there are many programs

which can calculate viscous drag, for example:

• Xfoil

• Wineppler

Outer eﬀects Pressure forces are eﬀects which act outside of the boundary

layer. They are calculated with vortex methods. Details are described in [8],

page 18. Examples of programs, which can calculate potential ﬂow, are listed

below.

• Tornado (MATLAB code)

• AVL

• XFLR

• Miarex (MATLAB code)

6

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1.1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods

With the vortex methods listed above, the ﬂow around the wing gets modelled

as a potential ﬂow. This means that only linear aerodynamics can be studied,

eﬀects of stall and other eﬀects at high angles of attack are negligible. The ﬂow

behaviour at high mach numbers is also negligible.

The process of modelling the potential ﬂow happens with an intelligent vor-

tex arrangement, which models the ﬂow around the wing. The mathematical

background for these methods are given in this section.

Biot Savart The induced velocity from a vortex line is calculated with formula

1. This is the velocity ﬁeld, which generates a vortex line with a constant

circulation strength.

u =

Γ

4π

ˆ

ds ×r

| r |

3

(1)

10 Drehungsbehaftete Str¨omungen 81

Gesetz von Biot-Savart

Bisher haben wir das Wirbelst¨arkefeld ω eines gegebenen Geschwindigkeitsfeldes u betrachtet, welches

man einfach durch Rotationsbildung erh¨alt. Jetzt fragen wir, welches Geschwindigkeitsfeld zu einem

gegebenen Wirbelst¨arkefeld geh¨ort. Zur Vereinfachung betrachten wir den freien Raum ohne Begren-

zungen durch W¨ande.

Analog zum Magnetfeld eines stromdurchﬂossenen Leiters in der Elektrodynamik ist die azimutale

Geschwindigkeit u

θ

um einen unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (Potentialwirbel) mit Zirkulation

Γ im Abstand r gegeben durch

u

θ

=

Γ

2πr

.

Allgemeiner “induziert” ein der Raumkurve C folgendes Wirbelfadenst¨ uck mit konstanter Zirkulation

Γ das Geschwindigkeitsfeld

u(x) =

Γ

4π

C

ds ×r

|r|

3

.

C

x

y

z

x

r

du

ds

Γ

F¨ ur den Beitrag eines endlich langen, geraden Wirbelfadenst¨ ucks ergibt sich damit in einem durch den

Abstand r und die Winkel θ

1

und θ

2

bestimmten Punkt die induzierte azimutale Geschwindigkeit

u

ϑ

=

Γ

4πr

(cos θ

1

−cos θ

2

) .

1

2

!

Wirbelfadenstück

u senkrecht zur Zeichenebene

!

"

r

Beim Grenz¨ ubergang zu einem unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (θ

1

→ 0, θ

2

→ π) ergibt sich

daraus wieder die Geschwindigkeit um einen Potentialwirbel. Der Fall eines halbunendlichen Wirbelfa-

dens ist ebenfalls erfasst.

Ist die Wirbelst¨arke ω(x) im Raum verteilt, so erh¨alt man das von ω induzierte Geschwindigkeitsfeld

durch ein Volumenintegral, das die Beitr¨age aller Wirbelelemente zur Geschwindigkeit u(x) im Punkt

x aufsummiert:

Stand 30. September 2008

Figure 1: Vortex ﬁlament and the induced velocity

If the vortex ﬁlament is a line, the integral is transformed to:

u

ϑ

=

Γ

4πr

(cos θ

1

−cos θ

2

) (2)

10 Drehungsbehaftete Str¨omungen 81

Gesetz von Biot-Savart

Bisher haben wir das Wirbelst¨arkefeld ω eines gegebenen Geschwindigkeitsfeldes u betrachtet, welches

man einfach durch Rotationsbildung erh¨alt. Jetzt fragen wir, welches Geschwindigkeitsfeld zu einem

gegebenen Wirbelst¨arkefeld geh¨ort. Zur Vereinfachung betrachten wir den freien Raum ohne Begren-

zungen durch W¨ande.

Analog zum Magnetfeld eines stromdurchﬂossenen Leiters in der Elektrodynamik ist die azimutale

Geschwindigkeit u

θ

um einen unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (Potentialwirbel) mit Zirkulation

Γ im Abstand r gegeben durch

u

θ

=

Γ

2πr

.

Allgemeiner “induziert” ein der Raumkurve C folgendes Wirbelfadenst¨ uck mit konstanter Zirkulation

Γ das Geschwindigkeitsfeld

u(x) =

Γ

4π

C

ds ×r

|r|

3

.

C

x

y

z

x

r

du

ds

Γ

F¨ ur den Beitrag eines endlich langen, geraden Wirbelfadenst¨ ucks ergibt sich damit in einem durch den

Abstand r und die Winkel θ

1

und θ

2

bestimmten Punkt die induzierte azimutale Geschwindigkeit

u

ϑ

=

Γ

4πr

(cos θ

1

−cos θ

2

) .

1

2

!

Wirbelfadenstück

u senkrecht zur Zeichenebene

!

"

r

Beim Grenz¨ ubergang zu einem unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (θ

1

→ 0, θ

2

→ π) ergibt sich

daraus wieder die Geschwindigkeit um einen Potentialwirbel. Der Fall eines halbunendlichen Wirbelfa-

dens ist ebenfalls erfasst.

Ist die Wirbelst¨arke ω(x) im Raum verteilt, so erh¨alt man das von ω induzierte Geschwindigkeitsfeld

durch ein Volumenintegral, das die Beitr¨age aller Wirbelelemente zur Geschwindigkeit u(x) im Punkt

x aufsummiert:

Stand 30. September 2008

Figure 2: Vortex ﬁlament as a line

If the vortex ﬁlament is inﬁnitely long, the formula is:

u

ϑ

=

Γ

4πr

(3)

Force on a vortex line According to the Kutta-Joukovsky theorem, a

vortex

Γmoving with the velocity v experiences a force

F.

−→

F = ρ(

−→

V ×

−→

Γ) · l (4)

7

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1.2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in

General

Vortex arrangement / Singularity Element The ﬂow is modelled as a

potential ﬂow. As singularity element, for the Lifting Line Method as well as

for the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, a horseshoe vortex is chosen.

The singularity element is placed, in order that the side vortex lines are

leaving the wing in ﬂow direction, and the bound vortex is laying on the wing in

the direction of the leading edge. Assuming that the angle are small the trailing

vortices can be laid in the x-y plane of the body co-ordinate system.

A better physical arrangement is, if the trailing vortices are leaving the wing

in ﬂow direction. These diﬀerent arrangements are shown in ﬁgure 5. The

trailing vortices in the wake (behind the wing) have to be aligned in x direction

or better in ﬂow direction, because in this case there will not be any force acting

on the trailing vortices.

−→

v ×

−−−−→

Γ

Wake

= 0 (5)

The arrangement is shown in Figure 3.1.2.

Figure 3: Horseshoe vortex arrangement

a) with elementary wings

b) Prandtl method

ﬁgure copied from [24], page 24

The bound vortex is laid on the 1/4 line of the wing, and the collocation

points are lying on the 3/4 line of the wing in the middle of the trailing vortices.

On the collocation points the no slip condition is made. The detailed vortex

arrangement of the Lifting Line method is shown in Figure 4.

8

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

Figure 4: Vortex arrangement and normal vectors in the collocation points with

the starting vortex in inﬁnity, copied from[8]

Figure 5: Trailing vortex arrangement

left: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction but following the proﬁle

right: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction

Copied from [8]

Vortex Theorems A vortex is always closed. This means that vortices are

closed ﬁlaments, or vortex rings. The horseshoe vortex is also closed, with the

starting vortex in inﬁnity. Thus its inﬂuence is negligible. A second important

assumption is, that the circulation strength along the vortex ring is constant.

Forces The lift force of a single element is calculated (Kutta Joukovsky

Theorem):

9

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

Lift(i) = ρ

∞

· V

∞

(i) · Γ(i) · ∆y

V

∞

speed of the ﬂow

ρ

∞

density of air (1.225 kg/m

3

)

∆y width of a horseshoe vortex

Γ(i) circulation strength of element i

The lift force is generated by the inﬁnite ﬂow speed on the bound vortex. The

lift force is aligned vertically to the ﬂow speed (see formula 4 on page 7).

The induced drag is calculated with the induced ﬂow speed of the trailing

vortices. They generate a downwash, which induces a velocity on the bound

vortex. The induced velocity on the bound vortex generates a force. This force

is the induced drag. Only the trailing vortices have an inﬂuence on the induced

drag.

Drag

induced

= ρ

∞

· V

ind

(i) · Γ(i) · ∆y

The forces are placed on the 1/4 line on each bound vortex.

Treﬀtz Analysis The induced drag can also be calculated in the so called

Treﬀtz plane, far behind the wing. The induced velocity is much easier to

calculate in the Treﬀtz plane than over the wing, because the trailing vortices

can be modelled as inﬁnitely long in both directions.

10

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1.3 Lifting Line Method

Boundary Condition In the classic Lifting Line Method, the circulation

strength is calculated with a no slip condition. No ﬂow can penetrate the proﬁle.

The sum of induced velocity, inﬁnite velocity and induced velocity of the wake,

projected on normal direction, is zero. This equation is valid at the collocation

points.

w

induced

· n

solid

+ w

i

· n

solid

+

V

∞

· n

solid

= 0 (6)

w

induced

velocity of the bound vortex

w

i

induced velocity of the wake (trailing vortices)

V

∞

incident ﬂow velocity

The normal vectors of the wing n

solid

are vertical to the chord line, so the

boundary condition takes only the chord as proﬁle information, cambering is

negligible. To have better proﬁle information in the boundary condition, the

following methods integrate the proﬁle better.

Equation 6 gives for each collocation point a linear equation with the un-

known circulation strength Γ(i). The enormous advantage of the vortex method

is, that the circulation Γ is linear in equation 1, 2 and 3. So equation 6 can be

written as a matrix and vector equation:

K · Γ = RHS (7)

K nxn matrix

Γ vector with length n

RHS incident ﬂow (

V

∞

) projected on normal vector n

In order to solve this equation for the circulation vector Γ, only a matrix inver-

sion has to be done.

Closed analytical solutions of equation 6 are given in [24], page 7-10. The

numerical solution of this equation is described in section Implementation.

It is more or less arbitrary to evaluate this equation in a point, which is

laying on the 3/4 line. However this alignment is commonly used and provides

good results. It might be useful to analyse, where that point has to lie with

diﬀerent proﬁles. A sample calculation, why the collocation point is laying on

the 3/4 line is shown in [12], page 23

11

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1.4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method was developed in 1946, see [25].

Circulation Strength In Weissinger’s Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, the

circulation strength is calculated by iteration. At ﬁrst the induced angle must

be calculated:

α

ind

= arctan(V

ind

/V

∞

) (8)

The downwash is calculated on the collocation points. See Figure 6 depicting

a geometrical interpretation of equation 8.

Figure 6: Induced angle and angle of attack

V

induced angle

effective angle

geometrical angle

V

Vind

induced angle

Proﬁle data With the induced angle, the angle of attack can be calculated:

α

effective

= α

geometric

−α

induced

(9)

With the eﬀective angle, the local lift force can be calculated. This is done

with known airfoil polars (measurements, Xfoil, Wineppler). With this informa-

tion, nonlinear proﬁle behaviour can be coupled with the circulation distribution

and the lift force. Especially at high angles of attack this information is essen-

tial, as the proﬁle then shows a highly nonlinear behaviour and can not be

modelled as a perfect ﬂat plate with a linear behaviour.

Iterative Process

1. An initial circulation distribution is estimated.

2. The induced angle of attack α

ind

is calculated.

3. The local angle of attack (angle between inﬁnite velocity and chord minus

the induced angle) is calculated.

4. The lift distribution with known airfoil polar data is calculated.

5. With the Kutta Joukovsky theorem, a new circulation distribution can be

calculated.

6. The old and the new circulation distributions are compared. A new circu-

lation distribution with both of them is iteratively generated. The iterative

process begins with point 1.

12

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

The new circulation is calculated with the following formula: [18], page 277

Γ

n+1

(i) = (1 −D)Γ

n

(i) +DΓnew(i) (10)

D is the damping factor, D ≈ 0.05. The iteration is made, until the maximal

diﬀerence between new and old circulation is small enough.

References: [8, 18, 17]

Advantages, Disadvantages and Limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting

Line Method

It is important to know the limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method.

The main advantage is the inclusion of the nonlinear proﬁl data. Even experi-

mental proﬁl data can be coupled with the potential ﬂow.

Advantages

• Only few calculations are necessary.

• Nonlinear eﬀects of the proﬁle can be studied.

• Flap deﬂections are not integrated in the K matrix.

Disadvantages

• Momentum distribution: The fact is, that the lift force is not always placed

in the quarter of the chord, as it is for non swept wings (the sweep angle

is measured at the chord quarter line). For a ﬂying wing the momentum

equilibrium is essential. It has an inﬂuence on the centre of pressure, thus

on the positioning of the centre of gravity. It is of great importance to

know the centre of gravity, not only for the construction, but also for

the mass of stability. The measure of stability is deﬁned as the distance

between the centre of gravity and the neutral point of the aircraft

1

. This

means that the proﬁle data of C

M

is not exactly the value which can be

extracted from the local angle of attack. This problem can only be solved

with a panel method with several panels in the chord direction, see section

3.1.5.

• For the lift calculation, all proﬁle data is needed. So a look up table of

proﬁle data is necessary, which is also needed for viscous drag calculation.

• The wake is modelled in a simple way.

Limitations

• According to NACA technical note [26], ’The calculations are subject to

the limitations of lifting line theory and should not be expected to give

accurate results for wings of low aspect ratio and large amounts of sweep’

1

There are some diﬀerent deﬁnitions of the neutral point, there is a geometrical and an

aerodynamical neutral point, mostly they are nearly the same points. Commonly the measure

of stability is given in percent of the mean aerodynamical chord length. More details of

geometrical and aerodynamical neutral points see [19], page 104

13

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

3.1.5 Vortex Lattice Method

The Vortex Lattice Method, implemented in this thesis, is a Lifting Surface

Method. Therefore the theoretical information which is given in this section is

limited to the Lifting Surface Method. The method is similar to the Lifting Line

Method, it is only enriched with more singularity elements in chord direction.

The boundary condition includes proﬁle information, so the cambering has

an inﬂuence on the lift coeﬃcient. However, the inﬂuence of the whole proﬁle

is not as strong as in the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. Viscous drag can not

be calculated with these methods either, this is done with experimental proﬁle

polars or with software solutions.

More complex panel methods are mathematically similar to the low order

panel method, but there are other boundary conditions and other singularity

elements. They use a Dirichlet boundary condition for a thick body, and for

modelling the potential ﬂow they use doublet panels (vortex rings) or constant-

strength sources.

The method, implemented in this thesis, is similar to the method presented

in [6], this method is also known as ”A Multi-lifting Line Method and its Ap-

plication on Design and Analysis of Nonplanar Wing Conﬁguration”.

Singularity element Basically a vortex ring or a combination of a ring

and a horseshoe vortex may be chosen as a singularity element. The choice is

depending on the eﬀects which would be studied and on the provided calculation

time. For the Vortex Lattice Method implemented in this thesis, the horseshoe

vortex is chosen as singularity element.

Mesh and Vortex Arrangement The wing is divided into several el-

ements in wingspan direction as well as in chord direction. The result is a

rectangular mesh over the whole wing surface. In each of these rectangular

panels a horseshoe vortex is laid. The arrangement is shown in Figure 7. It is

important for the trailing vortices, that they are laid on the surface of the wing.

If they are not laid on the surface, eﬀects such as twist do not have a suﬃciently

strong inﬂuence. The following Figures 8 and 9 show more geometrical details

of the horseshoe vortex placement.

14

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

Collocation Point

Trailing

Vortex

Bound Vortex

c/2

Wake

Figure 7: Vortex arrangement of the Vortex Lattice Method

Figure 8: Detailed horseshoe vortex and alignment in a panel, copied from [8]

15

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

Tomas Melin. KTH, Department of Aeronautics. Page 22 (45)

A Vortex Lattice MATLAB Implementation for Linear Aerodynamic Wing Applications.

4.3.2 Twist and the skewed vortex loop.

When adding twist to the layout, it implies that the geometric angle of attack

varies with span, the design is no longer a flat plate but a mildly skewed surface.

The twist will cause the two outgoing vortex legs from a panel are no longer

parallel, see figure 11. This is the source of the vortex-sling arrangement in

Tornado, which is used instead of the more commonplace horseshoe vortex.

4.3.3 Camber and thin airfoil boundary application.

To extend the geometry even more, the wing could also be cambered. In

Tornado the wing is still regarded as flat with a thin wing approximation where

the boundary conditions are shifted. That is, the normal of the cambered surface

is calculated and the non-flow-through boundary condition is employed at the

chord line (see figure 12). This approximation is common and used in a variety

of methods.

Fig 11: Twisted vortex sling. Figure 9: Trailing vortices and twist, the trailing vortices are not parallel, copied

from [13]

Wake The wake modelling in this simple model does not take the wake

roll up and the unsteady ﬂow into account. For more precise results, the wake

would be modelled by vortex panels with time variant circulation strength. The

wake in this implementation contains all trailing vortices which are following

the local chord direction.

Boundary Condition and Proﬁle Information To take care of proﬁle

information, the boundary condition must be improved. The boundary condi-

tion is made on the skeleton line, so that the cambering has an inﬂuence on

the circulation distribution. So the normal direction on the skeleton line is cal-

culated, and in this direction the total ﬂow must be zero. This simply means,

that no ﬂow can go through the skeleton line. This is an approximation of the

proﬁle, it is assumed that the proﬁle is thin (see Figure 10). This approximation

is commonly used. See in [6, 18, 8, 12, 21, 11]

Tomas Melin. KTH, Department of Aeronautics. Page 23 (45)

A Vortex Lattice MATLAB Implementation for Linear Aerodynamic Wing Applications.

4.3.4 The polyhedral wing.

The geometry may be even more intricate when we allow cranked wings, i.e.

wings that are polyhedral, like the F-16 main wing, see figure 13. However from

the geometric layout and meshing point of view, this is not a big problem as

every polyhedral wing may be broken down into quadrilateral partitions. In

Tornado, this partitioning takes place early in the user input of geometry

definitions.

Fig 12: Camber and shifted boundary condition.

Fig 13: Cranked wing on a F16 type of aircraft.

Figure 10: Inﬂuence of the cambering in the boundary condition.

The Figure is copied from [13]

System of Equations The resulting equation for the calculation of the

circulation strength in a collocation point is the same as equation 6. This

equation is solved for each panel and the resulting system of equations can be

16

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION

solved for the circulation strength in each panel. The system of equations can

be written in a matrix form, similar to equation 7. To solve the system of

equations, only a matrix inversion must be done.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the VL-Method in general

Advantages

• A force distribution over the chord and the span is made. This provides

a better momentum distribution.

• The centre of gravity can be calculated more exactly.

Disadvantages

• The wake arrangement with inﬁnite trailing vortices is an enormous sim-

pliﬁcation.

• The Kutta condition is a steady Kutta condition and neglects dynamic

ﬂow behaviour.

• Eﬀects of ﬂow separation and transition are neglected in the potential

ﬂow, but they are not negligible in the airfoil viscous drag.

17

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4 Implementation of a Suitable Method

There are various existing programs, which can calculate aerodynamic forces.

• Tornado (MATLAB code) [21]

• AVL [11]

• XFLR [10]

• Miarex (MATLAB code) [23]

The best results can be obtained with panel methods. There is an Open Source

tool called Tornado [21]. It was tested, if this software could be used for a

dynamic simulation. Unfortunately the calculation times are too long and a

vast look up table would be necessary, because the program has to calculate a

new mesh and a new inﬂuence matrix for each ﬂap deﬂection.

There is another Open Source tool from Mark Drela [11], which is a Vortex

Lattice Method as well, but the calculation time is also too long, similarly to

Tornado. Flap deﬂections must always be meshed again.

Another problem is, that these two programs do not care about the friction

of the proﬁle. Therefore the friction force is only the induced drag. For the

whole drag force it is necessary to integrate the lift distribution with proﬁle

data. This has to be calculated separately and again increases the calculation

time.

XFLR is another program with great potential which calculates with diﬀer-

ent methods. Often comparisons with XFLR are made in this thesis. Integrating

XFLR in a dynamic simulation would not pe possible either, the geometry for

each ﬂap deﬂection would have to be changed. In XFLR ﬂap deﬂections are

deﬁned as a new proﬁle. Therefore for each change of the proﬁle, the proﬁle

coeﬃcients have to be recalculated for the interpolation. Miarex is a kind of

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method combined with Xfoil, but not eﬃcient enough

either for dynamical solutions. Miarex is also limited in the wing geometries.

Some requirements, which do not allow to generate a look up table, are:

• asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂections

• sideslip angles

• angular rates for damping the movement in yaw-, pitch- and roll-axes

These variables generate too many ﬂight states.

After checking the qualities and limitations of the diﬀerent programs, a Lift-

ing Line Method was chosen, which has the great advantage that ﬂap deﬂections

are not cared about in the inﬂuence matrix of the vortices. The ﬂap deﬂections

are only considered in the iteration. A reduced look up table would be gener-

ated with the only parameter β, the sideslip angle. Unfortunately the results

were insuﬃcient, because the method does not care about a force distribution

in chord direction.

Finally a Vortex Lattice Method was implemented. The method was opti-

mised for a fast calculation, so that the method can be used for dynamical simu-

lation. Some simpliﬁcations with ﬂap deﬂections were made. In both methods,

simpliﬁcations are made in the wake modelling. Otherwise, the simulation time

would be much longer.

18

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

The main idea of this implementation is, to split up the calculations. The

meaning is to calculate as much as possible before the simulation starts so that

during the simulation only the most important calculations must be carried out.

A simple structure of the program is shown in Figure 11, listing the most

important functions and procedures.

load all input

data

geometry

deﬁnition

initial state

deﬁnition

proﬁle polar

deﬁnition

Xfoil

polars

generate

geometry and

vortex mesh

calculate

inﬂuence

coefﬁcient

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

Process Diagramm

make initial

guess for

gamma start

distribution

iterate

calculate

forces and

moments

geometry

mesh

inﬂuence

matrix K

gamma start and

ﬂap deﬂection

gamma

Manual input

Figure 11:

The following chapter gives more detailed information about the most im-

portant functions.

4.1.1 Inputs

The geometry can be a 3D wing geometry with ﬂaps, dihedral, twist and sweep

angle. Even discontinuous functions of the twist angle and the geometry are

possible. As inﬂow information, the ﬂow velocity must be deﬁned in three

components, and the angular rates have to be initialised.

4.1.2 Mesh Generation

The coordinate system is deﬁned as commonly used in aircraft design. The

y-axis is in the spanwise direction, the x-axis goes backwards of the wing and

19

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

the z-axis is looking away from the earth. This deﬁnition is diﬀerent than the

deﬁnition of the dynamics.

As singularity element, the horseshoe vortex is chosen. The trailing vortices

are aligned in x-direction in this implementation .

The wing geometry can be devided into several partitions. Each partition is

a trapezoid with geometry data listed below. The geometry of the wing is only

deﬁned for a wing half, then the geometry is mirrored.

b_root root chord, skalar

b_tip tip chord skalar

alpha_g geometrical angle to the body x-axis, this is a vector and contains

the root angle and the tip angle

s span of the partition

n number of single panels

phi sweep angle at leading edge

x0 reference point, where the partition has to be placed, it is deﬁned at

the tip of the root chord for each partition and therefore is a matrix.

With this parameters the function generate_Mesh.m gives as output the mesh

data for the vortex placements and some other geometry data, which are used

for the force calculation. The most important outputs are:

T_left all left horseshoe points

T_right all right horseshoe points

A all collocation points

The trailing vortices are leaving the wing in x-direction. This is a small angle

approximation of the wake. Physically they have to leave the wing in the ﬂow

direction behind the wing. Therefore twist eﬀects are neglected in the vortex

arrangement. The eﬀect of the wing’s geometrical angles are taken into account

in the calculation of the new Gamma distribution (Γ), see Algorithm 1 in Ap-

pendix A . The new Gamma circulation is calculated with the geometrical and

the induced angle and then damped with the old circulation.

4.1.3 Sideslip Angle

The whole geometry is rotated with an angle β around the z-axis. The sideslip

angle is calculated:

1 betha_in=atan(global_flow_speed (2)/global_flow_speed (1));

However, the trailing vortices are still pointing into the x-direction.

20

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.1.4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients

The Kutta condition is fulﬁlled at each collocation point. The induced velocities

of all horseshoe vortices must be calculated at the collocation point i, and then be

compared with the incident ﬂow V

∞

projected on the local geometrical normal

vector. For all collocation points the system has the following form:

Coll. Points Matrix K Gamma Boundary Cond.

1 a

1,1

a

1,2

a

1,3

... a

1,N

Γ

1

RHS

1

2 a

2,1

a

2,2

a

2,3

... a

2,N

Γ

2

RHS

2

3 a

3,1

a

3,2

a

3,3

... a

3,N

· Γ

3

= RHS

3

4 a

4,1

a

4,2

a

4,3

... a

4,N

Γ

4

RHS

4

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

N ... ... ... ... ... Γ

N

RHS

N

Table 2: System of linear equations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

The inﬂuence coeﬃcients a

i,j

are calculated with the function vortex.m, vor-

tex_left.m, vortex_right.m. They are principally vectors, projected on each

normal vector in the collocation point. The function is plotted in Algorithm 2

Appendix A .

The circulation Gamma can be excluded from the calculation of the inﬂuence

coeﬃcients, because it is linear in the equation.

The right hand side of the equation is the free stream ﬂow projected on the

normal vector.

RHS

i

= −(U

∞

, V

∞

, W

∞

) · n

i

(11)

The inﬂuence coeﬃcients are only depending on the geometry and the sideslip

angle β. The assumption is, that the wake is stationary, so that the vortex ar-

rangement, despite a variation in the angle of attack, rests always the same.

This inﬂuence matrix is saved for several sideslip angles and later interpo-

lated at the desired sideslip angle.

4.1.5 Initial Guess

The initial function for the circulation strength is chosen in this implementation

as:

1 Gamma_start=-inv(K)*RHS

This is a linear approach which later is iteratet with nonlinear proﬁle infor-

maion.

The RHS is:

1 RHS=v_abs.*sin(alpha_g)

v_abs norm of the velocity, v_abs is a vector

alpha_g geometrical angle, a vector

The twist eﬀect is neglected in the RHS, because the inﬂuence of twist on the

normal vector in the collocation points is neglibible.

21

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.1.6 Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information

The iteration is started with the following commonly used parameters.

1 %Damping Factor

D=0.05;

3 %Stop criteria

min =0.001;

The iteration function is the core of the total program, it is plotted in Algo-

rithm 1 on page 60 Appendix A .

A short description of what the function does:

The induced velocity w_i here is calculated with the Treﬀtz analysis. It is

calculated with the following formula:

w_i =1/2*( K_far*Gamma_alt);

K_far is the inﬂuence matrix for the Treﬀtz analysis. The eﬀective angle of

attack is calculated:

1 alpha_i=-atan(w_i ./(v_abs ’));

The induced angle alpha_i could also be simpliﬁed to: alpha_i=-w_i./v_abs.

The new circulation Gamma_new is calculated with the following two for-

mulas:

Kutta-Joukovsky

L = ρ · Γ · v · ∆y (12)

Proﬁle_CL

L = CL · ρ ·

v

2

2

· ∆y · b (13)

Therefore the circulation Gamma is:

Γ = CL ·

v

2

· b (14)

The CL value is calculated with an interpolation function between several

polars. In the interpolation, the ﬂap angle and the angle of attack are the input

values. With the CL distribution, the viscous drag CD is interpolated from the

proﬁle polars.

The convergence process of the iteration is not a robust process. So the

damping factor and the stop criteria have to be chosen carefully. The practice

has shown, that the values given here mostly provide good results.

4.1.7 Force and Moment Calculation

The lift force is calculated with the CL distribution. It is projected on the

speed normal direction, vertical to the ﬂow speed vector and vertical to the

bound vortex. The induced drag force is calculated with the formula:

D

induced

(i) = −ρ · Γ(i) · w

induced

· ∆y (15)

The viscous drag is calculated with the integration of the local viscous drag

over the span of the wing which is calculated with proﬁle polar information.

The drag force is projected in ﬂow speed direction. The point of attack of the

22

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

forces is on the bound vortex. The resulting moment is evaluated in the origin

of the wing. To the resulting moment the local momentum coeﬃcient of the

proﬁle integrated over the span of the wing is added.

4.1.8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method

Unfortunately in the Treﬀtz analysis sweep angles are neglected. So a variation

of the sweep angle does not change the induced velocities in the Treﬀtz plane.

For swept wings, it is important to include the inﬂuence of the sweep angle, so

a solution is searched to include the sweep angle. This is done by calculating

the induced velocitities on the bound vortex. The Treﬀtz plane only recognises

the inﬁnite vortex lines, the diﬀerence of the starting point’s x-component is

neglected because it is too far away. On the bound vortex, the inﬂuence of

diﬀerent x-components of the trailing vortex starting point is considered. This

causes an inﬂuence on the sweep. The implementation results showed, that the

inﬂuence is too strong and gives a qualitatively incorrect distribution of lift.

To illustrate the eﬀect of Treﬀtz and bound analysis, a Figure with the

diﬀerence of the two analysis types is added, see Figure 12. The wing is a swept

wing without dihedral. The geometry deﬁnition is listed below.

Wing deﬁnition of the test wing:

1 p=3; %number of Partitions

ny=[0,0,0]*pi /180; %Dihedral of the Partitions

3

n=[10 ,10 ,7]; %Number of collocation points

5 s=[0.5;0.3;0.2]; %Span of partition

b_root =[0.2;0.2;0.2]; %root chord

7 b_tip =[0.2;0.2;0.2]; %tip chord

phi =[20 ,20 ,20]*pi /180; %Sweep angle , back is ←

positive

9

%geometrical twist angles

11 alpha =[0 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3.8]*pi /180;

!1 !0.8 !0.6 !0.4 !0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

y

G

a

m

m

a

!1 !0.8 !0.6 !0.4 !0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

y

C

L

Gamma

Gamma with Trefftz Analysis

CL Distribution

CL Distribution with Trefftz Analysis

Figure 12: Diﬀerences between alternative calculations of the induced angle

Angle of attack: 6 degrees

Calculations made with Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Gohl

The test wing from above is compared with other results. Here compared

are the CL distributions, the circulation distribution curve is qualitatively the

23

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

same because the chord is constant and therefore not plotted, see Figure 13.

!1 !0.8 !0.6 !0.4 !0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Y

C

L

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, Trefftz analysis Gohl

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method XFLR

Panel Method XFLR

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method, bound analysis Gohl

Figure 13: Comparison of the Lifting Line Method with a Panel calculation for

the swept wing with twist

angle of attack: 5°

Advantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation

• Nonlinear behaviour of proﬁle information inﬂuences the circulation dis-

tribution.

• Flap deﬂections do not need to be regarded in mesh generation. The ﬂap

inﬂuence is regarded in the iterative function where the local lift coeﬃcient

is interpolated.

• The calculation is very fast.

Disadvantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation

• The twist eﬀect is not modelled well, because all trailing vortices are leav-

ing the wing and not following the local chord direction.

• This method does not provide accurate results for wings with low aspect

ratios.

• The results of swept wings are not usable, because sweep angle eﬀects are

neglected.

• An interpolation between Reynolds numbers is not done in this imple-

mentation. When proﬁle polars are made, the Reynolds number must be

estimated.

24

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.2 Vortex Lattice Method

The Vortex Lattice Method is implemented as a consequence of the unsatisfac-

tory results provided by the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and the limitations

of the method (see section 3.1.4 on page 12 and section 3.1.4 on page 13).

The Vortex Lattice implementation is similar to the Nonlinear Lifting Line

Method. However there are some signiﬁcant changes in the mesh composition

and in the structure of the linear system of equation, and there are other mod-

iﬁcations, which are shown in this section. The basic problem of the Vortex

Lattice method is, that the dimension of the inﬂuence matrix is much higher.

If a vortex lattice method should be implemented in a dynamic simulation, the

calculation time is a severe problem. To reduce the computing time, some im-

portant modiﬁcations in saving the data and in calculating the inﬂuence matrix

are done. The most important steps in the program are shown in a ﬂow diagram,

see Figure 14

load all input

data

geometry

deﬁnition

inﬂow

information

proﬁle polar

deﬁnition

Xfoil

polars

generate

geometry and

vortex mesh

calculate

inﬂuence

coefﬁcient

Vortex Lattice Method

Process Diagramm

generate RHS,

insert ﬂap deﬂection

inverting Matrix K

and calculate

Gamma

calculate

forces and

moments

geometry

mesh

Inﬂuence

matrix K

Gamma

Manual input

Figure 14: Process diagram of the Vortex Lattice Implementation

25

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.2.1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle

The proﬁle coordinates can directly be included in the implementation. Then

the mean line is calculated from the proﬁle data, as an example see the proﬁle

MH45 in Figure 15:

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

!0.3

!0.2

!0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

x!axis

z

!

a

x

i

s

Figure 15: Mean line of the proﬁle MH45 calculated with proﬁle.m

4.2.2 Mesh Generating

The wing is divided into rectangular elements in spanwise direction and in chord

direction. In each of the panel a horseshoe vortex is laid. The trailing vortices in

this implementation are following the chord direction, otherwise the twist eﬀect

would be neglected. The arrangement in top view is shown in the theoretical

part (see Figure 7 on page 15). For details about diﬀerent mesh arrangements

and results, see in section 4.2.8 on page 31. A detailed description of a panel is

shown in Figure 16

T_right

T_left

P

bound

vortex Trailing

vortex

!

!

!

Panel

V"

r1

r2

n

T_left

behind

T_right

behind

P

Figure 16: Detailed description of a single panel

26

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

The mesh points are saved in matrices:

T

left

X =

T

left

X

1,1

T

left

X

1,2

T

left

X

1,3

...

T

left

X

2,1

T

left

X

2,2

... ...

T

left

X

3,1

... ... ...

... ... ... T

left

X

m,n

The ﬁrst index is the number of the element in chord direction, the second

indices is the number of element in spanwise direction. The same is applied for

all other coordinates and points. The organisation of the elements is shown in

the following Figure:

1,1

1,2

1,3

2,1

3,1

3,2

2,2

2,3

2,4

3,3

3,4

3,5

. . .

. . .

. . .

Figure 17: Organisation of the indices of the mesh points

With this matrix structure, MATLAB can calculate faster, because the

basic vector calculations can be calculated much faster.

The normal vector is now calculated at the mean line of the proﬁle, see

Figure 16. It is calculated with the cross product:

r

1

×r

2

r

1

×r

2

=

−→

n (16)

For the calculation of the normal direction, the collocation point must lie on

the proﬁle mean line.

4.2.3 Sideslip Angle

If the ﬂow has a y-component, the mesh must be changed. In this implemen-

tation, the trailing vortices only are rotated around the z-axis. The inﬂuence

coeﬃcients are saved for a range of sideslip angles and then the desired sideslip

angle is interpolated between this data.

27

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.2.4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients

The inﬂuence coeﬃcients are organised as the following Table shows:

Coll. Points Matrix K

p

1,1

: a

1,1

a

1,2

a

1,3

... a

2,1

a

2,2

a

2,3

... Γ

1,1

RHS

1,1

p

2,1

: a

1,1

a

1,2

a

1,3

... a

2,1

a

2,2

a

2,3

... Γ

1,2

RHS

2,1

p

3,1

: a

1,1

a

1,2

a

1,3

... a

2,1

a

2,2

a

2,3

... Γ

1,3

RHS

3,1

... a

1,1

a

1,2

a

1,3

... a

2,1

a

2,2

a

2,3

... ... RHS

1,2

p

1,2

: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... · Γ

2,1

= RHS

2,2

p

2,2

: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Γ

2,2

RHS

3,2

p

3,2

: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Γ

2,3

RHS

1,3

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... RHS

2,3

p

1,3

: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... RHS

3,3

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

Table 3: System of linear equations

The boundary condition is evaluated at each collocation point, like for ex-

ample, the equation for the collocation point 1,1:

a

1,1

·Γ

1,1

+a

1,2

·Γ

1,2

+a

1,3

·Γ

1,3

+...+a

2,1

·Γ

2,1

+...+a

m,n

·Γ

m,n

= −

−→

V

∞

·

−→

n (17)

Attention, many errors can occur if the numbering of the circulation vec-

tor and the numbering of the RHS vector are exchanged. There are writ-

ten functions, which can rewrite the numbering of these vectors (rewrite.m,

rewrite_RHS.m).

The calculation of inﬂuence coeﬃcients is basically similar to the calcula-

tion in the nonlinear implementation. The principle to calculate the inﬂuence

coeﬃcients of a vortex line is described below.

The basic formula to calculate the induced velocity of a straight vortex

ﬁlament is given in the theoretical part. So the cosines of the angles between

R_0 and R_1, R_1 and R_0 must be found. These angles are calculated with

the help of the dot product. The geometrical illustration is shown in Figure 18.

cos(Θ) =

R0 · R1

R0 · R1

(18)

The distance r is calculated with the help of the cross product:

r =

R0 ×R1

R0

(19)

The resulting induced velocity is calculated with the principle of equation

18 and 19:

a =

R1 ×R2

R1 ×R2

2

1

4π

(

R0 · R1

R1

−

R0 · R1

R2

) (20)

The value R0 in equation 20 can be cancelled.

28

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

!

L(x,y,z)

R(x,y,z)

P(x,y,z)

R_0

R_1

R_2

r

Figure 18: Vortex inﬂuence coeﬃcient

A numerical problem in calculating the inﬂuence coeﬃcients can occur, if a

collocation point lies too close to the vortex line. The induced velocity then rises

to inﬁnite. To avoid this problem, a region is deﬁned in which the velocities are

set to zero. The problem occurs if:

R1 < (21)

R2 < (22)

R1 ×R2

2

< (23)

If one of these three equations is fulﬁlled, then the value of a is set to zero.

So the equation 20 for all values of the denumerators is always deﬁned.

The idea is, to calculate the induced velocity from all bound vortices, left

trailing vortices and right trailing vortices for one collocation point i at once.

This is much faster. All the operations of the equations 18, 19 and 20 can

be calculated with matrices. The function vortex_panel.m needs as input all

points in matrix structures and gives out the coeﬃcients. The structure of a

(see equation 20) is therefore a matrix. The indices are organised in the way,

that the coeﬃcient a

m,n

is the inﬂuence of the panel m,n on the collocation

point i. These coeﬃcients are directly rewritten as vectors, so that they are in

the structure of a row of the inﬂuence matrix, see the system of equation in

Table 3

The function is added in Algorithm 3, Appendix A

The calculation of the inﬂuence matrix for one collocation point is made in

a loop for each collocation point. See the function in Algorithm 4, Appendix A

.

29

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

For lift forces, the calculation of the inﬂuence coeﬃcients is done with the

collocation points on the 3/4 line of the panel. For induced drag forces, the

calculation of inﬂuence coeﬃcients is done on collocation points lying on the

bound vortex. Then the K matrix is saved as the inverted matrix, so that

during the simulation no matrix inversion is needed.

4.2.5 Flap deﬂections

Flap deﬂections in this implementation are made with the boundary condition.

All surface normals which lie in the ﬂap region are rotated around the y-axis

with the angle of the ﬂap deﬂection.

4.2.6 Force and Moment Calculation

The lift forces act on the bound vortices. They are calculated for each panel:

Liftforce =

n

i=1

m

j=1

ρ · Γ

j,i

· y

j,i

(24)

The induced drag is calculated with the following formula:

Drag

induced

=

n

i=1

m

j=1

−ρ · sign(Γ

j,i

) · Γ

j,i

· w

indj,i

· y

j,i

(25)

The term w

ind

is the induced velocity from the trailing vortices. It is calcu-

lated with the following formula

w

ind

= K

bound

· Γ (26)

K

bound

is the inﬂuence matrix of the trailing vortices on the bound vortices.

It is calculated with the following formula:

K

bound

= K

bound

X ∗ U

normalvel

+K

bound

Y ∗ V

normalvel

+K

bound

Z ∗ W

normalvel

(27)

K

bound

X, K

bound

Y , K

bound

Z are the inﬂuence coeﬃcient matrices in the

directions X, Y, Z.

U

normalvel

, V

normalvel

, W

normalvel

are the components of the vectors ver-

tical to the ﬂow speed and the bound vortex vector.

The viscous drag is interpolated with the proﬁle polars.

30

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.2.7 Stall

In the simulation high eﬀective angles might occur. It could therefore be, that

CL values of 2.0 or more appear (as a consequence of the linear behaviour of the

method). Values of CL over 1.5 for normal proﬁles do not exist physically. In

this case the interpolation function for calculating the CD values has a problem,

because in the polar table no CD value at this too high CL value exists. In order

to enable the simulation to calculate stall situations, CL values which are not

found in the table are assumed as the last element in the table. The results of

this method are not signigicant, therefore the Vortex Lattice Method does not

give accurate results for stall behaviour.

4.2.8 Evaluation of the Vortex Lattice Method

Advantages

• Any desired wing geometry with sweep, dihedral, twist, winglets and sev-

eral wing parts can be calculated. Even elevator and ﬁn can be added to

the geometry, but the mesh must be looked at carefully due to singulari-

ties.

• Airfoil cambering is taken in account.

Disadvantages

• Non-linearities of the air’s viscousity and dependencies of speed are ne-

glected in the lift force and the induced drag force.

• In this implementation a strong wake simpliﬁcation is made, see in sec-

tion 4.2.8.

• An interpolation between Reynolds numbers is not done. Inﬂuences of

speed and the chord distribution of the wing are approximated to the

same Reynolds numbers.

Inﬂuence of Diﬀerent Mesh Types

In this part the diﬀerences between a ﬂat mesh and a mesh on skeleton line of the

wing are shown. It elucidates again the simpliﬁcation of the mesh arrangement

of the implemented method. A comparison of diﬀerent mesh types is done and

analysed qualitatively and quantitatively.

The boundary conditions are still evaluated at the skeleton line. The great

diﬀerence is in direction of the trailing vortex. It follows the skeleton direction

or the chord direction.

31

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

0 5 10 15

!10

0

10

20

30

CL/CD

angle of attack

C

L

/

C

D

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

!0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

CD and CL

CD

C

L

0 5 10 15

!0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

CL and angle of attack

angle of attack

C

L

0 5 10 15

!10

0

10

20

30

angle of attack

CL^(3/2)/CD

collocation points on chord VLM Goh

coll. points on skeleton VLM Gohl

VLM with wake modeling XFLR

Figure 19: Diﬀerent mesh types

squares: collocation points and trailing vortices are liyng on the skeleton line of

the wing,

circles: collocation points and trailing vortices are laying on the chord line of

the wing

triangles: a calculation from XFLR with VLM classic method, induced drag

with Treﬀtz analysis

The greatest diﬀerence is visible in the induced drag. This is also the value

which causes most of the problems in this method. The wake modeling is

not physical. The trailing vortices are not leaving the wing in the ﬂow speed

direction. In this implementation, the twist has a too strong inﬂuence on the

direction of the trailing vortices. But for exact lift distribution and center of

lift calculations, the vortices must follow the proﬁle chord or the local skeleton

line.

For calculating exact glide numbers, the method provides too high values

caused by too small induced drag values (see Figure 19). The diﬀerence of

the induced drag is shown in Figure 20, where the wing is the model glider

FG-WingX-02.

32

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

!4

!2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

x 10

!3

ange of attack

C

d

i

n

d

u

c

e

d

Induced Drag

VLM Points on skeleton line

VLM with flat points

Figure 20: Induced drag calculated with diﬀerent meshes

Why not let the trailing vortices follow the ﬂow speed direction? For a static

calculation, there would not be any problems, but for a dynamic simulation there

are obstacles. The vortex arrangement for dynamic analysis should not change.

If it changes, the following steps have to be calculated:

1. The vortex arrangement must be corrected at each time step.

2. All the inﬂuence coeﬃcients in the Biot-Savart inﬂuence matrix K change

and must be recalculated.

3. The matrix inversion must be recalculated. The matrix can have dimen-

sions of 500x500.

4. An interpolation with the sideslip angle is not possible, because the mesh

is not always the same. So the arrangement has also to be corrected with

sideslip angle. But this step 4 could be directly done in step 1.

If all these calculations had to be done at each time step, this would cost much

more simulation time.

33

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.3 Integrating the Methods in the Simulation

Now that the aerodynamic forces may be calculated as a function of incident

ﬂow direction, ﬂap deﬂection and angular rates, the airplane dynamics may

be calculated by applying rigid body dynamics. For the rigid body motion

simulation, the existing MATLAB/Simulink model by André Noth is used.

Therefore, only the mass, centre of gravity and the inertia must be added.

The inertia is calculated in the function inertia_calc.m. Some simpliﬁcation

are made:

• homogeneous mass distribution

• constant thickness of the wing, with thickness c deﬁned in wingdef.m

• wing, modelled with many rectangular boxes

• neglected dihedral

Vortex Lattice Method

The input data from the Euler-Lagrange dynamics and the output data of the

force calculating block is shown in the following ﬂow Figure 21:

Aerodynamic Forces

Fx, Fy, Fz

Mx, My, Mz

ﬂap deﬂections

speed in body system

angluar rates

in earth system

phi, theta, psi

Figure 21: Flow diagram of the aerodynamic force block

The data must be transformed into the wing’s body system. Moreover it

is essential to calculate the angular rates p, q, r around the body axis. The

interpolation of the inﬂuence matrices must be done. Then the velocity vector

is calculated. The angular rates are taken in account in the velocity vector. It

is calculated with following principle:

v

local

= −

Omega ×

−→

R +

V

∞

(28)

Omega is a vector with the angular rates in the body system, R is the

distance between the center of gravity and the local panel.

All the vectors have to be reorganised for the RHS calculation, even the

surface normal vectors. The ﬂap deﬂection is calculated with changing the

RHS. The mesh arrangement is not changed for the ﬂap deﬂection. This is a

simpliﬁcation in favour of faster calculation, otherwise the whole mesh would

have to be recalculated. Finally the circulation distribution is calculated with

the interpolated inﬂuence matrices at the desired sideslip angle.

Then the forces and moments are calculated and delivered to the output.

34

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

The inclusion of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in the dynamics is similar to

the Vortex Lattice Method. Some important diﬀerences occur in the calculation

of the circulation. The circulation is calculated with the initial circulation at

the ﬁrst time step. For the next time step, the circulation distribution from the

old time step is used for starting the iteration. The changes of the circulation

distributions are always small, so that only a few iterations are necessary.

35

5 EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION

5 Evaluation of the Simulation

The simulation is evaluated with real ﬂight tests. In order to at least qualita-

tively compare the behaviour of the simulation to real ﬂight, ﬂight test are made

and taken on video. The experimental data are collected with a self built model

ﬂying wing. More information about the wing can be found in section 6.1 on

page 39 .

5.1 Flight Test Results

For the ﬂight test, a well deﬁned ﬂight attitude must be found, as the simulation

needs the same initial condition as in the ﬂight test.

This attitude can be reached with the following scenario. At ﬁrst the wing is

accelerated and then, at high speed, the aileron are set to the initial condition.

The wing slows down until the velocity is zero and then the wing tilts forward.

It begins to oscillate periodically as it stabilises on its own. The period time

can be measured by a clock. Then the period times can be compared with

simulated results. For visualisation, the course of the ﬂight is shown in the

following Figure:

acceleration

with ﬂap

deﬂection

ﬂaps set to

the initial state

velocity: zero angle theta: -90°

ﬁrst period second period

comparison with simulation

no action by the pilot

Figure 22: Path for ﬂight tests

Measured times are written in Table 4. The measurements were made in

good weather conditions, early in the morning, so that weather eﬀects could be

neglected. Two ﬂights were evaluated. Flight one: Only one period time was

measurable. Flight two: Two period times were measurable.

Phygoid Nr. 1 2 Tolerance

Flight 1 [s] 5.8 not measurable +/- 0.3

Flight 2 [s] 5.5 5.4 +/- 0.3

Table 4: Measured times of the phygoids

36

5 EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION

5.2 Simulation Results

The following attitude is chosen for the evaluation:

Θ -85° real ﬂight data

speed ≈ 1 [m/s] a realistic value is chosen

centre of gravity 0.21 m data from VLM Gohl

ﬂap deﬂection ≈ −4° (+/- 0.5 degrees) real ﬂight data

angle of attack 2° a realistic value is chosen

Table 5: Initial Condition

The simulation results with the initial condition in Table 5 are shown in

Figure 23. In Table 6 the measured period times are shown. The polars in Xfoil

are made with a turbulence model of N

crit

=9, details about the turbulence

model see in Xfoil manual, in the section Viscous Formulation [4].

Period Nr. 1 2 3

Period time [s] 5.76 5.88 5.76

Table 6: Simulation Results, times of the ﬁrst three periods of the phygoid

oszillation

There are several reasons for the slight variation of the simulated and mea-

sured values:

• The model is not absolutely perfect, it is a simpliﬁcation of the reality.

Values such as the induced drag are inexact and can cause small errors.

The calculation of the inertia is another simpliﬁcation. There could also

occur 3D ﬂow eﬀects, which are neglected.

• The airfoil polars are generated with Xfoil. The turbulence model of

N

crit

= 9 in Xfoil might be incorrect.

• The model wing is not perfect. The trailing edge is not as sharp as the

simulated proﬁle is. In addition the leading edge is less rounded than the

original airfoil, due to the manufacturing method.

• The initial condition is not absolutely correct as it is estimated. The initial

condition of Θ

init

= −

π

2

causes some problems with the Tait-Bryan angles

(more details see in [16]) so that the angle must be approximated.

37

5 EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

1

4

0

1

6

0

1

8

0

2

0

0

0 5 1

0

1

5

2

0

2

5

3

0

X

[

m

]

Z [m]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

2

0

0

2

5

0

X

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

Y

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

0

1

0

2

0

3

0

4

0

M

i

n

u

s

Z

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

P

h

i

[

r

a

d

]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

!

1

.5

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

T

h

e

t

a

[

r

a

d

]

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

P

s

i

[

r

a

d

]

Figure 23: Simulation results of the periodic oscillation

38

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

6 Results of the Simulation

6.1 Flying Wing, FG-WingX-02

In the next three sections three diﬀerent wings are presented, simulated and

analysed. The ﬂying wings are tuned for high ﬂight performance and are com-

pared in their stability and performance. The most important design rules about

ﬂying wings are written in Appendix C.

Before this thesis was written, a model glider, FG-WingX-02, was built.

The glider was calculated with [20]. The design contains nine diﬀerent chord

widths and furthermore the twist is not only linear. The chord increases with

the spanwise coordinate, which is unusual for a conventional wing. This eﬀect

improves the stability and increases the Reynolds numbers at the wing tips.

The wing is designed for best glide ratio with ﬂap deﬂection and for good fast

ﬂight without ﬂap deﬂection.

Originally the wing was designed without winglets. The side stability should

have been generated with the high sweep angle. However practical tests showed,

that the side stability was not adequate. An improved design with winglets is

described in 6.2. Basically it is possible to attain side stability only with a sweep

angle. For more details see the Horten wings.

Figure 24: My Wing

Some data of the wing:

Wing span: 2 m

Wing span with winglets: 2.32 m

Wing load: 25.945 g/dm

2

Taper Ratio: 2.0

With ﬂap deﬂections of -3 degrees the XFLR polar calculation generates the

following results (see Figure 6.1):

39

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8

C

L

a

n

d

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

CL

0

.

0

1

0

.

0

1

5

0

.

0

2

0

.

0

2

5

0

.

0

3

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8

C

D

a

n

d

C

L

C

D

CL

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

!

1

0

!

5 0 5

1

0

1

5

2

0

2

5

G

l

i

d

e

R

a

t

i

o

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

Glide Ratio

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

0 5

1

0

1

5

2

0

c

L

3

/

2

c

D

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

cL3/2

cD

V

L

M

X

F

L

R

Figure 25: XFLR Polar Calculations

The best glide ratio is about 23 at an angle of attack of 9°. The best sink

rate is at an angle above 10°. Angles above 10° are in a critical region of stall.

40

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

6.1.1 Stability Results

The wing is simulated for the the initial condition shown in Table 7. In Appendix

D is shown, how the equilibrium point is calculated. The wing is dynamically

stable, which shows Figure 26.

v_initial 7 m/s

center of gravity 0.21 m

ﬂap deﬂection -4°

sideslip 0°

angle of attack 6°

Θ

init

-85°

Table 7: Initial point for simulation

The result is plotted in Figure 26.

41

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

0

0

4

0

0

6

0

0

8

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0 2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

X

[

m

]

Z [m]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

5

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

5

0

0

X

p

o

s

it

io

n

[

m

]

tim

e

[s

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

Y

p

o

s

it

io

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

Z

p

o

s

it

io

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

P

h

i

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

!

2

!

1 0 1 2

T

h

e

t

a

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

1

2

0

!

1

!

0

.5 0

0

.5 1

P

s

i

[

r

a

d

]

Figure 26: Simulation Results of FG-WingX-02

The simulation of the wing FG-WingX-02 for longer times has shown, that

the wing is spiral mode unstable (similar behaviour as shoen in Figure 29). This

behaviour is noticeable in practical ﬂight test. If the wing ﬂees once into a curve

then he would tilt more and more into the curve. This dynamic behaviour is

slow and can be stabilised by the pilot

42

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

6.2 Optimised Stable Wing

Originally the wing FG-WingX-02 was designed without winglets. As the winglets

were added later, the circulation distribution is not elliptic anymore.

The optimised wing has the same outline but a diﬀerent twist. The twist was

increased the most at the tip of the wing, where the winglet’s inﬂuence is the

strongest. The wing is optimised at best glide ratio, not at best sink rate for a

better stall behaviour because the angle of attack at best sink rate is very high.

This modiﬁcation is done, to create a self stable wing with high performance.

The polars calculated in XFLR are shown in Figure 28.

!1.5 !1 !0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Y

C

L

CL Distribution

!1.5 !1 !0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

0

0.05

0.1

CL*t Distribution

Y

C

L

*

t

CL distribution FG!WingX!02

CL distribution modificated wing

Figure 27: Lift (CL·t) and CL distribution at operating point

43

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

1

2

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8 1

1

.

2

C

L

a

n

d

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

CL

0

.

0

1

0

.

0

1

5

0

.

0

2

0

.

0

2

5

0

.

0

3

0

.

0

3

5

0

.

0

4

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8 1

1

.

2

C

D

a

n

d

C

L

C

D

CL

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

1

2

!

5 0 5

1

0

1

5

2

0

2

5

G

l

i

d

e

R

a

t

i

o

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

Glide Ratio

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

1

2

0 5

1

0

1

5

2

0

c

L

3

/

2

c

D

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

cL3/2

cD

Figure 28: Polars calculated in XFLR

The main diﬀerence between the optimised stable wing and the original wing

is the angle of attack, when the best glide ratio occurs. The optimised stable

wing is fundamentally better manoeuvrable at best glide ratio. The angle of

attack at best glide ratio is further from stall and even ﬂying at best sink rate

would be possible. In the middle of the wing, the CL value is increased for

better stall behaviour, but the performance hardly improved.

The lift distribution at the operating point is shown in Figure 27. For com-

parison only the lift distribution of the real model glider and the model glider

without winglets are plotted in the same Figure. The spanwidth coordinate is

folded on the y-axis for better visualisation.

44

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

6.2.1 Stability Results

Simulations are done, to analyse the stability behaviour of the modiﬁed wing.

The operating point is deﬁned, as shown in Table 8.

equilibrium point initial point

v_initial 8.4437 m/s data from VLM Gohl 8.4437

angle of attack 8° 5°

α

Glide

2.16°

centre of gravity 0.2461 m data from VLM Gohl 0.2461

ﬂap deﬂection -2° -2°

sideslip 3° 3°

Table 8: Operating point

Then the wing is simulated for stability analysis. The wing should be stable.

The simsulation results with the conﬁguration listed in Table 8 are shown in

Figure 29

45

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

4

0

0

5

0

0

6

0

0

7

0

0

8

0

0

9

0

0

1

0

0

0

!

0

2

0

4

0

X

[

m

]

Z [m]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

0

5

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

5

0

0

X

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

t

i

m

e

[

s

]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

!

1

5

0

!

1

0

0

!

5

0 0

Y

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

0

2

0

4

0

M

i

n

u

s

Z

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

!

0

.

4

!

0

.

2 0

P

h

i

[

r

a

d

]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

T

h

e

t

a

[

r

a

d

]

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

!

4

!

2 0

P

s

i

[

r

a

d

]

Figure 29: Simulation results with initial state not in equilibrium point (initial

point: Table 8)

The time the wing needs to balance itself is about 50 seconds. The dimension

of the momentum in y-axis after 30 seconds is 1 · 10

−

4Nm. The dynamical

behaviour is similar to the wing FG-WingX-02.

After 100 seconds the wing begins to instabilise itself around yaw and roll

axes caused by small numerical noise. These eﬀects can only be canceled with a

complex optimisation of the geometry (dihedral and winglet, see section 6.3 on

the next page). These modiﬁcations are not done here, they are too complex.

The modiﬁed wing does not garantee the spiral stability and dutch roll mode

stability, but the dynamic of these instabilities are slow and can be stabilised

by the pilot.

46

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

6.3 Dutch Roll Mode (germ. Taumelschwingung) and

Spiral Mode

A problem with ﬂying wing, which is diﬃcult to handle, is the dutch roll and

spiral mode stability. Here some of information about yaw stability coupled

with dutch roll and spiral mode is added. For ﬂying wings these problems often

appear.

Eﬀects of dihedral and sweep angle are qualitatively explained. This section

does not give detailed theoretical information, it only helps to understand the

simulated results and enlightens the problem of yaw stability coupled with dutch

roll mode and spiral mode. More detailed theoretical information can be found

in [3], page 180 and in [9]

To reach yaw stability the most simple solution is to add large enough

winglets. Another way is to add a high sweep angle, which stabilises the wing by

drag. The dihedral is basically added for better roll stability, but if it was added

on the entire wing it would not stabilise the wing on the yaw axis. Dihedral and

sweep angle are quasi similar roll angle stabilising elements.

Dutch roll means, that the wing oscillates in yaw axis coupled with an oscil-

lation in roll axis. This is caused by too much dihedral and not enough inﬂuence

of the ﬁn (If the winglets are attached behind the centre of gravity, they act as

ﬁns.). The opposite problem which occurs with too strong inﬂuence of the ﬁn

and too little dihedral, is the spiral mode. The wing tends to turn more and

more into the curve until its ﬂight path is a spiral.

To design a wing which fulﬁls both stability criteria (roll and yaw) is chal-

lenging. Winglets are often a good solution, they do not have a dihedral eﬀect.

Another solution could be to add a negative dihedral. It eliminates the eﬀect

of dihedral on the sweep, so that dutch roll and spiral stability is suﬃcient. On

the other hand, negative dihedral would also cause negative eﬀects in fast ﬂight.

An important design rule for ﬂying wing is, that dihedral should not be

added to the wing. If dihedral is added for roll stability, dutch roll and spiral

stability must be studied carefully. For the two stable built wings (see above),

the spiral mode is slow enough to be controlled by the pilot and therefore is not

a hazardous instability.

6.4 Unstable Wing

A wing is designed which is unstable and has a high performance. The design

criteria is to reach a high glide ratio. This is done by a wing without sweep angle

and twist angle, as these elements create a loss of performance. To minimise

the induced drag an elliptical circulation distribution is aimed. Therefore the

resulting ideal geometry would be a perfect ellipse. Due to the low Reynolds

numbers at the wing tip, the chord at the wing tip is increased and a small

twist is added. Therefore the shape of the wing is not a perfect ellipse, but the

circulation distribution is a perfect ellipse. Winglets are added to garantee the

side stability. The are not added to create an inﬂuence on the ﬂow on the wing,

but only to garantee the side stability of the wing. They act similarly to ﬁns.

Nevertheless supplementary winglets could be added in order to improve the

performance of the wing, but this is not done here.

The centre of lift is not lying in front of the neutral point, so the wing is

absolutely pitch unstable. As the wing is unstable in the pitch axis, a controller

47

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

must be designed to garantee the pitch stability. Otherwise, without a controller,

a simulation would not be possible.

Consequently the yaw stability is tested in simulation. With the controller

the wing should be stable on the pitch axis and the stability in yaw and roll

axes must be fulﬁlled by the self-stability of the wing. It must be tested as well,

if the wing is manoeuvrable. In other words, can the side stability of the wing

compensate the negative momentum from rudder deﬂections?

6.4.1 Geometry

The geometry deﬁnition is shown in Appendix A, Algorithm 5 on page 63.

For visualisation a mesh plot is shown in Figure 30.

0.2

0.4

0.6

!1

!0.5

0

0.5

1

0

0.05

0.1

Z

X

Y

Mesh

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

!1.5 !1 !0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Lift Distribution [N]

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Figure 30: Mesh and force distribution with initial state as shown in Table 10

6.4.2 Static Results

The polars are calculated with a Vortex Lattice Method in XFLR. A calculation

with a panel method is added. In XFLR, the panel method is a 3D method which

places the singularity elements on the top and the down surface of the wing.

Detailed informations about the XFLR calculation methods can be found in [1].

The best glide ratio can be reached at an angle of attack of 5° to 6°, the

maximum value with the VLM calculation is 26.

48

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8 1

C

L

a

n

d

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

CL

0

0

.

0

2

0

.

0

4

0

.

0

6

0

.

0

8

0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

0

.

8 1

C

D

a

n

d

C

L

C

D

CL

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

1

2

1

4

1

6

1

8

2

0

2

2

2

4

2

6

2

8

G

l

i

d

e

R

a

t

i

o

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

Glide Ratio

0

2

4

6

8

1

0

5

1

0

1

5

2

0

2

5

c

L

3

/

2

c

D

a

n

g

l

e

o

f

a

t

t

a

c

k

cL3/2

cD

P

a

n

e

l

M

e

t

h

o

d

V

L

M

M

e

t

h

o

d

Figure 31: polars of the unstable optimal wing, caluculated in XFLR with a 3D

panel method and a VL Method.

6.4.3 Controller

The controller is a PID controller. The controller parameters are calculated

with the Ziegler Nichols Method [5]. The parameters are listed in Appendix A.

An actuator saturation was added, because the polars are only made for ﬂap

deﬂections of -15° ... 15°. The diﬀerence of Θ

init

− Θ

out

(pitch angle is Θ

out

)

must be multiplied with -1, because the ﬂap deﬂection is positive if the ﬂap goes

down (Xfoil deﬁnition). The controller is shown in Figure 32.

49

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

Figure 32: Simulator with controller

Attention: This controller is only designed for controlling the pitch

axis. The control design in this way is not meant to be realised. But

for studying the instabilities of the other axes it is only essential, that

the pitch axis is stable.

6.4.4 Simulation results

The simulation is started with the following initial condition, see Table 9.

equilibrum point initial point

v_initial 7.25 m/s data from VLM Gohl 7.25 m/s

angle of attack 6° at best glide ratio 4°

α

Glide

(glide angle) 2.72°

centre of gravity 0.0883 m data from VLM Gohl 0.0883 m

ﬂap deﬂection 0° 0°

sideslip 3°

Table 9: Initial point

The simulation results are shown in Figure 33.

50

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

4

0

0

5

0

0

6

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

X

[

m

]

Minus Z [m]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

5

0

0

1

0

0

0

X

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

t

i

m

e

[

s

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

0 2 4

Y

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

!

1

0 0

1

0

2

0

3

0

M

i

n

u

s

Z

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

0

.

0

5

0

.

1

P

h

i

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

.

0

6

4

0

.

0

6

6

T

h

e

t

a

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

0

.

0

5

0

.

1

P

s

i

[

r

a

d

]

Figure 33: Simulation Results

In the consequence it is tested, what happens with diﬀerent ﬂap deﬂections in

order to ﬂy curves, with a closer look at the angle of sideslip. This is important,

because rudder deﬂections are coupled with an unpleasant eﬀect, the momentum

in the yaw axis. It causes a sideslip angle in the opposite direction.

First simulation results showed, that with this wing it is not possible to ﬂy

51

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

a curve! The sideslip increases too much. Therefore the wing must be stabilised

more in the yaw axis.

A positive dihedral or larger winglets cause the best eﬀect on the side stabil-

ity. It is important to place the winglets far enough behind the physical centre

of gravity. To improve the side stability, the winglets are placed 50 cm behind

the wing (see Figure 30). After that, the simulation results are much better and

ﬂying curves has become possible. Simulation results are shown in Figure 34

with the aileron deﬂection shown in Table 11. The simulation is started with

the following initial point (see Table 10). In Figure 35 the relative sideslip angle

is plotted versus the time.

The characteristic of β

in

shows clearly that the wing is stable, even with ﬂap

deﬂections.

The speed is plotted in Figure 6.4.4

Initial point

v_initial 7 m/s arbitrary

angle of attack 5° arbitrary

α

Glide

2.72° calculated from glide ratio

centre of gravity 0.0883 m data from VLM Gohl

ﬂap deﬂection 0°

Table 10: Initial point

time [s] 3 - 3.5 3.5 - 6 6 - 9s 9 - 60

left aileron 1° 0 -1° 0 + / - controller deﬂection added

right aileron -1° 0 1° 0 + / - controller deﬂection added

Table 11: Flap deﬂectioins

52

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

8

0

1

0

0

!

1

5

!

1

0

!

5

0

0

1

0

2

0

3

0

X

[

m

]

Y

[

m

]

Z [m]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

5

0

X

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

t

i

m

e

[

s

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

!

2

0

!

1

0 0

1

0

Y

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

0

2

0

4

0

M

i

n

u

s

Z

p

o

s

i

t

i

o

n

[

m

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

!

0

.

2 0

0

.

2

0

.

4

0

.

6

P

h

i

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

0

.

0

5

5

0

.

0

6

0

.

0

6

5

T

h

e

t

a

[

r

a

d

]

0

2

0

4

0

6

0

!

5

0 0

5

0

P

s

i

[

r

a

d

]

Figure 34: Simulation results with ﬂap deﬂections. At ﬁrst a left curve, then a

right curve is ﬂown.

53

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

!0.06

!0.04

!0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

Time

B

e

t

a

(

A

n

g

l

e

o

f

S

i

d

e

s

l

i

p

)

Figure 35: Sideslip angle of the simulation with ﬂap deﬂections, as shown in

Figure 34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

7

7.1

7.2

Time

S

p

e

e

d

Figure 36: Speed of the ﬂying wing

54

7 Discussion

The simulation results show that the performance of an accurately optimised

stable wing can be topped by a pitch controlled unstable wing. However, the

fact is, that even a well designed self stable wing with an elliptic circulation

distribution can have an excellent performance and fulﬁl the stability criteria.

Therefore, the question whether it is worth to design a pitch unstable wing with

a controller can not be answered here.

The simulated unstable wing has calculated glide number of about 26 in the

area of Reynolds numbers of 100000, whereas comparison the optimised stable

wing has the best glide ratio at 24, with the same Reynolds number. The self

stable ﬂying wing FG-WingX-02 has best glide ratios about 23. These glide

ratios are calculated with a vortex lattice method with the panels lying on the

proﬁle mean line. For this comparison only glide ratios are considered, there

are many other criterias to compare (as example: stall behaviour or curve ﬂying

behaviour). The statement, that the controlled pitch unstable wing has the best

glide ratio does not necessarily mean, that it is the best wing in every respect .

A comparison of the calculated glide ratios with real measured glide ratios

of contest wing airplanes is diﬃcult to ﬁnd, and most gliders are not tuned for

best glide ratio. Some ﬂight data of succeeded F3B competition models are

presented in [19], their glide ratios are around 15 - 17.

For more accurate statements wind tunnel tests or exact measured ﬂight

paths would have to be done.

The simulation results show clearly, that the time until the wing stabilises

itself from a disturbance is long (duration in the tests: about 50 seconds at an

initial angle θ of -90°). The reason is the low damping around the pitch axis.

The damping basically depends on the induced velocity of the angular rate p

on the wing. The further the wing elements are away from the pitch-axis, the

higher the damping velocity is, as written in the following formula: v = ω×∆R.

All the simulated wings tend to ﬂy a curve. If the wing once has slightly

tilted around the roll axis, the wing does not act with a moment against this

tendency. Therefore, the wing tilts into a curve, until an equilibrium point in

the curve is reached. The reason for this behaviour is, that a numerical noise

always acts on the calculated moments. Caused by these small disturbances,

the wing passes into a dutch roll instability.

55

8 Conclusion

The most important tasks and limitations for a dynamical method were deﬁned,

and consequently numerical methods which fulﬁl the tasks were presented. Ex-

isting statical and dynamical applications were introduced and discussed. The-

oretical information about vortex methods was given.

A complex method for calculating aerodynamic forces with regard to com-

plex three-dimensional wing geometries, angular rates and asymmetrical ﬂap

deﬂections was implemented in MATLAB. It turned out, that a model, where

all ﬂow eﬀects would have been included consumed a lot of computer process

time. Therefore the implemented vortex lattice method was modiﬁed for short

calculation times and some simpliﬁcations in the wake arrangement were made.

The wake was modelled statically with vortex ﬁlaments. Horseshoe vortices as

singularity elements in chord and spanwise direction were chosen. This Vortex

Lattice Method was integrated in a rigid body motion simulation implemented

in Simulink.

With the simulation tool, it is possible to study dynamical and statical

results for arbitrary three-dimensional ﬂying wing conﬁgurations. Statements

about stability in all axis and manoeuvrability with ﬂap deﬂections can be made.

Complex dynamical eﬀect such as spiral mode, dutch mode and phygoid mode

can be simulated and analysed.

To answer the question about the unstable wing’s gain of performance, a

pitch unstable wing was designed and compared with two self stable ﬂying wings.

For testing the ﬂight characteristics and the dynamic stability, the ﬂying wings

were simulated in the dynamic simulation. The unstable wing was stabilised by

a pitch controller to garantee the pitch stability.

The results show, that ﬂight performance with an unstable wing can be won

and high calculated glide ratios can be reached. The unstable wing, simulated

in this thesis reaches glide ratios about 26. For comparison, the stable modiﬁed

ﬂying wing reaches a glide ratio about 24 at Reynolds numbers of 100000. The

interesting result is, that the pitch unstable wing does not have a signiﬁcantly

better glide ratio in comparison to a well designed self stable ﬂying wing. But

the unstable wing has a much better stall behaviour, because the angle of attack

at best glide ratio is smaller than than the angle of attack at best glide ratio

of the stable wings . So the question whether it is worth to design a controller

and achieve better results of the glide ratio must be answered in consideration

of other criteria needed.

56

9 Future Work

For a continuative work there are many modiﬁcations to do. In general three

optimisation strategies might be useful:

Increasing the simulation speed to improve the vortex model. A high im-

provement of the calculation speed could allow automatic geometry variation

to ﬁnd best geometry parameters. An improved model would be necessary to

combine more aerodynamic eﬀects and therefore give more accurate results. A

better evaluation of the simulation would elucidate, if even a improvement of

the model is necessary.

Increasing the Simulation Speed

With a modiﬁed 6DOF simulator the computing time could be improved. Up-

grading the computing time of the calculation methods would also be necessary

for a faster simulation.

Improving the Model

Many improvements in wake modelling and ﬂow separation could be done. A

simple improvement in this implementation would be, that Xfoil is automati-

cally coupled with the vortex methods. An interpolation for diﬀerent Reynolds

numbers could also improve the physical model without expending a lot of com-

puting time. To achieve better results for induced, a better wake modelling

would be necessary. For even better results, a vortex lattice method with a

lattice of vortices over the top and bottom surface of the wing could be laid.

Evaluating the Simulation

The simulation results could be evaluated more precisely with ﬂight path mea-

surements or even with wind tunnel measurements.

57

References

[1] Author unknown, guidelines for xﬂr5 v4.16. Analysis of foils and wings

operating at low Reynolds numbers, April, 2009.

[2] Jon S. Berndt. jsbsim.sourceforge.net/. Manual.

[3] Michael Cook. Flight Dynamic Principles. Number ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-

6927-6 in second edition. BUTTERWORTH HEINEMANN, 2007.

[4] Mark Drela and Harold Youngren. Xfoil 6.9 user primer. 30 Nov 2001.

[5] Lino Guzzella. Analysis and Synthesis of Single-Input Single-Output Con-

trol Systems. vdf, 2007.

[6] Karl-Heinz Horstmann. Ein Mehrfach - Traglinienverfahren und seine Ver-

wendung für Entwurf und Nachrechnung nichtplanarer Flügelanordnungen.

1988.

[7] Michael Wohlfahrt Karl Nickel. Schwanzlose Flugzeuge. Birkhäuser Verlag

(Flugtechnische Reihe Band 3), 1990.

[8] Joseph Katz and Allen Plotkin. Low-Speed Aerodynamics. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 2001.

[9] Bill Kuhlman and Bunny Kuhlman. Swept wings and eﬀective dihedral.

RC Soaring Digest, March 2000.

[10] GNU General Public License. Xﬂr5 is an analysis tool for airfoils, wings

and planes operating at low reynolds numbers.

[11] Harold Youngren Mark Drela. Avl,

http://web.mit.edu/drela/public/web/avl/.

[12] W. H. Mason. Applied computational aerodynamics text/notes aerodynam-

ics of 3d lifting surfaces http://www.aoe.vt.edu/. Department of Aerospace

and Ocean Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Mar 11, 1998.

[13] Tomas Melin. A vortex lattice matlab implementation for linear aerody-

namic wing applications. Master’s thesis, Royal Institute of Technology

(KTH), 2000.

[14] Austin Meyer. www.x-plane.com/.

[15] Stuart Buchanan Jon Berndt Bernhard Buckel Cameron Moore Curt Olson

Dave Perry Michael Selig Darrell Walisser Michael Basler, Martin Spott

et al. www.ﬂightgear.org/. The Flight Gear Manual 1.9.0.

[16] A. Noth, S. Bouabdallah, and R. Siegwart. Dynamic Modelling of Fixed-

Wing UAVs. ETH Zürich, 2008, Version 2.0.

[17] D. Bruce Owens. Weissinger’s model of the nonlinear lifting-line method

for aircraft design. AIAA 98-0597, 1979.

[18] Ion Paraschivoiu. Aerodynamique Subsonique. 1998.

58

[19] Helmut Quabeck. Design, Leistung und Dynamik von Segelﬂugmodellen.

HQ Modellﬂugliteratur, 1994.

[20] Frank Ranis and Herbert Stammler. Nurﬂügel v2.17 (freeware).

[21] redhammer project. Tornado 1.0. http://www.redhammer.se/tornado/,

RELEASE 2.3 2001-01-31.

[22] P. SANTINI and P. GASBARRI. Lifting surface in subsonic unsteady

regime. Universit ‘ a di Roma “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Aerospaziale,

via Eudossiana 18; 00184 Roma, Italy, 5 May 1998).

[23] Matthieu Scherrer. Méthode d’intégration sur une aile de résultat expéri-

mentaux et xfoil.

[24] Herrmann Schlichting and Erich Truckenbrodt. Aerodynamik des

Flugzeuges, Band II. 1969.

[25] James C. Sivellis and Rober H. Neely. Method for calculating wing char-

acteristics by lifting-line theory using nonlinear section lift data. National

Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics Langley Field Report No. 865, 1946.

[26] James C. Sivellis and Robert H. Neely. Method for calculating wing char-

acteristics by lifting-line theory using nonlinear section lift data. Technical

Note no. 1269, April 1947.

59

Appendix

Appendix A) Most Important Code Fragments

Implementation Nonlinear Lifting Line Method

Algorithm 1 Iteration function (Gammait_nonlin.m) of the Nonlinear Lifting

Line Method

function[Gamma_alt ,alpha_i ,w_i]= Gammait_nonlin(K,K_far ,Gamma_start ,D,min ,b,←

v_abs ,angle_of_attack ,y,alpha_p ,CL_p ,flap_angle ,poldef)

2 Gamma_alt=Gamma_start;

Max =1;

4 while Max >min

w_i =1/2*( K_far*Gamma_alt); %here: Trefftz Analysis , with factor←

1/2, else 1!

6 alpha_i=-atan(w_i ./(v_abs ’));

Gamma_new =(1/2* CL(alpha_p ,CL_p ,flap_angle ,alpha_g ’-alpha_i ,←

poldef) ’.*b’).*v_abs ’;

8 Gamma =(1-D)*Gamma_alt+D*Gamma_new;

Max=abs(max(Gamma -Gamma_new));

10 Gamma_alt=Gamma;

12 end

end

Algorithm 2 Generate Vortices (generate_vorices.m)of the Nonlinear Lifting

Line Method

1 function[K]= generate_Vortices_VarIII(A,T_left ,T_right ,n,N)

for i=1:2* sum(n)

3 for j=1:2* sum(n)

%Collocation Point , where the Velocity will be calculated: i

5 %this velocity gets summated from element 0 till n: j

%Velocity of the upper Vortex

7 w_up=vortex(T_left(:,j),T_right(:,j),A(:,i));

%Velocity of the left Vortex

9 w_left=vortex_left(T_left(:,j),A(:,i));

%Velocity of the right Vortex

11 w_right=vortex_right(T_right(:,j),A(:,i));

13 w=w_up+w_left+w_right;

%Projection in the normal direction

15 K(i,j)=w(1)*N(1,i)+w(2)*N(2,i)+w(3)*N(3,i);

end

17 end

end

60

Appendix

Implementation: VLM Method

Algorithm 3 Function vortex_panel.m of the Vortex Lattice Method

1 %This Program calculates the velocity divided by the Zirculation

%written and tested: 20. Februar 2009 by Flavio Gohl

3 %The Code is modified to the code in book low speed Aerodynamics page 255 ←

from Joseph Katz.

%Attention , the code is not the same!

5 function[a_i_X_vec ,a_i_Y_vec ,a_i_Z_vec ]= vortex_panel(L_X ,L_Y ,L_Z ,R_X ,R_Y ,←

R_Z ,P_X ,P_Y ,P_Z ,m,n,epsilon)

einsmatrix=ones(m(1),sum(n)*2);

7 %define the three vectors r_0 , r_1 ,r_2

r_0_X=R_X -L_X;

9 r_0_Y=R_Y -L_Y;

r_0_Z=R_Z -L_Z;

11

r_1_X=P_X*einsmatrix -L_X;

13 r_1_Y=P_Y*einsmatrix -L_Y;

r_1_Z=P_Z*einsmatrix -L_Z;

15

r_2_X=P_X*einsmatrix -R_X;

17 r_2_Y=P_Y*einsmatrix -R_Y;

r_2_Z=P_Z*einsmatrix -R_Z;

19

%Calculate r_1xr_2=vprod

21 vprod_X=r_1_Y.*r_2_Z -r_1_Z.* r_2_Y;

vprod_Y=r_1_Z.*r_2_X -r_1_X.* r_2_Z;

23 vprod_Z=r_1_X.*r_2_Y -r_1_Y.* r_2_X;

25 %Calculate norm

norm_vprodsquare=vprod_X .^2+ vprod_Y .^2+ vprod_Z .^2;

27 R1=sqrt(r_1_X .^2+ r_1_Y .^2+ r_1_Z .^2);

R2=sqrt(r_2_X .^2+ r_2_Y .^2+ r_2_Z .^2);

29

%!!!!! Gamma is linear with K, so it comes later in the equation !!!!!! a is←

a velocity/Gamma

31 a_i =(1/(4* pi)*1./ norm_vprodsquare).*(( r_0_X.* r_1_X+r_0_Y .*r_1_Y+r_0_Z.*←

r_1_Z)./R1 -(r_0_X .* r_2_X+r_0_Y .*r_2_Y+r_0_Z.*r_2_Z)./R2);

33 %Check singularities

[zeile ,colonne ]=find(R1 <epsilon);

35 a_i(zeile ,colonne)=0;

[zeile ,colonne ]=find(R2 <epsilon);

37 a_i(zeile ,colonne)=0;

[zeile ,colonne ]=find(norm_vprodsquare .^2< epsilon);

39 a_i(zeile ,colonne)=0;

41 %influence coefficients

a_i_X=a_i.* vprod_X;

43 a_i_Y=a_i.* vprod_Y;

a_i_Z=a_i.* vprod_Z;

45

%write a_i in a row , in the structure of K

47 for i=1:m(1)

a_i_X_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=a_i_X(i,:);

49 a_i_Y_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=a_i_Y(i,:);

a_i_Z_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=a_i_Z(i,:);

51 end

53 end

61

Appendix

Algorithm 4 Function generate_vortices_panel.m of the Vortex Lattice

Method

1 function[K]= generate_Vortices_panel(A_X ,A_Y ,A_Z ,T_right_X ,T_right_Y ,←

T_right_Z ,T_left_X ,T_left_Y ,T_left_Z ,T_right_behind_X ,T_right_behind_Y ←

,T_right_behind_Z ,T_left_behind_X ,T_left_behind_Y ,T_left_behind_Z ,n,m,←

U,V,W)

epsilon =1*10^ -20;

3 lenj =0;

%Rewrite the surface normals

5 for i=1:m(1)

U_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=U(i,:);

7 V_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=V(i,:);

W_vec (1,[(i-1)*sum(n)*2+1:1:(i)*sum(n)*2])=W(i,:);

9 end

11 for i=1:2* sum(n)

for j=1:m(1)

13 %velocity of the bound vortex

[a_i_X ,a_i_Y ,a_i_Z] = vortex_panel(T_left_X ,←

T_left_Y ,T_left_Z ,T_right_X ,T_right_Y ,T_right_Z ,A_X(j,i),←

A_Y(j,i), A_Z(j,i),m,n,epsilon);

15

%Velocity of the left Vortex

17 [La_i_X ,La_i_Y ,La_i_Z] = vortex_panel_l(←

T_left_behind_X ,T_left_behind_Y ,T_left_behind_Z ,T_left_X ,←

T_left_Y ,T_left_Z ,A_X(j,i), A_Y(j,i), A_Z(j,i),m,n,epsilon←

);

19 %Velocity of the right Vortex

[Ra_i_X ,Ra_i_Y ,Ra_i_Z] = vortex_panel_r(T_right_X ,←

T_right_Y ,T_right_Z ,T_right_behind_X ,T_right_behind_Y ,←

T_right_behind_Z ,A_X(j,i), A_Y(j,i), A_Z(j,i),m,n,epsilon)←

;

21

wx=a_i_X+La_i_X+Ra_i_X;

23 wy=a_i_Y+La_i_Y+Ra_i_Y;

wz=a_i_Z+La_i_Z+Ra_i_Z;

25

%Projection in the normal direction

27 K(j+lenj ,:)=wx.*U_vec+wy.*V_vec+wz.*W_vec;

29 end

lenj=j+lenj;

31 end

end

62

Appendix

Simulations

Algorithm 5 Wing geometry of the unstable ﬂying wing

%===================

2 %== Wing Geometry

%===================

4 betha_end =1;%betha_end /10 is the real angle!

6 p=5;%number of partitions

ny=[0 0 0 0 90]*pi /180;%Dihedral of the Partitions

8 n=[6 5 4 3 3];%number of collocation points in y-Direction

m=[4 4 4 4 4];%number of collocation points in x-Direction

10 s=[0.5 0.25 0.9 -0.75 0.1 0.15];%Spanwidth of partition

b_root =[0.24 0.215 0.18 0.155 0.14];

12 b_tip =[0.215 0.18 0.155 0.125 0.06];

phi =[2 6 8 9 10]/360*2* pi; %sweep angle(back is positiv !)

14 alfa =[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]*pi /180; %Twist angle

x_0_rel =[0 0 0

16 tan(phi (1))*s(1) s(1) sin(ny(1))*s(1)

tan(phi (2))*s(2) s(2) sin(ny(2))*s(2)

18 tan(phi (3))*s(3) s(3) sin(ny(3))*s(3)

tan(phi (4))*s(4) +0.5 s(4) sin(ny(4))*s(4)

20 tan(phi (5))*s(5) s(5) sin(ny(5))*s(5)]’;

22 x_0(:,1)=[0 0 0]’;

for i=2: length(x_0_rel)

24 x_0(:,i)=x_0(:,i-1)+x_0_rel(:,i);

end

26 cog = [0.0883 0 0]; % Correct centre of gravity

c=0.012 ; %Thickness of the Wing for Inertia

28 flap_hinge =0.75;

Algorithm 6 controller.m, parameters used for simulating the unstable ﬂying

wing

1 %Controller Data

kp_crit =50;

3 T_crit =0.14;

kp=0.6* kp_crit;

5 Ti=0.5* T_crit;

Td =0.125* T_crit;

7 Num=kp*[Ti*Td Ti 1];

Denom =[0 Ti 0]; P=kp;

9 TI=kp/Ti;

TD=kp*Td;

63

Appendix

Appendix B) Manual

Manual of the Vortex Lattice Method

Statical analysis

Copy the m-ﬁles (on CD-Rom) and the simulink model into a folder, in the

current directory of the m-ﬁles should be made a folder named ’polars’, where

Xfoil polars are saved.

1. Calculate in Xfoil the proﬁle polar for diﬀerent ﬂap angles.

User Guide for creating polars:

(a) open Xfoil

(b) deﬁne the point, where the momentum is calculated

(c) load mh45.dat or any other proﬁle

(d) oper

(e) visc tipe Re

(f) vpar (enter viscous parameter menu) N 9.0 (set new lower turbulence

level) <return> (back to oper)

(g) optionally type iter for more iterations, so that the calculation con-

verges

(h) write the polars:

i. set the initial Value of alfa bsp: alfa -5

ii. pacc enter the ﬁle name as ex.: ’mh45.pol’

iii. enter

iv. aseq

v. if it doesn’t work, increase the iterations (for example iter 400)

(i) Flap deﬂection:

i. gdes

ii. ﬂap

iii. then set the values

iv. exec

(j) if not converged, change the panelling! ppar and pane, then save the

proﬁl and try again

2. Save all polars in *.dat ﬁles in the folder ’polars’.

64

Appendix

3. In the function create_polar_table.m, deﬁne and include the polar:

poldef =[15 7.5 0 -7.5 -15]*2*pi /360;

2

[alpha_p (:,1,:),CL_p(:,1,:),CD_p(:,1,:),CM_p(:,1,:)]= import_polar(’←

mh45f15.dat’);

4 [alpha_p (:,2,:),CL_p(:,2,:),CD_p(:,2,:),CM_p(:,2,:)]= import_polar(’←

mh45f7_5.dat’);

[alpha_p (:,3,:),CL_p(:,3,:),CD_p(:,3,:),CM_p(:,3,:)]= import_polar(’←

mh45pol.dat’);

6 [alpha_p (:,4,:),CL_p(:,4,:),CD_p(:,4,:),CM_p(:,4,:)]= import_polar(’←

mh45fm7_5.dat’);

[alpha_p (:,5,:),CL_p(:,5,:),CD_p(:,5,:),CM_p(:,5,:)]= import_polar(’←

mh45fm15.dat’);

For example, ﬁve ﬂap deﬂections are saved at the angles deﬁned in poldef.

4. Deﬁne your wing. Attention, all partitions must have the same number of

panels in chord direction! Otherwise, the mesh matrices can not be built.

Take as example:

1 betha_end =40;

3 p=2; %number of Partitions

ny=[0 90]*pi /180; %Neigungswinkel of the Partitions

5

n=[4 2]; %anzahl Aufpunkte fr die ←

einzelne Partition / Flgelhlfte

7 m=[5 5];

s=[1 0.6]; %Spannweite jeder ←

Parition

9 b_root =[0.2 0.2]; %Breite , Symmetrische Eingabe

b_tip =[0.2 0.2];

11 phi =[20 29]/360*2* pi; %Pfeilungswinkel(gegen hinten ←

positiv !)

alpha =[0 0 0 0]*pi /180;

13 x_0 =[0 0 0

tan(phi (1))*s(1) s(1) sin(ny(1))*s(1)]’;

15

x_0_Trefftz =[0 0 0;tan(phi (1))*s(1) s(1) sin(ny(1))*s(1)+sin(alpha (1)←

)*100] ’;

17

19 cog = [0.212690364338495 0 0]; % Correct center of ←

gravity

21 c=0.012 ; %Thickness of the Wing for ←

Inertia

23 flap_hinge =0.75;

If results with sideslip are analysed, check that the value of betha_in

contains the desired sideslip angle. The range of sideslip angles are deﬁned:

[-betha_end/10 : 0.1 : betha_end/10]

5. Create an initial.m ﬁle and write the initial values of the ﬂow. In this

ﬁle, the ﬂap vector is initialized. You must deﬁne for each partition if it

is ﬂapped or not, and if it is the left or right aileron. For the wing above,

the ﬂap vector would have the following form:

1 flap_angle_part =-[0 left_ail right_ail 0];

In this vector, the winglets do not have ﬂaps.

6. Include your wingdef.m ﬁle in the code main_panel.m the name is free,

however you could deﬁne it as wingdef_myﬁrstwing.m. The initial.m ﬁle

65

Appendix

should not be unnamed, otherwise the name has to be changed in other

functions.

7. type main_panel.m in MATLAB workspace for running the application.

(a) Type CA, CW, CW_ind, CW_visc, CM, CL_distribution, CD_distribution,

Lift_Matrix, xg_X (Centre of pressure), and many others

(b) Mesh plots and force distributions over the wing are shown in ﬁgures.

Check in the mesh plot if the geometry is panelled correctly.

Numerical Problems It might occur, that some collocation points are badly

positioned. So change the geometry or change the panel number in chord

or spanwise direction, then try again. The value of epsilon can also be

changed in the function generate_vortice_panel.m.

Dynamic analysis

1. First make a static analysis for initial values (see above).

2. Calculate with inertia_calc.m the inertia Ixx, Iyy, Izz or put the inertias

from CAD data into the ﬁle initial.m.

3. Write your correct centre of gravity in the initial.m ﬁle, take it from the

static analysis or from experimental data.

4. Run the main_panel.m ﬁle for a range of betha_end=50 (deﬁned in

wingdef.m). Then, tables for sideslip angles from -5°... 5° are made in

0.1° steps. This may take some time (one or two minutes).

5. In the function calculate_force_and_moment_ﬂavio_panel.m write the

correct ﬂap vector.

6. Start the simulator by André Noth modiﬁed by Flavio Gohl for VLM

calculations. In the solver preferences of the simulator, set the step time.

7. Start

8. The values can be visualised with running show_uav_ﬁnal.m. The sideslip

angles are saved in a vector betha_in, it can be plotted versus the time if

desired.

Errors which occur during simulation:

• The sideslip angle is too high, so that no interpolation is possible

– increase the range of betha_end in wingdef.m and try again, or mod-

ify your geometry.

• The ﬂap vector is not deﬁned correctly in the ﬁle calculate_force_and_moment_ﬂavio_panel.m

66

Appendix

Appendix C) Design Criteria

The most important design rules for ﬂying wings, recommended by the author.

1. Choice of a proﬁle type. For ﬂying wings it is recommended to choose a

proﬁle with a constant pressure point. This means that the momentum

coeﬃcient at the 1/4 line should be zero or slightly positiv. Good proﬁles

with a high CL

max

at low reynolds numbers are the MH45 and MH60.

2. For a pitch stable wing, at ﬁrst it is important to have the wing’s centre

of gravity in front of the aerodynamic neutral point.

3. With a simple ﬂapped wing, it must be decided at which C

L

the airplane

has to ﬂy in trimmed ﬂight. It is recommended to choose a high C

L

value

with a ﬂap deﬂection, so that the wing without ﬂap deﬂection is in fast

ﬂight. The reason is, that at slow speed the induced drag is very high

(Cd

ind

= const ∗ C

L

2

) and the viscous drag small (because the dynamic

pressure is small), and therefore a ﬂap deﬂection is not too expensive. In

fast ﬂight, the viscous drag must be extremely small, and consequently it

is best to ﬂy without ﬂap deﬂection!

4. At the chosen C

L

it must be decided, what the shape of the circulation

distribution should look like. For minimal induced drag, it is elliptic. This

could cause a problem in combination with point 1, as the center of gravity

is not necessarily in front of the neutral point. In this case it is an iterative

process to ﬁnd a geometry which can fullﬁll both requirements of point 1

and 3. For an eﬃcient design it is recomended, to have an aspect ratio of

0.4 to 1.0. Only in this range both requirements can be fullﬁlled. [7]page

107

5. For good stall behaviour, it is advantageous, to place the center of gravity

in front of the the C-Point. The C-Point is the point of lift distribution

which is proportional to the local chord. This setting is also possible if

the aspect ratio is between 0.4 and 1.0 [7]page 105

6. Reynolds numbers: It is important to have a closed look at the local

reynolds numbers, as they may decrease severely at the tip of the wing.

However, even at te wing tip, the reynolds number must be suﬃciently

high. In case of this problem it is better to twist the proﬁle a little and

give more chord length for better reynolds numbers.

67

Appendix

Appendix D) Estimation of Initial Condition

In this part, a method to ﬁnd the speed and angle theta in equilibrium at a

desired angle of attack is described. The method presented here saves a lot of

simulation time for ﬁnding the equilibrium point. The following points must be

calculated, and written in the ﬁles initial.m and wingdef.m.

1. A desired angle of attack must be chosen (for example at best glide ratio

or at best sink rate)

2. The correct centre of gravity at the desired angle of attack must be cal-

culated.

3. With the CL value (which is estimated or calculated) at the desired angle

of attack, the velocity can be calculated:

v

norm

=

2 · m· g

CL · ρ · A

(29)

v

initial

=

cos(α) · v

norm

0

sin(α) · v

norm

(30)

4. From the glide ratio the glide angle can be calculated:

α

Glide

= arctan

CD

CL

(31)

5. The initial angle Theta can be calculated:

Θ = −(α

Glide

−α

Attack

) (32)

68

Abstract In ﬂying wing design, the stability criteria often decrease the aircraft’s performance and vice versa. Therefore a pitch unstable wing can have a higher performance. The question to be answered in this thesis is, how much performance can be won by a pitch unstable wing, stabilised with a PID controller. An application is implemented for studying ﬂying wing dynamic and stability behaviour. The simulation is based on a vortex lattice method integrated in a rigid body simulation. The vortex lattice method is modelled with singularity elements in chord and spanwise direction on a threedimensional wing. With this method, three-dimensional wing geometries, asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection and asymmetrical inﬂow can be simulated. The application is qualitatively evaluated with real ﬂight tests of a ﬂying wing with measurements of the period time of a phygoid oscillation. Three diﬀerent wings, amongst them a pitch unstable wing with high performance, are analysed in their dynamic stability behaviour and performance. The pitch unstable wing has a slightly higher performance than the optimised stable wing.

i

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those who have contributed, directly or indirectly, to this Bachelor’s thesis in form of technical or other support. I give my special thanks to Stefan Leutenegger and Dario Schafroth, Michael Möller, Jens Walther and Philippe Chatelain and Ursina Gysi.

ii

. . . . . . . . . . . 4. . 1 2 2 3 3 3 5 6 7 8 11 12 14 18 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 23 25 26 26 27 28 30 30 31 31 34 5 Evaluation of the Simulation 36 5. . . .1 Flight Test Results . . . .1 Vortex Methods .2 Optimised Stable Wing . . . .3 Lifting Line Method . . . . . 1. . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taumelschwingung) and 6. . . . . .2. .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spiral Mode .2 Mesh Generation . . . . . 6. . . . . . . .2 Simulation Results .3 Integrating the Methods in the Simulation . . . .2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators . . . .1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . .8 Evaluation of the Vortex Lattice Method . . . . . . . . . .1. . . 4. . . . . .1.7 Stall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . 4. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .1 Flying Wing. . . . . . . . . .1.1. . 4 Implementation of a Suitable Method 4. .1 Stability Results . . . . . . . . . . . .1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation . .4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method . .4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients . . 37 6 Results of the Simulation 6. . . . . . . . . 4. . . .Contents 1 Introduction 1. .1 Stability Results . . . . . . . . . .1 Inputs . . . . .2 Work structure . . . . . . . . . .1. . .2. . . .1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Flap deﬂections . . . . . . . . . .2. 4. . 3. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . .5 Initial Guess . .1. . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 4. .2 Vortex Lattice Method . .3 Sideslip Angle . . . . . . . . . . .2 Mesh Generating . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . 36 5. .6 Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .3 Dutch Roll Mode (germ. . . . . .2. 4. . . . . . . . . 3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . FG-WingX-02 . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . iii . . . . . . . .7 Force and Moment Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . 2 State of the Art 2. . 4. . 39 39 41 43 45 47 47 . . . . . .3 Sideslip Angle . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Objectives . . . . .6 Force and Moment Calculation . . . . . .1.4 Unstable Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Vortex Lattice Method . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method .1. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 49 50 55 56 57 8 Conclusion 9 Future Work iv . . . . . .3 6. .4 7 Discussion Geometry .4. .6. . . . . . . . . . . Controller . . . . Simulation results .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . Static Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . .4. . . . .4. .

modiﬁed for short computing time. the ﬂying wings are simulated in the dynamic simulation. especially in ﬂying wing design is the requirement of stability in pitch roll and yaw axis which is strongly coupled with the aircraft performance and the manoeuvrability. for a three dimensional wing. The simulation is based on a complex aerodynamic model for complex. A main step to improve the aircraft performance is. Due to this trade-oﬀ between the stability and the performance. The stability is coupled with a loss of the aircraft’s performance and vice versa. due to integrating the big fuselage in the wing and transforming it into a lift creating element. The unstable wing is stabilised by a controller. sideslip angle and angular rates are considered in the calculation of the aerodynamic forces and moments. 1 . to integrate the ﬁn. An aircraft with an optimal performance and optimal stability is a requirement. elevator and ﬁn would be needed. The aerodynamic force calculation method is a Vortex Lattice method. it produces a negative lift (excluded canard conﬁgurations). tapering. three-dimensional wing conﬁgurations with twist. To answer this question. A demonstrative example is the elevator of a classic aircraft conﬁguration. No fuselage. a pitch unstable wing is designed and compared with self stable ﬂying wings. Even the civil aviation recognises. the question can be advanced to: How good is the ﬂight performance of a pitch unstable ﬂying wing without taking regard on pitch stability? Is it possible to reach better glide ratios and sink rates if the unstable wing is guided by a pitch controller? In order to optimise the power consumption of a new prototype of conventional solar UAV airplane in higher altitude. which probably is never reached. For testing the ﬂight characteristics and the dynamic stability. it is always the challenge to ﬁnd an optimum. therefore weight can be saved and drag reduced. Inﬂuences. the question is: What happens with the performance and the stability if the wing is unstable and a controller garantees the stability? With a close look at ﬂying wing model airplanes combined with a controller. such as ﬂap deﬂections. a fast dynamic simulation application is built for studying aircraft stability and performance.1 Introduction An everlasting problem in aircraft design. sweep and dihedral integrated in a six degree of freedom rigid body motion simulation. For each time step the method calculates a force distribution in spanwise and chordwise direction. it might be advantageous to switch to a ﬂying wing if a signiﬁcant diﬀerence in performance is found. elevator and fuselage in one wing. To answer the question about the unstable wing’s gain of performance. that such ﬂying wing combinations are forward looking.

2 Work structure This thesis is structured in three parts. The second part describes how the methods are implemented and what assumptions with regard to a dynamic simulation are made. • Comparison of the performances 1. a theoretical background in vortex methods is given. Information about existing software solutions are given. 2 . a manual of the code and the most important information about designing ﬂying wings are shown. A list of existing simulations and their capacities is provided.1 Objectives The objectives of this work are: • Literature review about existing software solutions • Establishing a Matlab/Simulink nonlinear dynamic model in order to simulate the dynamic behaviour of diﬀerent ﬂying wing model airplane conﬁgurations • Veriﬁcation of the model with ﬂight experiments using an existing RC ﬂying wing model • Simulation of diﬀerent ﬂying wing model airplane solutions – Self stable ﬂying wing with high ﬂight performance – Low-sweep pitch unstable wing with high performance pitch stabilised by a controller.1 INTRODUCTION 1. In the ﬁrst part. In the Appendix some important code fragments. In the third part results of the evaluation are presented and results are shown and discussed in the section results of the simulation. The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and the Vortex Lattice Method are described in more details.

and post-processing and also in the automatical coupling of proﬁle information. Detailed information can be found in [18.. JSBSim An Open Source project. A simulation of aircraft with a suﬃciently complex aerodynamic force calculator for 3D wings was not found. taper ratio. 2. [15] X-Plane A well known simulator. The ﬂight gear uses ﬂight dynamic models from JSBsim.2 STATE OF THE ART 2 State of the Art In the section 2. which try to integrate an aerodynamical model. 2.2 State of the Art of Flight Simulators There are various aircraft simulators which try to simulate the behaviour of aircrafts. an unsteady Kutta-Joukovsky boundary condition is made. where inner viscous eﬀects are separately analysed. First panel codes were developed in 1962. [14] André Noth The simulator simulates an inﬁnite wing and neglects the eﬀects of a ﬁnite wing on the lift distribution. and even a controller for auto piloting is included. but also the aerodynamic forces calculation is at a high level. Eﬀects as aspect ratio. With vortex methods. 12. 3 . can be modelled. There are even methods which can couple the inner viscous eﬀects in the boundary layer with the potential ﬂow. Propulsion and ground eﬀects are implemented as well. For dynamical simulation. See in the section ’Simulation of the dynamic’. Most simulators are interested in best graphical visualisation. so that also turbulent boundary layers can be modelled. In the section 2. A 2D airfoil polar maker is included.180°. The strongest eﬀorts in these codes were made in pre. A very advanced simulator is X-plane. as well as unsteady wake arrangements by modelling the wake with taking regard to the ﬂight state of earlier simulated time steps. Even compressible eﬀects are implemented. eﬀects of propulsion and internal ﬂows trough turbines etc. [2] Flight Gear An Open Source project. It calculates aerodynamic forces from look up tables. but not in physical aircraft behaviour. and sweep of the wing are inﬂuencing the aerodynamics. X-plane tries to approximate the wing as a ﬁnite wing.1 State of the Art of Aerodynamical Force Calculation Today high order panel codes are commonly used. 8. Some simulators which try to include a more complex integration of aerodynamic forces are listed below. Not only is the graphical engine outstanding. Polar data are included for a range of angles from 0. 22] For real time simulations many simpliﬁcations are commonly made ore huge look up tables are generated from measurement or calculations.1 it is presented what methods are commonly used for aerodynamic force calculation. All stability derivates are modelled linearly. The user can deﬁne his own airplane and let it ﬂy in X-plane. For induced drag simple approximations are done to integrate the eﬀects of taper ratio and aspect ratio. are presented.2 diﬀerent existing simulators.. In addition ﬂow separation can be modelled with vortex methods and give the wing a nonlinear behaviour.

The simulator is made for controller design. A dynamic of six degrees of freedom is implemented in matlab simulink. 4 . For this reason a simulator is established and will be introduced in this thesis.2 STATE OF THE ART Xfoil is generating 2D proﬁle coeﬃcients which are integrated over the wingspan. The simulators listed above are not suited to analyse diﬀerent wing geometries and to study stability and performance behaviour of ﬂying wings.

1. The program should in principle calculate the forces for a ﬂying wing conﬁguration. The speciﬁcations for an implementation with regard to a dynamic simulation are: • very short calculation time for real time simulation • no elevator and ﬁn • complex wing (dihedral.5 ) 5 . winglets. Then these forces are given into the dynamic simulation and must be calculated at each time step.3) • nonlinear lifting line method (described in section 3. to design an algorithm which can calculate the aerodynamic forces introduced by the wing. There are many methods to calculate the forces over a wing. etc.) • asymmetrical incident ﬂow • rotation speed of the wing which must be regarded for damping the movement about pitch.4 ) • lifting surface method or even more complex panel methods (described in section 3.1.1.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3 Methods for Aerodynamic Force Calculation The aim is. swept wings . roll and yaw axis • asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂection • sideslip angle which must be regarded • uncomplicated implementation • consideration of the proﬁle information Methods which achieve these speciﬁcations: • lifting line method (described in section 3.

because its inﬂuence on the outer boundary is small. Table 1: Boundary layer. page 18. However.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3. So the calculation of the viscous drag is carried out separately. The results shown in Table 3. laminar and turbulent [19] These inner eﬀects can not be neglected. Details are described in [8]. which can calculate potential ﬂow. This problem can be split up and separately be calculated.1 give an impression of the boundary layer’s dimensions. • Tornado (MATLAB code) • AVL • XFLR • Miarex (MATLAB code) 6 . there are many programs which can calculate viscous drag. for example: • Xfoil • Wineppler Outer eﬀects Pressure forces are eﬀects which act outside of the boundary layer. they comprise the information about the viscous drag.1 Vortex Methods Inner eﬀects Inner eﬀects are eﬀects which are acting in the boundary layer due to viscous motion. The boundary layer is extremely small in comparison with other dimensions. are listed below. Examples of programs. They are calculated with vortex methods.

θ2 → π) ergibt sich u If the vortex Potentialwirbel. a Stand 30. Der Fall eines halbunendlichen Wirbelfadens ist ebenfalls erfasst. so erh¨1 man das von ω induzierte Geschwindigkeitsfeld a a (cos θ1 −durch θ2 )Volumenintegral. Γ Ist die Wirbelst¨rke ω(x) im Raum verteilt. Analog zum Magnetfeld eines stromdurchﬂossenen Leiters in der Elektrodynamik ist die azimutale Γ uθ = . |r|3 Γ du Γ r y x z x C y du x F¨r den Beitrag eines endlich langen. zungen durch W¨nde.1 Theoretical Background on Vortex Methods With the vortex methods listed above. The mathematical a geh¨rt. u betrachtet. which models the ﬂow around the wing. |r|3 Γ u(x) = 4π C ds r ds × r . das die Beitr¨ge aller Wirbelelemente rzur Geschwindigkeit u(x) im Punkt cos ein . − → − − → → F = ρ( V × Γ ) · l 7 (4) . welchesﬂow happens with an intelligent voralt. das die Beitr¨ge aller Wirbelelemente zur Geschwindigkeit u(x) im Punkt a x aufsummiert: Force on a vortex line According to the Kutta-Joukovsky theorem. September 2008 vortex Γmoving with the velocity v experiences a force F . zungen durch W¨nde. welches a The process ofmungen man einfach durch Rotationsbildung erh¨Str¨Jetzt fragen wir. a circulation strength.Wirbelfadenst¨cks ergibt sich damit in einem durch den u u !2 4πr Γ Abstand r und die Winkel θ1 und θ2 bestimmten Punkt die induzierte azimutale Geschwindigkeit uϑ = senkrecht zur Zeichenebene θ2 ) (cos θ1 − cos (2) u 4πr Wirbelfadenstück 0. eines halbunendlichen Wirbelfadens ist ebenfalls erfasst. !lt " Γ Ist die Wirbelst¨rke ω(x) im Raum verteilt. θ2 → π) ergibt sich Beim Grenz¨bergang zu einem unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (θ1 → u uϑ = daraus wieder die Geschwindigkeit um einen Potentialwirbel.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 81 10 Drehungsbehaftete Str¨mungen o 3. o modelling the potential Geschwindigkeitsfeld zu einem 10 Drehungsbehaftete 81 gegebenen Wirbelst¨rkefeldtex arrangement. so erh¨lt man das ϑ = ω induzierte Geschwindigkeitsfeld (3) a a u von 4πr durch ein Volumenintegral. 2πr Γ das Geschwindigkeitsfeld Allgemeiner “induziert” ein der Raumkurve C folgendes Wirbelfadenst¨ck mit konstanter Zirkulation u Γ das Geschwindigkeitsfeld C C ds Γ u(x) = 4π ds × r . geraden) . a Gesetz von Biot-Savart Analog zum Magnetfeld eines stromdurchﬂossenen Leiters in der Elektrodynamik ist die azimutale Bisher unendlich a eines Geschwindigkeit uθ um einen habenSavartlangen induced velocityGeschwindigkeitsfeldes u betrachtet. eﬀects of stall and other eﬀects at high angles of attack are negligible. geraden Wirbelfadenst¨cks ergibt sich damit in einem durch den u u Abstand r und die Winkel θ1 und x1: VortexPunkt die induzierte azimutale Geschwindigkeit Figureθ2 bestimmten ﬁlament and the induced velocity Wirbelfadenstück z If the vortex ﬁlament is a line. Zur Vereinfachung betrachten wir den freien Raum ohne Begreno background for these methods are given in this section. the ﬂow around the wing gets modelled Gesetz von Biot-Savart as a potential ﬂow. which generates a Raum ohne Begrena o 1. Jetzt fragen wir. Zur Vereinfachung betrachten wir den freienvortex line with a constant durch Wirbelst¨ the velocity ﬁeld. welches with formula Biot wir das Wirbelst¨rkefeld ω a gegebenen from (Potentialwirbel) mit Zirkulation The geraden Wirbelfaden a vortex line is calculated man einfach durch Rotationsbildung erh¨lt. welches Geschwindigkeitsfeld zu einem Γ im Abstand r gegeben gegebenenThis is rkefeld geh¨rt. Geschwindigkeit uθ um einen unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (Potentialwirbel) mit Zirkulation ˆ 2πr Γ im Abstand r gegeben durch ds × r Γ (1) u= Γ Allgemeiner “induziert” ein der Raumkurve C folgendes Wirbelfadenst¨ck mit konstanter Zirkulation 4π | u |3 r uθ = .1. This means that only linear aerodynamics can be studied. Der Fall the formula is: daraus wieder die Geschwindigkeit um einen ﬁlament is inﬁnitely long. the integral is transformed to: !1 " Γ r (cos θ1 − cos θ2 = F¨r den Beitrag eines endlichuϑlangen. a !2 4πr x aufsummiert: u senkrecht zur Zeichenebene Figure 2: Vortex ﬁlament as a line Beim Grenz¨bergang zu einem unendlich langen geraden Wirbelfaden (θ1 → 0. The ﬂow behaviour ω eines gegebenen Geschwindigkeitsfeldes Bisher haben wir das Wirbelst¨rkefeldat high mach numbers is also negligible.

As singularity element. a horseshoe vortex is chosen. Figure 3: Horseshoe vortex arrangement a) with elementary wings b) Prandtl method ﬁgure copied from [24]. and the collocation points are lying on the 3/4 line of the wing in the middle of the trailing vortices. The trailing vortices in the wake (behind the wing) have to be aligned in x direction or better in ﬂow direction. and the bound vortex is laying on the wing in the direction of the leading edge.1. On the collocation points the no slip condition is made.2. These diﬀerent arrangements are shown in ﬁgure 5. The singularity element is placed. page 24 The bound vortex is laid on the 1/4 line of the wing.2 Lifting Line Method and Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in General Vortex arrangement / Singularity Element The ﬂow is modelled as a potential ﬂow. 8 . Assuming that the angle are small the trailing vortices can be laid in the x-y plane of the body co-ordinate system. for the Lifting Line Method as well as for the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method.1. A better physical arrangement is.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3. in order that the side vortex lines are leaving the wing in ﬂow direction. The detailed vortex arrangement of the Lifting Line method is shown in Figure 4. if the trailing vortices are leaving the wing in ﬂow direction. − → − × −W − = 0 → Γ −ake v (5) The arrangement is shown in Figure 3. because in this case there will not be any force acting on the trailing vortices.

Forces The lift force of a single element is calculated (Kutta Joukovsky Theorem): 9 .3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION Figure 4: Vortex arrangement and normal vectors in the collocation points with the starting vortex in inﬁnity. with the starting vortex in inﬁnity. The horseshoe vortex is also closed. that the circulation strength along the vortex ring is constant. Thus its inﬂuence is negligible. A second important assumption is. copied from[8] Figure 5: Trailing vortex arrangement left: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction but following the proﬁle right: trailing vortex leaving the wing in ﬂow direction Copied from [8] Vortex Theorems A vortex is always closed. This means that vortices are closed ﬁlaments. or vortex rings.

Draginduced = ρ∞ · Vind (i) · Γ(i) · ∆y The forces are placed on the 1/4 line on each bound vortex. They generate a downwash. 10 . The induced velocity is much easier to calculate in the Treﬀtz plane than over the wing. The induced velocity on the bound vortex generates a force.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION Lif t(i) = ρ∞ · V∞ (i) · Γ(i) · ∆y V∞ ρ∞ ∆y Γ(i) speed of the ﬂow density of air (1.225 kg/m3 ) width of a horseshoe vortex circulation strength of element i The lift force is generated by the inﬁnite ﬂow speed on the bound vortex. because the trailing vortices can be modelled as inﬁnitely long in both directions. The induced drag is calculated with the induced ﬂow speed of the trailing vortices. which induces a velocity on the bound vortex. far behind the wing. Only the trailing vortices have an inﬂuence on the induced drag. Treﬀtz Analysis The induced drag can also be calculated in the so called Treﬀtz plane. This force is the induced drag. The lift force is aligned vertically to the ﬂow speed (see formula 4 on page 7).

why the collocation point is laying on the 3/4 line is shown in [12]. A sample calculation. is zero. So equation 6 can be written as a matrix and vector equation: K · Γ = RHS K Γ RHS nxn matrix vector with length n incident ﬂow (V ∞ ) projected on normal vector n (7) In order to solve this equation for the circulation vector Γ. It might be useful to analyse. This equation is valid at the collocation points. the following methods integrate the proﬁle better. the circulation strength is calculated with a no slip condition. The sum of induced velocity. where that point has to lie with diﬀerent proﬁles. winduced · nsolid + wi · nsolid + V∞ · nsolid = 0 winduced wi V∞ velocity of the bound vortex induced velocity of the wake (trailing vortices) incident ﬂow velocity (6) The normal vectors of the wing nsolid are vertical to the chord line. inﬁnite velocity and induced velocity of the wake. which is laying on the 3/4 line. However this alignment is commonly used and provides good results. cambering is negligible. No ﬂow can penetrate the proﬁle.1. page 7-10. To have better proﬁle information in the boundary condition.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3. 2 and 3. projected on normal direction. Equation 6 gives for each collocation point a linear equation with the unknown circulation strength Γ(i).3 Lifting Line Method Boundary Condition In the classic Lifting Line Method. The enormous advantage of the vortex method is. Closed analytical solutions of equation 6 are given in [24]. The numerical solution of this equation is described in section Implementation. only a matrix inversion has to be done. page 23 11 . so the boundary condition takes only the chord as proﬁle information. that the circulation Γ is linear in equation 1. It is more or less arbitrary to evaluate this equation in a point.

The local angle of attack (angle between inﬁnite velocity and chord minus the induced angle) is calculated. the local lift force can be calculated. 6. The induced angle of attack αind is calculated. With the Kutta Joukovsky theorem. 2. the angle of attack can be calculated: αef f ective = αgeometric − αinduced (9) With the eﬀective angle. Especially at high angles of attack this information is essential. 5.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3. With this information. At ﬁrst the induced angle must be calculated: αind = arctan(Vind /V∞ ) (8) The downwash is calculated on the collocation points. Figure 6: Induced angle and angle of attack geometrical angle effective angle induced angle V V Vind induced angle Proﬁle data With the induced angle. Circulation Strength In Weissinger’s Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. The iterative process begins with point 1. This is done with known airfoil polars (measurements. Xfoil. the circulation strength is calculated by iteration.1.4 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method The Nonlinear Lifting Line Method was developed in 1946. Wineppler). Iterative Process 1. An initial circulation distribution is estimated. The lift distribution with known airfoil polar data is calculated. 3. 4. 12 . The old and the new circulation distributions are compared. see [25]. A new circulation distribution with both of them is iteratively generated. nonlinear proﬁle behaviour can be coupled with the circulation distribution and the lift force. a new circulation distribution can be calculated. See Figure 6 depicting a geometrical interpretation of equation 8. as the proﬁle then shows a highly nonlinear behaviour and can not be modelled as a perfect ﬂat plate with a linear behaviour.

References: [8.1. So a look up table of proﬁle data is necessary. not only for the construction. as it is for non swept wings (the sweep angle is measured at the chord quarter line). The measure of stability is deﬁned as the distance between the centre of gravity and the neutral point of the aircraft1 . Limitations • According to NACA technical note [26]. The main advantage is the inclusion of the nonlinear proﬁl data. page 277 D is the damping factor. which is also needed for viscous drag calculation. • The wake is modelled in a simple way. Disadvantages • Momentum distribution: The fact is. 17] Advantages.05. Advantages • Only few calculations are necessary. More details of geometrical and aerodynamical neutral points see [19]. It has an inﬂuence on the centre of pressure. there is a geometrical and an aerodynamical neutral point. thus on the positioning of the centre of gravity. It is of great importance to know the centre of gravity. For a ﬂying wing the momentum equilibrium is essential. • Flap deﬂections are not integrated in the K matrix. but also for the mass of stability.5. see section 3. 18. page 104 Γn+1 (i) = (1 − D)Γn (i) + DΓnew(i) (10) 13 . until the maximal diﬀerence between new and old circulation is small enough. that the lift force is not always placed in the quarter of the chord.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION The new circulation is calculated with the following formula: [18]. Even experimental proﬁl data can be coupled with the potential ﬂow. all proﬁle data is needed. mostly they are nearly the same points. Disadvantages and Limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method It is important to know the limitations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. This means that the proﬁle data of C M is not exactly the value which can be extracted from the local angle of attack. ’The calculations are subject to the limitations of lifting line theory and should not be expected to give accurate results for wings of low aspect ratio and large amounts of sweep’ 1 There are some diﬀerent deﬁnitions of the neutral point. D ≈ 0. This problem can only be solved with a panel method with several panels in the chord direction. Commonly the measure of stability is given in percent of the mean aerodynamical chord length. • Nonlinear eﬀects of the proﬁle can be studied. The iteration is made. • For the lift calculation.

the horseshoe vortex is chosen as singularity element. this method is also known as ”A Multi-lifting Line Method and its Application on Design and Analysis of Nonplanar Wing Conﬁguration”. The result is a rectangular mesh over the whole wing surface. Therefore the theoretical information which is given in this section is limited to the Lifting Surface Method.5 Vortex Lattice Method The Vortex Lattice Method. eﬀects such as twist do not have a suﬃciently strong inﬂuence. the inﬂuence of the whole proﬁle is not as strong as in the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method. If they are not laid on the surface. but there are other boundary conditions and other singularity elements. it is only enriched with more singularity elements in chord direction. is a Lifting Surface Method. and for modelling the potential ﬂow they use doublet panels (vortex rings) or constantstrength sources. The boundary condition includes proﬁle information. is similar to the method presented in [6]. The following Figures 8 and 9 show more geometrical details of the horseshoe vortex placement. The arrangement is shown in Figure 7. The method is similar to the Lifting Line Method. Mesh and Vortex Arrangement The wing is divided into several elements in wingspan direction as well as in chord direction. Singularity element Basically a vortex ring or a combination of a ring and a horseshoe vortex may be chosen as a singularity element. The method. They use a Dirichlet boundary condition for a thick body. so the cambering has an inﬂuence on the lift coeﬃcient. this is done with experimental proﬁle polars or with software solutions. For the Vortex Lattice Method implemented in this thesis. implemented in this thesis. that they are laid on the surface of the wing. implemented in this thesis. 14 . Viscous drag can not be calculated with these methods either. It is important for the trailing vortices.1. However. More complex panel methods are mathematically similar to the low order panel method. In each of these rectangular panels a horseshoe vortex is laid. The choice is depending on the eﬀects which would be studied and on the provided calculation time.3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3.

copied from [8] 15 .3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION Bound Vortex Collocation Point Trailing Vortex c/2 Wake Figure 7: Vortex arrangement of the Vortex Lattice Method Figure 8: Detailed horseshoe vortex and alignment in a panel.

2 Twist and the skewed vortex loop. In Tornado. circulation strength in a collocation point is the same as equation 6.4 The polyhedral wing. the boundary condition must be improved. Department of is thin (see A Vortexcommonly used. Fig 12: Camber and shifted boundary condition. The would be modelled by vortex panels with To extend implementation contains all trailing vortices which wake in thisthe geometry even more. For more precise results. Figure 10). distribution. so that common and used in a an inﬂuence on tion is made onfigure skeleton approximation is the cambering has variety theof methods. The twist will cause the two outgoing vortex legs from a panel are no longer parallel. This The geometry may each panel and the resulting system of equations can be equation is solved for be even more intricate when we allow cranked wings. This isFOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION 3 METHODS the source of the vortex-sling arrangement in Tornado. it implies that the geometric angle of attack varies with span. This simply means. The Figure is copied from [13] System of Equations The resulting equation for the calculation of the 4. that no ﬂow can go through the skeleton line. That is. time variant circulation strength. However from the geometric layout and meshing point of view. The boundary condichord line (see the 12). 8. like the F-16 main wing.3. the wing could also be cambered.4.3 Camber and thin airfoil boundary application. This line. So the normal direction on the skeleton line is calcirculation culated.e. Fig 11: and twist. 11] the boundary conditions are shifted. the design is no longer a flat plate but a mildly skewed surface. This is an approximation of the proﬁle. is Lattice MATLAB See in [6. In are following theTornado the wing is still regarded as flat with a thin wing approximation where local chord direction. see figure 11. the wake 4. This Page 23 (45) approximation Tomas Melin. . Figure 9: Trailing vortices Twisted vortex the trailing vortices are not parallel.3. which is used instead of the more commonplace horseshoe vortex. copied from [13] Wake The wake modelling in this simple model does not take the wake roll up and the unsteady ﬂow into account. see figure 13. the normal of the cambered surface Figure 10: Inﬂuence of the cambering in the boundary condition. i. and in this direction the total ﬂow must be zero. KTH. When adding twist to the layout. 12. 21. this is not a big problem as 16 every polyhedral wing may be broken down into quadrilateral partitions. Implementation for Linear Aerodynamic Wing Applications.3. 18. sling. wings that are polyhedral. this partitioning takes place early in the user input of geometry definitions. it is assumed that the proﬁle Aeronautics. Boundary Condition and Proﬁle Information To take care of proﬁle is calculated and the non-flow-through boundary condition is employed at the information.

3 METHODS FOR AERODYNAMIC FORCE CALCULATION solved for the circulation strength in each panel. The system of equations can be written in a matrix form. Disadvantages • The wake arrangement with inﬁnite trailing vortices is an enormous simpliﬁcation. but they are not negligible in the airfoil viscous drag. Advantages and Disadvantages of the VL-Method in general Advantages • A force distribution over the chord and the span is made. This provides a better momentum distribution. 17 . only a matrix inversion must be done. • The Kutta condition is a steady Kutta condition and neglects dynamic ﬂow behaviour. To solve the system of equations. • Eﬀects of ﬂow separation and transition are neglected in the potential ﬂow. similar to equation 7. • The centre of gravity can be calculated more exactly.

the sideslip angle.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4 Implementation of a Suitable Method • Tornado (MATLAB code) [21] • AVL [11] • XFLR [10] • Miarex (MATLAB code) [23] There are various existing programs. Flap deﬂections must always be meshed again. a Lifting Line Method was chosen. The method was optimised for a fast calculation. Some simpliﬁcations with ﬂap deﬂections were made. Therefore the friction force is only the induced drag. In both methods. After checking the qualities and limitations of the diﬀerent programs. XFLR is another program with great potential which calculates with diﬀerent methods. Miarex is a kind of Nonlinear Lifting Line Method combined with Xfoil. that these two programs do not care about the friction of the proﬁle.and roll-axes These variables generate too many ﬂight states. Integrating XFLR in a dynamic simulation would not pe possible either. the simulation time would be much longer. if this software could be used for a dynamic simulation. because the program has to calculate a new mesh and a new inﬂuence matrix for each ﬂap deﬂection. Miarex is also limited in the wing geometries. Unfortunately the calculation times are too long and a vast look up table would be necessary. which is a Vortex Lattice Method as well. but the calculation time is also too long. Some requirements. Therefore for each change of the proﬁle. 18 . There is another Open Source tool from Mark Drela [11]. the proﬁle coeﬃcients have to be recalculated for the interpolation. Another problem is. Otherwise. For the whole drag force it is necessary to integrate the lift distribution with proﬁle data. similarly to Tornado. which has the great advantage that ﬂap deﬂections are not cared about in the inﬂuence matrix of the vortices. simpliﬁcations are made in the wake modelling. are: • asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂections • sideslip angles • angular rates for damping the movement in yaw-. the geometry for each ﬂap deﬂection would have to be changed. Unfortunately the results were insuﬃcient. which do not allow to generate a look up table. This has to be calculated separately and again increases the calculation time. The ﬂap deﬂections are only considered in the iteration. so that the method can be used for dynamical simulation. A reduced look up table would be generated with the only parameter β. Finally a Vortex Lattice Method was implemented. Often comparisons with XFLR are made in this thesis. but not eﬃcient enough either for dynamical solutions. There is an Open Source tool called Tornado [21]. pitch. The best results can be obtained with panel methods. because the method does not care about a force distribution in chord direction. which can calculate aerodynamic forces. In XFLR ﬂap deﬂections are deﬁned as a new proﬁle. It was tested.

As inﬂow information. the ﬂow velocity must be deﬁned in three components.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4. 4.1 Nonlinear Lifting Line Method The main idea of this implementation is.1.2 Mesh Generation The coordinate system is deﬁned as commonly used in aircraft design. twist and sweep angle. 4. Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Process Diagramm Manual input geometry deﬁnition initial state deﬁnition proﬁle polar deﬁnition Xfoil load all input data geometry polars generate geometry and vortex mesh mesh calculate inﬂuence coefﬁcient inﬂuence matrix K make initial guess for gamma start distribution gamma start and ﬂap deﬂection calculate forces and moments gamma iterate Figure 11: The following chapter gives more detailed information about the most important functions. and the angular rates have to be initialised. listing the most important functions and procedures.1. the x-axis goes backwards of the wing and 19 . The y-axis is in the spanwise direction. Even discontinuous functions of the twist angle and the geometry are possible.1 Inputs The geometry can be a 3D wing geometry with ﬂaps. to split up the calculations. dihedral. A simple structure of the program is shown in Figure 11. The meaning is to calculate as much as possible before the simulation starts so that during the simulation only the most important calculations must be carried out.

1. The eﬀect of the wing’s geometrical angles are taken into account in the calculation of the new Gamma distribution (Γ). However. Physically they have to leave the wing in the ﬂow direction behind the wing. the trailing vortices are still pointing into the x-direction. The most important outputs are: T_left T_right A all left horseshoe points all right horseshoe points all collocation points The trailing vortices are leaving the wing in x-direction. This deﬁnition is diﬀerent than the deﬁnition of the dynamics.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD the z-axis is looking away from the earth. The sideslip angle is calculated: 1 betha_in = atan ( g l o b a l _ f l o w _ s p e e d (2) / g l o b a l _ f l o w _ s p e e d (1) ) . As singularity element.m gives as output the mesh data for the vortex placements and some other geometry data. which are used for the force calculation. The wing geometry can be devided into several partitions. skalar tip chord skalar geometrical angle to the body x-axis. The geometry of the wing is only deﬁned for a wing half. The trailing vortices are aligned in x-direction in this implementation . the horseshoe vortex is chosen. where the partition has to be placed. this is a vector and contains the root angle and the tip angle span of the partition number of single panels sweep angle at leading edge reference point. The new Gamma circulation is calculated with the geometrical and the induced angle and then damped with the old circulation. With this parameters the function generate_Mesh. Therefore twist eﬀects are neglected in the vortex arrangement. 4. Each partition is a trapezoid with geometry data listed below. b_root b_tip alpha_g s n phi x0 root chord. This is a small angle approximation of the wake. then the geometry is mirrored.3 Sideslip Angle The whole geometry is rotated with an angle β around the z-axis. see Algorithm 1 in Appendix A . 20 . it is deﬁned at the tip of the root chord for each partition and therefore is a matrix.

4

IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.1.4

Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients

The Kutta condition is fulﬁlled at each collocation point. The induced velocities of all horseshoe vortices must be calculated at the collocation point i, and then be compared with the incident ﬂow V∞ projected on the local geometrical normal vector. For all collocation points the system has the following form: Coll. Points 1 2 3 4 ... N a1,1 a2,1 a3,1 a4,1 ... ... Matrix K a1,2 a1,3 ... a2,2 a2,3 ... a3,2 a3,3 ... a4,2 a4,3 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... a1,N a2,N a3,N a4,N ... ... Gamma Γ1 Γ2 Γ3 Γ4 ... ΓN Boundary Cond. RHS1 RHS2 RHS3 RHS4 ... RHSN

·

=

Table 2: System of linear equations of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method The inﬂuence coeﬃcients ai,j are calculated with the function vortex.m, vortex_left.m, vortex_right.m. They are principally vectors, projected on each normal vector in the collocation point. The function is plotted in Algorithm 2 Appendix A . The circulation Gamma can be excluded from the calculation of the inﬂuence coeﬃcients, because it is linear in the equation. The right hand side of the equation is the free stream ﬂow projected on the normal vector. RHSi = −(U∞ , V∞ , W∞ ) · ni (11)

The inﬂuence coeﬃcients are only depending on the geometry and the sideslip angle β. The assumption is, that the wake is stationary, so that the vortex arrangement, despite a variation in the angle of attack, rests always the same. This inﬂuence matrix is saved for several sideslip angles and later interpolated at the desired sideslip angle. 4.1.5 Initial Guess

**The initial function for the circulation strength is chosen in this implementation as:
**

1

Gamma_start = - inv ( K ) * RHS

**This is a linear approach which later is iteratet with nonlinear proﬁle informaion. The RHS is:
**

1

RHS = v_abs .* sin ( alpha_g )

v_abs alpha_g

norm of the velocity, v_abs is a vector geometrical angle, a vector

The twist eﬀect is neglected in the RHS, because the inﬂuence of twist on the normal vector in the collocation points is neglibible. 21

4

IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

4.1.6

Iterative Process / Coupling the Proﬁle Information

**The iteration is started with the following commonly used parameters.
**

1 3

% Damping Factor D =0.05; % Stop criteria min =0.001;

The iteration function is the core of the total program, it is plotted in Algorithm 1 on page 60 Appendix A . A short description of what the function does: The induced velocity w_i here is calculated with the Treﬀtz analysis. It is calculated with the following formula:

w_i =1/2*( K_far * Gamma_alt ) ;

**K_far is the inﬂuence matrix for the Treﬀtz analysis. The eﬀective angle of attack is calculated:
**

1

alpha_i = - atan ( w_i ./( v_abs ’) ) ;

The induced angle alpha_i could also be simpliﬁed to: alpha_i=-w_i./v_abs. The new circulation Gamma_new is calculated with the following two formulas: Kutta-Joukovsky L = ρ · Γ · v · ∆y v2 · ∆y · b 2

(12)

Proﬁle_CL L = CL · ρ · Therefore the circulation Gamma is: v ·b (14) 2 The CL value is calculated with an interpolation function between several polars. In the interpolation, the ﬂap angle and the angle of attack are the input values. With the CL distribution, the viscous drag CD is interpolated from the proﬁle polars. The convergence process of the iteration is not a robust process. So the damping factor and the stop criteria have to be chosen carefully. The practice has shown, that the values given here mostly provide good results. Γ = CL · 4.1.7 Force and Moment Calculation (13)

The lift force is calculated with the CL distribution. It is projected on the speed normal direction, vertical to the ﬂow speed vector and vertical to the bound vortex. The induced drag force is calculated with the formula: Dinduced (i) = −ρ · Γ(i) · winduced · ∆y (15)

The viscous drag is calculated with the integration of the local viscous drag over the span of the wing which is calculated with proﬁle polar information. The drag force is projected in ﬂow speed direction. The point of attack of the 22

4

IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD

forces is on the bound vortex. The resulting moment is evaluated in the origin of the wing. To the resulting moment the local momentum coeﬃcient of the proﬁle integrated over the span of the wing is added. 4.1.8 Evaluation of the Nonlinenar Lifting Line Method

Unfortunately in the Treﬀtz analysis sweep angles are neglected. So a variation of the sweep angle does not change the induced velocities in the Treﬀtz plane. For swept wings, it is important to include the inﬂuence of the sweep angle, so a solution is searched to include the sweep angle. This is done by calculating the induced velocitities on the bound vortex. The Treﬀtz plane only recognises the inﬁnite vortex lines, the diﬀerence of the starting point’s x-component is neglected because it is too far away. On the bound vortex, the inﬂuence of diﬀerent x-components of the trailing vortex starting point is considered. This causes an inﬂuence on the sweep. The implementation results showed, that the inﬂuence is too strong and gives a qualitatively incorrect distribution of lift. To illustrate the eﬀect of Treﬀtz and bound analysis, a Figure with the diﬀerence of the two analysis types is added, see Figure 12. The wing is a swept wing without dihedral. The geometry deﬁnition is listed below. Wing deﬁnition of the test wing:

1 3 5 7

p =3; "#% ny =[0 ,0 ,0]* pi /180;

% number of Partitions % Dihedral of the Partitions

.

"#) n =[10 ,10 ,7]; s =[ 0 .5 ;0 . 3; 0 .2 ]; "#& b_root = [0 .2 ; 0. 2 ;0 .2 ] ; b_tip = [ 0. 2; 0 .2 ; 0. 2] ; phi "#( ,20 ,20]* pi /180; =[20 positive "#' % geometrical twist angles alpha =[0 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3.8]* pi /180; "#! . !! !"#$ !"#% !"#& !"#' +,--,

9 11

% Number of collocation points % Span of partition % root chord % tip chord % Sweep angle , back is ← +,--,. +,--,.1234.5678839.:;,<*=2=

" *

"#'

"#&

"#%

"#$

!

"#% "#) "#& /0 "#( "#' "#! . !! /0.>2=362?@32A; /0.>2=362?@32A;.1234.5678839.:;,<*=2=

.

!"#$

!"#%

!"#&

!"#'

" *

"#'

"#&

"#%

"#$

!

Figure 12: Diﬀerences between alternative calculations of the induced angle Angle of attack: 6 degrees Calculations made with Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Gohl The test wing from above is compared with other results. Here compared are the CL distributions, the circulation distribution curve is qualitatively the 23

0<=.-378319.B0. "#$ . The ﬂap inﬂuence is regarded in the iterative function where the local lift coeﬃcient is interpolated.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD same because the chord is constant and therefore not plotted.:48.-378319.0<.5152@A3A.CD-E F5142.2 !"#$ !"#% !"#& !"#' " + "#' "#! . • An interpolation between Reynolds numbers is not done in this implementation. "#* "#% "#) . because all trailing vortices are leaving the wing and not following the local chord direction. 24 .-314.0<=. • The results of swept wings are not usable.0<.>64778?.5152@A3A. When proﬁle polars are made.CD-E /01231456.B0. the Reynolds number must be estimated.2 /01231456.-314. • This method does not provide accurate results for wings with low aspect ratios. because sweep angle eﬀects are neglected. • Flap deﬂections do not need to be regarded in mesh generation."#& "#( /01231456.:48. see Figure 13. • The calculation is very fast.:48. !! "#' "#& "#% "#$ ! Figure 13: Comparison of the Lifting Line Method with a Panel calculation for the swept wing with twist angle of attack: 5° Advantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation • Nonlinear behaviour of proﬁle information inﬂuences the circulation distribution.:48. Disadvantages of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Implementation • The twist eﬀect is not modelled well.-314.G0H1<.-378319.

1. which are shown in this section. the calculation time is a severe problem. and there are other modiﬁcations. that the dimension of the inﬂuence matrix is much higher. see Figure 14 Vortex Lattice Method Process Diagramm Manual input geometry deﬁnition inﬂow information proﬁle polar deﬁnition Xfoil load all input data geometry polars generate geometry and vortex mesh mesh calculate inﬂuence coefﬁcient generate RHS.1. insert ﬂap deﬂection Inﬂuence matrix K calculate forces and moments Gamma inverting Matrix K and calculate Gamma Figure 14: Process diagram of the Vortex Lattice Implementation 25 . The most important steps in the program are shown in a ﬂow diagram.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4. The Vortex Lattice implementation is similar to the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method.4 on page 13). If a vortex lattice method should be implemented in a dynamic simulation. To reduce the computing time.4 on page 12 and section 3. The basic problem of the Vortex Lattice method is.2 Vortex Lattice Method The Vortex Lattice Method is implemented as a consequence of the unsatisfactory results provided by the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method and the limitations of the method (see section 3. some important modiﬁcations in saving the data and in calculating the inﬂuence matrix are done. However there are some signiﬁcant changes in the mesh composition and in the structure of the linear system of equation.

1 Inclusion of the Proﬁle The proﬁle coordinates can directly be included in the implementation.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4. The arrangement in top view is shown in the theoretical part (see Figure 7 on page 15). In each of the panel a horseshoe vortex is laid.2./ ! !!"# !!"$ !!"% ! 1 !"# !"$ !"% !"& !"' .. For details about diﬀerent mesh arrangements and results.m 4. A detailed description of a panel is shown in Figure 16 T_right n bound vortex V" Trailing vortex ! r2 r1 P T_left ! ! T_right behind Panel T_left behind P Figure 16: Detailed description of a single panel 26 ./ !"( !") !"* !"+ # Figure 15: Mean line of the proﬁle MH45 calculated with proﬁle.2 Mesh Generating The wing is divided into rectangular elements in spanwise direction and in chord direction. see in section 4.2. as an example see the proﬁle MH45 in Figure 15: 1 !"% !"$ !"# 0!-. The trailing vortices in this implementation are following the chord direction.. Then the mean line is calculated from the proﬁle data.!-.2.8 on page 31. otherwise the twist eﬀect would be neglected.

1 2.3 3. The inﬂuence coeﬃcients are saved for a range of sideslip angles and then the desired sideslip angle is interpolated between this data.. In this implementation...1 3.. Tlef t X1. Figure 17: Organisation of the indices of the mesh points With this matrix structure.3 1...4 .1 Tlef t X3.3 .. Tlef t X1. 4..4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD The mesh points are saved in matrices: Tlef t X1. the trailing vortices only are rotated around the z-axis. 1.2 Tlef t X2. . 27 .1 .3 2. The organisation of the elements is shown in the following Figure: .. .2.4 2..1 T X Tlef t X = lef t 2..2 1. MATLAB can calculate faster..n The ﬁrst index is the number of the element in chord direction. Tlef t Xm. the collocation point must lie on the proﬁle mean line.2 . see Figure 16.. . The normal vector is now calculated at the mean line of the proﬁle.1 3.. .5 3. .. the second indices is the number of element in spanwise direction.2 2.. It is calculated with the cross product: r 1 × r2 r 1 × r2 → =− n (16) For the calculation of the normal direction..3 Sideslip Angle If the ﬂow has a y-component. the mesh must be changed. because the basic vector calculations can be calculated much faster.2 3.. . The same is applied for all other coordinates and points... .....

2 .4 Inﬂuence Coeﬃcients The inﬂuence coeﬃcients are organised as the following Table shows: Coll. ..2 a2.. .1 ... . a1.. . . · = Table 3: System of linear equations The boundary condition is evaluated at each collocation point.... . Γ2.3 a2. .... ..... a1. a2. rewrite_RHS... . . .1 .1 +.2 +a1.1 : .2 RHS3.....1 Γ2.... ..2 a2....... p1.. ..2 : p3.1 a1.. cos(Θ) = R0 · R1 R0 · R1 (18) The distance r is calculated with the help of the cross product: r= R0 × R1 R0 (19) The resulting induced velocity is calculated with the principle of equation 18 and 19: a= The value R0 R1 × R2 R1 × R2 2 1 R0 · R1 R0 · R1 ( − ) 4π R1 R2 (20) in equation 20 can be cancelled..... . which can rewrite the numbering of these vectors (rewrite.. . a2. Points p1. .3 ·Γ1.2 RHS2. ..... a2.2 Γ2. The basic formula to calculate the induced velocity of a straight vortex ﬁlament is given in the theoretical part. ..1 . . ..1 .. a1.1 ·Γ1.1 ·Γ2. p1. the equation for the collocation point 1.. RHS1.. Matrix K .4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4..3 a1..... .2 : p2.. The principle to calculate the inﬂuence coeﬃcients of a vortex line is described below. .1 a1. . . .3 a2..2 RHS1.3 .........3 +. These angles are calculated with the help of the dot product.. 28 ..1 Γ1. So the cosines of the angles between R_0 and R_1...3 .2 Γ1...2.....3 RHS3... .. a2..+a2... ..3 a2.....m)..2 a1. like for example. R_1 and R_0 must be found.2 : ... ...3 RHS2... .2 ·Γ1.1 RHS3. ...2 a2.. . a2. .. ..+am.2 a1... a2. ...m.. many errors can occur if the numbering of the circulation vector and the numbering of the RHS vector are exchanged. .... .1 a1....1 RHS2...n = −V∞ · − (17) n Attention.... .1: − → → a1.. Γ1. There are written functions. .. ... The calculation of inﬂuence coeﬃcients is basically similar to the calculation in the nonlinear implementation...3 a1. The geometrical illustration is shown in Figure 18.3 ..2 . .3 .1 : p3..1 .. .2 a1. ..3 a1. .... ...n ·Γm.3 : .. .. ..3 ..1 RHS1.1 +a1. .1 : p2.. .

y.m needs as input all points in matrix structures and gives out the coeﬃcients.y. These coeﬃcients are directly rewritten as vectors. 29 . left trailing vortices and right trailing vortices for one collocation point i at once.z) R_1 r R_2 P(x.n is the inﬂuence of the panel m.n on the collocation point i. To avoid this problem.z) Figure 18: Vortex inﬂuence coeﬃcient A numerical problem in calculating the inﬂuence coeﬃcients can occur. Appendix A The calculation of the inﬂuence matrix for one collocation point is made in a loop for each collocation point. see the system of equation in Table 3 The function is added in Algorithm 3. This is much faster. The function vortex_panel. if a collocation point lies too close to the vortex line. The structure of a (see equation 20) is therefore a matrix. All the operations of the equations 18. that the coeﬃcient am. then the value of a is set to zero.y.z) ! R_0 L(x. The problem occurs if: R1 < R2 < R1 × R2 2 (21) (22) < (23) If one of these three equations is fulﬁlled. Appendix A . The induced velocity then rises to inﬁnite. a region is deﬁned in which the velocities are set to zero. The indices are organised in the way. The idea is. so that they are in the structure of a row of the inﬂuence matrix. 19 and 20 can be calculated with matrices. See the function in Algorithm 4. So the equation 20 for all values of the denumerators is always deﬁned.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD R(x. to calculate the induced velocity from all bound vortices.

It is calculated with the following formula wind = Kbound · Γ (26) K bound is the inﬂuence matrix of the trailing vortices on the bound vortices.5 Flap deﬂections Flap deﬂections in this implementation are made with the boundary condition. K bound Y .i · windj. Y. the calculation of inﬂuence coeﬃcients is done on collocation points lying on the bound vortex. All surface normals which lie in the ﬂap region are rotated around the y-axis with the angle of the ﬂap deﬂection.2.i ) · Γj. 4. Wnormalvel are the components of the vectors vertical to the ﬂow speed and the bound vortex vector. 30 .2. so that during the simulation no matrix inversion is needed. 4. Vnormalvel . Then the K matrix is saved as the inverted matrix. For induced drag forces.i (24) The induced drag is calculated with the following formula: n m Draginduced = i=1 j=1 −ρ · sign(Γj. Unormalvel .i · yj.6 Force and Moment Calculation The lift forces act on the bound vortices.i (25) The term wind is the induced velocity from the trailing vortices. K bound Z are the inﬂuence coeﬃcient matrices in the directions X. They are calculated for each panel: n m Lif tf orce = i=1 j=1 ρ · Γj.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD For lift forces. Z.i · yj. the calculation of the inﬂuence coeﬃcients is done with the collocation points on the 3/4 line of the panel. The viscous drag is interpolated with the proﬁle polars. It is calculated with the following formula: Kbound = Kbound X ∗ Unormalvel + Kbound Y ∗ Vnormalvel + Kbound Z ∗ Wnormalvel (27) K bound X.

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4. Values of CL over 1. A comparison of diﬀerent mesh types is done and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. dihedral. Inﬂuences of speed and the chord distribution of the wing are approximated to the same Reynolds numbers. 4. • Airfoil cambering is taken in account.2. In order to enable the simulation to calculate stall situations. The great diﬀerence is in direction of the trailing vortex. winglets and several wing parts can be calculated.8 Evaluation of the Vortex Lattice Method Advantages • Any desired wing geometry with sweep. In this case the interpolation function for calculating the CD values has a problem.2. • An interpolation between Reynolds numbers is not done. that CL values of 2.5 for normal proﬁles do not exist physically. It elucidates again the simpliﬁcation of the mesh arrangement of the implemented method. twist.8. Even elevator and ﬁn can be added to the geometry. The boundary conditions are still evaluated at the skeleton line.2. It could therefore be. Inﬂuence of Diﬀerent Mesh Types In this part the diﬀerences between a ﬂat mesh and a mesh on skeleton line of the wing are shown. It follows the skeleton direction or the chord direction. but the mesh must be looked at carefully due to singularities. see in section 4. The results of this method are not signigicant.7 Stall In the simulation high eﬀective angles might occur. therefore the Vortex Lattice Method does not give accurate results for stall behaviour. • In this implementation a strong wake simpliﬁcation is made. because in the polar table no CD value at this too high CL value exists. 31 . Disadvantages • Non-linearities of the air’s viscousity and dependencies of speed are neglected in the lift force and the induced drag force.0 or more appear (as a consequence of the linear behaviour of the method). CL values which are not found in the table are assumed as the last element in the table.

/F09.20+/B'C/D0@B'C/E=2@/E*4. But for exact lift distribution and center of lift calculations. For calculating exact glide numbers. The wake modeling is not physical./GH'I !5!$ &) !5!% !5!6 &':.-. the method provides too high values caused by too small induced drag values (see Figure 19). induced drag with Treﬀtz analysis The greatest diﬀerence is visible in the induced drag./01/*22*34 #" Figure 19: Diﬀerent mesh types squares: collocation points and trailing vortices are liyng on the skeleton line of the wing.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD &'/*+9/*+. 32 .-. This is also the value which causes most of the problems in this method./01/*22*34 #" !58 !57 !56 !5$ ! !!5$ / !5!# &)/*+9/&' / 30--03*2=0+/>0=+2?/0+/3@0A9/B'C/D0@ 30--5/>0=+2?/0+/?4. The trailing vortices are not leaving the wing in the ﬂow speed direction.%($<(&) %! $! #! ! !#! ! &'(&) %! $! #! ! !#! / ! &'(&) / " #! *+. In this implementation./01/*22*34 !58 !57 &' &' !56 !5$ ! !!5$ ! " #! *+. where the wing is the model glider FG-WingX-02. The diﬀerence of the induced drag is shown in Figure 20.-. the twist has a too strong inﬂuence on the direction of the trailing vortices.-=+. circles: collocation points and trailing vortices are laying on the chord line of the wing triangles: a calculation from XFLR with VLM classic method.-./01/*22*34 #" " #! *+. the vortices must follow the proﬁle chord or the local skeleton line.-.

( ( &! % $ 34(5+461-4 # " ! :. 3. All the inﬂuence coeﬃcients in the Biot-Savart inﬂuence matrix K change and must be recalculated.<(@50A(/?*0(B. this would cost much more simulation time./(*00*12 % &! &" Figure 20: Induced drag calculated with diﬀerent meshes Why not let the trailing vortices follow the ﬂow speed direction? For a static calculation. 2. 33 .5+0>(. The matrix can have dimensions of 500x500. 4. If all these calculations had to be done at each time step.+(>2-?-0. So the arrangement has also to be corrected with sideslip angle.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD &" '(&! !) 7+461-4(89*. The vortex arrangement for dynamic analysis should not change.5+0> !" !# ( ! " # $ *+.-(.+(?5+:.<(=. If it changes. because the mesh is not always the same. The vortex arrangement must be corrected at each time step. but for a dynamic simulation there are obstacles. there would not be any problems. But this step 4 could be directly done in step 1. An interpolation with the sideslip angle is not possible. The matrix inversion must be recalculated. the following steps have to be calculated: 1.

modelled with many rectangular boxes • neglected dihedral Vortex Lattice Method The input data from the Euler-Lagrange dynamics and the output data of the force calculating block is shown in the following ﬂow Figure 21: ﬂap deﬂections speed in body system angluar rates in earth system phi. the existing MATLAB/Simulink model by André Noth is used. Some simpliﬁcation are made: • homogeneous mass distribution • constant thickness of the wing. The interpolation of the inﬂuence matrices must be done. only the mass. r around the body axis. Fy. Then the forces and moments are calculated and delivered to the output. Then the velocity vector is calculated. R is the distance between the center of gravity and the local panel. Therefore. even the surface normal vectors. the airplane dynamics may be calculated by applying rigid body dynamics. 34 . psi Aerodynamic Forces Fx. For the rigid body motion simulation.3 Integrating the Methods in the Simulation Now that the aerodynamic forces may be calculated as a function of incident ﬂow direction. This is a simpliﬁcation in favour of faster calculation. theta. with thickness c deﬁned in wingdef.m • wing. Moreover it is essential to calculate the angular rates p. All the vectors have to be reorganised for the RHS calculation.m. ﬂap deﬂection and angular rates. q. Mz Figure 21: Flow diagram of the aerodynamic force block The data must be transformed into the wing’s body system. Fz Mx. My. centre of gravity and the inertia must be added. It is calculated with following principle: − → vlocal = −Omega × R + V∞ (28) Omega is a vector with the angular rates in the body system. The angular rates are taken in account in the velocity vector. otherwise the whole mesh would have to be recalculated. The mesh arrangement is not changed for the ﬂap deﬂection. Finally the circulation distribution is calculated with the interpolated inﬂuence matrices at the desired sideslip angle. The inertia is calculated in the function inertia_calc.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD 4. The ﬂap deﬂection is calculated with changing the RHS.

For the next time step. The changes of the circulation distributions are always small. 35 . Some important diﬀerences occur in the calculation of the circulation. the circulation distribution from the old time step is used for starting the iteration.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A SUITABLE METHOD Nonlinear Lifting Line Method The inclusion of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method in the dynamics is similar to the Vortex Lattice Method. so that only a few iterations are necessary. The circulation is calculated with the initial circulation at the ﬁrst time step.

4 Tolerance +/. early in the morning. 5.3 Table 4: Measured times of the phygoids 36 . This attitude can be reached with the following scenario. It begins to oscillate periodically as it stabilises on its own.1 on page 39 .0. The wing slows down until the velocity is zero and then the wing tilts forward.1 Flight Test Results For the ﬂight test.8 5. The experimental data are collected with a self built model ﬂying wing. at high speed. The period time can be measured by a clock. Flight 1 [s] Flight 2 [s] 1 5. Two ﬂights were evaluated. the aileron are set to the initial condition. the course of the ﬂight is shown in the following Figure: velocity: zero angle theta: -90° acceleration with ﬂap deﬂection ﬂaps set to the initial state ﬁrst period second period comparison with simulation no action by the pilot Figure 22: Path for ﬂight tests Measured times are written in Table 4. In order to at least qualitatively compare the behaviour of the simulation to real ﬂight. so that weather eﬀects could be neglected. ﬂight test are made and taken on video. Flight one: Only one period time was measurable. The measurements were made in good weather conditions. Phygoid Nr.3 +/. Flight two: Two period times were measurable.0. At ﬁrst the wing is accelerated and then. as the simulation needs the same initial condition as in the ﬂight test. For visualisation. Then the period times can be compared with simulated results.5 2 not measurable 5. a well deﬁned ﬂight attitude must be found.5 EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION 5 Evaluation of the Simulation The simulation is evaluated with real ﬂight tests. More information about the wing can be found in section 6.

details about the turbulence model see in Xfoil manual. times of the ﬁrst three periods of the phygoid oszillation There are several reasons for the slight variation of the simulated and measured values: • The model is not absolutely perfect. In addition the leading edge is less rounded than the original airfoil. due to the manufacturing method. 37 .5 EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION 5.76 2 5. in the section Viscous Formulation [4].76 Table 6: Simulation Results. There could also occur 3D ﬂow eﬀects.21 m ≈ −4° (+/. The polars in Xfoil are made with a turbulence model of Ncrit =9. The initial condition of Θinit = − π causes some problems with the Tait-Bryan angles 2 (more details see in [16]) so that the angle must be approximated.2 Simulation Results -85° ≈ 1 [m/s] 0. The turbulence model of N crit = 9 in Xfoil might be incorrect. Values such as the induced drag are inexact and can cause small errors. • The airfoil polars are generated with Xfoil. which are neglected. In Table 6 the measured period times are shown.0.88 3 5. Period Nr. The calculation of the inertia is another simpliﬁcation.5 degrees) 2° real ﬂight data a realistic value is chosen data from VLM Gohl real ﬂight data a realistic value is chosen The following attitude is chosen for the evaluation: Θ speed centre of gravity ﬂap deﬂection angle of attack Table 5: Initial Condition The simulation results with the initial condition in Table 5 are shown in Figure 23. Period time [s] 1 5. The trailing edge is not as sharp as the simulated proﬁle is. it is a simpliﬁcation of the reality. • The initial condition is not absolutely correct as it is estimated. • The model wing is not perfect.

"'! "!! &'! ! &!! '! ! ! ' &! &' "! !!5' !& ! ' & !5' 6*/0123204*+.- &! &' "! 9:2*+.EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION ! ' &! *.! &! "! (! &! &' "! #! ! ' 72481*.<=& !5' ! !!5' !!5' !& ! ' &! &' "! !& !&5' ! ' & !5' ! >:?3<**+.<=& !5' ! !!5' &! &' "! !& ! ' 912*+.- &' "! "' (! Figure 23: Simulation results of the periodic oscillation 5 ! "! #! $! %! &!! &"! &#! &$! &%! "!! )*+.- )*/0123204*+.*/0123204*+.<=- &! &' "! 38 .*+.

6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 6 6.945 g/dm2 Taper Ratio: 2.1 Results of the Simulation Flying Wing. Basically it is possible to attain side stability only with a sweep angle. Figure 24: My Wing VECTORWORKS EDUCATIONAL VERSION VECTORWORKS EDUCATIONAL VERSION Wing span: 2m Wing span with winglets: 2.32 m Some data of the wing: Wing load: 25.2. The ﬂying wings are tuned for high ﬂight performance and are compared in their stability and performance. The design contains nine diﬀerent chord widths and furthermore the twist is not only linear. The glider was calculated with [20]. FG-WingX-02 In the next three sections three diﬀerent wings are presented. FG-WingX-02. Before this thesis was written. The chord increases with the spanwise coordinate. which is unusual for a conventional wing. simulated and analysed. This eﬀect improves the stability and increases the Reynolds numbers at the wing tips.0 With ﬂap deﬂections of -3 degrees the XFLR polar calculation generates the following results (see Figure 6. For more details see the Horten wings. However practical tests showed.1): 39 . a model glider. Originally the wing was designed without winglets. The side stability should have been generated with the high sweep angle. An improved design with winglets is described in 6. The most important design rules about ﬂying wings are written in Appendix C. was built. The wing is designed for best glide ratio with ﬂap deﬂection and for good fast ﬂight without ﬂap deﬂection. that the side stability was not adequate.

+3:1 # $ % &! c L3 / 2 cD # $ % &! () !!'" !'!& !'" !'# !'$ !'% &6 "! ! &! !* ! " # $ % &! 6 !'!&6 (8*+..+3:1 !!'" !&! ! " !'" !6 &! &6 "! "6 ! 6 ! ! " () !'# !'$ !'% ()*+.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 9/:-0*. * 40 ... +./0*12*+33+45 +./0*12*+33+45 The best glide ratio is about 23 at an angle of attack of 9°./0*12*+33+45 9/:-0*.-*() c L3 / 2 !'!" (8 Figure 25: XFLR Polar Calculations cD !'!"6 !'!7 <)=*>?)./0*12*+33+45 +. Angles above 10° are in a critical region of stall. The best sink rate is at an angle above 10°..-*+.

1. which shows Figure 26. how the equilibrium point is calculated.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 6.1 Stability Results The wing is simulated for the the initial condition shown in Table 7. v_initial center of gravity ﬂap deﬂection sideslip angle of attack Θinit 7 m/s 0. The wing is dynamically stable.21 m -4° 0° 6° -85° Table 7: Initial point for simulation The result is plotted in Figure 26. In Appendix D is shown. 41 .

/0121/3()*+ <842:(()9:.+ & $! %! &!! &"! &!! ! "! #! %! $! #! "! ! $! %! &!! &"! %!! &!!! .()*+ ! &!!! &-!! !!5- -!! !5- The simulation of the wing FG-WingX-02 for longer times has shown. that the wing is spiral mode unstable (similar behaviour as shoen in Figure 29). This behaviour is noticeable in practical ﬂight test. This dynamic behaviour is slow and can be stabilised by the pilot !& ! "! #! $! %! &!! &"! !" ! "! #! $! %! &!! &"! !& ! "! #! $! %! &!! &"! ! ! ! & ! ! "! #! "!! '(.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION (./0121/3()*+ 781()9:./0121/3()*+ 701()9:.+ $! 21*4()0+ %! &!! &"! !!5!5- #!! !& !!5- !& & !5- " ! & ! "! #! $!! '()*+ 6(.(. If the wing ﬂees once into a curve then he would tilt more and more into the curve.+ Figure 26: Simulation Results of FG-WingX-02 &"!! ! "! #! $! %! 42 .

This modiﬁcation is done. As the winglets were added later.7. *+.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 6. *+ $"& $"% $.>.45 $"! *+60 $"$# $ !!"# !! !$"# $ $"# ! !"# ) Figure 27: Lift (CL·t) and CL distribution at operating point 43 .=47.7.230.?@0A7. the circulation distribution is not elliptic anymore.B.89!:./01./01.45. The twist was increased the most at the tip of the wing.-. !!"# *+. The optimised wing has the same outline but a diﬀerent twist./01. The wing is optimised at best glide ratio.45.45 $"( $"' . to create a self stable wing with high performance.5.230.<!$% *+.5. not at best sink rate for a better stall behaviour because the angle of attack at best sink rate is very high. The polars calculated in XFLR are shown in Figure 28.-.230.2 Optimised Stable Wing Originally the wing FG-WingX-02 was designed without winglets. where the winglet’s inﬂuence is the strongest./01.230. !! !$"# $ $"# ! !"# ) *+60.

/0*12*+33+45 The main diﬀerence between the optimised stable wing and the original wing is the angle of attack. The lift distribution at the operating point is shown in Figure 27./0*12*+33+45 +./0*12*+33+45 +. when the best glide ratio occurs. but the performance hardly improved.-*+.+3:1 !6 ! " # &! &6 "! "6 ! 6 () !!'" ! " # !'" !'# !'$ !'% &'" ! & ()*+.. The spanwidth coordinate is folded on the y-axis for better visualisation.. The angle of attack at best glide ratio is further from stall and even ﬂying at best sink rate would be possible. the CL value is increased for better stall behaviour. In the middle of the wing./0*12*+33+45 9/:-0*. The optimised stable wing is fundamentally better manoeuvrable at best glide ratio.-*() c L3 / 2 cD !'!"6 !'!7 !'!76 !'!# (8 44 .+3:1 $ % &! &" c L3 / 2 cD $ % &! &" () !!'" !'!& !'" !'# !'$ !'% &'" &6 "! ! & &! ! ! " # $ % &! &" Figure 28: Polars calculated in XFLR 6 !'!&6 !'!" (8*+.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 9/:-0*... For comparison only the lift distribution of the real model glider and the model glider without winglets are plotted in the same Figure. +.

The simsulation results with the conﬁguration listed in Table 8 are shown in Figure 29 initial point 8. to analyse the stability behaviour of the modiﬁed wing.4437 5° 0. The operating point is deﬁned.4437 m/s data from VLM Gohl 8° 2.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 6.2461 m data from VLM Gohl -2° 3° Table 8: Operating point Then the wing is simulated for stability analysis. v_initial angle of attack αGlide centre of gravity ﬂap deﬂection sideslip equilibrium point 8.2461 -2° 3° 45 . as shown in Table 8.1 Stability Results Simulations are done.16° 0. The wing should be stable.2.

0.12345426. These eﬀects can only be canceled with a complex optimisation of the geometry (dihedral and winglet.->?@/ ! (!! !"!! %! !&! ! ! '!! 8.12345426. !!./ 946:3./ &! "!! "&! #! ! ! &! "!! "&! &!! %!! $!! +.7.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION . but the dynamic of these instabilities are slow and can be stabilised by the pilot./ #!! <34. The dimension of the momentum in y-axis after 30 seconds is 1 · 10− 4N m.% ! &! "!! "&! !!. These modiﬁcations are not done here.# )!! 54.-3/ A=75?.. The dynamical behaviour is similar to the wing FG-WingX-02.-. The modiﬁed wing does not garantee the spiral stability and dutch roll mode stability.-.0.# ! !# &!! ! ! ! &! "!! "&! !"&! *!! +.-. After 100 seconds the wing begins to instabilise itself around yaw and roll axes caused by small numerical noise. they are too complex.# ! &! "!! "&! !% ! &! "!! "&! Figure 29: Simulation results with initial state not in equilibrium point (initial point: Table 8) The time the wing needs to balance itself is about 50 seconds.12345426.->?@/ !.3 on the next page)./ "!!! ! #! %! "!!! "&!! !!.-. see section 6.->?@/ "!! ! ! 46 ./ <=4.-.

The are not added to create an inﬂuence on the ﬂow on the wing. as these elements create a loss of performance. 6. Another solution could be to add a negative dihedral. is the spiral mode. To design a wing which fulﬁls both stability criteria (roll and yaw) is challenging. dutch roll and spiral stability must be studied carefully. that the wing oscillates in yaw axis coupled with an oscillation in roll axis. so that dutch roll and spiral stability is suﬃcient. Therefore the shape of the wing is not a perfect ellipse. This is done by a wing without sweep angle and twist angle. For the two stable built wings (see above). The opposite problem which occurs with too strong inﬂuence of the ﬁn and too little dihedral. is the dutch roll and spiral mode stability. Due to the low Reynolds numbers at the wing tip. They act similarly to ﬁns.3 Dutch Roll Mode (germ. that dihedral should not be added to the wing. but if it was added on the entire wing it would not stabilise the wing on the yaw axis. It eliminates the eﬀect of dihedral on the sweep. As the wing is unstable in the pitch axis. they do not have a dihedral eﬀect. An important design rule for ﬂying wing is. Nevertheless supplementary winglets could be added in order to improve the performance of the wing. Spiral Mode Taumelschwingung) and A problem with ﬂying wing. The wing tends to turn more and more into the curve until its ﬂight path is a spiral. The design criteria is to reach a high glide ratio. they act as ﬁns.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION 6. page 180 and in [9] To reach yaw stability the most simple solution is to add large enough winglets. so the wing is absolutely pitch unstable. but the circulation distribution is a perfect ellipse. negative dihedral would also cause negative eﬀects in fast ﬂight. Dihedral and sweep angle are quasi similar roll angle stabilising elements. Winglets are often a good solution. the spiral mode is slow enough to be controlled by the pilot and therefore is not a hazardous instability. it only helps to understand the simulated results and enlightens the problem of yaw stability coupled with dutch roll mode and spiral mode. Dutch roll means. but only to garantee the side stability of the wing. Another way is to add a high sweep angle.4 Unstable Wing A wing is designed which is unstable and has a high performance. the chord at the wing tip is increased and a small twist is added. which stabilises the wing by drag. This section does not give detailed theoretical information. The centre of lift is not lying in front of the neutral point. For ﬂying wings these problems often appear. Eﬀects of dihedral and sweep angle are qualitatively explained.). a controller 47 . which is diﬃcult to handle. The dihedral is basically added for better roll stability. More detailed theoretical information can be found in [3]. Winglets are added to garantee the side stability. but this is not done here. If dihedral is added for roll stability. This is caused by too much dihedral and not enough inﬂuence of the ﬁn (If the winglets are attached behind the centre of gravity. Therefore the resulting ideal geometry would be a perfect ellipse. To minimise the induced drag an elliptical circulation distribution is aimed. Here some of information about yaw stability coupled with dutch roll and spiral mode is added. On the other hand.

Detailed informations about the XFLR calculation methods can be found in [1]. With the controller the wing should be stable on the pitch axis and the stability in yaw and roll axes must be fulﬁlled by the self-stability of the wing.2 Static Results The polars are calculated with a Vortex Lattice Method in XFLR. a simulation would not be possible. the maximum value with the VLM calculation is 26. ( !"& !"!' ! & !"' ! ( + ) . For visualisation a mesh plot is shown in Figure 30.<= ( !"0 !"&# !"& !"% !"!0 !"!% !"!$ !"# !"!# !"$ ( ! ! & !"' ! !!"' !& !&"' &"' Figure 30: Mesh and force distribution with initial state as shown in Table 10 6. if the wing is manoeuvrable. The best glide ratio can be reached at an angle of attack of 5° to 6°. In XFLR. without a controller.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION must be designed to garantee the pitch stability. Otherwise. 48 . the panel method is a 3D method which places the singularity elements on the top and the down surface of the wing.1 Geometry The geometry deﬁnition is shown in Appendix A. can the side stability of the wing compensate the negative momentum from rudder deﬂections? 6.46278429:(./ !"% !"$ !!"' !& !"# * 1234(52.4.-. Algorithm 5 on page 63. It must be tested as well. In other words.4. A calculation with a panel method is added. Consequently the yaw stability is tested in simulation.

The controller is shown in Figure 32. because the polars are only made for ﬂap deﬂections of -15° .3 Controller The controller is a PID controller.08 .06 CD Panel Method VLM Method 49 0.2 0. The parameters are listed in Appendix A. 15°.8 12 0 2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 0 0 2 1 CL and angle of attack Figure 31: polars of the unstable optimal wing.4. because the ﬂap deﬂection is positive if the ﬂap goes down (Xfoil deﬁnition).6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION CL Glide Ratio 0. angle of attack angle of attack angle of attack Glide Ratio 4 6 8 10 c L3 / 2 cD 4 6 8 10 CL 0.4 0.4 0.02 CD and CL c L3 / 2 cD 0.. An actuator saturation was added.6 0.2 0. The diﬀerence of Θinit − Θout (pitch angle is Θout ) must be multiplied with -1..8 20 25 0 1 0 10 15 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 0. The controller parameters are calculated with the Ziegler Nichols Method [5]. 6.6 0. caluculated in XFLR with a 3D panel method and a VL Method.04 0.

4 Simulation results The simulation is started with the following initial condition. see Table 9.4.25 m/s 4° 0. But for studying the instabilities of the other axes it is only essential. 6.72° 0. The control design in this way is not meant to be realised.0883 m data from VLM Gohl 0° Table 9: Initial point The simulation results are shown in Figure 33.25 m/s data from VLM Gohl 6° at best glide ratio 2. v_initial angle of attack αGlide (glide angle) centre of gravity ﬂap deﬂection sideslip equilibrum point 7.0883 m 0° 3° 50 . that the pitch axis is stable. initial point 7.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION Figure 32: Simulator with controller Attention: This controller is only designed for controlling the pitch axis.

6. ! ()451. the momentum in the yaw axis. 3! "!! 6. First simulation results showed. ! "! #! "!!! !9!& &!! !9" In the consequence it is tested./01)2)*+.76=))*<=>. 3! "!! $! ! #! %! '! :1. 3! "!! #! # "! ! Figure 33: Simulation Results % 8)451.6. "!! #!! !9!'' !9!& !9" ! ! #! %! '! ?. !"! -.)*<=>. It causes a sideslip angle in the opposite direction.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION -. with a closer look at the angle of sideslip.5/)*+. that with this wing it is not possible to ﬂy 51 ! ! #! %! '! 3! "!! !9!'% ! #! %! '! 3! "!! ! #! %! '! 3! "!! ! ! ! #! %! '! :. because rudder deﬂections are coupled with an unpleasant eﬀect.5/)*+. &!! '!! ./01)2)451.. what happens with diﬀerent ﬂap deﬂections in order to ﬂy curves. $!! %!! ()*+.5/)*+. This is important.+7)*1.6.)*<=>.

The speed is plotted in Figure 6. even with ﬂap deﬂections. In Figure 35 the relative sideslip angle is plotted versus the time.3. The characteristic of βin shows clearly that the wing is stable.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION a curve! The sideslip increases too much.5 . After that. The simulation is started with the following initial point (see Table 10). It is important to place the winglets far enough behind the physical centre of gravity.4 v_initial angle of attack αGlide centre of gravity ﬂap deﬂection Initial point 7 m/s arbitrary 5° arbitrary 2.6 0 0 6 .72° calculated from glide ratio 0. the simulation results are much better and ﬂying curves has become possible. the winglets are placed 50 cm behind the wing (see Figure 30). Simulation results are shown in Figure 34 with the aileron deﬂection shown in Table 11.4.controller deﬂection added + / . Therefore the wing must be stabilised more in the yaw axis.5 1° -1° 3.0883 m data from VLM Gohl 0° Table 10: Initial point time [s] left aileron right aileron 3 . To improve the side stability.60 0 0 + / .controller deﬂection added Table 11: Flap deﬂectioins 52 . A positive dihedral or larger winglets cause the best eﬀect on the side stability.9s -1° 1° 9 .

*01234315*+. then a right curve is ﬂown.- 73582*/*01234315*+. /*+.6*+2"! #! $! %! &!! &! ! "! !&! !"! ! "! #! $! #! ! "! #! $! )*+.! )*01234315*+. At ﬁrst a left curve.RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION ! &! "! (! Figure 34: Simulation results with ﬂap deﬂections.- :.*+.3*+<=>!9$ !9# !9" ! !!9" ! ?...64=**+<=>!9!$' !9!$ !9!'' "! #! $! ! "! #! $! !'! ! '! ! :23*+<=>- "! #! $! 53 .- 6 ! ! !' !&! !&' &'! &!! '! ! ! "! #! $! 43.

6 6.8 6.7 6.1 7 6.6+<= !(!) !(!' !(!% !(!# ! !!(!# !!(!% !!(!' ! "! #! $! %! &! '! *+.6 RESULTS OF THE SIMULATION !("% !("# !(" .4 0 10 20 30 Time 40 50 60 Figure 36: Speed of the ﬂying wing 54 . as shown in Figure 34 7.-/0123456-17819+:-.5 6.2 7.- Figure 35: Sideslip angle of the simulation with ﬂap deﬂections.9 Speed 6.

55 . their glide ratios are around 15 . The damping basically depends on the induced velocity of the angular rate p on the wing. the wing does not act with a moment against this tendency. the wing passes into a dutch roll instability.7 Discussion The simulation results show that the performance of an accurately optimised stable wing can be topped by a pitch controlled unstable wing. The reason is the low damping around the pitch axis. The reason for this behaviour is. These glide ratios are calculated with a vortex lattice method with the panels lying on the proﬁle mean line. there are many other criterias to compare (as example: stall behaviour or curve ﬂying behaviour). A comparison of the calculated glide ratios with real measured glide ratios of contest wing airplanes is diﬃcult to ﬁnd. However. The statement. All the simulated wings tend to ﬂy a curve. that even a well designed self stable wing with an elliptic circulation distribution can have an excellent performance and fulﬁl the stability criteria. the higher the damping velocity is. If the wing once has slightly tilted around the roll axis. the fact is. The self stable ﬂying wing FG-WingX-02 has best glide ratios about 23. that the controlled pitch unstable wing has the best glide ratio does not necessarily mean. that it is the best wing in every respect . the wing tilts into a curve. The simulated unstable wing has calculated glide number of about 26 in the area of Reynolds numbers of 100000. Caused by these small disturbances. as written in the following formula: v = ω ×∆R. with the same Reynolds number. The simulation results show clearly. that a numerical noise always acts on the calculated moments.17. and most gliders are not tuned for best glide ratio. For more accurate statements wind tunnel tests or exact measured ﬂight paths would have to be done. Some ﬂight data of succeeded F3B competition models are presented in [19]. that the time until the wing stabilises itself from a disturbance is long (duration in the tests: about 50 seconds at an initial angle θ of -90°). until an equilibrium point in the curve is reached. For this comparison only glide ratios are considered. whereas comparison the optimised stable wing has the best glide ratio at 24. the question whether it is worth to design a pitch unstable wing with a controller can not be answered here. The further the wing elements are away from the pitch-axis. Therefore. Therefore.

With the simulation tool. Horseshoe vortices as singularity elements in chord and spanwise direction were chosen. Theoretical information about vortex methods was given. simulated in this thesis reaches glide ratios about 26. that ﬂight performance with an unstable wing can be won and high calculated glide ratios can be reached. Existing statical and dynamical applications were introduced and discussed. This Vortex Lattice Method was integrated in a rigid body motion simulation implemented in Simulink. But the unstable wing has a much better stall behaviour. The interesting result is. that the pitch unstable wing does not have a signiﬁcantly better glide ratio in comparison to a well designed self stable ﬂying wing. For testing the ﬂight characteristics and the dynamic stability. The results show. So the question whether it is worth to design a controller and achieve better results of the glide ratio must be answered in consideration of other criteria needed. The unstable wing was stabilised by a pitch controller to garantee the pitch stability. Therefore the implemented vortex lattice method was modiﬁed for short calculation times and some simpliﬁcations in the wake arrangement were made.8 Conclusion The most important tasks and limitations for a dynamical method were deﬁned. 56 . and consequently numerical methods which fulﬁl the tasks were presented. where all ﬂow eﬀects would have been included consumed a lot of computer process time. it is possible to study dynamical and statical results for arbitrary three-dimensional ﬂying wing conﬁgurations. that a model. angular rates and asymmetrical ﬂap deﬂections was implemented in MATLAB. because the angle of attack at best glide ratio is smaller than than the angle of attack at best glide ratio of the stable wings . Statements about stability in all axis and manoeuvrability with ﬂap deﬂections can be made. For comparison. Complex dynamical eﬀect such as spiral mode. a pitch unstable wing was designed and compared with two self stable ﬂying wings. A complex method for calculating aerodynamic forces with regard to complex three-dimensional wing geometries. the stable modiﬁed ﬂying wing reaches a glide ratio about 24 at Reynolds numbers of 100000. The unstable wing. The wake was modelled statically with vortex ﬁlaments. dutch mode and phygoid mode can be simulated and analysed. It turned out. To answer the question about the unstable wing’s gain of performance. the ﬂying wings were simulated in the dynamic simulation.

A high improvement of the calculation speed could allow automatic geometry variation to ﬁnd best geometry parameters. For even better results. An interpolation for diﬀerent Reynolds numbers could also improve the physical model without expending a lot of computing time. a vortex lattice method with a lattice of vortices over the top and bottom surface of the wing could be laid. Upgrading the computing time of the calculation methods would also be necessary for a faster simulation. An improved model would be necessary to combine more aerodynamic eﬀects and therefore give more accurate results. Evaluating the Simulation The simulation results could be evaluated more precisely with ﬂight path measurements or even with wind tunnel measurements. In general three optimisation strategies might be useful: Increasing the simulation speed to improve the vortex model. a better wake modelling would be necessary. A simple improvement in this implementation would be. To achieve better results for induced. 57 . A better evaluation of the simulation would elucidate. if even a improvement of the model is necessary. Increasing the Simulation Speed With a modiﬁed 6DOF simulator the computing time could be improved.9 Future Work For a continuative work there are many modiﬁcations to do. that Xfoil is automatically coupled with the vortex methods. Improving the Model Many improvements in wake modelling and ﬂow separation could be done.

Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.sourceforge. The Flight Gear Manual 1. BUTTERWORTH HEINEMANN. [17] D. RC Soaring Digest. Low-Speed Aerodynamics.net/. 2000. Analysis of foils and wings operating at low Reynolds numbers.mit.edu/. Xﬂr5 is an analysis tool for airfoils. 2009. Number ISBN-13: 978-0-75066927-6 in second edition. Avl. [6] Karl-Heinz Horstmann. Schwanzlose Flugzeuge. Version 2. Siegwart. Bouabdallah. www. Martin Spott et al. 30 Nov 2001. [18] Ion Paraschivoiu. Mar 11. Aerodynamique Subsonique. guidelines for xﬂr5 v4. [9] Bill Kuhlman and Bunny Kuhlman. [7] Michael Wohlfahrt Karl Nickel. 58 . [2] Jon S. Xfoil 6.ﬂightgear. Applied computational aerodynamics text/notes aerodynamics of 3d lifting surfaces http://www. 2008. Manual.16. [4] Mark Drela and Harold Youngren. [13] Tomas Melin. 2007. vdf. [14] Austin Meyer. 1998.9.0.9 user primer. April. http://web. 1979. [5] Lino Guzzella. and R. Dynamic Modelling of FixedWing UAVs.x-plane. March 2000. wings and planes operating at low reynolds numbers. Analysis and Synthesis of Single-Input Single-Output Control Systems. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). A vortex lattice matlab implementation for linear aerodynamic wing applications. ETH Zürich. Berndt. [11] Harold Youngren Mark Drela. Bruce Owens. Weissinger’s model of the nonlinear lifting-line method for aircraft design. Flight Dynamic Principles. H. [8] Joseph Katz and Allen Plotkin. Swept wings and eﬀective dihedral.References [1] Author unknown. [10] GNU General Public License. [12] W.vt. Birkhäuser Verlag (Flugtechnische Reihe Band 3). Master’s thesis. 2007.com/. 1988.edu/drela/public/web/avl/. 2001. 1990. [15] Stuart Buchanan Jon Berndt Bernhard Buckel Cameron Moore Curt Olson Dave Perry Michael Selig Darrell Walisser Michael Basler. S. Mason.Traglinienverfahren und seine Verwendung für Entwurf und Nachrechnung nichtplanarer Flügelanordnungen.org/. www. AIAA 98-0597. Noth. Ein Mehrfach . Cambridge University Press. [16] A. [3] Michael Cook. 1998.aoe.0. jsbsim.

[23] Matthieu Scherrer. 865. 59 . Nurﬂügel v2. 1969. [26] James C. Tornado 1. [20] Frank Ranis and Herbert Stammler. SANTINI and P. Method for calculating wing characteristics by lifting-line theory using nonlinear section lift data. Leistung und Dynamik von Segelﬂugmodellen. Band II. Sivellis and Rober H. [21] redhammer project. Technical Note no. [24] Herrmann Schlichting and Erich Truckenbrodt. http://www.17 (freeware). Italy.redhammer. Lifting surface in subsonic unsteady regime. Universit ‘ a di Roma “La Sapienza”. Neely. GASBARRI. National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics Langley Field Report No. Dipartimento di Aerospaziale. Méthode d’intégration sur une aile de résultat expérimentaux et xfoil.[19] Helmut Quabeck. Aerodynamik des [25] James C.se/tornado/. RELEASE 2. 1269. HQ Modellﬂugliteratur. [22] P. Method for calculating wing characteristics by lifting-line theory using nonlinear section lift data.0. Flugzeuges. Neely. April 1947. 5 May 1998). via Eudossiana 18. 1946. Design. 00184 Roma.3 2001-01-31. 1994. Sivellis and Robert H.

CL_p . i ) ) . Gamma =(1 . where the Velocity will be calculated : i % this velocity gets summated from element 0 till n : j % Velocity of the upper Vortex w_up = vortex ( T_left (: .m) of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method 2 4 6 8 10 12 function [ Gamma_alt . i ) ) . i ) . Gamma_start . j ) . while Max > min w_i =1/2*( K_far * Gamma_alt ) .y . T_left . i ) ) . j ) .b .n . flap_angle . T_right (: .*b ’) . Gamma_alt = Gamma .Gamma_new ) ) .D . w_i ]= Gam mait_n onlin (K . alpha_g ’ . K_far . alpha_p . % here : Trefftz Analysis . end end Algorithm 2 Generate Vortices (generate_vorices. Max = abs ( max ( Gamma . alpha_i .D ) * Gamma_alt + D * Gamma_new .A (: . j ) = w (1) * N (1 . angle_of_attack . i ) + w (2) * N (2 . CL_p .* v_abs ’. min . w = w_up + w_left + w_right . % Velocity of the left Vortex w_left = vortex_left ( T_left (: ./( v_abs ’) ) .A (: . poldef ) Gamma_alt = Gamma_start . with factor← 1/2 . Max =1. j ) . end end end 60 .m)of the Nonlinear Lifting Line Method 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 function [ K ]= g e n e r a t e _ V o r t i c e s _ V a r I I I (A .alpha_i . % Projection in the normal direction K (i .← poldef ) ’.atan ( w_i . T_right . % Velocity of the right Vortex w_right = vortex_right ( T_right (: .A (: . flap_angle . Gamma_new =(1/2* CL ( alpha_p .← v_abs .Appendix Appendix A) Most Important Code Fragments Implementation Nonlinear Lifting Line Method Algorithm 1 Iteration function (Gammait_nonlin. N ) for i =1:2* sum ( n ) for j =1:2* sum ( n ) % Collocation Point . else 1! alpha_i = . i ) + w (3) * N (3 . j ) .

L_Y . a_i_Z = a_i . a_i_Z_vec ]= vortex_panel ( L_X . % define the three vectors r_0 . % influence coefficients a_i_X = a_i . vprod_Y = r_1_Z .m .* r_2_X .^2+ r_1_Z . R_X .:) . r_1_X = P_X * einsmatrix ./ R1 -( r_0_X .[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = a_i_X (i . r_0_Y = R_Y . epsilon ) einsmatrix = ones ( m (1) .* r_2_Z ) . colonne ) =0. % Calculate norm n o r m _ v p r o d s q u a r e = vprod_X .* r_2_Z . r_1_Z = P_Z * einsmatrix . r_2_Z = P_Z * einsmatrix . end end 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 61 .← R_Z . in the structure of K for i =1: m (1) a_i_X_vec (1 .n . L_Y . P_Y . so it comes later in the equation !!!!!! a is← a velocity / Gamma a_i =(1/(4* pi ) *1.L_X .* vprod_X .L_Z . P_Z .^2.^2+ r_2_Y ./ n o r m _ v p r o d s q u a r e ) .:) . Februar 2009 by Flavio Gohl % The Code is modified to the code in book low speed Aerodynamics page 255 ← from Joseph Katz . a_i ( zeile .* r_2_Y . a_i_Y_vec . a_i_Z_vec (1 .* r_2_X . colonne ]= find ( R2 < epsilon ) .:) . r_1_Y = P_Y * einsmatrix . R_Y . r_2_X = P_X * einsmatrix . r_2 r_0_X = R_X .* r_2_Y + r_0_Z .* r_2_Z .r_1_Y .R_X .m of the Vortex Lattice Method 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 % This Program calculates the velocity divided by the Zirculation % written and tested : 20.* r_1_Y + r_0_Z . the code is not the same ! function [ a_i_X_vec .r_1_X . r_0_Z = R_Z . colonne ]= find ( n o r m _ v p r o d s q u a r e . vprod_Z = r_1_X .^2+ vprod_Y . [ zeile . r_2_Y = P_Y * einsmatrix .^2) .L_X .* vprod_Y . a_i ( zeile . % Attention . a_i ( zeile .R_Y . a_i_Y = a_i .^2+ r_2_Z .[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = a_i_Z (i . a_i_Y_vec (1 .^2 < epsilon ) .*(( r_0_X .Appendix Implementation: VLM Method Algorithm 3 Function vortex_panel. % write a_i in a row . P_X . colonne ) =0. R1 = sqrt ( r_1_X . % Calculate r_1xr_2 = vprod vprod_X = r_1_Y ./ R2 ) .* r_2_X + r_0_Y .* vprod_Z . r_1 . colonne ) =0.*← r_1_Z ) . colonne ]= find ( R1 < epsilon ) .* r_1_X + r_0_Y .^2+ r_1_Y .L_Y . sum ( n ) *2) . L_Z .r_1_Z .^2+ vprod_Z .[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = a_i_Y (i . [ zeile . % Check singularities [ zeile . R2 = sqrt ( r_2_X .^2) .* r_2_Y .R_Z .L_Z . % !!!!! Gamma is linear with K .

i ) . % Rewrite the surface normals for i =1: m (1) U_vec (1 . La_i_Y . T_left_behind_Z .n . % Projection in the normal direction K ( j + lenj . A_X (j . A_Y .Appendix Algorithm 4 Function generate_vortices_panel. lenj =0. T_right_behind_Z .n . i ) . i ) . i ) . end lenj = j + lenj . wz = a_i_Z + La_i_Z + Ra_i_Z .[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = W (i . T_right_behind_X . V_vec (1 . T_left_behind_Z . T_left_Y .← T_right_behind_Z . A_Z .m .* U_vec + wy . i ) . % Velocity of the right Vortex [ Ra_i_X .[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = U (i . A_X (j . T_right_behind_X . i ) . A_Y (j . T_left_X . 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 end end 62 .← T_left_Y . T_left_X .* W_vec .← T_left_Y . T_right_behind_Y .* V_vec + wz . T_left_Z . T_left_Z . epsilon )← . Ra_i_Z ] = v ortex_ panel_ r ( T_right_X . T_right_Y . La_i_Z ] = v ortex_ panel_ l (← T_left_behind_X . end for i =1:2* sum ( n ) for j =1: m (1) % velocity of the bound vortex [ a_i_X . T_right_X .← A_Y (j . a_i_Z ] = vortex_panel ( T_left_X .m of the Vortex Lattice Method 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 function [ K ]= g e n e r a t e _ V o r t i c e s _ p a n e l ( A_X . A_Z (j .← T_right_Y . wx = a_i_X + La_i_X + Ra_i_X .:) .V . T_left_behind_Y . i ) . epsilon← ). a_i_Y .m .← T_right_Z . T_left_behind_Y . A_Z (j . Ra_i_Y .:) .← U . i ) . wy = a_i_Y + La_i_Y + Ra_i_Y . i ) . A_X (j .m . % Velocity of the left Vortex [ La_i_X . T_right_Z . T_right_behind_Y ← .n . T_left_Z . T_right_Y . W ) epsilon =1*10^ -20.[( i -1) * sum ( n ) *2+1:1:( i ) * sum ( n ) *2]) = V (i . W_vec (1 .:) = wx .m . A_Z (j .n . T_right_Z . T_left_behind_X .:) . T_right_X . A_Y (j . epsilon ) .

for i =2: length ( x_0_rel ) x_0 (: . % number of collocation points in x .24 0.18 0. % Spanwidth of partition b_root =[0. end cog = [0. TI = kp / Ti . % number of collocation points in y . i ) = x_0 (: . % sweep angle ( back is positiv !) alfa =[0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0]* pi /180.215 0.Direction s =[0. phi =[2 6 8 9 10]/360*2* pi . i ) .Direction m =[4 4 4 4 4]. % Thickness of the Wing for Inertia flap_hinge =0. 63 .1) =[0 0 0] ’. % betha_end /10 is the real angle ! p =5.215 0.18 0.6* kp_crit .75.5 0.15].125* T_crit .06]. % Twist angle x_0_rel =[0 0 0 tan ( phi (1) ) * s (1) s (1) sin ( ny (1) ) * s (1) tan ( phi (2) ) * s (2) s (2) sin ( ny (2) ) * s (2) tan ( phi (3) ) * s (3) s (3) sin ( ny (3) ) * s (3) tan ( phi (4) ) * s (4) +0. Denom =[0 Ti 0]. % Dihedral of the Partitions n =[6 5 4 3 3]. % number of partitions ny =[0 0 0 0 90]* pi /180. TD = kp * Td . kp =0. % Correct centre of gravity c =0.Appendix Simulations Algorithm 5 Wing geometry of the unstable ﬂying wing 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 % =================== % == Wing Geometry % =================== betha_end =1. parameters used for simulating the unstable ﬂying wing 1 3 5 7 9 % Controller Data kp_crit =50.9 -0. Algorithm 6 controller.5 s (4) sin ( ny (4) ) * s (4) tan ( phi (5) ) * s (5) s (5) sin ( ny (5) ) * s (5) ] ’.155 0.25 0.5* T_crit . Num = kp *[ Ti * Td Ti 1].125 0.0883 0 0].155 0. b_tip =[0.i -1) + x_0_rel (: . x_0 (: .012 . T_crit =0.14.75 0. Td =0.14]. P = kp .1 0.m. Ti =0.

iv. User Guide for creating polars: (a) open Xfoil (b) deﬁne the point.dat or any other proﬁle (d) oper (e) visc tipe Re (f) vpar (enter viscous parameter menu) N 9. change the panelling! ppar and pane. ii. in the current directory of the m-ﬁles should be made a folder named ’polars’.0 (set new lower turbulence level) <return> (back to oper ) (g) optionally type iter for more iterations.: ’mh45. set the initial Value of alfa bsp: alfa -5 pacc enter the ﬁle name as ex. Save all polars in *. so that the calculation converges (h) write the polars: i. where the momentum is calculated (c) load mh45. i. iii. Calculate in Xfoil the proﬁle polar for diﬀerent ﬂap angles. where Xfoil polars are saved. v. 64 .pol’ enter aseq if it doesn’t work. ii.Appendix Appendix B) Manual Manual of the Vortex Lattice Method Statical analysis Copy the m-ﬁles (on CD-Rom) and the simulink model into a folder. iv. iii. 1.dat ﬁles in the folder ’polars’. then save the proﬁl and try again 2. increase the iterations (for example iter 400 ) gdes ﬂap then set the values exec (i) Flap deﬂection: (j) if not converged.

% P fe il u ng s wi nk e l ( gegen hinten ← positiv !) alpha =[0 0 0 0]* pi /180.:) . For the wing above. % anzahl Aufpunkte fr die ← einzelne Partition / Flgelhlfte m =[5 5]. p =2. Create an initial.5 0 -7.2 . dat ’) . The range of sideslip angles are deﬁned: [-betha_end/10 : 0.m.:) .:) ]= import_polar ( ’← mh45f15 . CM_p (: . the ﬂap vector would have the following form: 1 f la p_ a ng l e_ pa r t = -[0 left_ail right_ail 0].3 .2]. CD_p (: . dat ’) . dat ’) . CD_p (: . [ alpha_p (: . CL_p (: .:) . Attention.m.1 .4 .3 . CL_p (: .:) . Inertia flap_hinge =0.:) . ﬁve ﬂap deﬂections are saved at the angles deﬁned in poldef. CM_p (: . 4. % number of Partitions % Neigu ngswi nkel of the Partitions 7 9 11 13 15 n =[4 2].1 : betha_end/10] 5. tan ( phi (1) ) * s (1) s (1) sin ( ny (1) ) * s (1) + sin ( alpha (1)← ) *100] ’.:) ]= import_polar ( ’← mh45pol . In the function create_polar_table.2 . [ alpha_p (: .:) . phi =[20 29]/360*2* pi .2 .m ﬁle 65 .3 . ny =[0 90]* pi /180. CL_p (: .6]. however you could deﬁne it as wingdef_myﬁrstwing.:) .:) . and if it is the left or right aileron. Take as example: 1 3 5 betha_end =40. the mesh matrices can not be built.:) .5 . Symmetrische Eingabe b_tip =[0.Appendix 3. 23 If results with sideslip are analysed. dat ’) .012 .1 .3 . 6. CM_p (: .1 . all partitions must have the same number of panels in chord direction! Otherwise.2 0. CL_p (: . % Breite .:) .2].m ﬁle in the code main_panel.:) ]= import_polar ( ’← mh45fm7_5 .m the name is free. s =[1 0. Include your wingdef.:) ]= import_polar ( ’← mh45fm15 . CD_p (: .5 . the ﬂap vector is initialized. 17 19 cog = [0. The initial.4 .:) ]= import_polar ( ’← mh45f7_5 . For example.:) . CD_p (: . x_0 =[0 0 0 tan ( phi (1) ) * s (1) s (1) sin ( ny (1) ) * s (1) ] ’. check that the value of betha_in contains the desired sideslip angle.212690364338495 0 gravity 0].4 . the winglets do not have ﬂaps.4 . [ alpha_p (: . [ alpha_p (: . % Spannweite jeder ← Parition b_root =[0.:) .5 .m ﬁle and write the initial values of the ﬂow. deﬁne and include the polar: poldef =[15 7.5 . CD_p (: . CM_p (: .75. x_0_Trefftz =[0 0 0. dat ’) .:) . 2 4 6 [ alpha_p (: .1 . In this vector.5 -15]*2* pi /360. CL_p (: .2 0.:) . You must deﬁne for each partition if it is ﬂapped or not.:) . % Correct center of ← % Thickness of the Wing for ← 21 c =0. In this ﬁle. CM_p (: .2 . Deﬁne your wing.

7. Calculate with inertia_calc.m. otherwise the name has to be changed in other functions. Numerical Problems It might occur. Run the main_panel. • The ﬂap vector is not deﬁned correctly in the ﬁle calculate_force_and_moment_ﬂavio_panel. CL_distribution. The value of epsilon can also be changed in the function generate_vortice_panel.m 66 .m ﬁle. Izz or put the inertias from CAD data into the ﬁle initial. 4. CW_visc. 2. The values can be visualised with running show_uav_ﬁnal. CW_ind.m and try again. then try again..m in MATLAB workspace for running the application. 7.m. 3. Then. The sideslip angles are saved in a vector betha_in. So change the geometry or change the panel number in chord or spanwise direction.m write the correct ﬂap vector. tables for sideslip angles from -5°. or modify your geometry. xg_X (Centre of pressure). take it from the static analysis or from experimental data. 5° are made in 0. Check in the mesh plot if the geometry is panelled correctly. it can be plotted versus the time if desired. Write your correct centre of gravity in the initial. This may take some time (one or two minutes). type main_panel. Iyy.m ﬁle for a range of betha_end=50 (deﬁned in wingdef. Lift_Matrix.m. Start 8.m the inertia Ixx..Appendix should not be unnamed. CD_distribution. CM. 5. Dynamic analysis 1. 6.1° steps. set the step time. (a) Type CA. In the solver preferences of the simulator. Errors which occur during simulation: • The sideslip angle is too high. Start the simulator by André Noth modiﬁed by Flavio Gohl for VLM calculations.m). so that no interpolation is possible – increase the range of betha_end in wingdef. that some collocation points are badly positioned. First make a static analysis for initial values (see above). In the function calculate_force_and_moment_ﬂavio_panel. CW. and many others (b) Mesh plots and force distributions over the wing are shown in ﬁgures.

In case of this problem it is better to twist the proﬁle a little and give more chord length for better reynolds numbers.4 to 1. the reynolds number must be suﬃciently high. Choice of a proﬁle type. 1. For ﬂying wings it is recommended to choose a proﬁle with a constant pressure point. 3.Appendix Appendix C) Design Criteria The most important design rules for ﬂying wings. [7]page 107 5. Good proﬁles with a high CLmax at low reynolds numbers are the MH45 and MH60. For an eﬃcient design it is recomended. as they may decrease severely at the tip of the wing. even at te wing tip.0 [7]page 105 6. it must be decided at which C L the airplane has to ﬂy in trimmed ﬂight. In this case it is an iterative process to ﬁnd a geometry which can fullﬁll both requirements of point 1 and 3. For minimal induced drag. However. Reynolds numbers: It is important to have a closed look at the local reynolds numbers. It is recommended to choose a high CL value with a ﬂap deﬂection. With a simple ﬂapped wing. For a pitch stable wing. At the chosen CL it must be decided. and consequently it is best to ﬂy without ﬂap deﬂection! 4. it is elliptic. the viscous drag must be extremely small. The C-Point is the point of lift distribution which is proportional to the local chord. recommended by the author.4 and 1. so that the wing without ﬂap deﬂection is in fast ﬂight. This could cause a problem in combination with point 1. This means that the momentum coeﬃcient at the 1/4 line should be zero or slightly positiv. The reason is. 2. as the center of gravity is not necessarily in front of the neutral point. For good stall behaviour. at ﬁrst it is important to have the wing’s centre of gravity in front of the aerodynamic neutral point. to place the center of gravity in front of the the C-Point. This setting is also possible if the aspect ratio is between 0. that at slow speed the induced drag is very high (Cdind = const ∗ CL 2 ) and the viscous drag small (because the dynamic pressure is small). and therefore a ﬂap deﬂection is not too expensive.0. Only in this range both requirements can be fullﬁlled. 67 . to have an aspect ratio of 0. what the shape of the circulation distribution should look like. it is advantageous. In fast ﬂight.

the velocity can be calculated: vnorm = 2·m·g CL · ρ · A (29) vinitial 4.m. and written in the ﬁles initial. 1. The method presented here saves a lot of simulation time for ﬁnding the equilibrium point. 3. A desired angle of attack must be chosen (for example at best glide ratio or at best sink rate) 2. The correct centre of gravity at the desired angle of attack must be calculated. The initial angle Theta can be calculated: Θ = −(αGlide − αAttack ) (32) CD CL (31) cos(α) · vnorm 0 = sin(α) · vnorm (30) 68 . The following points must be calculated. a method to ﬁnd the speed and angle theta in equilibrium at a desired angle of attack is described.Appendix Appendix D) Estimation of Initial Condition In this part. With the CL value (which is estimated or calculated) at the desired angle of attack. From the glide ratio the glide angle can be calculated: αGlide = arctan 5.m and wingdef.

- NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft
- 3d Effects
- 2007 Dbf Report
- UAV Thesis
- X-Plane Installer Log
- UAV Design(RahaUAV.com)
- FAA-H-8083-1.pdf
- Methodology for Determination of Baseline Specifications of a Nonrigid Ariship
- A Technique to Determine Lift and Drag Polars in Flight
- Boeing Autopilot Design
- The Jsf Stovl Performance Process From Small-scale Database to Flight Test Demonstration 2002_6002 (2)
- NASA
- NASA－直升机飞行模拟运动需求平台
- Chapter 4. Preliminary Design
- 950097_tischler
- Aircraft Precision Approach - GPS Galileo Performance Assesment
- Mil Hdbk 516b
- Batch Spec
- GIS Techniques for BFMS for the Indian Armed Forces I (Operational Design)
- Action and Malfunction Codes
- VivekSanghi_EngineCycleSelection
- 60272.pdf
- 10.1.1.119
- An Experimental Evaluation of Wind Tunnel Wall Correction Methods for Helicopter Performance
- 88382main_H-2057
- General Aviation Automation Risk
- Gans
- 342
- $EN-003-05
- a320 Sil 28 Centralized Fault Display System (Cfds) Anomalies

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd